This proceeding is without the presence of the jury.
The Court is addressing some motions. First motion the Court will address is Plaintiff Goldman's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of doctor John Gerdes concerning an alleged contamination at the SID.
You -- the moving party, go ahead.
Thank you Your Honor.
As we point out in our papers, Your Honor, there's really three reasons why Dr. Gerdes' testimony should be excluded in this case.
Number one, Dr. Gerdes' testimony is premised upon a study that he performed so-called validation tests and proficiency tests. These were tests done by LAPD, not on actual cases, but when they were preparing to start doing case work, or when they were testing themselves on their ability to adequately run the DQ Alpha system.
From that study, Dr. Gerdes attempts to extrapolate into giving an opinion that the actual testing done in this case could have been affected by contamination.
He doesn't say that he studied the actual test strips in this case, and discovered they were contaminated. Instead, he's saying, I looked at these validation studies; I saw evidence of contamination. And in the validation studies, therefore, there must be some -- or could be some contamination in the actual case done here.
What he did, Your Honor, he looked at the DQ Alpha strips, and if they were -- let's say they were -- there's a strip for a single person. If he saw three alleles or, you know, one of the dots lit up to indicate that there was a third allele where there should only be two, he said that could be contamination, even though, as Gary Sims and Robin Cotton testified many times, that's simply called cross-hybridization.
It often produces an effect of cross-hybridization, which an experienced reader, like Sims or Cotton, or for that matter, I suppose Dr. Gerdes, understand to be that elicited every time he saw an extra allele on his chart, and he added them all up, and he said that shows evidence of contamination during these validation studies at SID.
He then goes on to say that, well, I didn't see that same evidence of contamination in the test results in this case.
But that doesn't mean it's not there; it could be the result of contamination.
Now, the problem -- and the second problem with this testimony is that, the defendants' theory of the case as explained to the jury by Mr. Baker and frankly, as is necessary, for the contamination theory to do them any good is, the contamination didn't take place during the DQ Alpha testing process by SID, which is what Dr. Gerdes studied.
Because if the contamination took place there, the only problem would be in the test results of the LAPD testing, not the test results by Cellmark or DOJ, which are testing different swatches that were sent out to them to be tested.
So in order for the defense to use contamination as a defense to the Cellmark and DOJ test results, they've got to push the contamination test results back to an earlier stage in -- of the process to the evidence processing room.
So the theory of the defense, as explained to the jury by Mr. Baker, as they attempted to develop in the cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi, is that the contamination took place in the evidence processing room when Mr. Yamauchi was sampling the evidence samples, and Mr. Simpson's reference sample.
The theory explained to the jury by Mr. Baker is that Mr. Yamauchi spilled the blood during that process, spilled the reference sample that somehow affected all of the evidence samples that he was testing, and that were ultimately sent off to Cellmark and DOJ to be tested.
Dr. Gerdes' testimony can't obviously have anything to do with what went on in the evidence processing room. What he was talking about is actual DQ Alpha test results on validation tests, not real tests, but he was looking at what he said showed these extra alleles.
That -- none of those cases -- they weren't cases. None of those validation studies that he was looking at even went through the evidence processing room, because they weren't real evidence, they were just mock samples created in the lab to see if they knew how to run the program correctly.
So what he's talking about can't have anything to do with whether Mr. Collin Yamauchi did or did not spill any blood, or whether that did or did not contaminate the evidence samples. He would be trying to confuse the jury, and extrapolate from his work on validation studies to say what Collin did somehow cause contamination. Two completely different events.
Finally, Your Honor, as I point out, they have, in responsfor admissions, admitted that the laboratories got these various DQ Alpha tests that we have now put into evidence. The DOJ got them; Cellmark got them; as you saw, LAPD got the very same results.
So it can't be that Dr. Gerdes is saying that there was something wrong in the testing process itself, and that's where contamination took place, because they've admitted these results were correct results.
They have to be saying, as indeed they are, that the contamination didn't take place during testing, but instead, during evidence handling itself. That way, Gerdes's handling in validation is irrelevant and does not support that theory at all. It is simply a method to confuse the jury about the whole contamination issue.
Thank you, Your Honor.
First of all, you've already ruled on this motion. You've ruled that the contamination study is relevant to the weight of the evidence in this case.
But beyond that, Mr. Lambert has made a number of misstatements. Dr. Gerdes will be testifying about contamination in the samples in this case.
We've already talked about stains 29 from the steering wheel, 30, 31, and the victim's reference blood samples. He's going to testify about all of those stains, and about the extraneous alleles that have shown up on all of those stains, and that they are the possible product of contamination or cross-hybridization.
Now, with respect to cross-hybridization and contamination, Dr. Gerdes will testify, which is consistent with their expert's deposition, that when you get cross-hybridization, it means you're doing the test wrong. This isn't something that happens all the time. If the tests are done properly, you shouldn't get contamination or cross-hybridization. Many times you can't tell the difference from the test; it could be one or the other.
The study that he did was on every testing strip that we could get from LAPD. They refused to give us any of their case work. All they would give us was there validation study, which presumably are the cleanest samples that they have.
And he analyzed every strip that we could get from, not a different period of time, from a span of time before the tests in this case, as well as after the tests in this case.
And he found out that there are the same alleles that are common to this case showing up unexpectedly in virtually all of the work that they have done in their lab, that we were given access to.
