|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the 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 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 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 A. Yes. Q. So it's true to say that 1 out of every 170 million people, up to 1 out of 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, A. Yes. Q. Why is that? A. It's the same banding pattern, that is the Bundy item 52, and the Rockingham Q. Okay. So let me see if I understand this, the five probe banding pattern for 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 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 A. Yes. Q. Now, for all of the tests that you performed on all of the evidence at the A. There were no genetic markers, alleles present that were not consistent with 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 In the polymarker system, A is one allele and B is another allele and for every Q. So for all the blood evidence that you tested at Rockingham, all of that 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 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 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 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 Q. And one of the people that was present, is that -- could that be consistent 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 Q. And the other possible contributor, can you include or exclude anybody from 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 Q. Is it scientifically possible that the 1.3 was there, but just too light to A. That's possible. Q. Now, let's go back to this board for just one more minute before you put it A. No. Q. This board, which is exhibit 297, is the results of DNA analysis of the 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 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 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 Your frequency numbers would indicate that those patterns could come from one 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 Could you explain those, please? A. All that's saying is that this banding pattern would be expected to occur in 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 (The instrument herein referred to as "Autorad Produced from Socks" displayed A. That is the first autoradiograph or Autorad that was produced with the 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 What's done in our lab as a first go around with the data, is to apply four 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 A. Sure. The pattern that you see from top to bottom right here, is the pattern from Q. And would you point out what you compared that to, to match it to Nicole A. Well, we compared it to all -- all three known individuals. Mr. Simpson's If you compare the two patterns from the sock and Nicole Brown, each place 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, 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 A. Well, I can tell from looking at the Autorad. We don't normally put our Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks, A. Yes, it could. Q. Why could it? A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown A. Yes. Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown 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 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 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, THE COURT: Okay. They're received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2179 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 273 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2180 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2181 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 276 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 274 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 275 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2182 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2183 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 285 was received in CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Cotton, can you give us an estimate of the amount of time that you spent 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 A. Yes, they were. Q. And all of your time that you spent in the criminal case were paid for by A. That's correct. Q. Now, it's -- have the plaintiffs reimburseed taxpayers of Los Angeles County MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How many hours have you spent working for the plaintiffs in 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 Q. You have no personal knowledge as to how the evidence was collected, A. That's right. Q. Would you agree with your -- that your test results are only as good as the A. Of course, Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And that's one of the ways you can compare hair sample with blood sample A. Sure. Q. Now, going back down to the lower level here, the structure of DNA, you 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 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 A. Exactly. Q. And 3 billion of the cells, ru --- rungs you get from mom and 3 billion you A. Yes. Q. We can think of it in terms of a tinker toy ladder that has two hubs and a A. Yes. Q. You can figure out how these go together, round letters go together. A and C A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, 3 billion base pairs, if we want to try and understand the scale A. Yes. Q. I didn't do the math. It turned out to be about 25 thousand miles. Does that 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 A. Yeah. Yeah, about. Q. Okay. So you can think of this as two ladders that are side by side that go around 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 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 A. Yes. If you have two RFLP patterns and you have a band in one that is 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, 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 A. Your -- the range of fragment length that are looked at on our gels are 1600 Q. Okay. So from 1600, which is about 800 inches, under my scenario, to 23,000 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 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 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 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And if you go down below, within a chromosome, they're broken down into the A. They can be, yes. Q. Okay. And a gene is simply a series of base pairs that could have a wide A. A gene is a functional unit that actually conveys information to the cell, Q. So a particular section of the ladder that might have 100,000, 200,000 base 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 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 Q. For purposes of this test, you're only looking, at the most, 23,000 base A. For one, for one locus. Q. Okay. If the roughly 10,000 base pairs average from 1600 to 23, -- 20,000 -- A. That's right. Q. And again, we're talking about two side by side segments of the ladder; one A. Yes. Q. And those five segments total together, if our average is 10,000 base pairs 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 A. Yes. Of the testing that people -- labs are doing today, this is the most 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 Q. This is exhibit 987. (The instrument herein referred to as chart entitled "Small Amounts of DNA From Q. You heard the figure that there are 1,000 to 2,000 nanograms per -- I'm A. We get about 10 micrograms, which is about 10,000 nanograms in about 700 Q. Okay. A. So you could calculate, sort of. You could go down and workout how many -- Q. Okay. Just to get a rough estimate, 20 nanograms of blood is going to be 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; 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 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. 