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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

(Pages 45504 through 45507, volume 222a, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. First order of business, counsel, I scheduled a hearing on the Prosecution's motion to admit certain testimony concerning the Defendant's activities, I guess we would call it, on June 17th. That hearing was set for 8:30 this morning. The court was here, Defense counsel was here and the Defendant was here. We were ready to proceed. The Prosecution did not choose to appear in court until nine o'clock. Is there an explanation for this?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. The person designated to argue this segment of the case had an emergency at home and was unable to make it. And I apologize to the court, but the time has not been wasted. I have been in conference with other members of the team. At this time, your Honor, we would like to indicate to the court that we will not be asking to admit the events of June the 17th at this time; however, I repeat "At this time," because we have not yet heard the end of the Defense case. We have not yet heard surrebuttal. And I would like to reserve the option of asking to renew our request to admit that evidence depending on what we see in the balance of the Defense Case in Chief and Surrebuttal.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: We would like to--we are trimming this case so that we can get it to the jury and we are hopeful that we can rest the People's rebuttal case tomorrow.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, as to the withdrawal of the June 17th witnesses?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Well, we certainly accept that withdrawal. We think it is appropriate and saves you having to waste your time on that, and we accept that obviously, your Honor. No problem. I would like to raise a couple of issues if I might, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, we are not finished with that yet.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Certainly.

THE COURT: All right. The offer is accepted; however, for the failure to appear in court in a timely manner and failure to advise the court, sanction will be $250.00 to the District Attorney's office. That is to be paid by the close of business today.

MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor. May I remind the court that Mr. Shapiro kept the court waiting for twenty minutes, showing up at twenty after 9:00 when it was his witness on the stand, and suffered no sanction.

THE COURT: Thank you. The sanction will be a thousand dollars.

MR. COCHRAN: How much?

THE COURT: A thousand.

MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed, your Honor, now? Your Honor, with regard to--at the end of yesterday your Honor asked us not to waste your time. Miss Clark on the record indicated certain witnesses. You will recall she said People like the modified Thano Peratis video which you talked about and Deedrick and Bodziak and the Bronco fiber issue and the Ackards and all those kind of things, and you said don't waste my time, get together. Mr. Douglas went over and talked to Mr. Darden who told him I don't know who we are going to call. They gave us no proffer, no offer of proof, no cooperation, no nothing. So we don't want to waste your time, Judge, but when they won't talk to Mr. Douglas, so what are we going to do? They say they don't know who they are calling. If, Judge, they are saying they are going to finish the case by Thursday or Friday, we are entitled to all rest of the witnesses and all we are trying to get is get somebody to talk to us so we can resolve this matter. If they really want to get this case to the jury, we would like our proffers and we would like to know who they are really going to call. The 17th is now out and that is fine and so we would just like to have--would you direct them to meet with Mr. Douglas right so we can get this done?

MR. DARDEN: Good morning, your Honor. I met with Mr. Douglas yesterday afternoon. I gave him approximately six names. That included Sims, Deedrick, Bodziak, Lawrence Ackard, Nancy Ackard. What other names did I give you, Mr. Douglas? I don't know what he is talking about. I have given him the names.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Douglas can speak for himself.

MR. DARDEN: I gave him the names. If Mr. Douglas says that isn't correct, he was writing on his pad, I was standing right here late at noon. Was that true?

MR. DOUGLAS: I asked him what order is going to be called following Sims. Mr. Darden said, "I do not know." I asked him this morning. He gave me these names. I asked what order, who is next after Sims? This morning he said, "I do not know," if I'm mistaken. Please correct me.

THE COURT: All right. But he gave you the witnesses. He has given you five or six names.

MR. DOUGLAS: He did, your Honor, and I asked who follows Sims so I can have the person who does that witness ready after Sims.

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, your Honor, what we are saying is he gave us the names in court. We want to know who is up next? What is the offer of proof?

THE COURT: They have given you the names. We know who Bodziak is. We know who Sims is. We know who Deedrick is.

MR. DARDEN: I can tell you this about the Ackards. We are trying to get the Ackards here from out of the country to testify tomorrow, so they won't be here today.

THE COURT: All right. Testify as to what?

MR. DARDEN: Heidstra issues.

THE COURT: Heidstra, okay.

MR. DARDEN: They have the discovery on that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor, and may I inquire, are they still planning to rest then by tomorrow or Friday, because then we would be entitled to anybody else they have. It is within the three days and we are trying to find out.

THE COURT: I assume that is their case. They tell me that they are going to rest tomorrow or Friday.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is fine then, your Honor. The last thing, your Honor, is--the next thing I would like to--we are going to have to address at this point on Bronco fiber issue which we think shouldn't take the court very long, speaking of no brainers, but we are ready to do that whenever you want to. The last thing is we would like to have Agent Martz, FBI Agent Martz back here. We need this court's assistance, if they are going to rest truly on Thursday or Friday, for our case on Monday, September 18th. We would like to request that now so we will have him here. And in addition to that, we expect to call Special Agent Whitehurst of the FBI and we expect that hopefully Mr. Scheck has started a procedure, but hopefully Justice will make this person available. He is a critical witness in this case and it will tie in with the Martz testimony so there is no delay in that regard.

THE COURT: All right. If there are interstate subpoenas that need to be issued, submit them to Mrs. Robertson as soon as you can.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you. May I have one second, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: We have a day of down time.

MR. COCHRAN: Trying to save down time. We will work on that day. The last thing is, your Honor, on this whole issue, if the Ackards anyone called with regard to Robert Heidstra's testimony, we need Detective Dennis Payne who we understand is retired and we want to put him on notice now. We need Payne.

THE COURT: Is Payne the one who took the statement from the Ackards?

MR. COCHRAN: From Heidstra.

THE COURT: Heidstra.

MR. COCHRAN: We need him right away and we want to put them on notice we need Payne so there will be no down time on that. Might as well have him here on Monday.

MR. DARDEN: They should contact the LAPD. In any event, they marked Mr. Heidstra's statement. I'm not sure but I think you admitted it into evidence.

MR. COCHRAN: We want Dennis Payne, so that is the issue on that.

MR. DARDEN: Then call the LAPD.

THE COURT: Then you are not willing to make him available?

MR. DARDEN: He is retired, Judge. I can't make him available.

THE COURT: All right. You will have to subpoena him.

MR. COCHRAN: Get an address or something, your Honor?

MR. DARDEN: Penal code section that would preclude us from giving them the address of retired police officers.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, what we will do is I don't care about this fight between the parties. I will have my staff contact the LAPD and make them--

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. That is all we are asking.

THE COURT: Get cooperation to produce him.

MR. COCHRAN: Produce him for Monday, your Honor, thank you very kindly, or soon thereafter.

THE COURT: He is retired. He could be in Florida. Who knows?

MR. COCHRAN: Well, as with the other witnesses, we don't want to delay this trial, we will pay for him to come back.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, with respect to Agent Deedrick, if I understand it correctly, he is supposed to be here arriving here at 12:30, the last representation. And Mr. Morton is going to be able to get here at 12:30, one o'clock. I at least would like the opportunity to look at the underlying data from the report that they just gave us. I do get that opportunity.

THE COURT: I issued that order yesterday.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that.

THE COURT: As soon as the exemplars or the impressions are here, you are entitled to look at them, to see them. You are entitled access to that. We dealt with that issue yesterday.

MR. SCHECK: No, I understand that, but I just wanted to make clear we are going to get that opportunity, and this includes, the jeans, the envelope, the shirt.

THE COURT: The whole enchilada.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of scheduling, I wanted to put the court on notice.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we need to--no. 1, we need to be heard with respect to the admissibility of the Whitehurst issue and we are prepared to argue that so that we do not waste time trying to locate a witness who I believe has testimony that has nothing to do with this case and is irrelevant, so you know, we are going to go into down time to make him available when he has no admissible evidence. Secondly, I would like to argue the Bronco fiber motion.

THE COURT: Well, let's do this: Let's proceed with your next witness this morning with the jury, because the jury is expecting testimony now. As soon as we complete that phase of your presentation, where do you anticipate going after that?

MS. CLARK: Well, we had wanted to go with the Ackards. Since they are not available immediately, I would like to--we may have a little down time because we have to fly witnesses in. We have the Peratis tape presented with the testimony of Steve Oppler, and we have--which we have edited and we will show to the court, and then we intend to call Doug Deedrick, any fiber witnesses that we are allowed to call, and Bill Bodziak, but they won't be ready for testimony until tomorrow morning, so we might have--

THE COURT: All right. So then the point of my asking you that question is that we don't need to resolve that issue now. If there is going to be down time for witnesses, we can use that time to argue the motion.

MS. CLARK: Well, the problem is I don't know whether to notify the witness to come in or not until the court rules.

THE COURT: Where are these witnesses coming from?

MS. CLARK: Washington, I believe.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: They are flying. They are not in the state.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: I didn't want to fly them out if the court was going to--they are on standby, I have them on call, but I'm not going to spend the money to have them out until you say that they can testify.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, who your side is going to argue the Bronco fiber motion?

MR. COCHRAN: I believe it will be Mr. Blasier.

THE COURT: All right. Are you prepared?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. I will hear the argument.

MS. CLARK: I believe we are the moving party, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. I just wanted to know if they were ready. You are ready?

