Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Dr. Gerdes, would you please tell the jury how many times you have collected evidence at a crime scene?

I have never collected crime scene evidence.

Would you please tell the jury how many times you yourself have tested crime scene evidence?

Never.

Would you tell the jury then, how many times your lab has tested crime scene evidence?

We don't do forensic testing.

Well, maybe you could tell the jury then, how much training you have in forensic crime scene analysis?

Well, my training is in regards to my experience of being involved in the field of DQ Alpha PCR testing since -- essentially, since its beginning, in terms of interpreting results and consulting on other cases.

Consulting with criminal defendants; is that right?

Correct.

And their lawyers?

Correct.

And how many times have you yourself given classes in forensic science?

Never.

How many classes in forensic science have you ever taken?

None specifically for forensics.

And your experience in -- in evidence collection is all experience you've gained working on behalf of criminal defendants; is that right.

Well, reading the literature and working in testimony of those cases, that's correct.

Have you ever conducted any validation studies on forensic evidence samples?

No.

Have you ever conducted any experiments in the forensic evidence area?

No.

Have you ever published a peer review article in the forensic science area?

Not peer review, no.

Are you even a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists?

No.

Now, Robin Cotton is, isn't she?

Yes.

Gary Sims?

Yes.

They're experienced forensic scientists, correct?

Yes.

And you are not?

Other than what I've told you, no.

Why don't you tell the jury how many times you yourself have run the DQ Alpha test using the DQ Alpha kit?

Not very many times. I think we have one kit that I ran at one time --

Okay.

-- just to run it.

You've run it one time.

Gary Sims has run it, what, a thousand, 2,000?

I'm sure he has, yes.

How about Robin Cotton?

I'm sure she's run it a number of times.

Okay.

So you're looking at their DQ Alpha test results on a test that you yourself have almost never run; is that right?

That's correct. The tests should be run so that independent scientists --

Why don't you answer my question.

He's trying to answer, Your Honor.

Overruled.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The D1S80 test, why don't you tell the jury how many times you've run that test yourself?

We don't run that test.

You've never done it?

We run a similar test.

No, I'm asking you if you've ever run the D1S80 test?

Not that specific test.

That's right.

35 times?

Correct.

And every single time on behalf of a person charged with a crime, correct?

Every time for the defense, that's correct.

Correct.

Objection, irrelevant, argumentative.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) All of your work in this area is on behalf of criminal defendants who are trying to get off of rape or murder charges?

Objection.

You've gone far enough with that.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay.

And on the times that you have testified in court, every single time your testimony has been that the DNA evidence is contaminated and not reliable; isn't that right, Doctor?

No, I've never -- I haven't always said it was contaminated. I have always been concerned over the design of this particular dot blot base type of testing.

It was -- your testimony was always that the evidence was unreliable; is that right?

It's been critical of the DNA -- of that specific type of DNA testing, yes.

And that specific type of DNA testing is done by hundreds of forensic labs across the country, isn't it?

It is now, yes.

It's accepted in probably every court in the country, isn't it?

It is now.

And it's now a well established part of forensic science; isn't it, Doctor?

I think you can say that, yes.

This be a good time, Your Honor?

Okay.

1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion.

You may resume.

Thank you, Your Honor.

JOHN C. GERDES, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. LAMBERT:

Now, Dr. Gerdes, I'd like to make sure that the jury is clear on what you are saying and what you're not saying here today.

First, you're not opining that the RFLP test results obtained by Cellmark and the Department of Justice were in any way the result of contamination, are you, Doctor?

Objection. Beyond the scope. Nothing offered by my RFLP results.

Overruled.

On the RFLP -- there's only one RFLP that I would suspect might be cross-contamination. That's item 52, which is a Bundy blood drop. All of the rest are valid results.

Valid results. And the RFLP test, you concur, is a well recognized, high quality test, isn't it?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Yes.

In my opinion, that's true.

Now, in regard to the PCR test, you're not saying that the PCR test results in this case were the result of contamination; only that they -- it's possible that they could have been; isn't that right?

There's a significant risk that they could have been, yes.

And it varies, of course, from PCR result to PCR result, how high that risk might be, in your opinion; isn't that right?

Yes.

And in terms of actual evidence of contamination, the only items that you pointed to during your direct examination were item 31, item 52, and the reference samples; isn't that right?

That's correct.

And other than those items, there is no other evidence of contamination in any of the test results that you looked at in this case?

There's no direct evidence of that.

Well, let's put up here the Bundy results board.

Can you see this? I can tilt it a little bit.

I think I can see it.

Except for this corner on the bottom here, if you move these or the --

THE COURT REPORTER: Do we have an exhibit number, please?

291.

291.