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. 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 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 A. No, I don't agree agree with you. Q. Well, the estimate that you come up in terms of numbers are statistical A. Yes. Q. And you cannot possibly look at all of the DNA in a sample. You're only A. That's correct. Q. And these tests do not establish a unique identification the way I've used A. If you do, if you have available to you, a series of a large enough series Q. But no scientist will tell you that with five probes you've established a A. I don't think that. Yes, I agree that five probes would not be necessarily Q. And you've heard the term "match" used in the context of, for instance, hair A. Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Excuse me. There's an objection. Objection sustained as being beyond 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 A. Okay. Q. Now, with RFLP technology, which provides the most information, you look at 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 A. Um-hum. Q. And with RFLP, you look at an average of 10,000 base pairs per band, an easy So let's say that you have determined that the evidence band is 10,000 base A. Yes. Q. In order for your suspect to match the evidence, the suspect's corresponding A. No. Q. Well, let me rephrase it. In order for the DNA from the suspect to be identical to the DNA from the A. Yes. Q. Okay. So for identity to be established, would this one section, anyway, 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 Q. You have a lot of other DNA that you're not even looking at, you're only 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 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 -- 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And virtually all there are a thousand possibilities between 10,500 and A. Yes. Q. Only one of those, 1000 possibilities is going to be identical to your A. Yes. Q. 999 of them are going to be a different person, correct, if we're able to 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 A. Yes all RFLP labs do that. Q. What you say is gee, since we can't measure this very precisely we're going A. Well, forgetting the math for a minute, if it's within the window, then it's Q. Okay. So every one of the thousand possibilities in here within this range, A. Theoretically, if you were -- theoretically, yes, what you're saying is 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 Q. The technique is unable to measure it with any, or more precision than this, A. Yes. That's correct. Q. And the wider this window is, the more -- the greater the chance is that 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 A. There is a window, a size window, yes, that you compare for each probe, for Q. So for a five probe match, where you're looking at ten bands, you've got 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 Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The one you gave was 530 billion. I think it was a five 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 A. Computer program, I talked about the computer imaging system; is that what Q. Yes. A. The computer imaging system is what you use to come up with the number in 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 -- 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 MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I wanted to raise one evidentiary objection to the I think this line of questioning is irrelevant and an undue consumption of MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the line of questioning is to show what it means to 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 number 12, admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the THE REPORTER: Excuse me, can you repeat MS ... MR. LAMBERT: MS1, MS31, MS43, G3 and YNH24 when subjected to an RFLP test by MR. BLASIER: We agree we admitted that. I'm not suggesting that they don't MR. LAMBERT: I would certainly make a 352 objection, Your Honor, that it's been MR. BLASIER: I don't think -- they don't like I'm making points with their 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 THE COURT: Okay. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Cotton, one of the items you testified to was item A. Yes. Q. And the frequency that you gave for that five probe match was 170 million to A. Yes. Q. And as we said before, a five probe match means you're looking at 10 bands, A. Yes. Q. And you determined that under the way you used the term "match," all of A. That's right. Q. Now, you use a computer to estimate how long the fragments are of those 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 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 Your computer comes up with an estimate that this band is 10,120 base pairs, 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 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 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 A. Yes. Q. Tell me, of the ten bands that you looked at for item number 12, how many of A. Three. Q. So seven of them, your computer said had a different number of base pairs, A. Yes. The sizes are different. Q. And if you have a different number of base pairs, it's a different person; 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 A. I can't answer your question because those two things aren't exactly Q. In terms of the formula that gets you to the 1.2 billion, does it make any A. No. Q. So you score a band, two different bands. If there's a difference in the 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 A. In terms of looking at difference between people, what we have now, the Q. There's less information that you can glean from, to put into a formula, 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 A. Yes. Q. Now, PCR is not exactly a type of test. That's the process by which you 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 MR. BLASIER: This is number 788. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And what happens in this process is that you don't actually 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 A. Yes. Q. The RFLP system is not sensitive enough to evaluate small amounts of DNA, A. That's right. Q. And what you do is you take those fragments and you go through a process A. That's right. Q. So if you started out, just hypothetically, with one fragment, 254 base A. Yes. Q. If you had this many fragments, that's enough to do some analysis on, 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 Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It is also true, if you have a tiny amount of DNA from more A. Yes. Q. So if you have a couple of fragments that came from one source and let's say A. Assuming there's enough of it. Q. The process by which you do this amplification is what gives you the great A. That's right. Q. By the same token, it's also the biggest weakness in the sense a contaminant A. Yes. Q. So that you have to take many extra precautions while you're doing PCR work 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 -- (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is just a hypothetical situation, you have DNA from 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, A. Yes. Q. And as a piece degrades, for instance, if you have DNA wet, a wet blood A. It might. Q. And that would mean that you would perhaps, less -- DNA as it breaks into A. You don't physically have less DNA. The DNA isn't going away but the pieces 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 MR. BLASIER: Now 1036. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Heat is another mechanism by which DNA can degrade, A. Yes. Q. And so, if we add heat to our mixture here, you might wind up with less DNA A. Yes. Q. If we add moisture to that -- MR. P. BAKER: 1037. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1037. Moisture's also factor that can cause DNA to break A. Yes. Q. If we add all those things together, we might take a sample of DNA, and we 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 Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1038. We might end up at the end of the chain with broken 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 A. Sure. Q. One of the things it can mean is a little DNA from another source getting A. Yes. Q. And let's say you start it, hypothetically, with a sample that had been A. Well sort of, but you said there wasn't enough to analyze, but you still got Q. Okay. Well, let's -- you can -- you can -- there is a lower amount beyond A. Right. On your last thing, when you said there wasn't anything, there was no Q. Okay. Assume there's no one there. MR. P. BAKER: 1041 displayed. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let's say a small amount of DNA from another person gets in A. Okay. Q. And one mechanism might be that if there was a small amount of blood on the MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence, THE COURT: Overruled on the hypothetical. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's one mechanism you can get a contaminant into a A. If you have -- you had blood on your -- let's say glove, which would be -- Q. Yeah. A. Possibly so. Q. And again we're talking about PCR. We're talking about extremely small A. Yes. You can amplify extremely small amounts and then you also have to worry Q. Right. A. So there are limitations there. Q. So when you amplify this particular sample and we're assuming there's not Let's say there's no one there when you amplify this, you're going to amplify A. Yes. There's no one there and you add those four twos of -- you'll amplify Q. Okay. And at the end, if you test that because you're not -- Because you've MR. BLASIER: What slide is this? MR. P. BAKER: 1043. (The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1043. That's going to look like when you test the blood, consistent with person A. Yes. Q. Now, the amounts of DNA and the various samples you tested, 23 samples I A. Yes. Q. Most of those samples had an -- a very small amount of DNA; isn't that A. No. Some of them had fairly substantial amounts of DNA and some of them 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 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, 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 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 Q. Now, you also did, on the other Bundy drops, you did a similar analysis to 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 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 (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 Q. And isn't it true that for all of the other Bundy drops, other than 52, and 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, A. I actually have redone these estimates and I can't remember where I put the Q. We're talking about small amounts on the Bundy drops with the exception of 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 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, 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 Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you follow the instructions in the manual that comes 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 A. Yes. Q. What's the name of that organization? A. It's the American Society of Crime Laboratories, Crime Laboratory Directors Q. And there's a fairly complicated process that you have to go through to show 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 A. There are many labs in the country, but we are the only private lab in the 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And the form of proficiency testing that is the most desirable in terms of A. That's one form of testing, but I don't agree that it's necessarily the most Q. Well, that's external, means somebody other than you makes up the test, 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 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 Q. Isn't that -- your in charge of all the people that work in your lab, aren't 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 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, 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And in that test you were given, your people knew they were being tested, 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 A. That's right. Q. And what was the frequency when you applied your formula to that one test 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 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 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 Q. So the number says nothing about the accuracy of the test that you're doing, 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 A. Yes, we did. Q. And what procedure did you change? A. We changed our labeling procedure and we bought an additional piece of Q. And you were able to determine, were you not, that what happened in that 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 A. That was in place at the time. So that's why we changed our labeling 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 Q. And by known samples, you're talking about such things as reference samples A. That's exactly what I mean. Q. That's because a reference sample from a suspect or victim is blood that A. Well, it didn't. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was rich in Q. But the problem is because you've got so much DNA in a reference sample, A. Of course. Q. So you now don't do your reference samples at the same time and place as 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And in these two years, in the two tests that your lab took, you screwed it 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 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 A. Yes, there is. Q. But if you -- if you have error rates in the neighborhood of 1 in 50 or 1 in 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 A. Yes, we do. Q. And that is a device -- it's kind of like a work station that has a fan that A. Yes. Q. And it allows your sample to be inside this wall of air and you kind of put A. Right. Q. And the purpose of that is to keep possible contaminants from the outside 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 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 Q. Now, you also require, when you do testing, that you change the paper on the A. Paper inside the laminar flow hood. Q. No. I'm talking about when you were working with evidence samples on a work A. When we're working with evidence samples on a work bench, you might -- you Q. That's because you know, particularly with dried blood stains, for instance, 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 THE COURT: Well, I'm having a little problem with respect to your request for 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 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 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 MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you testified on direct that you processed some of the A. Yes. Q. Those substrate controls, by the way, you didn't process a substrate control 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 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 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 So when we open things, when we close them up, we put our initials on the outer 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 (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the 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 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 It was very clear to