MS. CLARK: I'm ready. They are ready. As my moving papers indicated to the court, we believe the evidence is admissible and proper rebuttal for two reasons, the first of which is believe we appended to our motion the transcript sections from the testimony of Kathleen Bell as elicited by Mr. Bailey in which he gratuitously asked her questions concerning the kind of car Mark Fuhrman drove or she believed he drove back when the statements were made. There was no purpose, no legitimate purpose for asking that question unless it was to--other than the one we are arguing they were trying to infer, unless it was to show that she in fact did know him and therefore could identify him. That argument, however, falls as specious because there was never an effort to link up the car she described to any car known to be driven or owned by Mark Fuhrman, which could have been done through DMV records or any other people who knew him at the time, including the police department. No such effort was made. And it is clear that the motivation for asking those questions and eliciting not once, but twice, that she saw him driving a sports utility vehicle, was to have the jury infer that he preferred that kind of vehicle and therefore the fibers could have come from that vehicle. And as the court recalls, Mr. Bailey was the one who handled the hair and fiber evidence with us and is most acquainted with the issues concerning the admissibility of the Bronco fiber study that was conducted by Agent Deedrick. That is on one hand. Secondly, with respect to attack on Mark Fuhrman's credibility, as the court is aware, an all-out attack was launched on his credibility and it has become the cornerstone of the Defense case. Anything in the case in terms of scientific or objective evidence that tends to indicate that the glove was not planted and that he was not responsible for the planting is relevant as rebuttal to that claim. Having found Bronco fibers on the Rockingham glove, and that is key, it is not the Bundy glove, it is the Rockingham glove and that is the one they are claiming was moved, that is key to establish that in fact it was not planted, because the fiber on that glove came from a rather unique source, not just any car, which is what otherwise they could argue, or even any carpet in a house, but a very unique fiber that was made during `92 and `93 and put into `94 vehicles, a fiber whose configuration in terms of the cross-section and the dye formulation was changed later in `94 and had not been made prior to `92. Moreover, this is a fiber in which carpeting was used for only three kind of cars, predominantly for the Bronco, and secondly, and much fewer number, Econoline vans and "F" series trucks, so you have very highly probative evidence found on the glove that could not have been planted that was--that would tend to rebut the claim that the glove was planted by Detective Fuhrman. So we have two independent bases on which to admit this evidence now which makes it proper rebuttal. The People have cited cases to the court as to why this is admissible rebuttal and why it is proper to address this at this time. The court is aware of course that the discovery has been given to the Defense on this, so there is no element of surprise here. The witnesses that would be called to prove this evidence would be two at maximum, three in number, of very short duration; one to talk about the fact that the fiber of this cross-section was made during these years, sold to Masland. Masland representative will say that fiber was put, during these years with this dye formulation, into these cars and that is it, and then Doug Deedrick to say that is the fiber I saw. That testimony collectively for all three witnesses should not take an hour, so we are not talking about an undue consumption of time either, but I do think it is highly probative and certainly important to rebut the claim of any evidence movement by the Defense, especially the Rockingham glove.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. As the court will recall, I believe it was with Susan Brockbank. Brockbank, I asked a series of questions about whether they had checked other vehicles and I asked those questions based on representations that had been made to us by the manufacturer of this fiber, that it was very, very common. Unbeknownst to me that same person, the actual person that we had talked to, had already provided written documentation to the FBI as part of their investigation of the source of the fiber that they title it. It was just completely the opposite. And it was only after that point that Mr. Deedrick came in and brought his paperwork. I asked him a number of questions before he testified to try and find out what he had and he was very, very evasive. Finally the court had to intervene and make him have a copy of his whole binder made, and in that binder is this very, very detailed report where they had done a thorough investigation months before, I think it was a seven or eight-page report, titled "The source of the fiber." And the court, properly so in our view, precluded the Prosecution, because of misconduct, from putting on any of that evidence because it had been held back and not turned over in a timely fashion, prior to our conducting our cross-examination of these witnesses. We were extremely careful after that point to not ask a single question about rarity of Bronco fibers. We didn't ask anybody about that because we didn't not want to open the door. Now, as I understand the argument--well, first of all, I think it is interesting that Miss Clark has argued many, many times that there is absolutely no evidence that Detective Fuhrman planted the glove and now she feels the need to bring this evidence in to show that Mark Fuhrman's carpet fiber is not on the glove. We have never said that. We have never maintained that. The references to his green utility vehicle were--were--it was obvious what the purpose of that was. It was to demonstrate that Miss Bell recognized his car and had seen that same car with him in it on a couple of other occasions. If the Prosecution is concerned that we would argue that the car that Mark Fuhrman drove in 1986 might have a fiber that matched the fiber on the glove, they can put on a witness to say what kind of fiber was in Mark Fuhrman's vehicle. That would certainly solve that problem. That is not the reason they want to do this. They want to do this because they think that is powerful evidence. It was precluded before because of their misconduct and now they are trying to find a way to get it in. This is just a ridiculous argument, and I--we haven't offered any testimony about what vehicle Mark Fuhrman drives. We don't intend to. We would never argue that. That is a ludicrous inference. It is not believable. It is not a justification for putting on this evidence that was wrongfully withheld before.

THE COURT: What do you think about a restriction, if I remain--if I maintain the preclusion, a restriction on argument as to the rarity of the fiber and the lack of evidence of this?

MR. BLASIER: Well, if they are allowed to put on evidence about the rarity of the fiber, then the preclusion--the effect of the preclusion is nil.

THE COURT: No, no. You misunderstood my comment. If I maintain the preclusion--

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: --that is likely to include a preclusion of argument.

MR. BLASIER: Oh, absolutely. That is--oh, that is not problem. We don't intend to argue that.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Beyond what is stated in the record, I assume is what you mean? We are not going to make any argument that we know is misleading based on the information they have obtained. I have no problem with that. I assume that is what you were suggesting.

THE COURT: I'm just asking.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Yeah. That is fine. We are not arguing that anyway. I don't want--we don't want to do anything improper in closing that might allow them to come back and ask to have the case reopened. That would be foolish.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I don't know why they are trying to hide the truth. Doesn't the jury have a right to the very best evidence that exists? We have evidence that is very powerful that is further evidence of the Defendant's guilt, and to simply preclude them from arguing that it was Mark Fuhrman's vehicle does not go anywhere near addressing that issue. Furthermore, if there is to be a preclusion in the alternative, your Honor, then the preclusion should include their ability to argue that any police officer's car could have imparted those fibers, because that is in fact the case and that would in fact be the testimony.

MR. BLASIER: I accept that. I mean, I assumed that what you were referring to, we would not make the argument that it could have been in his police car. We would not make that argument.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I just think the rarity of the fiber is very probative evidence of the jury for the Defendant's guilt, and I think that given the nature of the attack in this case and the arguments about planting of evidence, it become even more probative, and I think it is evidence that the jury should hear.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. The reason for the court's initial preclusion was the failure to disclose the report which included--which gave indicia of extensive investigation as to the source, nature and rarity of that particular fiber. That information was not turned over during the course of discovery as required. The court felt that preclusion at that time was the appropriate sanction. The proffer at this time is that Kathleen Bell testified that she observed a pea green utility vehicle at the Marine recruiting station at a time that coincided with Detective Fuhrman's presence at that location. She then testified that she Detective Fuhrman in a business establishment in that same general area, on another occasion also saw the same pea green utility vehicle at that location and chose not to enter the location, fearing that Detective Fuhrman was again there and not wanting to reacquaint herself with him at that time, given the nature of her testimony. These events occurred in 1986. There was no contemporaneous testimony indicating that Detective Fuhrman had any contact with the same vehicle. The testimony was that Detective Fuhrman drove to the Bundy location in a police vehicle with Detective Phillips. The proffer has no probative value and the court's previous ruling stands. All right. Let's call our next witness.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just one quick--your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All I ask is I was out of the room for a moment when I heard that they wanted to do the Peratis tape next. All I'm saying is that in light of your instruction yesterday that they edit, I haven't seen the edit yet.

THE COURT: I indicated to you I wanted to look at it one more time before it was played. I want to see the edited tape as well.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. Because I may have objections about that.

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, the jury is upstairs as well?

DEPUTY MAGNERA: Yes.

THE COURT: Our next witness is Mr. Sims?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: While we take the recess to bring the jury down, I had to pull a number of the Bronco exhibits for the purpose of reviewing last night. Mrs. Robertson has them available. Get your exhibits organized. Let's not lose anytime fumbling with the exhibits.

MR. SCHECK: I need them.

THE COURT: All right. All right. We will take 15 to bring the jury down. Get your exhibits in order.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Harmon, would you do me a huge favor and take this one down for a moment, please.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Since I need to see the eyeballs of the jury from time to time. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have now been rejoined by all 14 members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Better. All right. Mr. Harmon, you may call the next witness.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. HARMON: The People recall Gary Sims.

Gary Sims, recalled as a witness by the People in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand to be sworn. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

MR. SIMS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. SIMS: My name is Gary Sims, G-A-R-Y S-I-M-S.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, have you conducted additional testing that you are here to provide the results on in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And just to put the additional testing in context, I would like to put up a couple of exhibit boards, People's exhibit 260 and People's exhibit 172, which are the Bronco photo board or the Bronco result board and the Bronco photo board, respectively, and start out by just briefly discussing items 31, 303, 304 and 305 that you previously presented to the jury. Item 31, if you look at the result board, that was on the center console shown in one of the photographs where you provided some PCR results from that; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And just--would you just summarize what the results were and what your conclusions were, without addressing any statistical aspects of those conclusions.

MR. SIMS: Yes. For item number LAPD 31, which is our item number DNA 18, the DQ-Alpha finding indicated a main type of 1.1, 1.2, a minor type of 1.3 and 4, and those alleles are consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's blood, and Mr. Ronald Goldman's blood. And then on the D1S80 results for that sample, the call on that was 24, 25. Again that is consistent with this same mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you give us the same summary with respect to item 303, which was from the center console as well?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Item 303 was our numbered DNA 52. The DQ-Alpha type on that was a 1.1 with a possible 1.2, 1.3 and 4. The D1S80 type was 24, 25 with a weaker 18 allele. That particular mixture was consistent with a mixture of the Defendant, Mr. Goldman, and also Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: What about 304?

MR. SIMS: 304 was the same results. That is our item no. 53, DNA 53.

MR. HARMON: Same as 303?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And what about 305?

MR. SIMS: 305--in the case of 305 there was a slight difference there in that the DQ-Alpha type was called a 1.1, possible 1.2. the minor type in that case was a 1.3 and 4.

MR. HARMON: And what conclusion would you draw about possible sources from among the three parties whose reference samples were provided to you in this case?

MR. SIMS: Well, I would also supplement that the D1S80 results were the 24 and 25 alleles, along the weaker 18 allele, so again that was consistent with a mixture of all three of the principals in this case.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I want to ask you a general question with regard to your PCR processing of each of these console samples that you've provided a summary of your results on. Were any of those console samples ever extracted in the presence of any of the reference samples during your handling of these samples in this case?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Are you familiar with dr. Gerdes' testimony with regard to some of your results in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what is the basis for your familiarity? Have you read excerpts of his testimony?

MR. SIMS: I listened to some of his testimony when I was monitoring it. I also have read some of the transcript.

MR. HARMON: And have you also been provided with a copy of a Defense exhibit in this case, Defense exhibit 1309?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe--is that the--I'm sorry, could you explain which 1309 is?

