Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 1) — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\18\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-COLLIN-YA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Collin Yamauchi Sidebar: proficiency test testimony ▶

Witness: Collin Yamauchi
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 280

Defense attorney Blasier cross-examines LAPD criminalist Collin Yamauchi, targeting his limited PCR experience (only 6 months at the time of testing) and his handling of OJ Simpson's reference blood vial. The examination builds a contamination narrative: Yamauchi opened Simpson's unsealed blood vial, got blood on his chemwipes and glove, and then — critically — processed the Rockingham glove next. A damaging moment emerged when Blasier established that Yamauchi only 'remembered' changing his gloves after admitting the blood transfer during the criminal trial.

# 1 THE COURT:

Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

# 2 Q:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Yamauchi, can you give me an estimate of the total amount of time that you have spent working with or for the plaintiffs in this case?

# 3 A:

Actually meeting with them maybe about five, ten hours something like that.

# 4 Q:

And how much time -- we took your deposition. How much time was that?

# 5 A:

I'm not really sure. Maybe an hour and a half.

# 6 Q:

And how much preparation time did you do?

# 7 A:

As far as reading, like going over my transcripts and stuff?

# 8 Q:

Yes.

# 9 A:

Got to be over 40 hours.

# 10 Q:

Okay. Did you keep track of that time with any kind of particularity?

# 11 A:

I've been writing it down.

# 12 Q:

Do you know whether or not the plaintiffs have been billed for any of your time?

# 13 A:

I'm not sure. The City Attorney's Office is supposed to handle that for us.

# 14 Q:

Have you submitted any kind of billings at all to the City Attorney?

# 15 A:

No, I haven't.

# 16 Q:

You know, the time that you spent with the plaintiffs, how much time have you spent with Mr. Lambert?

# 17 A:

Counting today, before this morning, probably a little over five hours.

# 18 Q:

And did he go over the questions he was going to ask?

# 19 A:

Well, he didn't go over, like, specifically what he's going to ask, but he asked me questions.

# 20 Q:

How much experience did you have with case work in the PCR process at the time that you did the tests in this case?

# 21 A:

I'm sorry; one more time.

# 22 Q:

How much experience did you have in case work with PCR analysis at the time that you did the tests in this case?

# 23 A:

I believe about six months.

# 24 Q:

And there were other analysts at LAPD that had more experience than you, correct, in that topic?

# 25 A:

Well, specifically in PCR, but in conventional and DNA serology, I was the most experienced.

# 26 Q:

In PCR, there were other people of much more experience than you?

# 27 A:

I wouldn't say much, but there were people with more experience.

# 28 Q:

I'm sorry. Were you done?

# 29 A:

Yes. That's fine.

# 30 Q:

Was there anybody there that was doing PCR that had less experience than you?

# 31 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Relevance.

# 32 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 33 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you think it's important to have procedures in place to avoid the manipulation of samples, to avoid transferring material from one piece of evidence to another?

# 34 A:

You talking about contamination?

# 35 Q:

To avoid cross-contamination, yes.

# 36 A:

Yes, it's very important.

# 37 Q:

It's extremely important, is it not?

# 38 A:

Yes.

# 39 Q:

And that applies to evidence samples before they get to you, as well as when you get them; is that correct?

# 40 A:

Of course.

# 41 Q:

It applies in packaging and unpackaging materials, correct?

# 42 A:

Packaging and unpackaging materials? I'm sorry; can you be more specific?

# 43 Q:

Anytime that a sample is looked at by you -- for instance, you have to unpack it from whatever container it's in, from the person who had it before?

# 44 A:

I see what you're saying.

Yes, that's correct.

# 45 Q:

It's very important each time you do that, that is, take it out of something and put it back, that you avoid too much manipulation of the item to avoid possible contamination, correct?

# 46 A:

It's always a good rule of thumb, yes.

# 47 Q:

Now, in this case, you were aware right from the beginning that this was a very high profile case, were you not?

# 48 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 49 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 50 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

I didn't know it was going to be as high profile as it turned out to be, but we've had -- we work in LA. We've got a lot of high profile cases.

# 51 Q:

Like, is this one of them?

# 52 A:

Sure turned out that way.

# 53 Q:

You knew it at the time you did your testing?