anyone watching you that you were very attentive to her on I agree to stipulate to dismiss juror number 15 from the panel. I think she has 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 MR. PETROCELLI: I would ask if Your Honor wants to say something to her, that's THE COURT: I am quite troubled with her sleeping through. She seems to have MR. PETROCELLI: Can you speak to her? THE COURT: What good is speaking to her. She missed already, quite a bit of the MR. PETROCELLI: Do we know if she missed, Your Honor. Let's see what she's MR. BAKER: How do you question somebody about what they missed? It's like I think we have plenty of alternates right now and this is one who really, if 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 MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier if you want, I'll make an apology to you before the 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 THE COURT: Well, I think my rulings in that regard -- and I think it would be 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 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, before Mr. Blasier continues, I want to Numbers are a very important part of the defense in this case, from the defense Now, if you get drowsy, please let me know. You know, he didn't want to spend It's very important that you do pay attention. And if you find that you're Also, I have to be looking at you and everybody else in this courtroom is (Laughter.) THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Q. Dr. Cotton, the tests that are done in forensic applications of DNA 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 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, A. Yes. Q. In bindles, correct? A. Yes. Q. None of those bindles that you got from the Bundy drops had Andrea Mazzola's 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 Q. Doctor, the dots we haven't talked yet about. We've looked at Autorads, but Isn't it correct that with PCR test, you don't get something that looks like an A. That's correct for PM and DQ Alpha. THE COURT: Excuse me. It was clearer when you first -- when you first put it 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 A. Yes. Q. And the dots, of course, they have little numbers next to them which A. Yes. Q. And again, the allele, that's just all we're talking about, is a piece of 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 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 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 A. Right. Q. So a 1.1 would light up this dot and this dot, and there's another column at 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 Q. Are you saying, Doctor, that this test in some instances you have, can have 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 Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You can have somebody else's DNA in here and not know it 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, A. I wouldn't agree. I don't think -- I think that would be an over statement Q. Let me -- A. You can't say anything about who it is or isn't because the data that tells What that means when it's below the control dot is there could be some other 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, A. Well, that's what I'm saying is, I don't think that that's an accurate 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 A. That's right. If that was -- if that's the scenario that there's a person 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 A. Yes, there is. Q. And isn't it true that one examiner might interpret that same data 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 A. You would always prefer to have your test results be consistently 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 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 Q. Obviously, you have to look at reference samples so you can compare your A. Sure. Q. And the reference samples that you use, supposedly come from the people you A. Yes. Q. And you wouldn't expect to see evidence of more than one person in a A. No. Q. Isn't it true, that when you were -- you ran Nicole Brown Simpson's A. Just faintly. Q. Thank you, Doctor? A. I'm looking puzzled 'cause I don't -- I don't understand why you're pointing Q. Actually, I'm only pointing to this. As far as you're concerned, you found a faint B in her reference sample, did 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 A. I don't think anybody else's DNA is in her reference sample. I think that Q. Are you saying, Doctor, in that test sometimes you have a dot light up and 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 A. That's not correct. Q. You're talking about a dot lighting up that is DNA or type of DNA that A. What I'm saying is that the fact that there is this faint B, would you -- Q. All right. So the dot that can show-up, that, you don't attribute to a person's type, 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 A. No. We don't do that. We write down exactly what we see on our records. We You see it in other reference samples where you have a GC type AC and you do. Those two explanations have to be considered and there is no way to definitely 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 Q. So that dot can be explained one of two ways. Either it's contamination or A. Well -- Q. Right? A. It's real. It's there and there's a real reason why that can happen. And It isn't -- it's part of the fact that you're asking, you're doing a DNA test Q. And your figures that you come up with in frequencies don't take that into A. I think I've agreed with you, many times, the frequencies only tell you how 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 A. Sure. Q. And that constellation of biological material all has DNA in it; isn't -- A. It's biological material, it will, yes. Q. And your RFLP test or whatever test you run on an DNA test, doesn't A. That's correct. Q. So isn't it true, that you would always expect, when you take scrapings 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, 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 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 A. Yes. Q. And did you come up with an estimate of the quantity on that? It had over a A. I know that we did an estimate. I haven't looked at that, so I don't know 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 A. I can't answer it, may have had the same amount as in the Rockingham blood Q. Now, the Autorad we looked at had one lane for Nicole Brown Simpson and one 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 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 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 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 A. Of course, not. Q. Okay. And blood can be taken from a reference file and put on a piece of cloth and MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence. 