MR. HARMON: Well, why don't you take a look at it. It appears to be a photo of a set of DQ-Alpha strips. Why don't you take a look at the photo in the left-hand corner and see if you recognize the photo of the complete set of strips reflecting work that you did in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Could you briefly summarize, and I want to solely ask you to focus on LAPD item no. 31, the center console item that you just provided us a summary of your results for, could you describe, based on your reading of dr. Gerdes' testimony, the nature of his concerns about item 31 and solely with respect to the DQ-Alpha testing?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to summarizing the testimony.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. HARMON: What are the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with regard to item 31?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: What is the first concern?

MR. HARMON: What is the first concern that dr. Gerdes expressed with regard to--specifically with regard to LAPD item 31?

MR. SIMS: The concern that I was aware of was the determination as to whether or not that 1.3 dot was in fact a real allele showing up or an artifact. That was his concern.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you agree with the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed to this jury when he testified and discussed exhibit 1309?

MR. SIMS: Well, I disagree with him in that his conclusion was that one could not say with confidence that the 1.3 allele was there, and I disagree with that.

MR. HARMON: And solely focusing on LAPD item 31 and the testing that you actually performed, and you are the only one that performed testing on that sample, why do you disagree with him?

MR. SIMS: Well, just for the record, I should state that this analysis was performed by Renee Montgomery and I was the second reader on this particular date.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SIMS: I disagreed with him because of the relative intensity of the 1.3 dot in this case relative to the c dot within this particular strip.

MR. HARMON: And why--what is the basis for your opinion that you are correct in calling that?

MR. SIMS: Well, the call that was made at the time that this strip was developed included the findings of the 1 dot, the 4 dot, the 1.1, the 1.2, et cetera, the 1.3 and the all but, and the finding of these two dots, the weaker dots here being the 4 and the 1.3, was that they were of similar intensity to the c dot.

MR. HARMON: In an effort to unravel or determine the potential sources for all of the bloodstains that were tested on the console, on the Bronco console, did you continue to perform testing on items 303, 304 and 305, continue beyond what you've already described to this jury?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what--just generally what did you do?

MR. SIMS: What I ended up doing--may I sit down? What I ended up doing was noting that the overall quantity of DNA that was individually extracted from those three samples, 303, 304 and 305, appeared to be insufficient for an RFLP type analysis, so what I did was to individually look at the types from those samples and then I made a determination to combine those extracts, the extracted DNA from all those three samples, to get enough DNA so that I felt I could get an RFLP result by the collective--the bringing together of those three samples from the center--all from the center console.

MR. HARMON: We are going to talk about that in a little bit, but would you just describe the relative amounts of DNA that you detected in those individual samples, 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I can do that. I need one second to refer to my notes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: From 303, which is our item DNA 52, there was about 40 nanograms recovered in that original extract. From 304, which is our DNA 53, there was about 29 nanograms. And then in the original extract of 305, that was around 17 nanograms, approximately.

MR. HARMON: Now, why did you feel it was appropriate to combine those stains in order to pursue the RFLP--strike that. Why did you feel it was necessary to combine those three stains to--in order to try to perform RFLP testing to produce results from those stains?

MR. SIMS: Well, it was clear to me that we had a mixture of DNA in these--of DNA's from different individuals in these samples, and individually, for a typical individual stain we like to get about 50 nanograms to test in our--in our laboratory for an RFLP analysis. And I knew that given these weaker mixtures that it would be very difficult to get that kind of DNA to show up on one of these autorads that we have seen so many of without having enough quantity. So the only way I felt that I could get enough quantity to do that was to combine them. In other words, I could individually test them for these sensitive PCR tests, but to get enough from one of these RFLP results, I felt that I had to combine them.

MR. HARMON: Why did you feel it was scientifically appropriate to combine those three stains in order to perform RFLP testing?

MR. SIMS: Well, I looked at this in a very step-wise fashion in terms of looking, first of all, at the consistency of the PCR results and the different systems that we tested DQ-Alpha and D1S80. Also knowing that they were all collected from the center console, the Bronco, I felt that, you know, in my forensic opinion that that was the same general blood-stained area so that it would be reasonable and certainly feasible to combine them.

MR. HARMON: Do your--in your opinion do your RFLP results, which we will show to the jury in a few minutes on the mixtures that you have just described for us, do they corroborate your interpretation of item 31, the center console where you concluded that the possible sources would be Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what sense do they corroborate them?

MR. SIMS: Well, the finding of those--of the RFLP patterns that are consistent with those two individuals, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, tends to corroborate the results in item no. 31, which is also a center console bloodstain.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike with respect to item 31. He is talking about 303, 304 and 305. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Had you finished your answer?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And in your opinion do your RFLP results, which we will show to the jury in a couple of minutes, do they tend to undermine the reservation or criticism expressed by dr. Gerdes that you've described to the jury just a few moments ago?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike. It is not dr. Gerdes' testimony about 303, 304 and 305.

THE COURT: It is leading. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, in your opinion do your RFLP results from the mixtures that you've performed--that you have just briefly described to this jury, do they tend to undermine dr. Gerdes' opinion--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. What is the impact?

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what is the impact of your RFLP results on the combination of 303, 304 and 305 on dr. Gerdes' criticism about the 1.3 allele in item no. 31 from the center console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike with respect to item 31.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, I think the RFLP results do tend to undermine that because they do show consistency with what I originally called on item no. 31 and which Renee Montgomery also called on item no. 31, namely that those DQ-Alpha results were consistent with a mixture of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. In addition, Mr. Sims, do your RFLP results from the combined stains on the center console also corroborate the PCR results that you've briefly summarized from those same stains on the center console?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what way?

MR. SIMS: Well again, the finding on the RFLP results is that it is consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. You will recall that on the PCR results we saw a little bit of this 18 allele. This was the weak allele on the D1S80 results on those gels. I believe what we are seeing is that that weak type that is detectable by the very sensitive PCR methodology is not detected by the less sensitive RFLP approach.

MR. HARMON: And what do you say about the remaining types that are consistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman from the PCR? Is that what you see in the RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do the combined stains from 303, 304 and 305, the RFLP results, tend to address any concerns about PCR's exquisite sensitivity?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe they do, because we've heard extensive--you've heard extensive testimony about the sensitivity issues with PCR. The RFLP is not as vulnerable to those concerns as the PCR is.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do the mixture results from stains 303, 304 and 305, the RFLP results, tend to address concerns about potential cross-contamination among samples?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike. Vague, overbroad--overbroad question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe they do, because to get an RFLP result you need a substantial amount of DNA from a blood sample, particularly when you are comparing that to how sensitive the PCR test is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, at this time I would like to have marked as People's next in order a set of four autorads in a plastic cover. What would that number be, your Honor?

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, People's next in order?

THE CLERK: 616.

THE COURT: 616.

MR. HARMON: 616.

THE COURT: Do you want to mark them 616, A, B, C, and D?

MR. HARMON: Yes. And I will describe that so we can correlate them in order. I will describe the order that we will be showing them. As 616-a, the autorad is labeled D10S28. As 616-b, it is autorad d4. And as 616-c it is d4. And 616-d it is d2, your Honor.

(Peo's 616-a thru 616-d for id = autorads)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I would like to show you a set of four autorads, 616-a through D, and would you tell us if those represent the four autorads that were produced as a result of your combination of those three stains, 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they do.

MR. HARMON: And we have actually put labels on them that you didn't put on there to show the names and identify the stains; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to show them to the jury and have Mr. Sims use the telestrator. I would like to show 616-a, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Can we clear these artifacts. Mr. Harmon, we appear to have artifacts on the telestrator. There we go. Thank you, Miss Martinez.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, can you help get the jury reoriented on autorad reading 1 here and describe what they are seeing so they can understand the results.

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is--this is now an autorad from a gel which contains the combined 303, 304 and 305 from the console and that is labeled "Console" in that particular lane. And you will recall these samples run downwards from the top to the bottom in the vertical column. Then we have a reference sample from Mr. Goldman, we have a reference sample from Mr. Simpson and then a reference sample from Nicole Brown to the right side there.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And so the lane that is labeled "Console," that represents the combination of 303, 304 and 305; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then the reference samples is Mr. Goldman, Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Could you describe your results and what your conclusions are, without addressing any statistics?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The finding of that pattern in the console is--in the console lane is consistent with a mixture of the banding pattern of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and also the contribution from Mr. Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Could you--is there any way that you can show which bands match which by using different colors for the different reference samples?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you do that.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.) I will mark the lanes in the console in, I guess that is sort of a lavender or pink color, that are consistent with the Defendant's bands, and I will also mark those lanes--I'm sorry, I will mark those bands in the Defendant's, Mr. Simpson's lane.

MR. HARMON: And then what about--there seems to be on the reference sample of Mr. Goldman for this probe, it looks like he has just got one band; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This was scored as what we call a single-band pattern down in this area. It is possible that he has two very close bands in this area, but they tend to run together in all the samples that we saw in this case every time we ran the sample. It is a single-band pattern, so instead of having two bands, he just has one that is scored, and I will mark in green his position in his reference lane, and now I will mark that band also in the console lane. The other--the other thing that is significant to me in this particular mix is that--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. That is not responsive to a question.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything else that is significant to you in this particular mix?

MR. SIMS: The other thing I wanted to mention, and we will see this as we go through the total picture of these different autorads, is that the bands that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's sample are consistent with the stronger bands in the console lane, whereas the bands that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's sample, his reference sample, are consistent with the weaker bands in the console lane.

MR. HARMON: And that is true with each of the four autorads that we will be showing to the jury?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And does that somehow relate to the amounts of DNA in those, in your opinion?

MR. SIMS: It relates to the relative contributions from each individual.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, are you going to print this out?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. 616-a(1).

THE COURT: A(1).

(Peo's 616-a(1) for id = printout)

MR. HARMON: As soon as we are ready can we put up 616-b.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, we are looking at 616-b now. You have already given the jury the orientation on that. What do these results reflect, in your opinion?

MR. SIMS: This is the--this is an autorad developed from the locus D4S139. Perhaps we can brighten that up a little bit. That is pretty good.

MR. HARMON: Is this the best way to look at autorads, projecting them up on the screen?

MR. SIMS: That is not how we do it in the laboratory.