# 54 A:

At the time of my testing, like I said, I knew it was a high profile case.

I didn't know it was going to be as big as it turned out to be.

# 55 Q:

Okay.

And you were told that it was a priority matter, were you not?

# 56 A:

Priority? Well, I was told that the results and things like that, there was reasons why they would need them rather quickly, yes.

# 57 Q:

They told you they wanted them as soon as possible, correct?

# 58 A:

I'm not sure if they used those words exactly.

# 59 Q:

Remember testifying at the criminal trial that that's what they told you?

# 60 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, Your Honor. If he has a reference, he should give it, not ask him.

# 61 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 62 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

Well, if I said and agreed to that, then I must have done it. I don't have a recollection of those specifics.

# 63 Q:

All right. And they told you they wanted results that day, correct, on the 14th?

# 64 A:

No, nobody ever told me that.

# 65 Q:

Now, the manual for the DQ Alpha system suggests that you not do more than 15 samples at a time; isn't that correct?

# 66 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. It's beyond the scope.

# 67 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 68 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

I believe it states more something on the line of approximately 15.

# 69 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) And how many items did you process at one time in one series on the 14th?

# 70 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant. All those items are admitted, Your Honor.

# 71 THE COURT:

I'll allow a limited examination.

# 72 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Twenty-three items, wasn't it, Mr. Yamauchi?

# 73 A:

I believe one batch was 23 items, yeah.

# 74 Q:

And on the 15th, you did 19 items, correct?

# 75 A:

Yes. That sounds -- that sounds correct.

# 76 Q:

And for the 23 items you did on the 14th, that includes the preparation of the samples, the extraction of the DNA, the amplification of the DQ Alpha, the hybridization -- in other words, putting the solution on the testing strips, preserving the testing strips, and photographing the testing strips, correct?

# 77 A:

Yes.

# 78 Q:

Now, in your lab, you have to go to two different locations to do DQ Alpha tests, do you not?

# 79 A:

Yes, we do.

# 80 Q:

And you have to start preparing the sample at Pipertech, which is where your lab is located, correct?

# 81 A:

That's correct.

# 82 Q:

And then when you're ready to amplify a sample, that is to make multiple copies of small amounts of DNA, you've got to go to Parker Center, correct?

# 83 A:

That's correct.

# 84 Q:

And that's -- you go in a car, right?

# 85 A:

Yes.

# 86 Q:

And you have to carry these samples in the car?

# 87 A:

Yes.

# 88 Q:

And you conduct the amplification at a small room or small area in Parker Center, correct?

# 89 A:

Yes, it's a rather small room.

# 90 Q:

And after you do that, the amplified DNA, that has a lot more DNA than when you started, and you go back to Piper Tech, correct?

# 91 A:

Yes.

# 92 Q:

And you carry it back in a car, correct?

# 93 A:

Yes.

# 94 Q:

And that's where you do the rest of the testing, correct?

# 95 A:

Well, no. Actually, we do the hybridizations over there. The only reason we take the DNA back, the DNA product back, is to do our product gels, which is done in a separate room from where the sampling takes place.

# 96 Q:

Okay.

But you bring back the amplified product from your amplification room and you bring it back to the lab; isn't that correct?

# 97 A:

Yes.

# 98 Q:

You do not have a procedure in place that prohibits taking amplified product out of the amplification area back to your lab; isn't that correct?

# 99 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope; it's all admitted.

# 100 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 101 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

Unless I take the amplified product back to the lab, I can't analyze it on the product gel.

# 102 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Now, you can't do -- you can do what is called a yield gel, can you not?

# 103 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objection.

# 104 Q:

-- before you do a test?

# 105 MR. LAMBERT:

Excuse me. Same objection, Your Honor.

# 106 THE COURT:

I'll sustain that.

# 107 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever do a yield gel or a blot test to determine how much DNA you had and how much of it was human?

# 108 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objection, Your Honor.

# 109 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 110 MR. BAKER:

May we be heard on this, Your Honor?

# 111 THE COURT:

No.

I'll allow examination regarding contamination but not as to ultimate results.

# 112 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Have you been taught that cross-contamination is much more of a potential problem when you're dealing with smaller amounts of degraded DNA?