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 Q. Yes. A. Sure. Q. Or you could take some blood and wipe it on a cotton swatch and then wipe it 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 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 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 A. Yes, it is. Q. And again, the estimates of frequencies from populations of how frequently A. That's right. Q. Now, you don't actually go out like for your 1 and 530 billion there aren't 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 A. Of course, not. Q. It's not even the probability that someone other than Mr. Simpson is the A. No. It's just simply how often you would expect to find this particular Q. Isn't it correctly stated that as the chance if you went out and picked A. Yes. Q. Now, since you can't measure everybody in the world, you have to take a A. Yes. Q. Now, there's an issue, when you're talking about comparing a band from one 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 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 A. Right. It means that if you have type A, that you're not anymore or less Q. And there's been a substantial controversy among scientists in the last five A. There's been a lot of discussion about it but I think that controversy, as Q. Doctor. You've been testifying in the last five years about this That's primarily when you testify. It's in hearings about that controversy; MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I testified many times about this, but that's not the primary focus of most Q. Now, A. About that tissue. Q. The field of discipline that we're talking about here are molecular biology, A. That's right. Q. And to -- so in order to use this product rule, when you're talking about 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 A. No. That might be a good figure for Norway, but it wouldn't necessarily be a Q. That's because groups of people in different locations, in different ethnics A. Yes. Q. And one of the major issues that has been the subject of testimony in A. That's right. Q. And that's the issue. There is called substructure, population substructure, A. That's one thing. That's part of that issue and the issue is more Q. Okay. Doctor, now for item number 12, where you gave us a number 1 and 1.2 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 A. About 200. Q. 200? A. Yes. Q. And for that five probe match, how many African persons were tested at all A. Very few. Q. Two, correct? A. Not sure if that's correct, but it's very few, so could be two, could be Q. That's the underlying data from which you get a number from 1 in 170 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 First he talked a little bit about the fact that he tried to give you this 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 A. 6 billion. Q. 6 billion in the DNA strand? A. In the whole nucleus, all the chromosomes comes to about 6 billion. That Q. And of all that DNA, I think you testified previously that some percentage 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 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 A. That's right. Q. So there's no reason to try to test this long strand of DNA, but rather A. If you're asking a question about identification, then you only want to Q. And therefore in these RFLP probes, you've been talking about where I forget A. Well, the average is going to be maybe 8 or 10,000. But even so, even if you Q. And the tests are described, designed and focus on areas where you can 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 In cases of bone marrow transplants where you have a person who's ill, they're 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 And that's done, that monitoring is done over a period of time and it's done Q. So in this life or death situation of a bone marrow transplant, the same A. Yes. Q. There was also some discussion, Doctor, about using these narrow windows to A. Well, yes. He was asking about the window that you use to call a match and 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 If I see a band and the computer imaging system estimates that it's 5,000, it And then you use that window, that plus or minus figure of how much variation 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 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 Q. And for example, in this case, you were looking at bands at five separate 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 A. No. This is part of the RFLP system. This is -- it's something that you have Q. And once again, the same system is a system that's used medically and in A. Yes. Q. Now, I want to touch briefly again on this question of item number 29 on the First of all, Doctor, would you find it surprising if there was some DNA that 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 A. Sure. Q. Secondly, is it your testimony that based upon that little Department of 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 Q. Now, let's go to the polymarker test result that you got on Nicole Brown A. Yes. Q. You -- on that, there was a faint B that lit up at the GC cite. Am I saying A. Yes. Q. In your professional opinion; is that faint B lighting up the at GC cite a 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 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 Q. Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about the application of the In your professional judgment was there anything at all improper about using A. No, there wasn't. Q. In -- and the sample sizes that the data basis are based upon, are those A. They are. Q. The amount of nanograms that were found in some of the evidence samples in A. No, it's -- that's extremely common. Q. And the PCR test is a test specifically designed to enable you to get A. Right. That's the whole value of that test is that you can use that test on Q. And the reason that the level of nanograms may be low at a crime scene as 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 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 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 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 A. No. No on these tests, the pieces that we're looking at are not necessarily 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 Q. And now, let's talk about medical application transplants. There's a is A. There are some differences. Q. You don't, for transplants, you don't go and scrape something, a piece of A. Presumably that's not how they're getting it. Q. You always have clean samples and you always know where they came from, A. Actually, you should always have clean samples, yes. And do hospitals 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 A. I wouldn't say you have unlimited, but you possibly have enough to do Q. Okay. You're not estimating a frequency in a population for a bone marrow A. There's no need to do that. All you need to do is make sure that the donor Q. So the whole part of this technology that generates these large numbers is A. Possibly so, yes. Q. And this technology wasn't developed in the forensic community, was it? It 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 A. Yes. Q. Now, did the steering wheel -- Are your saying that might be DNA from A. I'm just saying, yes, there's no way for me to know. I didn't collect that 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 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 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 The kids, theoretically, since those characteristics are not so powerful at Q. And these statistics don't work at all where you're talking about possible 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 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. 