MR. HARMON: You look at it on a light box?

MR. SIMS: Yes. We study them under a light box, over a light box.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Why don't you describe what you observed and what conclusions you drew from 616-b?

MR. SIMS: Yes. From 616-b, again this is the locus D4S139. Again the console lane has in this case now four bands. This is consistent with a mixture of the Defendant's sample and Mr. Goldman's sample, and I will mark the bands again, as I did previously in the console. Console lane I'm marking in the pink or lavender, the bands that are consistent with Mr. Simpson's bands, and now I will mark them in his reference lane, and now I will mark in green the bands that are in the console lane that are consistent with Mr. Goldman's bands.

MR. HARMON: In this instance Mr. Goldman's reference type and the corresponding evidence stain have two bands; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. He has a two-banded pattern, which is the typical pattern in an RFLP is a two-banded, but sometimes you will see one, for example. And now I will mark in green the bands of Mr. Goldman in his reference lane.

MR. HARMON: And I neglected to ask you this with regard to 616-a, but Miss Brown is excluded as a source of any of the typing results on the console combination; is that true?

MR. SIMS: I didn't detect her band pattern in these autorads.

MR. HARMON: And the pattern you detected was inconsistent with her?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. May that be marked as 616-b(1), your Honor?

THE COURT: So marked.

(Peo's 616-b(1) for id = printout)

MR. HARMON: Can we put up 616-c.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you describe what is of significance in 616-c, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Again, this is the same gel but now this is the locust d5s110. Again, we see a pattern in the console lane that is consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson. Again the bands that are the strongest in that console lane correspond to Mr. Simpson's bands. The weaker--the two weaker bands correspond to Mr. Goldman's bands.

MR. HARMON: Could you mark them with the corresponding arrows and colors that correspond to 616-a(1) and b(1).

MR. SIMS: Yes. I will use the lavender arrow to indicate the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with the bands seen in the Defendant, Mr. Simpson's, reference lane. And now I will mark those corresponding bands in Mr. Simpson's reference lane. And now switching to the green arrows, I will mark the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with the bands in Mr. Goldman's reference sample, and now I will mark in green the corresponding bands in Mr. Goldman's reference lane.

MR. HARMON: May we capture that as 616-c(1), your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 616-c(1) for id = printout)

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

MR. HARMON: Okay. We are looking at 616-d now, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you describe to the jury what you see on there and what conclusions you drew from the results.

MR. SIMS: Yes. Thinks now the locus d2s44. This is the final autorad I will show you today. This is a more difficult call on this particular lane with regard to the console, because you can see that Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson have fairly close bands as far as their upper bands are concerned, and I will talk about that as I look at the--as I explain to you the console pattern. But I think you can--you can see--I will point with the lavender arrow at the bands in the console lane that are in agreement with Mr. Simpson's bands, and now I will mark those corresponding bands in the lavender color in his reference lane. And now with the green arrow I will first mark--I will go backwards a little bit here. I will first mark the bands in Mr. Goldman's reference lane here and here, (Indicating). And now we will talk about the console lane, because there is--this is a little more difficult to--to see. There is a band in this position, this lowest position in the console lane where I'm pointing now with the green arrow, (Indicating), that is in agreement with Mr. Goldman's lowest band. Now, the difficulty arises when looking at this particular area right above the band that corresponds with Mr. Simpson's band.

MR. HARMON: The upper band?

MR. SIMS: The upper band. This autorad was reviewed by myself and then independently by a second reader. We felt that there was an indication of a band here, but we could not score that as a clear band. In other words, it is not clear and distinct enough that we could make a determination that that is a band sitting on top of that one band. It is too close to call and it is just not clear enough, so we did not score that as a band.

MR. HARMON: It is too close to what?

MR. SIMS: It is too close to the band that corresponds to Mr. Simpson's band in his reference sample.

MR. HARMON: And if what you see there really is a band, does that correspond to Mr. Goldman's other upper band?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it would.

MR. HARMON: Could you point to the area what you believe you saw some activity.

MR. SIMS: Yes. I will point to it with the--perhaps I should use another color.

MR. HARMON: That is okay. We have described it as upper so--

MR. SIMS: Okay. I will point to it and mark it with a green arrow.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can we capture this as 616-d(1), your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 616-d(1) for id = printout)

MR. HARMON: Actually, there is a fifth probe going on as we speak?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There is another film that if I get back today I will look at it this afternoon.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, why don't you go up and have a seat. I just have a couple more questions here.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, is there any question in your mind that the RFLP results that you've described to this jury represent a mixture from more than one source?

MR. SIMS: No. There is clearly a mixture of DNA's in those samples.

MR. HARMON: And you've already described to the jury the significance of the relative intensity differences in the bands and you can see what they are, especially on 616-d; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What significance is there to the fact that you never observe more than four bands in the combined stain from the console?

MR. SIMS: That would indicate that we are seeing most likely DNA from just two individuals; not more than two individuals.

MR. HARMON: And just to make sure there is no confusion, because of the relative sensitivity of PCR with respect to RFLP, these RFLP results in no way undermine or contradict the PCR picture results you have previously provided to the jury; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sims.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: It is 25 after. Do you want me to start for five minutes or do you want to take a break? It is up to you.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I neglected. We have a patch. I just wanted to complete his testimony.

MR. SCHECK: I will put it up.

THE COURT: Well, why don't you ask.

MR. HARMON: Can we do that on the record?

THE COURT: Why don't you do it on the record. Go ahead. Mr. Harmon, let's--all right.

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

MR. HARMON: Okay. May the record reflect on the Bronco result board I'm placing vertically, to overlap the RFLP column on 303, 304 and 305, a label that says "Console mix four probes."

THE COURT: Okay. So noted. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you and we will see you back here in about fifteen minutes.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Harmon has completed his direct examination. And Mr. Scheck, you may commence your cross-examination.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, good to see you.

MR. SIMS: Good to see you.

MR. SCHECK: Let's see if we can--

THE COURT: All right. Are you going to put up again People's 172?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Got it?

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, could you join me for a minute, and if we could look, just to clarify some of the facts here, at People's 172 and also the results board, People's 260, to understand precisely what you have done here. Now, first of all, items 30 and 31 are depicted in the upper right-hand corner; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Of the People's 172. And those represent swatches that were made on June 14th?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is my understanding, but those two stains were collected about June 14th.

MR. SCHECK: On June 14th by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

MR. SIMS: I'm not sure who collected them, but the date sounds right to me.

MR. SCHECK: And each picture on this board, 29, that is the steering wheel you told us about, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. That is the one with the 1.1, 1.2 and 4, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And number--the next picture over, 33, another picture of the steering wheel, 29, 33 again, 22, 23, 34, the picture showing 25, 26, 27, all those pictures were of collections made on June 14th, 1994? That is your understanding, correct?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And 293 is a carpet that was pulled out of the Bronco on June 14th, correct?

MR. SIMS: That is my understanding, the carpet was pulled out on that date.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, samples 303, 304 and 305, those are the samples that you combined to do your new RFLP test, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. 303, 304 and 305.

MR. SCHECK: And they are depicted at the bottom right-hand corner here from the console?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And those stains were collected on August 26th, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. My understanding it is about that date.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, the results you got on the Bronco samples that were collected on June 14th are shown in the result board here that is 30 and 31, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe those are the ones, although 34 I think and 29 were also--

MR. SCHECK: I'm talking about the console?

MR. SIMS: Console, 30 and 31.

MR. SCHECK: That is my question.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right, the console?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, 30 is depicted in the upper right-hand corner from that swatch collected on June 14th, you got a 1.1, 1.2, 24, 25, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is a DNA typing that is consistent just with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And from that typing there is--you can exclude Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes. None of their DNA shows up in that sample.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, the result from 303, the sample taken on August 26th, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Which is that one on the DQ-Alpha and D1S80, you got results that were consistent with Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And in theory it is your understanding that 30 and 303 were taken from the same area?

MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding that 303 and 30 were supposed to be bloodstains in the same area?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is vague, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I remember we went through all this in May and I think we got down to the issue of what is--what are we talking about when we are saying it is exactly the same area?

MR. SCHECK: I didn't say exactly the same. Same general area?

MR. SIMS: Same general area, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Right. That is what the reports you got indicated?

MR. SIMS: Same general area, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Now, 31, okay, that is the second stain from the console from June 14th, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is the one that you say has a DNA--a DQ-Alpha profile that is consistent with Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--your Honor, I'm--for the sake of--I don't know if it can be seen, so I will try to put it in the middle.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Sims, 31--

THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Scheck, you just put up Defense exhibit--

MR. SCHECK: 1309.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: 31 is the item--30 and 31 are depicted here in Defense 1309; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes, the DQ-Alpha strips.

MR. SCHECK: And in the upper left-hand corner we see all the strips that were run that day?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you recall we discussed this, you and I on cross-examination?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And my--you would agree when I asked you those questions on cross-examination the issues probably weren't so clear the way I did it that way with dots?

MR. SIMS: I thought it was clear.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, you thought it was clear? I apologize. But when dr. Gerdes testified he made points that were similar to precisely the points I made--was making with you when we visited this issue on cross-examination?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is vague, no foundation.

THE COURT: It is argumentative. Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Argumentative.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you stated on direct examination one of the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to this 1.3 dot, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, wasn't one of the points that dr. Gerdes made is that there was also evidence of the 1.3 dot appearing on the quality sample 86 and the positive control on the same run?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, he mentioned that in his testimony.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And he took the position that scientifically when your controls are showing 1.3's, that shouldn't be there, it is improper to call a 1.3 that is also faint within a mixture? You remember he made that point?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And your protocol, as we discussed when I cross-examined you, does say that if the quality control and the positive control fail or show unexpected results, that the procedure is to do it again?

MR. SIMS: That's what we would say, yes. In other words, if they show--I think the key word is whether or not they fail, but in my opinion, they didn't fail.

MR. SCHECK: I understand that, but you did not do this again?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: However--and this is--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, just be careful because this easel--

MR. SCHECK: I understand. I think I've got it.

THE COURT: --has got a limited capacity.

MR. SCHECK: 1310.

THE COURT: 1310. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: However, on item 52 on board 1310 there was a--what you in your terminology called a 1.3 trace, correct?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is beyond the scope, your Honor. These are different samples.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, it was called a c minus/trace.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And there is also on one of the quality assurance samples in this run what you called a trace of a 1.3?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe that is right, but I would like to quickly check the note sheet for that day.

