Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi

📄 Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 2) Re-redirect examination of Collin Yamauchi ▶

Witness: Collin Yamauchi
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 69

Lambert used redirect to rehabilitate Yamauchi on three fronts: explaining that 'inconclusive' on item 31 reflected a mixture rather than a testing failure, demonstrating that PCR controls ran blank (indicating no contamination from the analyst), and clarifying that evidence items were in closed containers even before formal sealing. He also cleaned up the item 17/18 numbering discrepancy Blasier had raised on cross.

# 1 Q:

Let me just cover a few of the subjects that Mr. Blasier covered during his examination.

First let's go back to the DQ Alpha test. That test is done using a kit, isn't it, Mr. Yamauchi?

# 2 A:

Yes, it is.

# 3 Q:

And manufactured by whom?

I think you mentioned the name of them.

# 4 A:

Perkin Elmore.

# 5 Q:

And at the time that you did the DQ Alpha test in question here, did that kit have the capability of isolating the 4.1 or 4.2 allele?

# 6 A:

No, it did not.

# 7 Q:

What was the capability of the kit at that time?

# 8 A:

Just 6 alleles, that I mentioned previously.

# 9 Q:

And just the 4 alleles at that location?

# 10 A:

That's correct.

# 11 Q:

Now, we also had some testimony concerning your use of the word inconclusive in your reports.

# 12 A:

Yes.

# 13 Q:

But let's take a look again at this one evidence item here, No. 31.

Now, you actually did a DQ Alpha test on evidence item 31?

# 14 A:

Yes.

# 15 Q:

And what -- what alleles did you see on the DQ Alpha strip for evidence item 31?

# 16 A:

The alleles that are up there are properly represented.

# 17 Q:

1.1, 1.2, weak 4, very weak 1.3?

# 18 A:

Right.

# 19 Q:

And --

# 20 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, I object. That misstates the chart. That says DOJ, doesn't say SID.

# 21 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Are those the alleles that you saw --

# 22 MR. BLASIER:

I'd like a ruling.

# 23 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 24 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) These are the alleles that you saw when you did the DQ Alpha test?

# 25 A:

Yes.

# 26 Q:

In the report, you reported inconclusive for 31. Why is that?

# 27 A:

Because based upon that amount of alleles, that indicates a mixture, and rather than make a statement on it that we couldn't be sure of, we were uncertain at this point and just stated it as inconclusive, didn't make any conclusions or draw any conclusions on that particular stain.

KEY QUOTE

# 28 Q:

Thank you, sir.

# 29 MR. LAMBERT:

Take this one down.

# 30 (Indicating to chart)

# 31 (Counsel displays exhibit entitled "Mr. Yamauchi's Diagram of Glove Found at Rockingham.")

# 32 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Blasier asked you whether in doing your testing and sampling of the glove whether you did several tests down here at the bottom of the glove, sir, do you remember that?

# 33 A:

Yes.

# 34 Q:

You also tested these other areas on the glove, didn't you, sir?

# 35 A:

Yes.

# 36 Q:

Thank you.

Now, when you -- when you ran -- you mentioned during -- during your direct testimony that in addition to each item of evidence, there was also a control for each item of evidence when you ran your PCR test. Did those control swatches also go through the PCR test?

# 37 A:

Yes, they ran through the same process.

# 38 Q:

And what results did you get on the control swatches?

# 39 A:

There were no results on that.

# 40 Q:

And what does that tell us about the control swatch?

# 41 A:

The way that's acting is acting in the form of what's called a negative control saying that the process up from the sampling point and when the control's taken off of the substrate which I explained earlier, that process -- there's no contaminants being produced along the way. And because we don't -- excuse me. Because we don't obtain any results, that's an indication to us that the test was run soundly.

# 42 Q:

So, Mr. Yamauchi, if you actually had blood on your glove and you actually had that blood on your glove when you handled one of those control swatches, would that have then shown up when you did the PCR test of that control swatch?

# 43 A:

If hypothetically I had blood on my gloves and I touched them to the swatch, I would expect a possibility of that showing up.