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 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 (At 11:58 A.M. a recess was taken 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, before we call the next witness, I'd like to move in MR. BLASIER: We object to the handwritten one, if that's a -- one of those -- THE COURT: Which one is that? MR. LAMBERT: The one that Mr. Blasier was, himself, writing on the board, I 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 (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 989 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1034 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1035 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1036 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1037 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1038 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1041 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1043 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2184 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2185 was received in (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1275 was received in 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 THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause 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 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 Q. And how long have you been working in the Department of Justice's DNA 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 I took courses in biochemistry environmental toxicology, biology, and other And after I graduated, I continued my education by taking course work through 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 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 through the University of California, Berkeley Extension, the courses that I believe those are the two courses that are relevant. Q. Since you've been working at the Department of Justice DNA Laboratory, have 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 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 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 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 Well, this process, this particular region we're looking at, is a combination The PCR method, where we take this region, this D1S80 region, and we make Based on molecular weight, as they described to you, with RFLP, you can see a Q. And Dr. Cotton told us how there are ways to describe, again, between A. This is using the length difference. Amplified fragment lengths, 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 A. Correct. MR. LAMBERT: Perhaps we could put this up on the Elmo here, and ask you if it 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 A. This is a copy of a D1S80 gel, and what you can see on this gel is a series 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 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 And you can see also on this gel that there has been labeling. This was 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 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 For example, on this particular sample, Mr. Simpson's, there are two bands. Q. And how about for Mr. Goldman? A. For Mr. Goldman, he has a single-banded pattern. He's a 24 homozygote. That Q. And for Nicole Brown? A. And for Nicole Brown, she's an 18 homozygote. Once again, that means she has 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 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 When the Department of Justice gets an item of evidence in to it for study, A. In this case, yes, we put our own numbers. Q. These numbers that we have up there, those are the Department of Justice A. Correct, the second column. Q. So what I'd like to do is, just to have you go through with us your D1S80 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? A. I'm having a hard time seeing it from my vantage point. I could either step 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 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 Q. Okay. Now, item 115, which is a blood drop taken from the rear gate at 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 A. No. Nicole Brown could not be the source because there was no 18 allele Q. For that one, for the time being, until we saw the DQ Alpha, that we want 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 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 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 A. Yes, they were. Q. And the D1S80 test is it completely separate and apart fro the DQ Alpha 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, (Counsel displays Exhibit 296 on easel.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, on this board, it looks like there's only one D1S80 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. 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, (Counsel displays Exhibit 293.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this board lists various items of evidence that were 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. 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 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 A. Item 31, I found there was a 24 and a 25 present; and I could not exclude Q. And then item No. 33 slash 293 from the carpet on the driver-side door, what A. On that sample, I found a D1S80 type 18, comma, 18 which is consistent with 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 A. Correct. Q. And then the next item on this list, the center console, 303, what was your A. I found a 24 allele present, a 25 allele present, and a weaker 18 allele Q. And based upon those test results, who could possibly be the sources for A. Nicole Brown could be the source; Mr. Simpson could be the source; and also, Q. Is that the kind of test where we need a little bit more information before 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 A. Once again, of the three individuals, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman, and Ms. Q. Okay. And finally on this board, item 305, another item taken from the center console 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, 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 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, (Counsel displays Exhibit 320.) Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This shows various test results for a glove found on Mr. 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 Can you tell us what those numbers mean? A. Yes. Those numbers are particular areas on the glove that were sampled by 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 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 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 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 Q. So for both of those two areas, it's possible, based upon your test, that 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 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 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 A. I found a 24 allele and 24, comma, 24, and that's consistent with Ronald 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 Q. And of the three people that we're testing here, which of them could A. Mr. Simpson. Q. So anytime on this chart we see a 25 allele, that cannot come from Ronald 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 Q. Okay. And area G12 on the glove? A. On G12, I found a mixture. I found mainly a 24 allele, with weaker 18 Q. Okay. For these two that you've just done -- let's take the patches off, A. Correct. Q. And now we're down to item number G3. This is a stitching on the wrist notch 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 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 What were your test results for that? A. For some sample I found a -- mainly a 24 homozygote. There was a possible 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 A. Yes. Q. So on this glove results board, anytime your test showed a 25 allele, would 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 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 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 all of the results by D1S80 were an 18 homozygote, indicating that Nicole Q. And in all of those tests that you ran on the fingernail scrapings, right 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 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 Q. And as to evidence item 47, the control for that is -- this is a substrate 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 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 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 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, 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 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 Q. And how about