|
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) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the THE COURT: There's a motion by Plaintiff Goldman with regards to an audio tape. MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor. We asked for this document February 15, and we served our document demand, the The response was that everything he had, had been turned over to the LAPD or MR. BAKER: I have no such tape; my client has no such tape. And the assertion THE COURT: It would appear from the moving papers that there is no declaration MR. GELBLUM: The defendant recorded the tape. THE COURT: Excuse me. There's not even a declaration in support of anything in MR. GELBLUM: I'll be happy to submit a declaration, if that's what it takes. There's no dispute the defendant recorded this audio -- THE COURT: There has to be a declaration that is a legally sufficient MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I have -- THE COURT: You say Schiller played some tape. What tape? That doesn't identify Why don't you ask Mr. Schiller? MR. GELBLUM: We did ask Mr. Schiller. He asserted the reporter shield. THE COURT: You don't have that in your declaration. MR. GELBLUM: I don't know if we need to ask Mr. Schiller, if Mr. Simpson has THE COURT: There's nothing to indicate that he does, because -- MR. BAKER: That is absolutely false. MR. GELBLUM: -- that he recorded. MR. BAKER: That is absolutely false. He does not have any such tape. To make that assertion in open court, when you have no facts, is absolute MR. GELBLUM: We have the facts. He recorded the tape; it was played; he knows And I think it's suspicious, at best, to hear that he apparently doesn't have MR. BAKER: That's reckless disregard of the truth, to say anything like that. THE COURT: Based on what you've got in your moving papers, I don't find any MR. GELBLUM: I'll bring the tape in, the portion of the tape that was played on THE COURT: Why don't you use that as secondary evidence? MR. GELBLUM: It's an excerpt. It's a very small excerpt that was played, Your THE COURT: Well, you haven't satisfied me that the defendant has the tape. You MR. GELBLUM: It's -- MR. PETROCELLI: You know -- MR. GELBLUM: You're right, Your Honor. And obviously, it's impossible for me to I'm working on a reasonable inference here, Your Honor, that the defendant THE COURT: How do I -- What is there? How can I assume that you know that Schiller didn't tape it and MR. GELBLUM: We'll submit additional material. MR. PETROCELLI: You're going to subpoena Schiller. MR. GELBLUM: We did subpoena Schiller. We did subpoena Schiller. He asserted the reporter shield. THE COURT: I don't care what you do. I'm telling you, based on what you've MR. GELBLUM: We'll submit additional material. THE COURT: Motion is denied on its face. MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to bring in Mr. Schiller. THE COURT: I don't care what you do. Bring in the jury. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the THE COURT: Good morning. JURORS: Morning. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Gary Alan Sims. GARY ALAN SIMS, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Good morning, Mr. Sims. A. Good morning. Q. Can you tell me -- give me an approximation of the amount of time that A. Just The civil matter now? Q. Yeah. A. I would estimate on the order of about 20 hours, something like that. Q. Now, do you keep a detailed billing of your hours? A. Yes. I've kept records of the time that I've spent. And that -- that 20 Q. Okay. And do you charge the plaintiffs for the time that you spend on the case? A. The state -- the state has some kind of a policy where they bill the Q. Do you know whether this -- the state has been paid anything for the work A. To date -- no bill has been issued to date. Q. In preparing for your testimony, how much time did you spend with Mr. A. Well, I would estimate about 16 hours, two days, something like that. Q. And did he have a whole set of questions all typed out, ready to ask you? A. He had an outline of some of the issues that he wanted to bring up on his Q. Were they typed questions that you went over with him? A. They were -- They weren't questions; it was just an outline that I reviewed Q. Okay. One of the things you talked about yesterday was the ability of DNA testing to Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. And when you have an exclusion, it means that you can tell from whatever A. Yes; I think that's a pretty good definition. Q. That's all you need to do to reach an exclusion, correct? A. Yes, in most cases, and assuming the test was run properly, et cetera. Q. Okay. And where you have an inclusion, or where you can't rule somebody out, that's A. Yes. Q. That whole aspect of the technology has no relevance to exclusion, does it? A. You would still do band lengths, for example, to an exclusion. To show an exclusion, you can visually see it in most cases. You would also do As far as the statistics, you wouldn't need to; you'd just have an exclusion. Q. Okay. And you indicated that in your lab, when you're sent evidence and reference A. Something like that. I think I gave a figure of 20, 25, something in there. Q. Some labs, like the FBI, said 30 -- or a third? A. Yes, some labs have higher. That may be due to the fact that we sometimes have prescreening tests, Q. And that's people that have been arrested, in some cases charged, and in A. We -- I don't think in our laboratory, we've done any cases where somebody Q. So is it accurate to say that of the cases that are sent to you, where the A. Well, it's -- as far as that focus, we've been able to exclude that Sometimes these are just sort of checking the -- checking somebody's DNA I understand what you're saying, basically. That's basically it; that, in other Q. So there's a substantial percentage where the police have got the wrong guy, MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the evidence, assumes facts not THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Sims, I want to ask you some questions about the And let me do the Elmo first. MR. P. BAKER: This will be next in order, Erin. THE CLERK: 2187. (The instrument herein referred to as Orange Diagram Re Degradation was marked Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Putting up on the Elmo, 2187. THE CLERK: Right. MR. BLASIER: I'll write that down. Back that out a little bit. This is a relatively low tech peel away exhibit. Q. Now, I want you to assume for the purposes of the questions that I'm going A. Okay. Q. And I'm going to ask you questions about what causes degradation of DNA. You have that in mind? A. Okay. Q. And again, when you're talking about degradation, you're talking about the A. Yes. Q. And as it does that, it limits your ability to analyze it, correct? A. Yes. Q. It doesn't change the type of the DNA; it just inhibits your ability to A. That's correct. Q. And can affect how it shows up on an Autorad or dots on the strip? A. Yes. Q. The only way you could have someone else's DNA show up is there is A. Yes, that's basically it. MR. BLASIER: Phil, can you focus it better? THE COURT: There's part of the degradation, I think. (Indicating to TV screen.) (Laughter.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Looking at the first column there, it says sample and Can you get the one on the bottom? If you have a swatch made from a stain, the A. Yes. Q. So if you have two different stains, one of them black and one of them is A. Yes. Q. And the next column is for the history of the stain. If one stain is treated A. Yes, to some extent. Q. So that if you have two different samples from the same blood drop, and one A. Yes. Especially when you talk about those like preservation; that would be Q. Okay. And, in fact, in drying a stain, if you have a stain that you transfer to, A. Well, especially if there are other environmental factors that have been Q. The one converse is if you have a stain that's put on a thin piece of cloth, A. Yes, that would -- that would tend to negate against the deleterious aspects Q. Now, if you take a sample from the same stain at different times, you might A. Well, for example, would it be a stain that's set out in the environment for Q. Yeah. A. Yes. Q. Can we see the next column, please. (Indicating to exhibit on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Actually, the manner in which a stain is processed once it A. Yes. Q. And if you have two different samples from the same source, processed at two When I say "difference" -- A. Can you be a little more specific on that? I'm not quite following you. Q. Sure. Let's say the extraction phase where you're removing the DNA from whatever it A. Yes. Q. The purpose of those are, that's what breaks it up into pieces that allows A. Yes. Q. -- by size? A. Yes. Q. That's a mechanism where you're trying to break up the DNA? A. Yes; you're trying to break it up in an orderly fashion. Q. And if you use this one sample on one day, you use a little less DNA -- the A. That's -- I don't think that's a significant factor. I wouldn't