# 113 A:

Contamination's going to be a problem, regardless of whether you have a large sample that contains a lot of DNA or a small sample in quantity of DNA.

Part of the problem is, though, you can't tell by looking at a blood swatch whether you have one blood swatch or a thousand blood swatches, what quantities or quality of DNA is in that swatch. So your point -- I'm not sure I really get it.

# 114 Q:

Okay.

Weren't you trained that where you have small quantities of degraded DNA, that cross-contamination, a little bit of it, can cause you to get improper results or incorrect results, because the small amount of contamination and the small amount of starting sample all amplified together?

Haven't you been taught that?

# 115 A:

Small amount -- small amount of sample and small amount of contamination all amplified together.

# 116 Q:

Um-hum.

If you start with a larger quantity of DNA in your evidence sample, then a small amount of contamination is not going to be -- is not going to overwhelm your original larger amount, correct?

# 117 A:

Well, that's true, if you know the quantity and quality of the DNA you're working with.

# 118 Q:

And that's what the blot and the yield blot are for?

# 119 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Same objection as before.

# 120 MR. BLASIER:

It's relevant to cross-contamination.

# 121 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 122 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

Well, the only thing we could use would be a blot. A gel is not effective with the type of extraction process that we utilize.

# 123 Q:

A gel tells you the count of DNA, both human --

# 124 THE COURT:

Excuse me. Okay.

From here on in, I will sustain the objection based upon the motion-in-limine ruling I made previously with regards to different collections in the different testing techniques.

# 125 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry.

# 126 THE COURT:

And of testing techniques.

You may examine as to what he did, not whether there was any contamination as to what he did. We will not go into what other techniques there are available.

# 127 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, before you were allowed to do case work, you were required to do proficiency testing, correct, and validation studies in your lab?

# 128 A:

Yes.

# 129 Q:

And you took a certain number of tests to determine whether you were capable of accurately reading DQ Alpha results, correct?

# 130 A:

Yes.

# 131 Q:

And one of those tests involved nine different samples. Do you recall that test?

# 132 A:

Specifically, I must have done a lot of tests involving nine or more samples.

# 133 Q:

Do you recall the test that involved nine different vaginal samples that had combinations of vaginal fluids and semen?

# 134 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 135 MR. BLASIER:

The proficiency testing is relevant for the ability of him to get results.

# 136 THE COURT:

You stipulated to the results. The question is contamination. You may examine as to his procedures re contamination.

# 137 Q:

BY MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Yamauchi, how did you get Mr. Simpson's reference blood on the 14th?

# 138 A:

From Dennis Fung.

# 139 Q:

He gave it to you personally, didn't he?

# 140 A:

Yes.

# 141 Q:

And when you started to take your notes about that reference sample, you put down that it was item 18, didn't you?

# 142 A:

Yes, I did.

# 143 Q:

Dennis Fung did not tell you that that was a mistake, it was really 17, did he?

# 144 A:

Well, he -- at that point, I don't think he had all those items in order.

# 145 Q:

Mr. Yamauchi, he didn't tell that you it should be 17 rather than 18, did he?

# 146 A:

As far as I my recollection goes -- and this requires an explanation.

# 147 Q:

Mr. Yamauchi, did he tell you or didn't he?

# 148 A:

Mr. Blasier, can I explain?

# 149 Q:

That's a yes-or-no answer.

# 150 A:

I know. But I'd still like to explain.

# 151 Q:

Well, Mr. Lambert will have plenty of time with you.

Yes or no?

# 152 A:

I need to give an explanation.

# 153 THE COURT:

No, you don't; you need to answer the question.

KEY QUOTE

# 154 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

Okay; I'm sorry.

One more time, please.

# 155 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Fung didn't tell you when he gave you that sample, that it was really item 17, did he?

# 156 A:

No.

# 157 Q:

Now, that envelope was not sealed -- the envelope that had the vial was not sealed, was it?

# 158 A:

I don't recall.

I don't think it was.

# 159 Q:

And isn't it accurate that the procedure for those blood vials requires that that envelope be sealed at the time the blood is drawn?

# 160 A:

I'm not sure.

# 161 MR. BLASIER:

Here is Exhibit 1112.

# 162 (The instrument herein referred to as document entitled breath alcohol test given, yes, no, results, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1112.)