And all of that is relevant to the weight of the results in this case.
We have never admitted that the results in this case are the accurate results, and we went through this thoroughly at the beginning. Our admission was qualified to say that we are not admitting anything about the period of time from collection up until the time the actual test was done.
The only thing we admitted when they ran the tests, those were the results they were going to testify about, not that they were the correct results, not that the evidence was not contaminated, not that it was not collected properly. We didn't admit any of that stuff. There's nothing new here justifying the Court changing its ruling.
This the first Bundy blood drop. Admit that the blood -- this is request number 14.
"Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 47 had an HLA DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, 1.2."
The response: "Admit."
And then they have the qualification about the point in time.
"In admitting this request for admission, the defendants will adopt the plaintiffs' definition, as communicated to the defendant, as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory, as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time."
So they're admitting that when the lab tested item 47, it got a 1.1, 1.2.
Any testimony about them not following the correct procedures, or cross-hybridization being evidence of improper testing technique, is irrelevant in light of all those requests for admissions they've admitted. Those were the test results they do have, could have denied them, and said no, that's cross-hybridization; that there was something wrong with the way the testing was done.
But they didn't. They admitted them. All the labs got consistent results in this regard.
That is not what we were admitting. Dr. Gerdes will testify that because of the unacceptable high risk of contamination in LAPD, which is where every one of these samples started out, you cannot rely on the results in this case.
That goes to the weight of the results, and it is certainly viable.
Is the defense's contention that -- that the DOJ Lab and Cellmark produced different DQ Alpha results from SID?
No. It's our position that Cellmark and DOJ also had evidence of contamination because of 30, 31.
Excuse me. I'm -- I'm asking you these questions for a specific reason.
Are you contending that Cellmark and DOJ got different DQ Alpha results from SID?
I'm doing this from memory.
My recollection is on 31, LAPD got no result, just inconclusive. They didn't get a result when they tested it.
On 30, I don't, off the top of my head, remember. But essentially, Your Honor, the test -- the DQ Alpha test results are, across the board, the same between all the laboratories.
I'm trying to be very specific, okay? I don't need to be deflected from what I'm asking.
Would you explain to me why those two results were --
We showed the strips where they are calling a 4 allele, when -- I think it was a 4 -- when there's no dot that appears; that one of them called it at one point, didn't call it another point, that there's a 1.3 allele that shows up. That could be the result of contamination, cross-hybridization, one or the other. They can't tell the difference.
But more importantly --
Here's the results board, Your Honor. We have the big one down there, but if I could hand this up to you, you'll see that the results from -- on number 31 for LAPD and Cellmark are the same.
He is also going to testify that those results in 30 and 31 are not valid because of the -- the extraneous alleles, which showed up in the positive controls; that because of those alleles showing up where they're not supposed to be, that those whole -- that whole series of tests is invalidated.
All of them by DOJ. I'm sorry. I think it's DOJ on 30 and 31; that they had extraneous alleles on the positive controls.
He's also going to testify that Bundy drop 52 shows evidence of contamination, as well, with an extra 1.3 allele as a result of possible cross-contamination at the crime scene.
Your Honor, if he's going to talk about specific evidence samples, as opposed to this study that he did of validation samples and trying to extrapolate from that, I would say that at the very least, let's limit him to talking about the evidence in this case, not to the validation study and what conclusions he draws from the validation study, if he wants to come in, even though they've admitted these results, and try to undercut their admissions.
I suppose that, you know, maybe that's relevant, but certainly not the validation studies, although I think in light of the admissions, none of it is relevant.
Okay. That's my conclusion; that Dr. Gerdes' testimony will be allowed, but will not be allowed in the area of the -- the -- what do you call that?
It's the Court's ruling that presence of extraneous alleles in the LAPD lab is irrelevant?
Yes, based upon the reasons stated by the plaintiff.
So that will be the ruling.
There is a declaration by Gary Randa, submitted by the defense, with respect to service or lack of service on William Blasini. There's a counter-declaration filed by the plaintiff by Yvette Molinaro, and that Mr. Blasini, B-l-a-s-i-n-i was reached by telephone on December 10, and in Chula Vista, he resides in southern California, Chula Vista.
I'll hear from the defense.
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, we tried, as the declaration of Gary Randa attached -- we tried to serve Mr. Blasini. The two locations have had him stationed there for about 40 -- I don't know, 30 hours or something like that.
We've tried to serve Mr. Blasini; we've been unable to do so. I guess they spoke with him, didn't say that he'd appear, or that they knew exactly where he was.
We tried to reach him. I tried to move this case along by reading in his testimony -- be about 15 minutes. It's similar to the issues raised in Kardashian. They were unable to serve him. We've been unable to serve Mr. Blasini.
He doesn't say that he studied the actual test strips in this case, and discovered they were contaminated. Instead, he's saying, I looked at these validation studies; I saw evidence of contamination. And in the validation studies, therefore, there must be some -- or could be some contamination in the actual case done here.
We have never admitted that the results in this case are the accurate results... Our admission was qualified to say that we are not admitting anything about the period of time from collection up until the time the actual test was done.
Dr. Gerdes' testimony will be allowed, but will not be allowed in the area of the -- the -- what do you call that?
None of those cases -- they weren't cases. None of those validation studies that he was looking at even went through the evidence processing room, because they weren't real evidence, they were just mock samples created in the lab to see if they knew how to run the program correctly.