say that Q. All of these factors that we've talked about can lead to an Autorad that has A. Well, yes, all of those factors would go into that. Q. And the fact that one is more degraded than the other, tells you nothing A. Now, when you say "the same source," are you saying -- Q. Same original source. A. Same person or same stain? Or that's where -- Q. Let's talk about a stain first. A. Okay. Okay. Q. Is that correct? A. In -- In a laboratory setting, if you were to, say, sample a blood stain and Q. Okay. But let's talk about the other factors before that. A. Okay. What happens prior to it getting to the laboratory, that could be very Q. Okay. So you can't really tell from looking at the Autorad at the end of the line, You can't really tell anything about the original source of the sample, can A. I think we need to be more specific. I'm not quite following. You're talking Q. Yes. A. Are you talking about -- Q. Yeah. A. Okay. One would notice that one sample, if they're substantially different in terms Q. And that can account for differences in the way the bands appear, not where A. Yes. Q. Now, let's change the hypothetical just a little bit. And rather than a A. Okay. Q. And let's say you take a sample out of that reference tube and put it on a A. Okay. Q. -- that's allowed to air-dry quickly. A. Okay. Q. And the more quickly it's allowed to dry, the better the quality is going to A. That's correct. Q. And let's say sample number 2 is taken from the reference vial at a A. Okay. Q. -- put on a different surface, such as a piece of paper, and is allowed to A. Yes. And also, I would include the factor that the longer that it's in the liquid Q. Okay. That's just because water is the -- is a real enemy to the DNA in the sense A. Well, and there are processes going on inside a liquid blood tube that don't Q. Okay. So that the quality of the blood in a reference tube is going to change over A. Yes, it will. Q. And if you take a stain, or if you take a sample from a reference tube, A. In most cases, you'll see some -- some differences. Q. Okay. And the same reasoning applies to an Autorad. At the end of the line, if you A. You threw in the word "unusual." I'm not sure I would use that term. Can you give me that hypothetical exactly again. Q. Sure. If you have two samples taken from the same reference tube, but taken at A. Okay. Q. -- Put on different surfaces, one on a thin cloth, one on a piece of paper A. Okay. Q. -- subject to different preservation in terms of one may be frozen and A. I would expect in that case, the biggest factor would be how long the liquid Q. Well, if the blood that was put on the piece of paper was left in a room or A. That could. But again, if we're talking about a tube sample, it's a fairly clean sample to Q. To begin with? A. Yeah. Q. Now, when you examined the reference samples in this case, you actually -- A. Yes. Q. And when you're sent a reference sample, they don't send you the blood vial, A. Most of the time, we get a swatch or a stain card that's been prepared. Q. And in this case, the reference samples that you got from LAPD were on what A. There were -- there were three sets of victim reference samples in this My understanding is, it was the gauze ones that were actually prepared by the THE COURT REPORTER: May I have a spelling for Fitzco? MR. BLASIER: F-I-T-Z-C-O. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And if you had a sample that was on a different surface A. You could see some slight difference, yes. Q. Let me show you -- this is Criminal Exhibit 269-A. MR. P. BAKER: Civil 308. MR. BLASIER: 308. (The instrument herein referred to as copy of "Autorad" - 1 was marked for Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this look -- do you recognize this as one of your A. Yes, I do. That looks like -- I don't remember which probe that is offhand, Q. Sure. I'm not going to ask you about the probe, but sure. A. Yes. Okay. There's AM616/D1S80. I can see my initials on it now. Q. And the lane here is the reference sample that you ran for Nicole Brown A. That's correct. Q. And the lane here where it says sock, 13A, is the large stain on the sock, A. Yes. Q. And you would agree that the quality of these two look pretty much the same? A. I would say they're comparable. Q. And with your other Autorads on those same samples, do you recall whether MR. BLASIER: This is 269B criminal. MR. P. BAKER: 309 civil. MR. BLASIER: 309 civil. (The instrument herein referred to as copy of "Autorad" - A2 was marked for THE WITNESS: Yes. That one, I think, is D1S7. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And there it appears -- and again, this is the same DNA, A. I would say on the basis of the -- of the number of probes there's a very Q. Okay. Now -- that was a bad question. Each Autorad that you make is from the same sample, from the same gel? A. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. That's correct. Q. So we're not looking at a different rung; we're looking at a different -- A. That's correct. Q. And you would agree that in this one, the socks appear to be a little more A. I would say those are comparable, also. Q. The point is, you can't, by looking at the differences in the quality from A. Now, when you -- again, when you say "same source," are you talking about Q. Same person, or same reference file. A. With just -- MR. LAMBERT: Misstates the evidence in terms of reference file, Your Honor; Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's talk about the same person first. A. Okay. So the -- no. I mean, certainly I would say that those bands match all the way Q. What I'm talking about now is the quality of the bands themselves. The fact A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And the same would be true of two samples taken from a reference vial at A. Well, if they looked -- in other words, if they looked the same, the same Q. Or differ doesn't mean it came from the same source, does it? A. Not necessarily. Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, I want to ask you some questions about the -- about cross-contamination. A. Okay. Q. In cross-contaminations, you can have DNA from one source get into a second A. Yes. Q. And with PCR, where you're amplifying small amounts of -- of evidence, if A. Yes it can, if there's a sufficient contamination. Q. And the problem of contamination and PCR test, that's kind of the biggest A. Yes. It's something you really have to watch for. Q. And you take very careful precautions to avoid doing things that can result A. Yes, we do. Q. Okay. MR. BLASIER: We're having a little blinking problem, but bear with me. (Indicating to screen for Elmo). Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I want to ask you questions about some of the things that A. Okay. Q. This isn't cross-contamination; this is degradation. We talked about how the A. Yes. Q. You've seen these slides, haven't you? A. They do look vaguely familiar. Q. If you have two samples, one that has very high quality DNA, high molecular A. Yes. Q. Because the amount of DNA in the good one, there's been -- there's too much A. Yes. Q. If you have evidence samples from different crime scenes -- in this case, A. Yes. And when we say "together," I mean I wouldn't want to do it right together Q. They couldn't cross-contaminate each other? A. That's why I took the precaution. Q. And by the same token, you don't process reference samples which is rich in A. Yes, that's correct; we never co-extract those at the same time. We do -- we Q. And that's an important consideration, is it not? A. I believe it is, yes. Q. And you try not to process the victims' and the suspects' reference samples A. Well, if they're both high quality reference samples, I wouldn't be too I would -- generally, in a case, I would process the reference samples as its Q. Okay. If you try to run too many samples at once, you try to do too much work in a A. I think if one extracts an extreme number of samples, the more likelihood of Q. Okay. A. I try to keep it to a lower number. Q. All right. Now, I want to ask you some questions about how blood or other biological You can have what's called an aerosol effect by opening a blood tube, and if A. Yes, you can. Q. And if you process samples on a piece of paper on your lab bench -- let's MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope; irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, that would be a concern, depending on the care one takes in I would change the paper. Q. Okay. You change the paper between each sample, don't you? A. Yes. Q. And that's because of that possible source of cross-contamination? A. Well, that more. Just as we process anything, we like to change the paper Q. Okay. And if you get something on your gloves from one sample and then you process a A. It's a potential source, yes. Q. And the instruments that you use to process a sample, if you use those same A. Yes. This is, again, a potential source of contamination. Q. In fact, you, in your lab, between samples, you flame your tools, do you A. I personally rinse them and wipe