# 163 (Counsel displays Exhibit 1112.)

# 164 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you recognize this as a copy of the printing that appears on the front of the blood vial envelope?

# 165 A:

I can't tell you that, since I'm not involved with that section of the collection process.

I really don't think I've ever read that.

# 166 Q:

So you don't know whether it's supposed to be sealed or not, correct?

# 167 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Foundation.

# 168 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 169 A:

THE WITNESS: After they sample it, no, I don't know what the procedures are.

# 170 Q:

Isn't sealing evidence items one of the requirements, to protect their integrity?

# 171 A:

Sealing is.

And as far as SID is concerned, we have to have our evidence sealed.

# 172 Q:

Now --

# 173 A:

Final packaging sealed before it's booked.

# 174 Q:

But it's left open before booking?

# 175 A:

Yeah.

Well, how can you collect it if it's sealed?

# 176 Q:

It's supposed to be sealed from the time of collection until somebody does something with it; isn't that correct?

# 177 A:

No.

# 178 Q:

So it's left open -- evidence items are left open from the time they're collected until they're analyzed?

# 179 A:

Until they're booked.

# 180 Q:

I'm sorry?

# 181 A:

Until they're booked.

# 182 Q:

That's another procedure used in your lab?

# 183 A:

Yes.

# 184 Q:

Now, when you got Mr. Simpson's reference vial, your testimony is that you took three chemwipes and put it over the cap of the vial?

# 185 A:

Yes.

# 186 Q:

Along with your gloves?

# 187 MR. LAMBERT:

What do you mean?

Object to the question.

# 188 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time?

# 189 MR. LAMBERT:

Oh.

# 190 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time?

# 191 A:

Yes.

# 192 Q:

And when you opened the vial, you got blood -- blood soaked through all three chemwipes, on your glove; isn't that correct?

# 193 A:

All three chemwipes, onto my glove?

Yes, I got a little bit of blood onto my glove.

# 194 Q:

By the way, you didn't measure what the quantity of blood was in that blood vial, did you?

# 195 A:

Of course not.

# 196 Q:

Now, after you -- or, you said you took the cap off and you set it down on the table, correct?

# 197 A:

That's correct.

# 198 Q:

And that was the cap that had all the blood that got through the three chemwipes, onto your glove, correct?

# 199 A:

Same cap.

# 200 Q:

And you said unfortunately, you were in the evidence processing room.

You're not supposed to process those kinds of samples in the evidence processing room, are you?

# 201 A:

There's no reason why it can't be done.

# 202 Q:

Why did you say "unfortunately?"

# 203 A:

Well, because it wasn't a familiar environment to me. If I were doing it back in serology, I would know where all my disposal receptacles are.

# 204 Q:

You have any idea how much blood got out of that vial when you took the cap off and put the cap down on the table?

# 205 A:

How much blood got out of the vial?

# 206 Q:

Yes.

# 207 A:

Well, I sampled, generally speaking, about a one ML.

# 208 Q:

Do you know how much of it got out on the chemwipe, on your glove, and the cap on the table?

# 209 A:

You said on the table.

No blood got on the table, but soaking into the chemwipe and onto my glove, if I had to approximate, I'd say it's probably 10 to 20 microliters.

# 210 Q:

You have any idea what 20 nanograms of blood looks like?

# 211 A:

20 nanograms of blood?

# 212 Q:

Yeah. Blood that has 20 nanograms of DNA.

# 213 A:

Oh, okay. Sure.

# 214 Q:

How much?

# 215 A:

Well, you're talking about approximately three to five microliters.

# 216 Q:

What did that look like?

# 217 A:

Three to five microliters of blood, well, if you were to put it onto a piece of paper or something like that, it would be a visible stain.

# 218 Q:

How big?

# 219 A:

Not very big.

Maybe -- you know, this is a generalization -- it's going to depend upon the type of paper, of course, and other factors, but I would say approximately three millimeters in diameter.

# 220 Q:

Now, after the blood got out onto your glove and into the chemwipe, you took your gloves off and did something with it, correct?

# 221 A:

Okay. After I replaced the cap, I had my gloves with the chemwipes in my hand, took my gloves off, and I realized I had to throw them out.

Once again, I had to decide whether to go to the back of this room, where they had the proper disposal receptacle, or to take them back to serology.