MR. SCHECK: Well, would you accept my representation that this came from the note sheet? Is that your--

MR. SIMS: That is my recollection.

MR. SCHECK: And that on the positive control it was a hint/trace?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, there was more of a dot showing on this particular positive control than the previous one you showed me.

MR. SCHECK: And that you decided, based on this data, to do it again?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And the 1.3 here, item 52 is a Bundy blood drop?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. SCHECK: And if that 1.3 were a real allele, then that would indicate that there was perhaps more than one contributor to the stain you had?

MR. HARMON: Objection, 52 is beyond the scope of direct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. But let's--

MR. SCHECK: Yes, we are moving through it.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did it again?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And in your notes, even though it is not really visible on this strip, it was recorded very faint trace?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that is correct, but I rehybed it.

MR. SCHECK: And the rehybe indicates that the film was developed for 22 minutes?

MR. SIMS: I believe that's correct, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And your protocol is to develop them between 20 and 30 minutes?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And would you agree that the amount of time that you develop them may relate to the intensity of the 1.3 dot?

MR. SIMS: Well, beyond--beyond about twenty minutes it was really very little difference in those. It is mainly what happens in the first twenty minutes that is the issue.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you didn't indicate on the sheets how long the original run of item 52 was developed?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. I consulted with Renee Montgomery later on that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, dr.--to finish this up, you recall that dr. Gerdes criticized your results by saying that it was inconsistent to call this 1.3 not real and without further testing to call the 1.3 on sample 31 real?

MR. SIMS: I believe that was his testimony, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So those are some of the concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to a full rendition of his concerns with respect to sample 31. Fair statement?

MR. SIMS: I think that covers about everything.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And just so we are all clear, with respect to the console of the Bronco and the samples that were collected on June 14th, the only evidence of DNA testing that you had with respect to the console is that 1.3, 4 finding that you and dr. Gerdes disagree about on item 31?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, with respect to the results on 303, 304 and 305, you recall that dr. Gerdes expressed the view that the integrity of the evidence had been compromised by the way in which the Bronco was handled between June 14th and August 26th. Do you recall that?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that misstates the testimony. That is argumentative. That is not what he said. It is beyond the scope of the direct examination.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I believe I saw that in his testimony, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So you recall that with respect to his opinions about 303, 304 and 305, that was a concern of his?

MR. SIMS: I believe that was a concern, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And do you have some familiarity with the way the Bronco was handled between June 14th and August 26th.

MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Hearsay.

THE COURT: You can ask him if he took that into consideration.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, from what you know about the way the chain of custody for the Bronco was handled, between June 14th and August 26th, do you think it was handled appropriately, in your forensic opinion?

MR. SIMS: Well, I don't--I don't know the whole history of how that Bronco was maintained. I don't know the whole history of that. I've heard that there were some--

MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is an expert opinion, counsel.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry.

MR. SCHECK: Please continue.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I've heard that the Defense has raised some issues with regard to that. I don't know the truth of the matter on all these issues, though.

MR. HARMON: Object. That is nonresponsive, move to strike. There is no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, you heard dr. Gerdes testify about it?

MR. SIMS: I heard him express concerns. I don't know what his basis for those concerns were, other than the general term "Chain of evidence."

MR. SCHECK: Well, you have no knowledge with respect to whether or not this Bronco was secured for further biological analysis between August 26th and June 14th in a way that would preserve the integrity of the evidence? You have no knowledge of that?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I know what I see in the newspaper and I know, for example, that I think two weeks ago I called a witness that addressed some of those issues, but that is what my knowledge is.

MR. SCHECK: And you have not familiarized yourself then at all with what the history was of how the Bronco was kept? Is that what you are telling us?

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Have you--let me try it this way: Mr. Sims, in your forensic opinion, based on your experience--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, is it necessary for him to be down there at this point? Simply because the--we ought to use the microphones when we--

MR. SCHECK: All right. I think it would save time if we keep the boards up.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, to try to cut to the heart of it quickly, let me--let me ask you to assume that between June 14th and August 26th the Bronco automobile was not--was put into a tow yard, that no records were kept as to who entered or left it between June 14th and August 26th, that unauthorized personnel were in and out of that Bronco automobile, that is non-police personnel, they were in the seats, they were looking around the car. Would you consider that an appropriate way to preserve the integrity of biological evidence?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I don't think that should be allowed. I don't think one should be allowed to come in and out of a car. I think that should be done by authorized people.

MR. SCHECK: And that records should be kept as to who has access and doesn't have access to the vehicle if you were going to preserve blood evidence for future biological testing?

MR. SIMS: Well, when you put it in the context of records should be kept, I don't know. I mean, for example, there may be, you know, other tow yards that I have been involved with in forensic cases where perhaps just one person has the keys, so there is no record kept of all those things, but that should be controlled. Access should be controlled.

MR. SCHECK: So your answer is yes?

MR. SIMS: Well, with what I added to that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now--so basically you have no basis for disagreeing with dr. Gerdes' judgment that the integrity of those samples, 303, 304 and 305, was compromised by the chain of custody procedures used in this case?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is vague as to what type of integrity, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You heard his testimony that he believed as a scientist that the chain of custody for those samples compromised the integrity of future analysis? You recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I heard some of that.

MR. SCHECK: And you are saying to us that you are really not familiar with the details of how--of the chain of custody of the Bronco?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. I'm not familiar with those details.

MR. SCHECK: And you have not endeavored to become more familiar with the exact detail of how it was kept and who was in and out of the car?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And therefore you wouldn't want to render an opinion on it because you don't have enough information?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is vague as to opinion about what.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, I think I did offer the opinion of what should be done with that kind of evidence as far as securing it, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So your general opinion is that wasn't handled properly, but you don't know the specific detail of how bad it was.

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. SCHECK: I will move on.

MR. SCHECK: Now, just so we are clear, what you have done since we last visited is that you combined the samples that were found on August 26th, 303, 304 and 305, and you put them together; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I've put them together.

MR. SCHECK: Now, altogether, when you did the quantitations on all these stains combined, you came up with 72 nanograms of high-molecular weight DNA?

MR. SIMS: Well, there was actually more than that, I believe, after, but some other tests were run in between, but it is about 72 nanograms.

MR. SCHECK: About 72 nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And looking at the results, you believe this to be a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the predominant contribution in the mixture is DNA that you say is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is something on the order of 3 to 1?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I--I would say it is somewhere 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1, but that is the right ballpark.

MR. SCHECK: And therefore the amount of DNA on the RFLP tests that is consistent with the profile of Mr. Goldman would be something on the order of 20 nanograms of DNA?

MR. SIMS: Somewhere in that area, yes. That is--that is a reasonable approximation.

MR. SCHECK: And that is why you had to put these probes, keep those probes cooking, so to speak, for fifteen or sixteen days, to try to draw up the amount of DNA because there was comparatively a small amount there?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Technically what is going on is that there is a low amount of DNA on that membrane, that southern blot that we made, which means that there is a low amount of radioactive probe that is binding, and so you have to let the film that is--that is developing, you have to let that film go for a longer period of time. Usually we do these in a couple days, but for this type of sample you have to let it go a week or longer to get those weak bands to show up.

MR. SCHECK: So 20 nanograms of DNA, that is really at the low end of your ability to detect, isn't it?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is getting of the low end of the ability to detect.

MR. SCHECK: Small amount?

MR. SIMS: Small amount.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if we were to look at--to give us some perspective, one drop of blood contains about 1000 nanograms of high-molecular weight DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes, about a thousand nanograms or one microgram, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And in fact you have seen estimates in the NRC report and other places that some people put it at between one and 2000?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is in that area.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if you, based on your quantitations, were to combine the amount of DNA that you got as a whole in 305, 304, 303, the August 26th collections, and for just the purpose of this hypothetical, let's also include the amount of DNA that came out of the swatches from 30 and 31--are you with me?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --would you not agree that combining all of those together, all that from the console together, the amount of DNA would not exceed a hundred nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Well, it might slightly exceed that, but it is around that ballpark.

MR. SCHECK: Around a hundred nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Around a hundred nanograms.

MR. SCHECK: So that is one/tenth of one drop of blood?

MR. SIMS: Well, you have to remember that with a drop of blood, for example, if you are testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So what you are basically saying to us is that maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood, you won't get a thousand nanograms, you will get 750?

MR. SIMS: Something like that.

MR. SCHECK: Is that what you just said in English?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what I just said.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And if we were to--I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and there is 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly? That would be, what, about a seventh?

MR. SIMS: Something like that. Something like that.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So certainly, just reasoning from the DNA alone, the amount of blood, just looking at the DNA in the console, as you said, is in the area of a hundred nanograms of DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Objection. That assumes it was all collected.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Object to the--

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. SIMS: May I answer?

MR. SCHECK: You actually overruled that speaking objection.

MR. HARMON: Calls for speculation. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: I overruled the objection. Ask your question.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, overruled the objection?

MR. SIMS: Can I finish my answer to that?

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MR. SCHECK: I thought you did.

THE COURT: I meant--sustained is what I meant.

MR. SCHECK: That is what I thought you did.

THE COURT: Here is the problem. The moment I start to think about something else--proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you also were asked some questions on--withdrawn. I will start this way: Now, you don't know anything about the order in which blood was deposited on that console?

MR. SIMS: No, I don't know the order in which the blood was deposited.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of dr. Baden in this case that Mr. Simpson told him that he had cut himself on the evening of June 12th, I believe, and that he had gone into the Bronco searching for his cellular phone?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that calls for hearsay and no foundation.

MR. SCHECK: This was testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And with a small cut on the side of his finger and had blood within the Bronco? Are you familiar with that testimony.

MR. HARMON: Same objection, calls for hearsay and no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Misstates the testimony as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I really wasn't interested in doctor, is it Baden how you say it, in his testimony. I don't recall that. I don't recall his testimony on that issue.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Just look at it then from the point of view of forensic DNA expertise that you have, ask you to assume that there was an initial deposit of Mr. Simpson's blood on the Bronco from a small cut and I ask you further to assume that a--at a later point in time there was a second deposit, all right? Do you have that hypothetical?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: And if one assumes, for the sake of argument and for the sake of this hypothetical, that the bloodstains of 303, 304, 305, all right, were all present also on June 14th, all right, asking you to assume both of these--there is no question, just for the purpose of this hypothetical--that everything that was on--on August 26th, all right, that was found there, was also present on June 14th, just for the purpose of this hypothetical. Are you with me?