I have a sheet here; I forgot. 291,

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this is a list of the various results of some of the items collected at Bundy, correct, Dr. Gerdes?

Yes.

The first one here, item number 47, that was tested by two different labs, and they both got results consistent with Mr. Simpson, correct?

That's correct.

And the labs' results are consistent with one another, correct?

That's correct.

And there's nothing in those results on that particular item that you saw that would indicate any contamination, true?

Well, there's nothing directly in what you read off of there, in terms of that reflects what was seen on the strip.

But I feel the way that that sample was handled, there's a significant risk that this it could have been, due to cross-contamination.

There's nothing in the actual readings that the labs got that shows any evidence of contamination?

That's correct.

So you're saying, based upon the way that sample was handled, you think there could have been some contamination?

Correct.

Steve, would you put up -- put this up.

I'm going to put up on the Elmo, Dr. Gerdes -- I'll give you a copy, too, because it might be easier for you to look at it there.

Thank you.

This will be the next in order, Your Honor, number --

2264.

2264 is labeled Bundy Crime Scene Items.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) This -- Dr. Gerdes, this document is a list of the crime-scene items sampled by Collin Yamauchi on June 14, 1994; is that correct?

I've never seen this list, but it appears to be that by its title, yes.

And you looked at Collin Yamauchi's notes --

Yes.

-- that he prepared when he did that evidence sample, correct?

Yes.

In those notes, he listed each of the items that he sampled, the number of swatches for each item, just like this, right?

Yes. There is a form in there where you list the number of swatches.

And when Mr. Yamauchi was doing this sampling that day, he sampled them just the way that you said they should be done in evidence, alternating with the control item, correct?

That's what he records, yes.

That day when he did this sampling, he sampled evidence items and control items in parallel, correct?

That day, yes.

All right.

And there were a whole number of swatches, as you can see on this chart, for all these various evidence items that were handled that day?

Yes.

And some of these swatches were tested by Collin Yamauchi that day, when he went through the PCR process, correct?

Yes.

A swatch for each evidence item?

Um-hum.

And in addition, other swatches, not the ones that Collin Yamauchi tested, but other swatches for those same evidence items were sent to the Department of Justice or to Cellmark Laboratories to have them tested, correct?

I don't recall if he packaged it at exactly that moment. I don't believe he did. At a later time, they were sent.

They were sent. So the swatches that Collin Yamauchi took through the PCR testing process were not the same swatches that went to Cellmark and to DOJ, correct?

That's correct.

So that if there was any contamination that took place during the actual PCR process that Collin Yamauchi was following, that could not have affected the test results of Cellmark or DOJ, true?

Unless the contaminant was in the other swatches at the time, before it was tested.

My question was, if a contamination took place during the PCR process that Collin Yamauchi followed, rather than some earlier point in time, then that contamination could not have affected Cellmark and DOJ; is that true?

That's true.

Okay.

So in order for your contamination possibility to account for all of these test results, that contamination had to take place before Collin Yamauchi started his PCR test, right?

Either that, or a subsequent time in which those samples were handled at another time.

Well, except we know that when Collin Yamauchi went through the PCR process that day, he got these results that are the same as Cellmark and DOJ, correct?

On the swatches he ran, yes.

So we know that either those are the correct results for all those swatches, or the contamination took place before?

Correct.

Now, when contamination takes place, and you do PCR tests, the normal result of that is that you see a mixture, correct?

Generally that's true, yes.

But the PCR test, as you've described it, is so sensitive that it can actually get just a few molecules from one person's blood, right?

Correct.

So that if these evidence samples had somebody else's blood on them, and then they somehow got contaminated, normally you would expect to see two person's blood show up in the PCR test?

Unless they're excessively degraded, that's true.

In this case, all of those samples that were tested from Bundy that day, the ones that we have up on the video screen, there's no evidence that there was two people's blood in there, is there?

On these specific items, no.

Okay.

So in order for your possibility of contamination to exist here, you would have had to have had first all of the DNA degrade, all of these swatches, and then they would have all had to have been contaminated right?

That's correct.

That would all have to have taken place before Collin Yamauchi started his amplification process?

Correct.

It would have had to have happened so that every one of these swatches in the case of 47, 4, in the case of 50, all the swatches had to be contaminated, too, right?

Or at least the ones that were tested, yes.

And first, they all had to be completely degraded, so the original blood was out of them, and then they all had to be uniformly contaminated; isn't that true?

That's true.

Would you move that up a little bit Steve, so I can see the bottom.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) So we have 32 evidence swatches that he processed that day, and seven control swatches. And in order for your possibility of contamination to have -- be correct, all the evidence swatches had to be completely degraded, and then all of them had to be contaminated; isn't that true?

Yes.