them and then flame them. Q. And flaming them means putting them under a Bunson burner to make sure A. Yes; that's the approach I use. MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit was that? MR. BLASIER: What exhibit was that? We'll have the collection of slides as the next in order. THE CLERK: 2188. MR. BLASIER: 2188. (The instrument herein referred to as a collection of slides was marked for Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you would agree, would you not, that there are A. That's a reasonable figure, something like that, about a thousand nanograms Q. And there are about 20 drops of blood in one cc, as an estimate? A. Somewhere around there, yeah. Q. So there would be 30 drops in one and a half cc's? A. Something like that, yes. Q. And in those 30 drops, there would therefore be anywhere from 30,000 to A. Yes, there would be somewhere in that range. Q. And all of the DNA in this case that you processed, anyway, was total, far A. Well, except -- not reference samples. Q. Correct. A. All the evidentiary samples, that's correct. Q. Yeah. Now, I want to ask you a couple questions about your statistics. You use the same concept when you calculate frequencies that Cellmark does, You use the product rule? A. Yes. Q. And you also, because of imprecision in measurement, you have a window, as A. Yes, we do. Q. And that allows you to declare things that are matches, even though your -- A. Yes. In other words, there's a plus or minus that you give to any of these Q. Okay. And you would agree, would you not, that if the -- the length of a fragment in A. If -- If there's no, for example, what we call band shift or something like MR. BLASIER: I think this might be a good time, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (The notes of the proceedings at this point were ordered sealed by the Court, (Pages 33 through 34) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, one of your number has been Okay. You may proceed. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You said, Mr. Sims -- at the break, we were talking about A. Yes. Q. And your lab uses a window to -- because of the limitations of the A. Yes. Q. And what is the size of your window? A. The -- the window that we have is plus or minus 1.8 percent, for a total of Q. Mr. Sims can you see from here? A. Just slightly more of an angle, I can see it. (Indicating to exhibit.) Q. If you need to come down, you can come down. A. That's fine. Q. So your window is 3 or 3.6 percent, correct? A. That's the total. In other words, if two samples were to be declared a match, they would have to Q. Okay. So hypothetically, a band that is -- if we talk about a 10,000 base-pair band, A. Well, there's one technical glitch here, and that is that our match criteria Q. So you -- you've just ruled those out; you don't even measure those? A. We visually look at them -- that's important -- that's the first part of the We would do the sizing after that. They can be more at that high end because we Q. Okay. Your cell markings go all the way up to 3,000 base pairs? A. I'm not aware of that. I don't know. Q. For our hypothetical, let's assume 10,000, an easy number to work with. A. Okay. Q. Under your match criteria, the lower end of what you would declare a match MR. LAMBERT: Objection. I think that misstates the evidence. Q. 3.6 percent, 10,000? A. Can I just do the . . . Q. Sure. (Witness performs calculation.) A. Yes, that's correct. Q. What's that number? A. That would be -- that would be 9640. Q. And the upper end of that would be 10,000? A. Plus. Q. Plus 360? A. Yes. Q. And I can't reach -- (indicating to handwritten diagram). THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What number is that? MR. BLASIER: This is 2184. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So you would declare a match for any bands that your A. When -- yes, when we're comparing it to a band there, at that -- at that Q. And you would agree, would you not, that in reality, if there is a single A. If -- Well, you would possibly see more like a 16 base pair, something like It would be a different repeat. You know, there's a technical reason for that. Q. Right. A. Yes. Different people. Q. And you don't have the ability to measure it down to that tolerance, do you? A. That's correct. Q. Now, your window is a different size window from other labs, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And Cellmark -- your testimony was approximately plus or minus 2.6 percent. So you would agree, would you not, that under your window, if something fell A. It -- well, again, part of the assessment, though, too, is the visual Q. Okay. A. That's an incredible shift. And so that's why we do so many of these probes, Q. You would agree that you allow yourselves this much of a tolerance in your A. We do on a single-band basis. And again, we would -- we would have to see Q. Okay. And a band -- two bands that your computer told you were two percent A. Well, when you when you look at it on the -- on the basis of a single band, But part of this whole assessment is looking at the entire profile across all Q. Okay. But you -- tell me, the most -- the highest number -- highest RFLP number for a Do you remember? A. No. I'd have to go through all the data to see what it is. Q. You had one that was a -- did you have a nine-probe match? A. Yes, I believe we did, on the rear gate and one of the sock stains. Q. Okay. A nine-probe match means you're looking at 18 bands, correct? A. Well, it could be that there's a single-band pattern in one of those, but I Q. So of those bands, can you tell me how many did your computer tell you were A. Were exactly the same? Q. Yeah. A. I'd have to go through the data. I doubt if any of them were exactly the same. Q. Okay. So your computer told you that none of those bands were identical, correct? A. Well, I'm not sure on that. I'd have to check the data on that, that none of Q. Well, to save you a little bit of time, isn't it true that in most of these A. Generally, there's a slight variation; that's correct. Q. You were asked about the back gate stain, 117. Do you remember those? A. Yes. Q. And we were talking about the quality of the DNA or the quantity of DNA in A. Yes. Q. And you were asked questions about the fact that drops that are picked up A. Yes. I would think the gate would be less absorbed. For example, Mr. -- Q. Okay. You tested DNA sample number 44, which was LAPD item number 51, correct? Remember that? A. I'm sorry. Could you give they me those numbers again. Q. Yeah. LAPD item number 51. A. Okay. Q. And you gave that DNA sample number 44? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And that was a stain from the front gate at Bundy, was it not? A. Yes. I want to check the notes on that. Q. It might help you to know that was LAPD photo item number 116. A. Okay. Thank you. Yes, that is our number 44, LAPD number 51, blood stain collected from the Q. That was collected on June 14, was it not, along with the Bundy drops? A. That's my understanding. Q. And that was the same kind of surface as 117 on the back gate that was MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Let's assume hypothetically -- I mean, it's the same kind of gate surface as MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. MR. BLASIER: Do you know? THE COURT: If you know. A. I remember seeing some photographs and I think -- I think it looked somewhat Q. Okay. A. There's that in my memory. Q. You're aware that 117 on the back gate wasn't collected until July 3 or A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. Now, you did testing on item 51 from the front gate. And the DNA in that A. Yes, it was; the DNA was degraded on that sample. Q. And the DNA from 117 on the back gate was much, much higher in quantity, was A. It was. Actually, the overall total quantity of human DNA was estimated to Q. Okay. Now -- and the amount of DNA on the rear gate, also, when you try to quantitate A. Yes, these are estimates. Some of them are based on slot blots for a human Q. And the back gate stain had more DNA than the Bundy drops and the Rockingham A. Can you say that again? Which ones? Q. The Bundy drops and item number 6, which is a Rockingham drop? A. Had more DNA? I'm sorry. Q. At 117, had a lot more DNA than those, correct? A. It had about twice as much as one of the Rockingham drops. Q. Okay. You remember we went through calculations in the criminal trial -- A. Yes. Q. -- on quantity. And the estimate at that time was that number 6 -- that 117 A. Yes. I think when we did this, though, we did some kind of calculation where But as far as the overall yield, the number 117 had about 1008 nanograms; That's one of the variations in these kinds of calculations, how these samples Q. And you calculate or calculated that item number 47, the first Bundy drop, A. Yes, on a nanogram per million gram, basis that's correct. Q. 47 had an extremely small amount of DNA, did it not? A. Yes. It was -- it was a -- it was about 4 nanograms that we got out of it, Q. Okay. Bundy drop 48 had -- 117 had 45 times as much DNA as Bundy drop 4, did A. Yes, again on a nanogram of DNA per million gram of swatch basis. Q. Bundy drop 17 had about 270 times as much DNA as Bundy drop 49? A. Yes, again, on that same basis. Q. Bundy drop 50, item 117, had about 50, 51 times as much DNA as Bundy drop A. Yes, again on that same basis. Q. Now, 52, you got more DNA out of 52 than in any of the other Bundy drops, You were able to do it? A. Excuse me. No. On our -- there was a little difference here because our sample of 52 was a Q. Okay. So that's much, much more than 11 times. 