MR. SIMS: Okay. On June 14th versus August 26th. Okay. Those are the two collection times.

MR. SCHECK: Right. But if we assume that on August 26th the finding--the stains there 303, 304, 305, were also present on June 14th, but somehow they were missed, okay--

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: --your conclusions with respect to mixtures are not inconsistent with two deposits at two separate times?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is an improper hypothetical. Misstates the testimony. There is no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Okay. I understand the hypothetical, but now give me the last phrase, please, the question.

MR. SCHECK: In other words, your findings here of mixtures are not inconsistent with a contribution of Mr. Simpson's blood at one point in time and then a subsequent contribution of blood from Mr. Goldman at a subsequent point in time?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And in fact, based on all the testing that you did, most of the blood, if we--withdrawn. Most of the DNA that you extracted from that console is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: In the sample that we look at he would be consistent with the main contributor of that DNA mix.

MR. SCHECK: Something--when you combine 303, 304 and 305, something on the order of 3 to 1?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is--again, that is a reasonable figure, something like 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1.

MR. SCHECK: Now, finally, there--you have continued testing--are you still continuing testing in this case?

MR. SIMS: Well, as I mentioned, there is another autorad that we would--I would like to look at this afternoon, another probe or another one of these autorads that we are developing.

MR. SCHECK: Have you tested item 1, the speck on the door that was first observed by Detective Fuhrman?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have DNA samples from the handrail? Have you tested that?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me for one second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, can we approach the bench for just one minute?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: On a scope problem. I don't want to ask the question and--

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

MR. SCHECK: Take just a second.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

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

MR. SCHECK: My application is that in order to expedite matters, and in view of the fact that there is some issue about Mr. De forest and the whole question of exculpatory evidence, what I would like to do now is make Mr. Sims my own witness and ask him about his July 17th examination of the sock wherein he found a wet transfer on surface 3 of the second sock that was in the area that he typed of consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. I realize that this would make him our witness at this point in time, but it saves us calling him back for a surrebuttal case.

MR. HARMON: Can I respond to that? Umm, they haven't even rested their case yet. He is going to be back with the fifth probe result, because it is going to drag on for weeks and weeks. That is just not appropriate at this time. We will be happy to make him available. We called him for a very limited reason. We really are trying to get this case to the jury and that is just going to reopen--they have never--well, what about the three-day rule? He has never mentioned that he was going to do that. If he wants him call him as his witness, give us three days' notice and we will have him back. Maybe he will have rested by then or maybe he will be the last witness in their case in chief. Well, I don't want to tell you what this is.

MR. SCHECK: Frankly, the fact that we haven't rested only adds to the appropriateness of doing it now and the fact that we have this whole problem of something--a subsequent test performed by him and dr. De forest on July 17th that we believe is exculpatory evidence. And all I'm seeking permission to do is to get it on now and save us some time.

MR. HARMON: The same amount of time now or later, your Honor. You know, we do have a three-day rule; although I never saw them held to it in their case. So I insist he will be available. I will make him available. I will any back and forth with him. But they want to obscure these powerful results and that is all this is.

THE COURT: All right. The People's objection is sustained.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Harmon asked you some questions on direct examination about these RFLP results allaying concerns that dr. Gerdes expressed with respect to cross contamination. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: He asked you that question very generally, didn't he?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, these RFLP results only deal with samples 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: These RFLP results do not address any issues of cross-contamination with respect to the Bundy blood drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, these results relate to these samples.

MR. SCHECK: All right. They don't relate to any problems of cross-contamination that occurred in the evidence processing room on June 14th when Collin Yamauchi examined the Rockingham glove?

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

THE COURT: Overruled. You can generalize this.

MR. SCHECK: I only have two or three more questions, just to show what it doesn't concern.

MR. HARMON: It also misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: The question again, please?

MR. SCHECK: The question is these RFLP results don't do anything--don't address the issues of cross-contamination that have been raised by dr. Gerdes concerning Collin Yamauchi's handling of the Rockingham glove in the evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th, right?

MR. SIMS: I'm trying to recall what issues dr. Gerdes specifically raised about those, because I don't recall seeing any issue with those particular samples.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you don't recall his testimony about that? Is that what you are telling us?

MR. SIMS: I don't recall the detail of his testimony about those particular samples.

MR. SCHECK: You don't recall his testimony about Mr. Yamauchi--

THE COURT: Counsel, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: You don't recall it? Is that your testimony?

MR. SIMS: I said I don't recall all the details. When you start talking about issues, you are putting a plural on it and you are implying there is some--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, even if you don't recall all the details of what dr. Gerdes said, you don't believe that these RFLP results on 303, 304 and 305 have anything to do with it?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. SCHECK: Do you believe they have anything to do with it?

MR. SIMS: Well--

MR. SCHECK: Do they address those concerns about cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: I think in the narrow sense of your question, no, the answer is no, they don't address that.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Now, dr. Gerdes gave extensive testimony concerning a study he performed of contamination at the LAPD laboratory and the efficacy of controls in sample handling procedures used at the LAPD laboratory. Are you familiar with the fact that he testified about such a study?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Beyond the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: My question last on this question.

MR. SIMS: Yes, I am aware that he presented that.

MR. SCHECK: You didn't review that, read that study or review his data, did you?

MR. SIMS: No, I did not.

MR. SCHECK: Now--your Honor, I actually think I'm finished.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have no further questions, but I would request, based on what we've discussed, that this witness be subject to recall on another matter.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims--we know where Mr. Sims is. He knows how to get to L.A. all right. Mr. Harmon, do you have any redirect examination for Mr. Sims?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Just taking up with that last point, dr. Gerdes' study about LAPD, do you recall that dr. Gerdes was unable to recount the history from the sample collection of 303, 304 and 305 when Mr. Clarke asked him to recite that to the jury?

MR. SCHECK: We object insofar as he said he doesn't remember his testimony completely.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I did read that part of the testimony. I did review that particular part of the testimony regarding who collected the samples on--with regards to 303, 304 and 305.

MR. HARMON: And based on reviewing his testimony, do you recall that dr. Gerdes made no specific technical criticisms of your PCR results on 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes. My recollection in his transcript was that there was no specific criticism of those PCR results.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, Mr. Sims, your crime scene collection days have long past; is that right?

MR. SIMS: I haven't been to a crime scene or a vehicle, that sort of thing, in about five years now, over five years.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Scheck asked you about the appropriate way to preserve evidence and keep logs of who has access to evidence. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now--and you said that is not the appropriate way to do it?

MR. SIMS: Well, I just said that access should be controlled. I think that was the gist of my response.

MR. HARMON: Now, the failure to keep a log of who went in and out of a car, if anyone went in and out of the car, that is not going to change the types of the RFLP results that you presented to this jury that are consistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, is it?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Beyond the scope, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: And allowing people to go into the car to look around, unauthorized people, if that actually happened, that alone is not going to necessarily change the PCR or RFLP results from 303, 304 and 305, is it?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What you have presented to this jury is the results of your testing--DNA testing from various samples that are provided to you; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is it unusual for you not to know the history of a sample in a case?

MR. SIMS: No, it is not unusual to not know the complete history of a sample in a case.

MR. HARMON: In fact, given the way these violent crimes often occur, some history of the sample is frequently lacking when you do your testing; isn't that correct?

MR. SIMS: Well, yes, that is true.

MR. HARMON: Let's just--I will give you a hypothetical and just to sort of illustrate, let's assume we have a female brutally murdered, signs of sexual assault.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, call for speculation, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Signs of sexual assault, evidence is vaginal swabs, apparent seminal stains on clothing are all collected and sent to you with reference samples. Are you with me so far?

MR. SCHECK: Renew the objection on relevancy grounds.

THE COURT: Overruled. I haven't heard the question yet.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That is not an unusual case presented to you in the DOJ lab, evidence of that?

MR. SIMS: That would be typical or not unusual.

MR. HARMON: It is not unusual for you to perform tests on that sample; isn't that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And in cases like that you have frequently identified people as the source of sperm in apparent sexual assault/murder cases; isn't that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes. For example, we have used the DNA to say who could be the potential source of that particular semen testing.

MR. HARMON: Now, when you do that testing, based on the test results alone, you can't necessarily tell whether the sex act that produced the sperm occurred before the homicide, can you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You can't necessarily tell that the sex act that produced the sperm occurred during the homicide?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: We are about to become irrelevant.

MR. HARMON: About two more questions and it will be totally irrelevant, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: Totally irrelevant did he say?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: You can't tell that the sex act that produced the sperm occurred in any relationship to the violence that caused the homicide, can you?

MR. SIMS: That is correct.

MR. HARMON: And last question on this point. You--for example, you might identify--the sperm that you produce might be someone who had sex with a person who has been murdered where the sex act occurred after the homicide?

MR. SIMS: Possible.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Let's move on.

MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Scheck asked you a series of questions about people having access to the car and coming into--into the car, and I just asked you some questions about those things wouldn't necessarily change the type of the DNA that was there. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, in order for one person to have produced the RFLP results or the PCR results that you detected on that console, there would have to be something terribly wrong with that person, wouldn't there?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague--

THE COURT: Sustained. Vague.

MR. HARMON: Based on your DNA result, in order for one person to account for the DNA results from 303, 304, 305, both individually and in combination, there would have to be something terribly wrong with that person, wouldn't there?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Would there have to be something terribly wrong from one person if one person were to try to account for all of the results from 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. It would be some sort of genetic anomaly.

MR. HARMON: In what sense?

MR. SIMS: Well, because you see more what we call alleles or types than you would from a single individual.

MR. HARMON: Okay. For example, you've already described the significance of seeing four bands, two of higher intensity and two of lower intensity?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are you aware of anything in the literature where one person could have four bands where they are of different intensities?

MR. SIMS: Well--

MR. HARMON: From these probes?

MR. SIMS: The sort of thing where we might see that would be on, for example, somebody who is transfused or something unusual like that.

MR. HARMON: Well, to just add to the mystery a little bit, if in order for--you've paired those results. You've paired some of them that are consistent with Mr. Simpson by relative intensity and some that are weaker than Mr. Simpson and they are consistent with Mr. Goldman; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The intensity patterns, the band intensity patterns pair up between those two individuals.