# 222 Q:

By the way, prior to the time you testified in the criminal trial, did you have any recollection at all of changing your gloves after you opened that cap?

# 223 A:

Specific recollection I had while I was up on the stand?

# 224 Q:

My question was, before you testified in the criminal trial, do you -- did you have any recollection of changing your gloves?

# 225 A:

Not a specific recollection.

# 226 Q:

And isn't it accurate that what happened at the criminal trial, after you admitted that you had opened the cap and got blood on the chemwipes and on your hands, that's when you remembered, I changed my gloves, too?

# 227 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 228 MR. BLASIER:

Isn't that correct?

# 229 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 230 COLLIN YAMAUCHI:

When I got -- when I looked and saw that there was blood on my glove.

# 231 MR. BLASIER:

No.

# 232 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) My question was, isn't it true that it was only after you admitted that blood had gotten out of the vial onto the chemwipes onto the glove, that you then remembered that you changed your gloves, also?

# 233 A:

Yes, because --

# 234 Q:

Thank you.

# 235 A:

Okay.

# 236 Q:

Now, after -- the first thing you did after you opened Mr. Simpson's reference vial and started processing that, was process the Rockingham glove, correct?

# 237 A:

Yes.

# 238 MR. BLASIER:

We have an exhibit we're getting, Your Honor.

# 239 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) But while we're getting that, when you got the next day -- when you got the reference samples for both victims, those were personally delivered to you by Detective Vannatter, correct?

# 240 A:

Well, he had handed them over to me from his custody.

# 241 Q:

That's a yes, right?

# 242 A:

Yes.

# 243 Q:

Okay.

And you didn't make any note of the quantity in those vials; of either of those, did you?

# 244 A:

No.

# 245 Q:

You would have no way of knowing whether there was less blood in those vials than had been put there by the coroner?

# 246 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Misstates the evidence.

# 247 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 248 MR. BLASIER:

This is Exhibit 1110.

# 249 (Counsel displays Exhibit 1110.)

# 250 (The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Mr. Yamauchi's diagram of glove found at Rockingham was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1110.)

# 251 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, can you see that from where you are?

# 252 A:

Yes.

# 253 Q:

And you remember this exhibit from the criminal trial?

# 254 A:

Looks familiar.

# 255 Q:

And you actually drew a diagram in your notes about how many times you handled or took things from the Rockingham glove, correct?

# 256 A:

Yes.

# 257 Q:

And each one of these arrows represents your taking something away or handling the Rockingham glove, correct?

# 258 A:

Taking something or sampling.

# 259 Q:

Correct?

# 260 A:

Yes.

# 261 Q:

And there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, times that you checked in the wrist area with phenolthalein testing or other samples, correct?

# 262 A:

One, two -- I'll double-check my own notes.

Three times.

# 263 Q:

You did two phenol tests, three phenol tests, a spot-check, a sample cutting, did you not, in the wrist area of the glove?

# 264 A:

That spot check and the phenol test, they are the same thing.

# 265 Q:

Okay.

# 266 A:

Yeah.

# 267 Q:

You also handled the glove to put your initials on the inside of the wrist notch, correct?

# 268 A:

Yes, I put my initials --

# 269 Q:

Thank you.

# 270 A:

-- over there.

# 271 Q:

Now, you have no specific recollection of changing your gloves between samples, do you?

# 272 A:

Specific recollection, no.

KEY QUOTE

# 273 Q:

Thank you.

# 274 A:

But I would have changed my gloves.

# 275 Q:

Because that would be good procedure, wouldn't it?

You don't have anything in your notes that tells you what you did in processing these samples with respect to changing your gloves by any law enforcement officer, do you?

# 276 A:

Of course not. It's common procedure.

It's common sense, also.

# 277 Q:

To not write in your notes the steps you go through?

# 278 A:

No; to change your gloves.

# 279 Q:

Oh.

# 280 MR. BLASIER:

Can we have the Bronco results board?

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Collin Yamauchi

Specific recollection, no.

Yamauchi admits he has no specific memory of changing his gloves between handling Simpson's blood-contaminated vial and processing the Rockingham glove — the central contamination concern.

Robert Blasier

Isn't it true that it was only after you admitted that blood had gotten out of the vial onto the chemwipes onto the glove, that you then remembered that you changed your gloves, also?