117 is much more than 11 times of 52? A. I think, again, as we look at this on the basis of this nanograms per -- Q. All right. And you're aware, are you not, that 52, there was enough to get an RFLP result? A. Yes, that's my understanding, that's the sample that Cellmark got the RFLP We tested it for just the PCR markers, DQ alpha and D1S80. MR. BLASIER: Can we have the slide next in order, Phil. MR. P. BAKER: I have. MR. BLASIER: Phil, 1118. (The instrument herein referred to as chart entitled "Comparison of Swatched THE COURT: That's without the flashing. MR. P. BAKER: Without the flashing. (Indicating to TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, item number 117, stain from the back gate, had a great A. Yes, it did. Q. You didn't -- in processing item 117, you did not do anything to that stain A. I did nothing that would deliberately add it. I mean, the samples -- we use EDTA as part of our chemicals in our laboratory So -- but when you do the actual extraction, then you do use EDTA as part of Q. Well, then the use of EDTA, that's something new, is it not? A. Well, it's been in forensic laboratories for years. EDTA is a chemical. Q. In terms of your using it in these kinds of tests, that was a change of A. No. I think you're confused here, because EDTA is a standard chemical used Q. But not put in these samples and not put in 117? A. It wouldn't be added to the swatches, but when you take the -- some of the Q. Okay. But you don't -- you don't put it in the swatch? A. No. I mean we would research a portion of the swatch that we don't add any Q. Okay. Now, I put up the Bronco automobile board, which is -- I'm not sure what number (Referring to Exhibit 293.) Q. One of your results from the center console, stain number 31, you indicated A. I remember that they were both weak. I don't remember the averb "very" being Q. There was a difference in intensity between the dots on the 4 and the 1.3, A. I think the 1.3 was a little bit weaker than the 4. Q. And even though they had different intensities, you concluded that that was A. That's correct. Q. And when you get a sample from evidence, you're going to get an equal amount A. Well, one of the limitations of the test, for example, when you look at Mr. So they're balanced, what we call balanced, but they're not perfectly balanced. MR. P. BAKER: The exhibit board is 293. MR. BLASIER: 293. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's another limitation of this technology, correct? A. Well, yes. The dots respond in a balanced fashion, but it's not what I would Q. Let me show you 2185. Let me show it to you in person, make it easier. These are some testing strips from your lab run out samples, among others, in A. Yes. Q. Okay. (Witness reviews Exhibit 2185.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, if we look at item 29, which is the stain from the A. Yes. Q. And we zoom in a little bit on it, you called this 4. That faint dot at 4, A. Yes, we did. Q. And you also -- I think you testified on direct that you're not going to Did you say that? A. Excuse me. I don't see a 1.3 at all on the strip. What I'm saying is that I couldn't absolutely rule out the possibility that Q. So that would be even much less than a hint, would it not? It's not even A. It's -- well, the point of that is that this is a very technical issue and Q. There's no 1.3 there? A. There is no 1.3. Q. But you're not ruling out that that's a type 1.3, 4, are you? A. I'm -- this is a very difficult thing to explain for me. Q. Yes? A. What I'm saying is, I could not rule out the possibility that there was a I certainly don't think there's anything in that sample that says, of course, So when I see this kind of sample, what it tells me to do is, let's look at Q. This is completely consistent with a contributor who is a 4, comma 4? A. Absolutely. Q. And that doesn't match anybody that you know of in this case, correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's unambiguous, isn't it? That's an unambiguous interpretation of this, A. Well, I think that is one interpretation, and it's certainly a reasonable Q. Now, the dot here at number 4, is that a hint, a trace, weak, very weak? How A. That's a weak dot. But the other thing that's important when you're looking at these dots is, you And it's reflected in the fact that the dot that's to the right of the letter C So in this case, that C dot was present. It was weak; we called the 4 dot at Q. But that 4 dot, you said, is a real allele and it's an allele, and it's a A. It's a real allele. One of the things about this system is that, when you have a nominal, what we MR. BLASIER: Do you want to take that down? (Indicating to TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, on the Bronco (indicating to Exhibit 293) -- on the A. That's my understanding, that those were collected on the 14th. Q. And the only sample that you say is consistent with any blood from either of MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence, Your Honor. Number 33, as well. MR. BLASIER: 33? MR. LAMBERT: 33. MR. BLASIER: I don't see a 33. Oh, all right. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is a sample from the carpet inside the car, correct? A. That's my understanding. Q. That's 33, which I think is also 293; is that correct? A. Yeah. Q. And our number is 29, I believe. Yes. When that fiber was actually taken off the carpet, it was given the number 293, A. As I understand it, the carpeting material was collected on the 14th, and I don't -- I don't know exactly the history there. Q. Okay. The actual sample here on the carpet that the fibers -- that were taken off the A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. All of the -- all of the other ones with the low numbers were done on June A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. And the only one of those that indicates the contents with either of the A. That's correct. Q. What is the -- what is the function of a positive control? A. A positive control is used to evaluate if the test is working properly. Q. And a positive control is known DNA, you know, what the type is going in, A. Yes. Q. And if you don't, that indicates a problem, doesn't it? A. Well, it depends on how severe the irregularity is. Q. Well, the tests are designed so that the positive controls come out the same A. Yes. Q. And if they don't, that indicates something, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. It indicates that there might be contamination, correct? A. That's a possibility, yes. Q. It indicates there might be cross-hybridization? A. Yes. Q. Now, cross-hybridization is something that happens when you put too much DNA A. That's one of the possibilities. Also, if hybridization conditions are such that they're a little bit off, you Q. When you say "a little bit off," you mean a little different than what the A. Well, they may be off by, say, a degree or something like that in Q. But that can be a very important difference, can it not, Mr. Sims? A. I'd say anything more than a degree could be significant, yes. Q. So the test is designed, if you do it precisely the way the manual says to A. (No verbal response.) Q. Isn't that correct? A. No, I'd say that's not correct. It is a matter of degree. In our laboratory, you will sometimes see traces of cross-hybridization, and Q. But it can also be contamination, can it not? A. You always have to be concerned with contamination. That's why you run a lot Q. Okay. When you ran the sample for items 30 and 31 from the Bronco console, you ran a A. Well, excuse me. I believe these were actually run by Renee Montgomery when Q. But it's done in your lab? A. Yes. Q. You've seen this board before, have you not? A. I believe I have, yes. Q. And this is Criminal 1279. The above control in that run showed up a very faint 1.3 dot, did it not? A. On which? I can't quite see. Q. You can step down, if you like. The positive control. (Referring to Exhibit entitled Bronco console stains collected 6/14/94.) A. No; that was negative, if I'm reading the right set. Which date is this? Q. When you ran 30 and 31. A. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the right page now. There was -- there was what was called a hint of that 1.3 dot there. Q. You can see it; it's very faint, but it's there, isn't it? A. I think you can see something there, yes. Q. That's one of the shortcomings of this test, trying to make these kinds of A. Well, the shortcoming is when one tries to overinterpret these results, Q. Okay. The positive control is a type 1.1, 4 it has no 1.3 in it? A. That's correct. Q. That's an indication that either contamination or cross-hybridization A. I would say cross-hybridization is most likely due to the fact that the Q. Mr. Sims, can it -- it can be contamination, as well, can it not? A. It could be, yes. Q. What is a QC sample? A. A quality control sample. We have QC samples. These are samples that the And those samples are blind to the analyst. The analyst doesn't know what the Q. But you know -- I'm sorry? A. Well, we did something like 20-some of those in this particular case, and we Q. QRC -- you got them all right. QC 816, what was the correct type to QC 816? A. That was a 1.2, 1.2. Q. But you got a 1.1 and a 1.3, didn't you? A. There were hints of those dots, yes, that was stained. Q. You can't explain a 1.1 by cross-hybridization, can you? A. There can be some cross-hybridization, but it's more likely to be, more like Q. This is another artifact that we're just going to say it's not DNA? A. You have to be concerned with that; you have to realize that this can show Q. Let's look at LAPD item number 31. A. Okay. Q. This has a very faint 1.3 dot, does it not? A. I think that one's different. Q. You think it's different. Okay. You called this one a real allele, did you not? A. Well, I did. Q. Okay? A. Ms. Montgomery did. Q. Mr. Sims, thank you. You didn't? A. I did. Q. Whereas, the 1.3 here and here, you said we're going -- those were okay; A. I think on this particular set of strips, that the controls were such that Q. Mr. Sims -- MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I'd like to ask him -- THE COURT: He's he trying to answer your question, Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: My question had called for a yes or no. THE COURT: I don't think so. You said he passed the test. He's a trying to MR. BLASIER: Let me withdraw the question. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't run it over again, did you? A. No, we did not. Q. Even though you got hints or traces or whatever you want to call them, of A. That's correct. Q. Thank you. A. Yes. Q. Now, LAPD item 30, there's a dot at 1.3 there, as well, correct? A. Is this is now what LAPD item? Q. 30. A. Which is our item -- is that 17? Q. I'm not sure what your number is. A. Let me check that. Yes, that's our item 17. Q. Okay. Did you call that an allele? A. No, that was considered too faint to be considered an allele. Q. Okay. Now, development time out here. This figure represents the lengths of time that you allowed these strips to A. Well it's a color development. At that point, the DNA is -- has already come Q. And in fact, the lengths of time that you use to develop these things can A. Well, once you get to about 20 minutes, there's not much change after that. I mean there -- most of this result takes place within the first five or ten Q. There are differences, are there not, with different development treatment Isn't there? A. I think once you get out to 25 minutes, you're very close to a plateau Q. There was a paper that came out not too long ago that showed that if you let A. That polymarker, I don't recall seeing that in the DQ alpha literature. Q. Do you recall a change in protocol being made in the DQ alpha, as well as A. No, not in our laboratory. I don't -- I don't know of that. Q. Okay. MR. LEONARD: Do you have another board, Bob? MR. BLASIER: Yeah. Let's actually keep that one. Put this one up. (The instrument herein referred to as "Bundy Blood Drop, LAPD item 52, DOJ MR. LEONARD: Can you see this? THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is board number 1281. And these are testing strips for A. Yes; that's the first time that 52 was tested. I did a retest on that, also. Q. And the bottom one is the retest. You want to take a look at that? You rehybridized it? A. Yes, that's it. Q. Okay. Now, 52 is a Bundy blood drop that you have said is consistent with O.J. A. Well our -- our testing was only DQ alpha and D1S80. It was the RFLP testing Q. Your testing -- your conclusion was that it's consistent with O.J. Simpson You call that as a 1.1, 1.2? A. Well, among the three principals; that's correct Q. The 1.3 dot lit up on that strip, as well, did it not? A. Yes, it did. Q. You decided that's not DNA, correct? A. Well, I -- Q. Isn't that correct -- A. I made that -- Q. -- Mr. Sims? A. No, because I did a retest on that. Q. This test strip, you said there's no 1.3 DNA in there, correct? A. Once I did the retest, I was convinced that it was cross-hybridization. Q. The retest also showed a 1.3 dot, did it not? Very faint, but it's there, isn't it? A. I think -- I thought I saw something on that one that I called -- I guess Q. Mr. Sims, isn't it accurate that in deciding these faint dots, you interpret A. No, I don't think so. Q. You don't think so? A. No. Q. So, picking up the other board, board 1279, the 1.3 dot that you said was A. I would say that they are similar, yes. Q. Thank you. Now, you also, as you said before, did your own typing on the victims' A. Yes. Q. And again, this was from the -- from the cards, not from -- you weren't sent A. That's correct. These victims' samples relate to the swatches that we tested. Q. Looking at board 1275, isn't it true, Mr. Sims, that you found in Nicole A. I'll have to look at my notes on that. I identified a trace in the 1.2 dot and what I call a faint trace, which is a Q. Either of those could have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, correct? A. Well, as far as I know, no. She's a 1.1, 1.1. Q. And the only source among the people that have a 1.2 is O.J. Simpson, A. Of those individuals. Q. Correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And one Goldman's sample, you also found an indication of a possible 1.2 and A. No. Q. I'm sorry. 1.1? A. Yes. In the 1.1, there was what we call a faint trace in the 1.1. Q. The only source among these three people of a 1.1 and a 1.2 in Mr. Goldman's A. Well, the 1.1 is Nicole Brown's type, also. Q. Could this have come from either, consistent with either, correct? A. Well, I mean, that's a very hypothetical type of question, I think. Q. This is the result you reported, is it not? A. But -- Q. Is it not? A. I'm looking at the photograph. And clearly, I -- I -- perhaps we should pass this around to the jury -- but These look like the types that you see from cross-hybridization or the DX Q. I'm sorry. We'll call these "not real," right? A. Well, I don't believe these are the real alleles, and I think -- Q. Thank you. A. If you look at the photo, you can see that. THE COURT: Let's take ten minutes. (Recess.) THE COURT: (The jurors returned to their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Sims, as we said a few minutes ago, the hints and A. I believe they were, except there was that one use of the word "vary." I Q. Well, that's one of their boards. I was talking about the Bronco board. The testing strips that were on it had traces and hints? A. You were showing -- Q. Yes, I -- A. Yes, I think by and large, that was the language. I didn't look at each one against my recent sheets, but that sounds familiar. Q. You would agree, would you not, that the problems of interpretation of these A. Yes. Q. And sometimes it's not unusual to look at a picture and not see any dots at A. Well we -- in our laboratory, we really struggle with dots. We really look We look to see if there's anything at all there, we'll call it. We're very -- I don't know if there's another right word. Q. Is -- one of the reasons for that is the only thing that can light up any of A. The only thing would be DNA, unless there's something totally wrong with the Q. Okay. So if you see a hint, a trace, a smudge or little tiny dot, you know that there A. There's definitely a dot there; that's due to DNA. Q. Now, getting back to the Bronco for a quick second -- A. Okay. Q. Stain number 303 was a stain that was taken from the console area on August A. That's my understanding; it was somewhere at that time. Q. And stain number 30 is a stain taken from the same area or similar area on A. I believe it's about that time, yes. Q. Now, is it accurate that you found more DNA in 303 than you did in 30? A. I'd have to check my notes on that. It's 303 versus? Q. 30. A. 30. Okay. (Witness reviews notes.) THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. Thank you. Now, I want to talk about the Bundy drops for a minute. The swatches that were sent to you from LAPD for the Bundy drops were in A. Yes. Q. None of those bindles had any initials of Andrea Mazzola, did they? A. I don't recall seeing AM on any of those Bundy bindles. Q. Now, one of those bindles for Bundy drop number 47, you made note that there A. Yes. I believe that was the right number, but I'd like to check my notes on Q. Okay. A. The number 47 is the one you mentioned? Q. Correct. A. Yes. Q. And that's consistent which a swatch being put in that bindle while it's A. Yes. In other words, there would be some dampness to it that would transfer the Q. And I want to close by asking you some questions about the socks. When you got the socks, you could see several stains with your naked eye, could A. Well, when I got the socks, I saw, for example, cut-out areas and circled Q. You could see them with the naked eye, couldn't you? A. I could see them with the naked eye to some extent where I -- when I knew Q. Okay. And you got the socks approximately when? A. That would be in September, I believe. Q. Okay. A. That was September 26 of 1994, we received the socks. Q. Now, you testified on direct, I believe, that you saw part of the ankle A. Yes. Q. You were actually sent some of the patches that had been cut out of that A. Yes. There were cuts in a tube. Q. There's the large sample that RFLP results indicated 11 probes, I think, A. Yes. Q. And you also observed, if we look at a sock and consider a sock as having A. Yes. Q. One, two, three, four. We can talk about surfaces one, two, three, and four? A. Yes. Q. If we define the area of the cut-out as surfaces one and two -- you with me? A. Okay. Q. You saw blood on the opposite side of the sock on surface three that A. Well, I don't think that really characterizes what I saw. In fact, when I did that examination, what I noted in my notes is that it did Q. I thought you said on direct, you saw some blood on that third surface. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence; didn't say anything about it. THE COURT: It's a question. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't see any blood on the fourth surface, did you? A. I did not. Q. Now, you were sent four swatches from that big cut-out stain, were you not? A. I believe there were four, yes. Q. And you did what's called a yield gel, which helps you determine how much A. I believe that's correct. Q. And on those three swatches, which aren't even the entire stain, you found A. Something like that. But I'd like a second to check my notes on that point. Q. Sure. A. Yes, I took three of the four pieces and I -- after I ran my yield gel, I Q. And of all of the stains, I think you said there was 108, or over 100 that A. I believe that's correct. Q. Thank you. A. Yes. Q. You didn't put any EDTA on those swatches, did you? A. No. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. LAMBERT: Just a little bit, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LAMBERT: I might need a moment to get some charts out. (Pause in proceedings.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Mr. Sims, Mr. Blasier was asking you some questions before about I'd like you to explain to the jury this cross-hybridization phenomenon. A. Yes. The cross-hybridization phenomenon can occur because some of those alleles are So, for example, sometimes you will have samples that are similar in their Q. And by sequence, Dr. Cotton had explained during her testimony that one of And are you saying that the sequence of the base pairs in these 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 A. Well, that's correct. And so what you can see is that this is not always an all-or-none phenomenon. I But I'll also have some going such that you could see cross-hybridization. Q. And how many DQ alpha strips did you say you've reviewed in your career? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I would say hundreds of them. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And as part of the system at the Department of Justice, A. There would be three individuals. The first person who does the -- actually Q. And did that happen in regard to item 31? A. Yes, it did. Q. And you concurred in your professional judgment with this reading of item A. Yes, I did. Q. Did the -- MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. This misstates the testimony. He didn't -- he THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. BLASIER: That misstates his testimony. He didn't concur with the way it's MR. LAMBERT: You mean the word "very" wasn't -- MR. BLASIER: Yes. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Take out the word "very;" call it weak. A. Yes. Q. Did you concur with that? A. Yes. Q. Did your supervisor? A. Yes. Q. By the way, when that item 31 was read, who else was present besides the A. Dr. Blake. Q. Dr. Blake, representing Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Blasier also showed you the reference chart that he has, showing A. Yes. Q. And trying to imply in his questions that there was some contamination in A. Yes. Q. You wanted to show us the actual strip for that? A. Yes, I would like to display that. Q. Okay. Explain to the jury what we're looking at here. A. This -- THE COURT REPORTER: Does this have a number, please? MR. LAMBERT: We'll have to get the Court number for this. I'm not sure what it I'm actually using Mr. Sims' copy of this, but there is -- MR. PETROCELLI: You mean the exhibit number? MR. LAMBERT: There is an exhibit number. I have to supply it later. THE WITNESS: What we're looking at is a photograph of the typing strips. And You'll recall those; there were nine dots all along that. So it's a -- we're This is Mr. Goldman's reference blood sample extract that's being tested for DQ As you'll recall, in the cross-examination we talked about there being some In other words, the point is, I'll let you draw your own conclusion, certainly, (Witness refers to typing strip.) Q. On this strip down here, do you see any activity on these two dot areas? MR. BRASIER: I'm going to object; there isn't any foundation about what that THE COURT: Overruled. I think's he's just illustrating faintness of dots. THE WITNESS: Yes. There is the strip for Nicole Brown. Her type is a 1.1, 1.1. What we were There's another point of this. This is what we're talking about. There's no Q. And in your professional judgment, Mr. Sims, was there any contamination in A. No. I think that's a pretty far-fetched idea, particularly when one And so that if you were to take any kind of traces of contaminating DNA, those And so that any contamination to show up, even at a trace level, would have to Q. And you don't see that in these results? A. No. Q. Now, let me turn to another subject. Mr. Blasier talked to you a lot about the amount of nanograms in various Is it, in your experience, routine to have varying amounts of DNA in the A. Yes. We see a great deal of variation of cross-samples. Q. What kind of factors can affect how much DNA is in a particular sample? A. Well, it goes to how much was collected, how uniform the sample is across a Q. And the Department of Justice Laboratory, did it also get all of the A. I think it was both. In some cases, we got portions. In other cases, I Q. For example, item number 52, where Mr. Blasier was comparing the amount of A. Yes. They -- for example, on that item, they certainly got the lion's share Q. When you were sharing, I think you said something like 3.5 nanograms that A. Well, she tested different portions of swatches, basically. Q. Okay. Now, let's talk a little bit more about this concept of identifying bands in (Counsel displays chart entitled "Results of DNA Analysis, Rockingham Socks.") Q. Mr. Blasier asked you how you declare band matches using the RFLP test. A. Yes. Q. Is that something that is done by DNA laboratories other than yours? A. Yes; it's done by DNA laboratories all over the country. Q. And for how long has it been done that way? A. That RFLP procedure with that type of approach has been done, now, for -- Q. And is the technique that you're -- that you have described, a commonly A. Yes. Q. In fact, haven't there been some national committees that have discussed A. Yes. Q. National committees of what organization? A. Well, the National Research Counsel, for example, has issued two reports. Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. And they've basically validated the procedure; they've said it's a proper Q. And when you do this, these band matches to declare a match between an A. Well, we get -- you know, we get several matches. We wouldn't rely on just Q. So, and the more matches you get, the more evidentiary value that it has? A. Yes. Q. So when you get a nine-probe match like you did on the socks, matching to A. I have a great deal of confidence because if it weren't from that particular They were not. Q. Now, one final point. Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about the tests that you did on the socks. And I'll put this up, just to remind everyone what you're talking about. First I've got to turn this on. (indicating to Elmo). Let's see if you can -- if we can focus this. This is my first time. MR. BAKER: Don't give it to Phil. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay. Now, you tested -- compared in your tests here, some portion of the sock A. Yes. Q. Now, the comparison that you made, what was the source of the Nicole Brown A. Those samples, it was my understanding, were the ones that were made by the Q. So, in other words, what Dr. Cotton testified about, which was the reference MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: That's not what you tested? THE WITNESS: No? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the testimony. Dr. Cotton never said she Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Dr. Cotton testified that the blood she tested, which was MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates her testimony. MR. LAMBERT: That's exactly her testimony. THE COURT: Show me where it's not. MR. BAKER: Why doesn't he show where it is? MR. LAMBERT: Can we have the answer? THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This isn't the same source, is it? A. It's a different reference blood stain is the point. Q. So can you explain for us, to make that point clear, what -- how the Are you familiar with that procedure? A. Yes. I -- MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation; outside the scope. THE COURT: He says he's familiar. Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) How are you familiar with that procedure, sir? A. Well, I'm familiar with some of the operations of the coroner's office, And that's what I was informed was the situation here, was that there were Q. The reason that you asked for the blood stains on the cloth is because the A. Well, I -- that's correct, except I don't think we asked for it; I think MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. No further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Sims, the reference vial wasn't sent to Dr. Cotton, was it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. No foundation. Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Do you know? A. I -- I know that they did not. I know what they did receive. They did receive some swatches of reference Q. All right. And the swatch -- and the surface that is used, if it's a A. If it's -- you mean a card versus a piece of cloth, for example? Q. Or card, piece of cloth versus a vial. A. Well, again, your example, we talked earlier where it sat in the vial for That could cause a difference, yes. Q. To degrade. So if you took blood out of the vial on day one, it might be A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the cloth swatches that you got from the coroner's office, do you have any A. I don't know that personally. Q. Now, Mr. Lambert asked you about the fact that some of these alleles are A. Yes. Q. And that's what can cause cross-hybridization, a DX gene; those are alleles A. The DX is another phenomenon. But, for example, in the cross-hybridization, Q. That's why you can have confusion between a 1.1 and a 1.3. You can have a A. Again, you're talking about degrees of showing up. When you put it that way, for example, all we still see, the true type, but you Q. And in this case, where we have the 1.1 alleles involved and the 1.3 alleles A. Well, yes, to answer your question. Q. Thank you. And the reference sample might chart the typing on the reference sample. Those A. Yes. Q. You saw them there, didn't you? A. When I looked at them in the laboratory, I saw some very faint background Q. And only DNA will cause that to light up unless the strips's bad, right? A. Yes; only DNA will cause that. Q. Now, let's talk about -- Mr. Lambert asked you questions about the formula, A. Yes. Q. -- in one of the national commissions, he asked you about the National Tell me what that body is. A. The National Research Council is a group of scientists -- I don't know all They may do a study on something like is fluoride is good to have in the In this case, they addressed the issue of the use of DNA in the forensic Q. And the committee is made up of highly regarded highly respected scientists, A. Yes, they are scientists. Sometimes they're lawyers and judges, also. Q. But they're represented by population geneticists, molecular biologists, A. Yes. Q. And the National Research Council did a lengthy study and they issued a A. Yes; that was in 1992 was the first report. Q. And they concluded that you shouldn't use the product rule because of A. Well, they still incorporate in the product rule, but they used a different Q. That's called the ceiling principle, right? A. Yes, it is. Q. And if you use the ceiling principle that they recommended, you come up with A. Well, the numbers, you can move the decimal point around a few -- a few Q. You can get vast differences in the magnitude of the numbers by applying the A. It could vary like across several of these, that when you look at this many Q. That created tremendous controversy in the scientific community about using A. No, it created a controversy about whether or not that approach to the Q. There has been litigation in the last five years, at least, that you've been MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, it's your job to litigate. (Laughter.) MR. BLASIER: And we win a lot of time, don't we? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative; irrelevant. THE COURT: I'll sustain that. Q. BY MR. BLASIER: The NRC appointed a committee of a second set of scientists A. They abandoned the idea of the ceiling principle; they felt that was not a Q. They suggested some other factor, adjust for population substructure that A. Well, they -- Q. Isn't that correct? A. They did on some of the PCR markers, for example, when we're looking at very Q. There are studies going on to determine whether population substructure is a A. Well, now, you've got a lot in that question. Because you talk about Q. Mr. Sims, my question was -- MR. LAMBERT: He was in the middle of his answer. MR. BLASIER: I move to strike it as nonresponsive. THE COURT: I think it's responsive. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry? THE COURT: He is responsive. MR. BLASIER: Go ahead. THE COURT: You may finish. THE WITNESS: We talk about statistical significance versus the practical Q. And the concept you're talking about is, there were studies done to A. Well there's been -- more data has been gathered and analyzed, yes. Q. There's been a lot of work done in that area, hasn't there? A. Yes. Q. Those studies have shown that, yes, there is a statistically significant A. Statistically significant? There may be some statistical significance there, yes. But now we get very -- it gets very complicated here, because we're talking The critical point, though, in all this is that the variations that's really It's where the variation is, in other words, sure there are some differences, Q. There are studies that showed statistically significant differences. When A. Well, I didn't invent that term. Q. That was invented by somebody. A. Somebody came up with it, yes. Not me. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Nothing further. MR. LAMBERT: Just a couple questions on this final point, Mr. Sims. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. The 1996 most recent NRC report, it endorsed the product rule that you A. Yes. Q. Even the 1992 report, that did endorse the product rule? A. Yes. Q. These little nuances between subgroups, would that change dramatically the 1 A. No. MR. LAMBERT: No further questions. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Any more witnesses for today? MR. LAMBERT: Just RFAs, Your Honor, is what we have for today, which we could THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions. (At 12:00 P.M., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we wanted to go over scheduling. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: The -- we gave Your Honor, and the defense, a list of witnesses Mr. Kelly and Mr. Baker had a conversation where apparently there was going to As a courtesy, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Baker are going to go down and talk to the But in any event, I just want to make it clear for the record that we're not a But we're expecting to see Mr. Simpson in this courtroom some time near the end Now, I will also add that next Friday is dark, I'm told, in the Orange County The next week we have two court days, Monday and Tuesday, I think, Mr. Simpson THE COURT: Well, how about the other witnesses that you have on this list for How long are they going to be? MR. PETROCELLI: Well, all of them are going to be fairly short, except Colin And the other witnesses that follow Bodziak and Yamauchi are shorter. Some of So I think that if all those witnesses go according to plan, we'll end up But it may turn out that those other witnesses take up the whole week. In any THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: In addition, Monday afternoon, Mr. Baker and Mr. Kelly wanted I'm not going -- we don't have any standing in that case. I just what a MR. P. BAKER: Our point is, Your Honor, it's already been discussed with you, Bob Baker has to go down in the afternoon. We can cover the fort here for a MR. KELLY: Well, in all fairness to the younger Mr. Baker, I've spoken to his What we had discussed was perhaps coming in the morning, taking care of As Mr. Petrocelli indicated, that if we worked it that way, that it's But Mr. Baker indicated that he was going to possibly oppose our application THE COURT: How long is that matter supposed to be? MR. P. BAKER: What I understand, Mr. Petrocelli may know better than I, I'm not THE COURT: I don't mean the Monday session, I think -- how long is that MR. P. BAKER: A week and a half. MR. KELLY: My understanding is it may be as long as a month. Mr. Simpson was MR. P. BAKER: Judge, that custody battle is very important. They've had four We brought this up two weeks ago with the court, that he was available and MR. KELLY: Judge, we made -- we indicated we weren't -- at that time we He's been down there. If he has his whole week down there once again, and we're THE COURT: What's the name of the judge down there? MR. P. BAKER: I don't know. MR. KELLY: I don't have that on me. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you get it for the judge, John? MR. KELLY: Sure. I can get a call, and -- you want me to make a call? I can AUDIENCE MEMBER MANUEL MEDRANO: You know, I know the name of the judge, if you MR. KELLY: Wiebon Stock, Superior Court, Orange County. AUDIENCE MEMBER MANUEL MEDRANO: W-I-E-B-E-N -- MR. PETROCELLI: W-I-E-B-O-N S-T-O-C-K. THE COURT: The Court will make an inquiry. MR. KELLY: Judge, they're not in session today by the way, I'd suspect she'd THE COURT: She only works four days a week? MR. KELLY: No. No. (Pause in the proceedings.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury in. THE CLERK: They're on the way. MR. LAMBERT: I -- just to raise a minor point about the request for admissions, These are similar to the set of request for admissions. I read in regard to the That is: That they say in admitting this request for admission, the defense THE COURT: All right. MR. LAMBERT: Similarly, in a few of them, they define the term "match" to be THE COURT: All right. MR. LAMBERT: The second point I'd like to raise, Your Honor, these all go to THE COURT: Okay. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. MR. BAKER: All these requests for admissions -- I went through them after lunch I don't mind saving time. I would prefer that he read all the request for THE COURT: I didn't understand your last sentence. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. In other words, if there's ten requests for admission in a row that have the THE COURT: Okay. To satisfy Mr. Baker's concern, you will read a qualification at the beginning. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. How long is this going to take? MR. LAMBERT: Without having to read the qualifications every time, I think it THE COURT: All right. MR. LAMBERT: Maybe half an hour, something like that. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) MR. P. BAKER: They got me out from behind the Elmo. THE COURT: Yes. You moved up in the world. (Laughter.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the THE COURT: Could I see counsel at bench without the reporter? (A bench conference was held which was not reported:) THE COURT: At this point the Court will give you an instruction with regards to In this case, the plaintiff served on the defendant, a written request to admit Mr. Lambert is going to read a series of these requests for admission and Okay. You may proceed. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. Pursuant to section 2033 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff (Reading:) Request number 7: Admit that your HLA DQ alpha blood type is 1.1, 1.2. Admit. The response is admit. Request number 214: Admit that Ronald Goldman's HLA DQ Alpha blood type was Response: Admit. Request number 215: Admit that Nicole Brown Simpson's HLA DQ Alpha blood type Response: Admit. As to the following requests for admissions. The defendant adopts the Request number 14: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the Response: Admit. Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 47, Response: Admit. Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal trial as Response: Admit. Request number 43: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD Request number 91: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the Response: Admit. " Request number 49: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD Response: Admit. Request Number 110. Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request number 55: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD Response: Admit. Request number 129: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 61: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD Response: Admit. Request Number 175: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. The term "matched" as used in this and in all other request Request Number 144: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 153: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 162: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 180: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 181: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 182: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I think we should use the qualifier when we're using the MR. LAMBERT: I read it the first time it was used. MR. P. BAKER: But only on that one response. THE COURT: What we're going to do, at the conclusion of -- MR. P. BAKER: Okay. THE COURT: -- This portion that you're reading, Mr. Lambert, you're going to MR. LAMBERT: Yes. It applies to several of them as it goes, and I'll read it THE COURT: And you will indicate to the jury what portions they apply to? MR. LAMBERT: Yes. (Reading:) Request Number 183: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 184: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 185: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. MR. LAMBERT: He can change the board now. MR. LAMBERT: I'm told I didn't read in a response for item 43. THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. LAMBERT: There isn't an item 43. Which board? MR. P. BAKER: Request for admission 43. MR. LAMBERT: Oh, the request for admission 43. THE COURT REPORTER: Uh-huh. MR. LAMBERT: Oh. The response is "admit." (Reading:) Request Number 343: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 350: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as Response: Admit. Request Number 343: -- I'll skip that. Request Number 354: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 365: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as Response: Admit. Request Number 369: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 380: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as Response: Admit. Request Number 387: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 232: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 239: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 269: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 280: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 285: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as Request Number 248: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 253: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 257: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 264: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 291: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 305: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request 306: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the Response: Admit. Request Number 307: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 308: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as Response: Admit. Request Number 325: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 326: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 327: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 338: Admit that the item identified at the criminal trial as Response: Admit. Request Number 396: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 399: Admit that the blood DNA banding pattern contained in the Response: Admit. Request Number 405: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 416: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Request Number 426: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Request Number 427: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. I forgot to read that item. Request Number 428: Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at Response: Admit. Admitting these requests for admissions the defense adopts the plaintiffs' Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Is that all of it? MR. LAMBERT: That's it. THE COURT: Okay. Any follow up with -- for admission by defense? MR. P. BAKER: No. THE COURT: Okay. Then we're done for the day? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume Monday. Schedules might be a little bit up So I'll order you back at 8:30. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or Don't let anybody talk to you about this case and don't let anybody attempt to Have a nice weekend. We will see you Monday at 8:30. JUROR: Thank you, Your Honor. (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the THE COURT: We haven't got a connection yet. I want you to be apprised. MR. P. BAKER: Yes. THE COURT: That's the best we can do is have a conference. MR. P. BAKER: So hang around? THE COURT: Hang around. (At 2:20 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Monday, November 18, 1996 at 8:30 |