Sidebar: RFLP match meaning

📄 Sidebar: RFLP match meaning — Thursday, November 14, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\14\SIDEBAR-RFLP-MATCH-MEANING.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 15 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 1) Cross-examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 2) ▶

Date: Thursday, November 14, 1996 • Utterances: 15

Outside the jury's presence, plaintiff's attorney Tom Lambert objected to defense attorney Robert Blasier's extended cross-examination about what an RFLP DNA 'match' means, arguing it was irrelevant and a waste of time given that the defense had already admitted all RFLP results in requests for admissions. Blasier countered that he was entitled to explore the meaning and limitations of a 'match' to show it doesn't mean the samples are identical. Judge Fujisaki allowed ten more minutes on the topic.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)

# 2 MR. LAMBERT:

Your Honor, I wanted to raise one evidentiary objection to the line of questioning that Mr. Blasier has been following that has to do with the request for admission that we intend to read into evidence later. They have admitted all of these RFLP results. For example, request No. 387 asks that they admit that the blood contained in the item identified as evidence item 12, matched Mr. Simpson's blood banding pattern at all five of the single locus probes tested by Cellmark. They admitted that request for admission. They admitted all of the RFLP results.

I think this line of questioning is irrelevant and an undue consumption of time.

# 3 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, the line of questioning is to show what it means to say something matches. We did admit those. I'm exploring with this witness, what a match is and what isn't.

# 4 THE COURT:

Read that request for admission, please.

# 5 MR. LAMBERT:

I'll read it specifically the way the language is, Your Honor, and this is for all of them. I'll read one.

This is number 12, admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 12, matched your blood's DNA banding pattern at all of the five single locus probes known as MS1, MS31, MS4 --

# 6 THE REPORTER:

Excuse me, can you repeat MS ...

# 7 MR. LAMBERT:

MS1, MS31, MS43, G3 and YNH24 when subjected to an RFLP test by Cellmark.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

We agree we admitted that. I'm not suggesting that they don't match under the way that term is defined. I'm exploring what that really means, that it doesn't mean that they're the same. That's the important point that I can make on cross-examination.

# 9 MR. LAMBERT:

I would certainly make a 352 objection, Your Honor, that it's been hours and hours of time talking about what a match means is unnecessary. They can simply ask her what a match means and that should do it.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

I don't think -- they don't like I'm making points with their witness, Your Honor.

KEY QUOTE

# 11 THE COURT:

How much more of this do you have?

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

On this line, not a lot.

# 13 THE COURT:

What's a lot?

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

Ten minutes.

# 15 THE COURT:

Okay. I'll permit ten minutes worth.

Bring the jury in.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Robert Blasier

I'm exploring what that really means, that it doesn't mean that they're the same. That's the important point that I can make on cross-examination.

Reveals the defense strategy: concede the technical match while undermining the jury's assumption that a DNA 'match' equals identity.

Robert Blasier

I don't think -- they don't like I'm making points with their witness, Your Honor.

Openly accuses plaintiff's counsel of objecting strategically rather than on legitimate grounds.

Tom Lambert

I would certainly make a 352 objection, Your Honor, that it's been hours and hours of time talking about what a match means is unnecessary.

Invokes Evidence Code 352 (undue consumption of time), signaling the cross-examination had already gone on extensively before this sidebar.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Request for Admission No. 387 (and similar admissions): defense admitted that blood in LAPD evidence item 12 matched Simpson's DNA banding pattern at all five single locus probes (MS1, MS31, MS43, G3, YNH24) via Cellmark RFLP testing

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Tom Lambert•Robert Blasier

Lambert argued that because Blasier's own client had admitted all RFLP results, continued cross-examination about the meaning of 'match' was irrelevant and wasteful. Blasier reframed the inquiry as a legitimate effort to show a match does not mean identity.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Judge Fujisaki cut through the argument by simply asking how much time Blasier needed, then capped it at ten minutes.

procedural

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8250 • 15 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103