MR. HARMON: In order for another person to account for depositing, let's say, the weaker set of bands, they would have to match Mr. Goldman's type, wouldn't they?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, the last point, or I think it is the last point, at least, Mr. Scheck asked you about the console mixture results that you've described to this jury, 303, 304 and 305, both PCR and RFLP, and you said they are not inconsistent with two deposits, the results alone. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: The RFLP results are consistent with two depositors?

MR. HARMON: I didn't speak clearly enough. Are they--I think you told him they are consistent with two separate deposits, having come at two different times?

MR. SIMS: Oh, as far as the order of deposition?

MR. HARMON: Or whether they were simultaneous or at different times?

MR. SIMS: I say I could not rule out that possibility, yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, is there something about the amounts of DNA in those samples that tells you it is highly improbable that that occurred?

MR. SIMS: Well, it is hard to say too much just based on the amounts of DNA in those particular samples. I have no reason to suspect that they are from different times, but there is nothing clear to me one way or the other.

MR. HARMON: Would you say that the amounts that would be represented from, say, Nicole Brown, who is not detected in the RFLP testing, what can you tell us about that?

MR. SIMS: Well, when you--when you--when you enter the point now where you are talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean, forensically that seems very significant to me. I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location. That to me is the significance.

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

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, Mr. Scheck never asked you about 293. You are aware of the history of 293?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. I apologize.

THE COURT: Asked about 293.

MR. SCHECK: Oh.

MR. SIMS: Yes, he asked me about that and I discussed a little bit about how the carpet was cut out and later sampled.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That was done at the earlier date rather than the later date? Is that your recollection?

MR. SIMS: My understanding was that the carpet was cut out at the earlier date.

MR. HARMON: And the types that you found on the carpet are consistent with--

MR. SCHECK: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Are the types that you found on the carpet consistent with what you detect as the possible presence of Nicole Brown on 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Are they consistent? Yes. In other words, her type was found on that sample consistent also with what was seen in the Bronco console.

MR. HARMON: And finally I'm going to ask you a question about 31 and 30 and 303 and 304 and 305. Have you had a chance to look at those results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are those results consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself during the brutal murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, returning to his car, that Bronco, with a right-handed glove that bore their blood commingled with his blood from his injured left hand, and somehow that item having come in contact with the console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. HARMON: I'm going to ask you a question. The question is are your results consistent with the following scenario? You know what Mr.--

MR. SCHECK: No foundation.

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

MR. HARMON: You are familiar with testimony that Mr. Simpson had a cut on his left hand?

MR. SIMS: Well, I mentioned that I heard dr. Baden specifically talk about that. I am aware from other issues in this case about the cut on the hand.

MR. HARMON: On the left hand?

MR. SIMS: On the left hand, yes.

MR. HARMON: Do you know what his DQ-Alpha type is?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: You know what his RFLP type is from all the tests that we've done?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you are familiar with the fact that the victims in this case provided--their reference samples were provided to you for typing?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You are familiar with your typing results from the glove, no. 9?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: You are familiar with where all the stains were found on the console? And we've just had the photo board up there; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are the PCR and RFLP results that you produced, your lab produced from the console, are they consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself while brutally murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Are they consistent with Mr. Simpson having injured himself at or about the time someone brutally murdered Ronald Goldman?

MR. SCHECK: Objection and move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Ask for an instruction if he persists.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's go back to the same question about the console. Are all of your console DNA test results consistent with the glove, item no. 9, having Mr. Simpson's blood on it, that glove being in the Bronco, coming in--and having the victim's blood on it as well, and that glove coming into contact with the console and transferring portions of all three participant's blood onto the console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims--

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, you know what your--the glove results that your lab produced suggest a mixture consistent with Mr. Goldman, Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown; is that correct?

MR. SCHECK: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: I want you to assume hypothetically that that glove was brought into that console or into that Bronco and that glove transferred some of the blood from the glove--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation.

MR. HARMON: --onto the console.

MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: All right. We are going to take our recess for the morning session at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, and counsel, we will stand in recess until 1:00. Mr. Sims, you may step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. All right. We will stand in recess.

(At 11:49 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 1:10 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is present with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present. Counsel, when we adjourned, Mr. Sims was on the stand and Mr. Harmon was asking a hypothetical question regarding the glove results, no. 9 being consistent with 304, 303 and 305, and that's where we were.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would--I think that--I would object to any further questions along those lines in terms of--Mr. Harmon was asking a series of hypotheticals that plainly go far beyond what's permitted. They're talking about brutal murders and everything else and not tied to what was raised on the cross-examination, which all I brought out is that it's consistent with--that he can't tell what blood was deposited when. That's all I did. And I think this is way beyond the scope and I think it's reached the point now after all these different questions where we're way into argument. Hopefully, we'll argue this case soon, but I think that these hypothetical are improper.

THE COURT: Well, I--frankly, I thought that after he got this answer, well, when you enter the point now where you're talking about three different people's blood on a console in a vehicle, I mean forensically that seems very significant to me.

MR. HARMON: Well, you know, your Honor, I reconsidered that over the lunch hour--

THE COURT: I mean, it just seems unusual that you would have three different individuals bleeding or their blood present inside a vehicle in that kind of a location. I thought that was going to be the last question and answer.

MR. HARMON: It probably should have been. But I have two more and they have nothing to do with my hypothetical.

THE COURT: You're going to withdraw the hypothetical?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Bless you. All right. Let's have the jury.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. Before we call the jury back, I wanted to put on the report that I he was down here during the noon hour and did bring the materials or at least parts of the materials that we have for Defense to see, and they wanted to go out and have lunch. I am now leaving to do some other business that we will be prepared to--

THE COURT: Which materials did you bring down?

MR. GOLDBERG: I brought down the test impressions that were taken on August the 21st and I brought down certain of the raw materials that are going to be placed on boards, photographs, including photographs of the jeans, photographs of the Bundy walkway that were taken on June the 13th, plus those that were most recently taken, the black and white photographs of various abnormalities in the tiles and some other photographic materials that we would be used--that would be used to be placed and mounted on boards for purposes of evidence that would be presented presumably tomorrow morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, you have to--I thought that we had an understanding when Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke were present at the bench that I reiterated the request which I thought the court granted yesterday, that we would get an opportunity to look at the test impressions, blown-up photographs, the shirt and the jeans at one location. I raised this with Mr. Goldberg earlier. I brought it up with the court. I thought the court said that that could be arranged either in the courthouse or at the lab. I went back to Mr. Goldberg, I said--communicated what your Honor had said to us. I asked him to make that arrangements, began to do so, then Miss Clark turned to him and said, "Just show him the test impressions. That's it." And then I asked--I said, "Well, Miss Clark, it's not my understanding of what the Judge just indicated and what he previously ordered," and she said, "Just give him the test impressions. That's it, and, Mr. Scheck, I'm not talking to you. Don't even talk to me. I don't talk to you." That's the way this woman works and she's ordered him to do that. Now, he came down here at a quarter to 1:00. As we're running downstairs, he pulls out a big packet and he says, "Take a look at this one, take a look at this one, take a look at this one," and I say, we're going downstairs to eat lunch right now. We can't do it. Mr. Morton just arrived. The federal express package just came in. Now, you know, I've already made my arguments about an opportunity to look at it. We have to have an opportunity to look at the data that they're going to put on, and we're taking the afternoon off because their witness has just arrived. And it's a civilized scientific way to proceed. I've requested an opportunity to talk to the witnesses and just make this simple arrangement. Should take an hour or two to show us the data. I think that's what's required and it's civilized. And I just ask that that be done. And if Mr. Goldberg is going to run out the door and we won't be able to see him later in the day and make arrangements for this and we won't be able to get ahold of him in the office, I think that's wrong.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, my understanding of the court's order yesterday--and I think it was pretty clear--is that we were supposed to, over the noon recess, have the test impressions from the 13th and the 31st--excuse me--from the 21st and the 31st in court. We learned that the 21st impressions have been mailed to the court. So I don't know--

THE COURT: The impressions?

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. The 31st impressions from the jeans and the shirt have been mailed to the court. But I wanted to try to satisfy the court's order by being down here at--over the noon recess, and that's what I was trying to do. If counsel didn't have an opportunity to look at them at that time, whether it's legitimate or illegitimate, doesn't make any difference to me. We will try to accommodate them at some later point. The point is that, had they wanted to look at them over the noon recess, they could have done so, and I was trying to fulfill the court's order. No one recalls anything, other than Mr. Scheck, about the court having revisited this issue and now placed an additional requirement on the People that we are responsible for assembling the jeans, the shirt, the test impressions simultaneously at the same place at the same location. That's a logistical problem. It's difficult for us to do that the court did not require us to do because that would mean--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, here's our choice. Mr. Morton is here. Mr. Scheck is here. The stuff is--the impressions are here. It would take us an hour to take this evidence after the jury has been excused, put it in the jury room, let them look at it and then we can proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right.

THE COURT: That's the orderly way to do this.

MR. GOLDBERG: The only problem would be getting the jeans and the shirt here. We'd have to do that and that would be difficult.

THE COURT: But I suspect it's less than a mile away.

MR. GOLDBERG: It's at piper tech.

THE COURT: Less than a mile away.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right. But the point is, that needs to be checked out and I'm not sure the jury room is an appropriate environment to be looking at those jeans and I'm not sure that that would be acceptable to Mr. Morton as a forensic scientist.

THE COURT: Well, given the fact I want this done now, that's where it's going to be.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want to delay this trial anymore. Mr. Morton is here, the impressions are apparently here. I'm certain Mrs. Robertson could find somebody to call over at LAPD to get Detective Vannatter to check those items out and get them over here. Let's let them look at it. Maybe we can proceed with this testimony today.

MS. CLARK: We won't be able to, your Honor. They just arrived. I saw them. They have gone out to Bundy to re-examine the scene and look at the various defects in the tiles and they will, however, be ready first thing in the morning.

THE COURT: All right. So you're not ready to present this at this point in any event because your witnesses are in West L.A.?