But there couldn't be any contamination on the control swatches, because all of those control swatches tested negative for DNA, true?

That's true.

It has to get into those in a systematic basis, based on something. It would be a systematic sort of contamination of those in sequence.

And wouldn't it get on the control swatches at the same time, Doctor?

One would think it should, yes.

And here it did?

The swatches looked -- the substrate controls looked clean.

Right.

In fact, those substrate controls were tested by Collin Yamauchi that day, correct?

Yes.

And then they were sent out to the outside labs, and they tested them, as well, correct?

They weren't sent out -- they weren't sent out at the same time as the evidence items, but eventually they were, yes.

Right.

And when they were tested by the outside labs, they found no evidence of contamination, correct?

That's true.

So now we've had all of the substrate controls tested twice. No evidence of contamination?

Yes.

And it would only -- the PCR test is so sensitive, that it would pick up even a few molecules of contaminant on those control swatches, correct?

It should.

All right.

Now, you testified that you thought that you know that this process is so sensitive that it's possible that contamination can that place, and you gave some examples: If somebody sneezes, if somebody puts their hands up on the glass like this (indicating), that can somehow result in contamination?

That can transfer the DNA to those objects. If those objects are then handled, it would transfer to whatever is subsequently handled to that object. So you transfer to your glasses; you transfer to what you handle next.

You're not saying any of those things actually took place when Collin Yamauchi did this?

I have no proof.

He doesn't even wear glasses, does he?

No, he doesn't.

So that didn't happen, did it?

Andrea Mazzola wears glasses.

She wasn't there in that room, processing this stuff?

No; she handled the original specimens.

Certainly, people handling the original specimens in the -- and the contamination is taking place during the evidence collection process, you're certainly going to see mixtures, then, aren't you, Dr. Gerdes?

Not if those samples are degraded.

Wait a second, Dr. Gerdes.

She's collecting evidence samples. You're saying she can cross-contaminate from one evidence sample to the other, right?

Yes.

At this point in time, you'd have to see a mixture, true?

Unless whatever she's transferring is in a much higher concentration than what you're transferring to.

You're saying one of the evidence samples might be so degraded, and the other one is not degraded, then you can have a transfer? Is that what you're saying?

Right. Correct.

You haven't seen any evidence of that actually happening here?

I have no proof of that, no.

Now -- and you made a point about how, in this instance, the order in which Collin Yamauchi handled these evidence samples might somehow affect your contamination possibility; is that right?

Yes.

And is that -- that's because the first one of these evidence samples that he handled was item 52, that had more DNA content?

No, it's because the first item that was handled was a reference item of O.J. Simpson; and subsequent to that, the glove; and then subsequent to that, the 52.

52. And 52 is the one that had more DNA content than the other swatches?

Yes.

Before he handled 52, when he got to these Bundy evidence swatches, what was actually the very first thing that he handled?

As I said, the first thing he handled that day was Mr. Simpson's reference vial.

No. I'm talking about when he got to the evidence swatches from Bundy.

Yes.

What was the very first thing that he handled?

When he got to these?

Yeah.

I can't remember if he did the control swatch first or after.

Why don't we put up 333?

I have to check that in my notes.

These are Collin Yamauchi's notes. And he took them in the order in which he did things, correct?

Yes, in this, in organizing the evidence, yeah.

Right. Okay.

Move it over a little bit.

The first thing he did was a control, right?

Yes.

So before he even did item 52, he did the control for item 52, which you admit is completely negative for DNA, correct?

Correct.

So if he was transferring somehow DNA from the reference sample into the evidence samples, surely the very first swatch that he touched, 52 control, would show some evidence of DNA, wouldn't it?

It should have, yes.

That's 333.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) You would agree, Dr. Gerdes, when Mr. Yamauchi was handling these evidence items this day, he changed his gloves after he did the reference sample, correct?

I believe, from my recollection of his testimony in the criminal trial. I'm not sure he was -- sure that he changed it between every item.

Well, Dr. Gerdes, we're not in the criminal trial now; we're in this trial.

Have you read Collin Yamauchi's testimony from this trial?

I object and move to strike.

Overruled.

I glanced through it. I haven't read it in as much detail as I did the criminal trial.

Well, you're going have to take my word for it, because Collin Yamauchi testified he changed his gloves after he handled the reference vial.

Okay.

He then testified that during the process of sampling the Rockingham glove, that he changed his gloves again during that process.

You with me so far?

Yes.

And he also testified that he then changed his gloves after he did the Rockingham glove, and before he started on the evidence samples, okay?

Okay.

Now, you would agree, under those circumstances, it's very unlikely that he was transferring enough DNA to -- to contaminate all 36 of those evidence samples?

It would have to be a situation where it was something like a pencil or something he was handling in common between those.