for the area that has DOJ number 42A-2, which we call 13A on A. Yes. The D1S80 type was a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 A. That is correct. Q. And in fact, in the D1S80 system, the 18 allele and the 24 allele are the A. Yes. Most individuals are the 18 or 24 being present in a genotype. It's 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 Q. Thank you. And between Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, there are three D1S80 A. Correct. Q. And their children would have to have one of those three alleles or two of 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 A. Correct. Q. And I notice you didn't give us any statistics here. That's because this is 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 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, 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 A. No. Q. No subjectivity at all? A. It's fairly -- it's an objective test. The subjectivity would come into play 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 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 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 A. No. Q. And when you call something a hint, you're saying I see a band there, but 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 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 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 Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you do a lot of those samples in the same runs, A. Correct. Q. Okay. And you tested 23 different stains from the clothing of the victims, did you A. If that's the number you counted, I'll assume that's the correct number, 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 A. Briefly, yes. Q. Okay. And is it not true that 13 of the stains that you found on Ron Goldman's A. Once again, I'll assume the number is correct, unless you want me to go But yes, I found blood that was -- or I found D1S80 types. That was consistent 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 A. Once again, I'll assume the number is correct. But yes, I found a D1S80 type that was consistent with Ronald Goldman and Q. Now, you have found nothing on either victim's clothing consistent with Mr. 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 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 A. Correct. Q. And you have no way of knowing whether the 18, 18 or the DNA that you 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 MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Argumentative. THE COURT: It's a hypothetical question that doesn't go to her field of MR. BLASIER: Let's me ask it this way: Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't find any indication of blood consistent with Mr. A. Correct. Q. And you didn't find any blood consistent with Mr. Simpson in the palm area 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. A. That is correct. Q. And that's the area where there are some initials written, CY for Colin 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 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 A. I believe so. Q. And your tests can be no more reliable than the quality of the evidence that 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 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 A trace is a band that, well, we're confident the band exits, but the actual Q. And you wouldn't classify something that is a band unless you were confident 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 A. I had approximately a year of experience with it, nine months being 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 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 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 THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: please be seated. And, sir, if you would, please state and spell 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 Q. And as a general proposition, what does the Department of Justice DNA Lab A. The Department of Justice DNA Lab analyzes samples that are generally 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 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 A. Our figure is somewhere on the order of about 20, 25 percent of the time, Q. Have -- do you have a formal educational background that led to you being in 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 At that, or shortly after the time, I did some graduate work in criminalistics In 1994, I went back to UC Berkeley to complete my graduate education, and I Also, as part of my formal education, because of the need to update my MR. LAMBERT: By the way, let me mark as the next exhibit in order -- give Mr. What number is this? THE CLERK: 2186. MR. LAMBERT: 2186. (The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Gary Alan Sims was 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 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 A. I first began my career at the Department of Chief Medical Examiner, Then, from 1979 to 1980, I went to work for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Then, from 1980 until 1990, I worked for the Institute of Forensic Sciences Then, in 1990, I went to work for the Department of Justice in the DNA Q. Your work at the DNA laboratory, does it involve actual hands-on work on DNA 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 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 MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: In our laboratory, we would typically analyze ten samples in a Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So in this case, there was a very substantial amount of A. Yes. Q. Now, when you did these tests at the DOJ Lab On the blood evidence, was A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. The individual who was present in our laboratory for virtually all of the 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 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 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 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 The allegation that we did testing or didn't test is improper. We have no THE COURT: Wait a minute. Go back about a paragraph. MR. BLASIER: Well, the plaintiffs attempted to take Dr. Blake's deposition in And the implication that we did testing or didn't do testing is an improper one 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 The point is, we're entitled to show to the jury that they had evidence There's a specific evidence rule that says that the jury's entitled to make If they want to have -- this isn't a criminal case where there's some kind of a That may be what inferences may be drawn from that. MR. BLASIER: I disagree with Mr. Lambert. Correct, we can do away with the MR. LAMBERT: This isn't a consultant; this is somebody in the lab, watching 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 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 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 You see her frequencies up there? A. Yes. Q. Now, the Department of Justice also did a DQ Alpha test on these particular 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. A. Yes, I do. Q. Now, taking that additional test into account, that is, taking it into A. The range -- I'll give it as a range -- again, is one in 240,000 to one in Q. I'd ask you then to -- if you could, step down. Make sure we get the right MR. LAMBERT: Steve, you can help by erasing here, right there. And we'll ask (Witness writes on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 291, entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So, Mr. Sims, taking these three test results, the two from MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to erasing data from this exhibit MR. LAMBERT: I haven't moved this in; I'm developing this exhibit as I'm going 