KEY QUOTE

# 44 Q:

But for all of the controls that you tested, you got no hint of any DNA being present; is that right?

# 45 A:

The controls ran blank, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 46 Q:

Now, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about whether evidence items were sealed or open, do you remember that, during the cross-examination?

# 47 A:

Yes.

# 48 Q:

Now, when LAPD books items of evidence, do they then seal the item of evidence?

# 49 A:

Yes, we seal our evidence items before we book them.

# 50 Q:

Would you describe what you mean by sealing?

# 51 A:

Well, what that in essence means is the final packaging -- let's say we could have maybe ten items and -- to a certain box or something. Well, that box before it's booked has to be taped shut and across the tape a seal has to be placed to show that it was sealed by such and such individual on such and such date, so on and so forth.

# 52 Q:

And prior to the time that an evidence item is sealed, is it just left in the open or is it in some kind of closed container?

# 53 A:

The evidence items?

# 54 Q:

Yeah. For example, the swatch, a blood swatch, is that just left out in the open or is it in some kind of container before it's sealed?

# 55 A:

Well, going through the processing, there's a drying process and then proper handling after it's dry, you would put it in the bindles and the bindles go into the coin envelopes, et cetera.

# 56 Q:

So those aren't sealed but they're all in containers, those items of evidence?

# 57 A:

Of course they are, yes.

# 58 Q:

And the blood vials that you talked about in this case, were they closed, the ones that you dealt with when you got them?

# 59 A:

Yes.

# 60 Q:

They had caps on them?

# 61 A:

Yes, they did.

# 62 Q:

They weren't just open?

# 63 A:

No.

# 64 Q:

Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about item number 17 and how -- and the fact that it was originally recorded as item number 18.

Do you remember that?

# 65 A:

Yes.

# 66 Q:

All right. Now, did you later find that that was an error and that item number 18 should have been listed as item number 17?

# 67 A:

Yes, I did. During the time that I was receiving these items to sample, Dennis had not yet run the tally and and done the clerical work to figure out what item numbers were finally going to assigned to each item.

And I wrote my report out under the impression that that would be 18. After he wrote his report, that item ended up being 17.

So a sheet was made to correct that miscommunication.

# 68 Q:

Thank you.

# 69 MR. LAMBERT:

No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Yamauchi

Because based upon that amount of alleles, that indicates a mixture, and rather than make a statement on it that we couldn't be sure of, we were uncertain at this point and just stated it as inconclusive, didn't make any conclusions or draw any conclusions on that particular stain.

Reframes 'inconclusive' as scientific caution about a mixture, not a testing problem — directly counters the implication from cross that inconclusive meant unreliable methodology.

Yamauchi

The controls ran blank, yes.

Key contamination defense: negative controls showing no DNA means Yamauchi's handling did not introduce extraneous biological material into the tested samples.

Yamauchi

If hypothetically I had blood on my gloves and I touched them to the swatch, I would expect a possibility of that showing up.

Lambert's trap: Yamauchi concedes the hypothetical would matter, but the blank controls prove it didn't happen — makes the exculpatory force of the blank controls explicit.

Evidence (4)

null

DQ Alpha strip results for evidence item 31, showing alleles 1.1, 1.2, weak 4, very weak 1.3

discussed

null

Mr. Yamauchi's Diagram of Glove Found at Rockingham

displayed, discussed to show multiple testing locations on the glove

null

PCR control swatches run alongside each evidence item

discussed — results were blank

null

Blood vials (item 17, originally mislabeled item 18)

discussed — numbering error explained as clerical, corrected by correction sheet

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Blasier•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Blasier interrupted Lambert mid-question to object that Lambert was misattributing chart results (DOJ vs. SID), demanding a ruling before Lambert could continue. Fujisaki overruled.

testy

Tom Lambert•Yamauchi

Lambert walked Yamauchi through the logic of blank negative controls as proof against contamination — framing it as: if you had blood on your gloves it would have shown up, and it didn't.

strategic

Witness Demeanor

(Indicating to chart)

(Counsel displays exhibit entitled 'Mr. Yamauchi's Diagram of Glove Found at Rockingham.')

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8310 • 69 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103