It would show up on the control watches?

The controls don't always show the DNA, but it should have, yes.

Just a few molecules of DNA can show up in those controls?

They should have, yes.

And once again, all the controls were always negative, correct?

That's correct.

And while this -- while he was doing the preparation of the Fitzco card, and the sampling of the glove, you acknowledged that the evidence samples, themselves, were in closed bindles inside of closed coin envelopes, ten feet away, correct?

That's what the testimony is, yes.

And there is no forensic literature that supports the theory that the DNA could have somehow penetrated the coin envelopes and the bindles, is there, Doctor?

No, it would not have penetrated those. It would have to be something manipulated between, such as a pencil or something.

And just before we take this Bundy board down, you will agree that this nine-probe RFLP match on the rear gate is something that the jury can rely upon as a valid DNA result, correct?

Yes, I do.

And a nine-probe match, that's an extremely important match?

It's a significant match.

Very significant. Very significant in identifying Mr. Simpson as the person who left the blood there; isn't that true?

Yes.

And now, item -- we'll come back to item 52 later. That's a little bit of a different subject.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this is a set of results from the Bronco automobile, Dr. Gerdes?

Yes.

293.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And the only one of these that you mentioned at all during your direct examination is item 31; is that right?

That's correct.

So?

30 and 31 were mentioned.

30 and 31, all of these other items. You've seen no evidence at all of any kind of contamination in these test results themselves, have you?

Well, there are results that are consistent with mixtures of -- and mixtures and -- or they could be contaminants, I suppose. But additional alleles are as to one individual.

And as to item 30 and 31, you will agree that items 303, 304, 305. They were taken from the same place in the Bronco, 30 and 31?

Those items were taken at a subsequent time, at a later time. In the same place.

The PCR results from 303, 304, 305, they validate the results from 30 and 31?

They appear to, yes.

And that is evidence that 30 and 31 weren't contaminated, correct?

Objection? Argumentative.

Overruled.

It's a subsequent contamination from that same area.

Which is evidence that 30 and 31 weren't contaminated?

Yeah, I guess you could say that.

And I won't go back to the Bundy board, but I meant to ask you:

Nothing that you're testifying about here concerns in any way conventional serology testing, does it, Dr. Gerdes?

That's correct.

So that if it turns out, as the evidence has established, that the item number 49, for example, that was a blood drop at Bundy, has the same four conventional serology types as does Mr. Simpson, that would be something that would tend to indicate that that item wasn't contaminated; isn't that true?

That would have to be looked at independently as to how reliable those results are, but yes.

Well they're admitted in this case, so pretty reliable?

Again --

Objection. That misstates or never admitted any of this stuff.

Well, I sustained the objection

If you're going to say that, say it fully.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And if only so -- if only one out of every 550 people had the four conventional types that item number 49 had, and Mr. Simpson was one of those, one out of 550 people, that would be pretty strong evidence that contamination doesn't account for item 49's DNA result; correct, Doctor?

I'd have to look at -- I mean, I'm a little -- I guess I could say that, yes.

And in regard to the various items on this chart, which show DNA test results consistent with Mr. Simpson, you have no evidence that these items ever came anywhere near Mr. Simpson's reference sample on the day that they were handled by Mr. Yamauchi, correct?

These items were handled on the same day, originally, by LAPD, as certain items that were collected from Rockingham, which are consistent with O.J. Simpson's.

So that would be the possibility of cross-contamination in this instance.

My question had to do with the reference sample. Shall I ask it again?

Yes.

You cannot tell this jury that any of these items, when they were handled by Collin Yamauchi, came into contact in any way with the reference sample?

Not the reference sample.

So your possibility of contamination as to the Bundy items, that has to do with possible contamination from the reference sample, true?

Yes.

That couldn't explain these, right?

That's right.

So what you're saying is, some other contamination may have taken place from some other evidence item?

Yes.

But that would mean that other evidence items would have to have contained Mr. Simpson's blood, correct?

Correct.

So are you assuming that that's the case?

That the items that I'm referring to would be items collected at Rockingham, which are consistent with Mr. Simpson, if those which were handled prior to these. So, yes, that's what I'm saying.

You're saying the blood collected at Rockingham was Mr. Simpson's blood?

Objection. Misstates his testimony.

Overruled.

I'm saying that blood has the same type, and therefore, that type could have been transferred. I'm not saying it's him, it's consistent with his type.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) You made a presentation at a conference called Promega in late 1995, did you not.

Yes.

You talked about this case?

I did.

Here's a page from the proceedings in that case. I want to ask you something about that.

Objection. Hearsay. I couldn't do it.

It's his own article. I'm asking him about something he wrote in his article about this case.

About this case?

About this case.