Core impeachment moment: Blasier establishes that the glove-change 'recollection' was prompted by the admission of contamination, not an independent memory.

Collin Yamauchi

Yes, because --

Yamauchi confirms the timeline of his recollection but is cut off by Blasier before he can explain — leaving the damaging admission on the record.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

No, you don't; you need to answer the question.

Judge overrules the witness's attempt to avoid a yes/no answer about whether Fung told him the sample was mislabeled — underscoring Yamauchi's evasiveness.

Collin Yamauchi

Well, I said 'unfortunately' because it wasn't a familiar environment to me. If I were doing it back in serology, I would know where all my disposal receptacles are.

Reveals that Yamauchi was operating outside his normal workspace when handling Simpson's blood — reinforcing the contamination risk argument.

Evidence (5)

Defendants' 1112

Printout from the front of a blood vial envelope, showing collection/sealing instructions

introduced and displayed to challenge whether Simpson's reference vial should have been sealed

Defendants' 1110

Board displaying Yamauchi's own diagram of how many times he sampled or handled the Rockingham glove

displayed to demonstrate the number of handling interactions (3+ times) with the glove

Informal

OJ Simpson's reference blood vial (mislabeled as item 18 rather than item 17)

discussed — chain of custody and labeling error challenged

Informal

Rockingham glove

discussed — Blasier established it was the first item processed after the contaminated glove incident

Informal

Bronco results board (not yet shown — requested at end of transcript)

requested, examination continuing

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Blasier•Collin Yamauchi•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Yamauchi repeatedly refuses to give a yes/no answer about whether Fung corrected the item-number labeling. Judge intervenes: 'No, you don't; you need to answer the question.' Yamauchi ultimately answers 'No.'

revealing

Robert Blasier•Collin Yamauchi

Blasier establishes the sequence: blood from Simpson's vial got on the chemwipes and glove, the cap was set down, and the very next item processed was the Rockingham glove. Yamauchi has no specific recollection of changing gloves in between.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Collin Yamauchi

Blasier pins down that Yamauchi only 'remembered' changing his gloves at the criminal trial after he had already admitted the blood transfer — suggesting the memory was reconstructed rather than genuine.

devastating

Robert Blasier•Tom Lambert•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Extended objection battle over whether Blasier can examine Yamauchi about yield gels, blot tests, and alternative techniques. Judge ultimately rules these are excluded under a prior motion-in-limine ruling, limiting examination to contamination procedures only.

procedural

Light Moments (2)

Collin Yamauchi

Blasier asks why Yamauchi said 'unfortunately' about being in the evidence processing room. Yamauchi's answer — he didn't know where the disposal receptacles were — inadvertently highlights his unfamiliarity with the workspace.

Tom Lambert

Tom Lambert objects to an unclear question about gloves ('What do you mean?'), then immediately withdraws when Blasier rephrases ('Oh.')

Credibility Attacks (5)

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

prior inconsistent statement / reconstructed recollection

Blasier establishes that Yamauchi had no recollection of changing his gloves before testifying at the criminal trial — and only 'remembered' doing so after admitting the blood contamination on the stand. Yamauchi confirms this sequence.

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

qualification attack

Only 6 months of PCR case work experience at the time of testing; other LAPD analysts had more PCR experience.

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

procedure violation

Processed 23 items in one batch when the DQ Alpha manual recommends approximately 15. No notes document glove changes between samples.

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

bias / preparation

Spent over 40 hours preparing with plaintiffs' side; met personally with Lambert for 5+ hours before trial testimony.

⚔ Dennis Fung

prior inconsistent statement

Blasier uses Yamauchi to establish that Fung never corrected the mislabeling of Simpson's blood vial as item 18 rather than item 17 — and that the vial envelope was not sealed when delivered.

Witness Demeanor

Repeatedly attempts to explain or qualify yes/no answers before being cut off by Blasier or ordered by the judge

Visibly evasive on the glove-change recollection question — says 'Yes, because --' and is immediately cut off

Asks 'Can I explain?' and 'Mr. Blasier, can I explain?' multiple times without success

Objections

15 objections (7 sustained, 7 overruled)

Proceeding 8295 • 280 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103