MS. CLARK: Correct.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we've also communicated, and all I'm saying, we'd like an opportunity to discuss with the witnesses what it is, because just looking at the test impressions and the markings and the pictures, it's hard to link it up. If they could provide us with that opportunity since--

MR. GOLDBERG: I'll let Miss Clark do that. Evidently she's going to be putting on these witnesses, and our policy is, we always allow the witnesses to decide on their own. We do not make any suggestion one way or the other.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can I just also say, I don't think it's necessary for the record, in response to Mr. Scheck's contentions about Miss Clark's statements, she was simply communicating to me that her recollection of the court's orders were not the same as Mr. Scheck and that the court did not modify its previous order. For the record, you know, we've tried to get along with all the attorneys as amicably as we can. I think the Defense has done so as well. There appears to be a little bit of a--perhaps it's a cultural clash between the California and New York styles. I don't know what it is, but--

MR. SCHECK: He was right about meshugana.

MR. GOLDBERG: We have had a little bit of difficulty at times with Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld and it's simply easier for us to deal with many things on the record than to try to sort them out informally. We've had some trouble doing that.

THE COURT: Well, the court's interest is getting this testimony presented tomorrow.

MR. GOLDBERG: I understand. And that is our interest as well. I just wanted to say that we have had a little bit of difficulty and we're trying to smooth it out to the extent that we can.

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson--excuse me--would you contact either Detective Vannatter or Detective Lange and see if we can get those two items, the shirt, Mr. Goldman's shirt, Mr. Goldman's pants checked out and brought over here, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, your Honor. I'm from California and so I can understand this.

THE COURT: No. No. We're not discussing this anymore.

MR. COCHRAN: There was something else I wanted to bring out.

THE COURT: No.

MR. COCHRAN: He has to leave, so it has to do with one other thing so we don't have to delay the trial.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. COCHRAN: We need him here if we're going to talk about that video. We have some objections to the video. If he's not going to be here--it's his video, isn't it?

THE COURT: Miss Clark will handle that.

MR. COCHRAN: I just want to make sure he's available.

THE COURT: All right. Also, just so everything is clear, the court has received two packages from the FBI. Mr. Byrne, my research attorney, is cataloging those items, and then we'll make those available for inspection to counsel. Also, we've received from NBC what appears to be a package, sealed package of videotapes in response to our discussions yesterday. All right. Also--excuse me. As soon as Mrs. Robertson logs those in, we'll have the opportunity to display those to counsel, the videotapes from NBC. Also, while we were still in recess, Mr. Neufeld advised the court that he had advised the Prosecution that apparently there's some objection you're going to withdraw, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon. What we are prepared to do, your Honor, is withdraw the objection that the RFLP results for the combination 303, 304 and 305 stains need to be presented in conjunction with the statistics, and the failure to do so is the objection we are now withdrawing. It should be very clear though that we're not saying that that authorizes them to argue to the jury that the true numbers for the significance of that mixture are the solo contributor stains that exist elsewhere which have been typed consistent with either Mr. Goldman or Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: I don't think they would do that.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor. I think that's perfectly proper argument if the jury decides in the context of this case that those two stains did come from those two people and there's other information within this case that will allow them to do that. I think the court, upon reflection, will see that if they decide that and if that information is contained elsewhere, then that's a proper point to make for them and that's a proper conclusion for them to draw.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, two things. No. 1, we suggested doing this to save a great deal of time. They were going to have somebody coming from Great Britain. We were then going to have dr. Shields come in to respond to that issue. You know, it looks to me that from just the expressions on the jurors' faces now, I mean whoever has anymore witnesses gets these cold stares from the jury, and we're trying to avoid the continuation of that problem. All we're simply saying is, they would be precluded from arguing solo frequencies for the other mixtures and that's why the court made the initial ruling and that's why Bruce Weir came in here and offered different frequencies for mixtures than the frequencies that are given for solo stains. So that's been the--that's been the approach to mixtures throughout this entire proceeding. It would be a distortion of that reality should they be permitted to then argue something completely different for this mixture which they're not allowed to argue for any of the other mixtures. It just doesn't make any sense.

MR. HARMON: Just final response. You know, reality has no reason to be mentioned in any of these arguments. These are legal arguments designed to create a reality, okay. We are not conceding that there's any validity to limiting our argument because they're willing to shorten the trial. Whatever you feel is appropriate argument at that time, you'll have to decide that, your Honor. This is--we have not agreed to anything except if they withdraw their objection, we will not call a statistician. There's no quid pro quo for that, your Honor. That's their decision. We're happy they want to shorten the trial, but we have not agreed to any concession on any other point and I think the court will see in the context of the argument--

THE COURT: The problem I have though, counsel, is, the original proffer to this evidence, this RFLP, was not to offer any statistics, merely to say that it is consistent with the PCR test. That was the offer that I was given and that was the assumption that I was under when I allowed this evidence.

MR. HARMON: And nothing I've said I think contravenes that or--

THE COURT: I agree. So far.

MR. HARMON: --or undermines that. But my point is--I mean listen to the cross-examination. I was going to ask you to reconsider your ruling in light of the fact that they have conceded by their cross-examination that part of that RFLP pattern is Mr. Simpson's blood. Well, then who else--what other pattern is left there? And if there's information in this record that this jury can use to evaluate how frequently that fainter pattern, which when you subtract Mr. Simpson's out is Mr. Goldman's, then I think not only is it is permissible for them to do that, that Miss Clark can ask them to do that. She may not want to. My only point--because we're not arguing the case now--is to say, we're not conceding any issue in light of what--what, you know, that they don't want to see another statistician here. We're delighted about that as well.

THE COURT: All right. I understand that. But you should understand that the court's already made a ruling in this area.

MR. HARMON: We remember that.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's have the jury and let's finish Mr. Sims.

MR. HARMON: So--and we will not call a statistician.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Let me indicate while the jury is coming out, your Honor, we received--these are other charts that were mailed to us from Agent Deedrick, and I don't want--I want the Defense to know that they're here. I want to show it to them as soon as we recess today.

THE COURT: All right. Let's finish Mr. Sims, and then we'll see where we are at that point. What do you have after Sims by the way?

MS. CLARK: The video.

THE COURT: And what after that? Deedrick?

MS. CLARK: That's it. Well, but that won't be until tomorrow.

THE COURT: They'll have rested twice and--

MR. COCHRAN: Not yet. We're waiting, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Before we ask the court to rest subject to--you understand also, your Honor, we have sent a letter to the Defense requesting the Stockdale tape because we have a declaration from the answering machine company that they no longer have any copy.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. And, Mr. Harmon, you may continue.

MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, one last point, couple of questions. Based on the combination of your RFLP and PCR results from 303, 304 and 305, how would you quantify the amount of DNA which produced results consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: The amount of DNA for that particular component of the mixture would be what I would describe as a trace level of DNA.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you recall Mr. Scheck asked you about eliminating or talking about how many different deposits there would have to be or there might be to account for the console results from 303, 304 and 305. Do you recall that question?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And you said it's possible that there could be more than one deposit that could have produced the combined results that you saw in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, in order--in light of the trace amount of DNA that you've described is consistent with the results that are consistent with Nicole Brown. You with me so far?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And in light of the fact that you found three such results, what series of events would have to have happened in order to have--and assuming that Mr. Simpson's blood was there previous to that in all three places.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay? Would you describe the series of events that would have to have occurred to account for the trace amounts from Nicole Brown and the substrate controls from those three samples testing clean?

MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Can you describe the series of results--keep my last question in mind. Can you describe the series of results which would have had to have occurred in light of the trace amounts of DNA that are consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SCHECK: Calls for speculation again.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: In order for you to have seen the results that you saw, which include Mr. Simpson's DQ-Alpha type--and by the way, how would you describe the amount of DNA which produced Mr. Simpson's types as opposed to the trace amounts that produced results consistent with Miss Brown?

THE COURT: You're talking PCR or the RFLP?

MR. HARMON: In general. On the three console stains, 303, 304 and 305.

MR. SIMS: Well, I would describe it that there was significantly more DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson than there was with Nicole Brown Simpson's sample.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, in order for you to have seen the results that you had, greater amount of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson's type and the trace amount of DNA consistent with Miss Brown's type, and in order for there to have been two deposits, one of Mr. Simpson and then at least one more with a trace amount of Nicole Brown's, would you have to have had that trace amount deposited on all three separate stains and not on the substrate controls?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Again, substrate--objection. Calls for speculation and he's mixing--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --two different--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Thanks, Mr. Sims. I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: What was the answer?

MR. SIMS: The answer was yes.

MR. SCHECK: The answer was yes. Okay. Mr. Sims, you don't know who was in the car--who was in the Bronco in the early morning hours of June 13th?

MR. SIMS: The early morning hours of June 13th, no, I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You don't know the identities of the contributors to the mixture on the steering wheel?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Has anybody sent you DNA exemplars from police officers to type?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You don't know who went into the Bronco between June 14th and August 26th?

MR. SIMS: I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon?

MR. SCHECK: But he's subject to recall for the reasons we stated.

MR. HARMON: No further questions.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me. May--

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

MR. HARMON: No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Sims, again, thank you, sir.

MR. SIMS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: We have our next witness ready, your Honor, but I think the Defense--

THE COURT: We need to preview something?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step back in the jury room. I need to preview something before we present the next witness.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. I take it, Miss Clark, the next offer from the People is the statement from Thano Peratis under 1202?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Let's see the edited--

MR. NEUFELD: Before you see it, I think it would help the court if you knew in advance--because I got to see it a little while ago--what some of my concerns are so you can--when you're looking at the tape, you can see whether or not they're there. I think it helps you in deciding this thing rather quickly.

THE COURT: You want to pre-object to it before I see it? All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. Or at least tell you--

THE COURT: All right. Well, what should I be looking for?

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Your Honor, the problem is that I don't believe that they followed your instructions of yesterday. No. 1, right off the bat, they start referring to a demonstration that he wants to show. Although he doesn't actually show most of the demonstration, he refers to or he's about to. No. 2, he then orally describes the experiment that he did not with Mr. Simpson's blood, but an experiment that he did sometime between the time he drew Mr. Simpson's blood and the time that this tape is made on July 27th. You said no reference to any experiments are to be included in this tape. It's simple impeachment on the issue of the 8 cc's. He goes through a description of the experiment he conducted in his own infirmary eight months after the incident to help convince him of the error of his ways, that his testimony at the grand jury and preliminary hearing were wrong. So they didn't follow your instructions with regard to that either. No. 3, on the tape, they ref