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 THE COURT: Excuse me. If you want to preserve it, why don't you go up there and 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 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 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 Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay. Now, on item number 49, that's not an item that the Department of Justice did 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 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, 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 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 A. Only Mr. Simpson. Q. Have you calculated the frequency for those two tests, the D1S80 and the DQ 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, A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) What's the explanation of the difference between the 115 A. Basically, the more genetic information you're getting, the more types Q. Let's take a look at item number 116, the rear gate. That appears to be the A. That's correct. Q. Would that be right? So the numbers and Mr. Simpson would be the same for 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 A. That's correct. We did DQ Alpha, D1S80 and we also did a nine-probe match 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 Q. So would you put the frequency in for the RFLP calculation for this item 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 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 A. There was less DNA recovered in those stains, 115 and 116. 117 had about a 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, A. Yes. It's certainly important how -- what the micro environment is where a For example, if it occurs on a walkway, where there's a lot of soil and that Q. So the fact that there's more DNA on an evidence item found up on a gate, as 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, Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this board lists four different evidence items from 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 A. 1.1, 1.2. Q. Who would be the possible source among the three we're looking at here, be a 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 Q. Okay. I think that's the only one we have on this, chart. So let's move to (The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis, 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 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 A. Yes, I can. This is just a DQ Alpha result, so it's one in 12, to one in 40, Q. And for these items here, where we just have D1S80 results 25 and 26, 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 Q. And then while we're here, let's take a look at item number 30 from the 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 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 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 Q. And because of that mixture, who would the possible sources be of that 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 Q. Based upon that DQ Alpha test and D1S80 test, who would be the possible 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. 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 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 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 In other words, the extracted DNA, I combined all of that, did an RFLP analysis We have four-probe RFLP analysis on that sample. Q. What did that four-probe RFLP analysis tell you about the possible sources A. The four-probe RFLP match is consistent with the mixture of DNA from Mr. And one sees a stronger contribution that lines up with Mr. Simpson's bands and 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 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 -- Q. And did you make any conclusion as to who among these three could possibly A. Well, as far as the exclusion, certainly the 1.1, 1.2 is the major type, is 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 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 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 Mr. Sims, it appears that a significant number of tests with were run on the 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, Q. And then I see you also were able to obtain RFLP results on that particular A. Yes. I looked at an RFLP on three of those; we did an RFLP; then a fourth Q. And the possible sources of people, pursuant to your tests for this 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 A. Yes. It was consistent with a cross -- with a mixture of DNA from Nicole Q. So for that particular sample, then, you have both a five-probe RFLP test, a 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 Q. And the RFLP test is a test that is a powerful test for identifying people, A. Yes, it is. Q. And if you have five-probe matches, is that a substantial match, in your 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 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, A. Well, what was interesting especially, was that we looked at G1, G2 and 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 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 Q. And the possible contributors to this evidence item, then, that you were A. Well, looking at that result with the D1S80, as well as the DQ alpha, we Q. Even though you had a possible 1.2 in this, you wouldn't conclude that A. Yes. For example, with the possible trace 1.1, we would need a clear 1.1 and Q. And now taking evidence item G10 from the Rockingham glove, what were your A. On that one, again, it was a 1.3, comma 4, possible 1.2, and then a weaker 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, Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Sims, did you receive a pair of socks that were 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 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 There was also on that same sock, a -- on the opposite side of that stain, Q. And did you then do any further examination of the socks after looking at A. Yes. I examined the socks. First I photographed them to document what was At that point, then I later did some stereomicroscopic examination of the socks Q. And were those blood stains that you had not seen with your naked eye before 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 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 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 A. Yes. The RFLP loci this is just 6 of those 11 probes the numbers come out to be 1 in 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 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 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, 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 A. Well given -- given that I couldn't really say it was there, I wouldn't make 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 Q. Because there was only a possible trace, you wouldn't include that in your 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, 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 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 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 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 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 JUROR: We can't see. MR. LAMBERT: If people can't see, let me take this one down and put this on the (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 Q. The ones that are listed on the other board sitting back in the corner or A. That's correct. Q. The sites where you found the DNA types that were consistent with Mr. 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 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 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 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 |