Plaintiff calls Mr. Collin Yamauchi.

COLLIN YAMAUCHI, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

And if you would, please state and spell your name for the record.

My name is Collin Yamauchi, first name C-O-L-L-I-N, last name Y-A-M-A-U-C-H-I.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Morning, Mr. Yamauchi.

Morning.

Would you please tell us what your occupation is.

I'm a criminalist; I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division.

Within the Scientific Investigation Division, what is your current area of assignment?

My unit is special testing.

And what do they do in special testing?

Mainly instrumental analysis. What I work with is gunshot residue analysis.

Would you please describe for us your formal education.

I have a bachelor's degree in biology from California State University, Long Beach.

And after graduating from there, I moved on to a company called ICN Radiochemicals, where I received training in various DNA techniques. And I even attend a class as -- a techniques workshop from a place called BRL. It's in Frederic, Maryland.

After three and a half years as a quality control chemist at ICN Radiochemicals, I then moved to the Police Department, where I started off first four months introducing myself with the protocols, procedures, and methods of the serology unit.

And through the serology unit, I attended classes at a place called the California Criminalistics Institute. That's part of DOJ in Sacramento.

I've had classes in forensic serology, zone electrophoresis, and also isoelectric focusing. These are techniques that are used in conventional serology, which is something that's similar to PCR DNA.

That, I'm sure, you heard a lot about already.

I've also had a biology class dealing specifically with forensic applications of molecular biology, and that was held at Orange County Sheriff's Crime Laboratory in Santa Ana.

Finally, in forensic PCR, I've had a class on forensic PCR amplification at a workshop held by Rose Molecular Systems, which at the time were the people associated with Percanoma, who has a patent on the polymerase chain reaction, or the PCR system.

Thank you, sir.

What year did you graduate from college?

19 -- 1986.

Right after college is when you went to work, I think, for ICN?

ICN Radiochemicals, yeah.

What year did you come to work for the SID, for the Scientific Investigation Division?

1960.

Pardon me. What?

Excuse me. 1990.

I thought you weren't quite that old.

1990?

I wasn't even born then.

So you worked from 1990 to the present for the Scientific Investigation Division?

Yes.

Okay.

And how long -- when you first started, you said you were in the serology unit?

Yes, that's correct.

And how long were you in that unit?

For approximately five years.

And until -- And then you transferred to the special testing unit that you're in now; is that right?

Yes, it's right.

And as of une 12, 1994, what was your assignment at SID?

June 12 -- yeah, okay.

I was working in serology.

Serology.

And would you describe generally what your duties were in the serology department at that time.

I was working in the DNA section with PCR, but I also had training in conventional serology which I did on occasion, also.

So in the serology department at SID you did both conventional serology and PCR DNA testing?

Yes.

And you did work in both those areas?

Yes, I did.

Now, did you do any work in connection with the investigation in this case?

Yes.

And when did -- what was your first involvement in connection with this case?

It would be Monday, the 13th, when my supervisor, Greg Matheson, asked me if I would be interested in working on the blood evidence.

And did -- what were you going to be doing on the blood evidence in this case?

I -- he didn't say specifically blood evidence; just in general working with this case.

We weren't sure about what types of evidence it was going to entail at that point.

And when did you first do any actual work on the case?

That would be Tuesday, the -- let's see -- the 14th.

14th.

And what was the first work that you did on it -- this case?

I analyzed blood stains from -- would you like specifics?

Please.

The numbers. Sure.

Referring to my notes, okay. Those would be item numbers 47, 48, 49, 50, and 52. And item numbers 41 and 42, item number 9, and also item number 17.

And those were various items of evidence in the case that had been collected by some other SID personnel?

Yes.

And how was the decision made for you to work on those specific items as your first task?

I discussed that with Dennis Fung.

And Mr. Fung pointed out these items as items that needed to be tested?

Yes.

Would you describe for us, just first generally, the steps that you took to accomplish the testing of those evidence items.

As far as the samples?

Why don't we start with whatever the first step was that you took.

What was the first thing that you did in terms of doing testing on all of those items of evidence?

Well, the first item I received was -- let's -- it would be the blood vial -- the O.J. Simpson blood vial. And that was the first item I set up because it needed a certain time to dry in order for us to work it in our PCR process.

So you took the -- this was a vial of blood, was it?

Yes.

And what did you do with that vial of blood?

The vial of blood was processed in normal fashion, the way we always handle exemplars of victims or suspects, et cetera.

And this blood was taken -- the tube held in one hand, covered the cap up with chemwipes.

Chemwipes are sort of like a laboratory version of Kleenex. They're something you have at the side to wipe and dab and clean, and they're specially designed to be low in lint, and they're basically made for laboratory purposes.

I generally use three chemwipes. I'll put them on the top of the cap because, when you open these blood vials up, it's kind of tricky, but you're going to get a little bit of blood on the cap. It's almost always you get a little blood around the cap edge. So with the chemwipes on top, that eliminates any chances of any blood getting elsewhere and all over the place.

And you do these type of -- you take these type of procedures -- well, mainly for my case, I'll just say it's mostly for my own physical health and safety, because basically we don't know what these -- who these blood vials are from -- in general, in a general sense. And as everybody knows, there's a lot of blood-borne pathogens and diseases you can get from blood.

So we try to wear gloves, of course, and keep the chemwipes on the top and carefully open these vials up.

So I opened the vial up, put the cap down on the side, and then I would reach over and grab my pipe header, which is an instrument -- a scientific instrument used to transfer blood or other various solutions. I use that and I transfer the blood over to what's known as a Fitzco card, which is a card that's used to pool the blood in a dried state for further testing, transfer the blood onto that card, and allow it to dry.

The type of pipe header was put in the receptacle and the cap was placed back on the vial and put away. My chemwipes and my gloves was taken off in a sterile fashion.

At that point, I recall I needed to throw them away in the proper receptacle. Unfortunately, I was working in the evidence processing room, which is not where I usually make exemplars, and there was no -- as far as my recollection went, I recall holding them and trying to decide whether I should throw them in there, in the evidence processing room, or back at serology.

When you have something like gloves and these chemwipes, is there a special kind of receptacle that they're put into after -- when you want to dispose of them?

The gloves and chemwipes, yeah. Well, it's a large biohazard receptacle.

It's a receptacle designed to put biological hazards in, as opposed to just ordinary waste?

Yes.

Now, you mentioned the evidence processing room is that -- that's where you did this particular Fitzco card that process you described?

Yes.

And where about in the evidence processing room were you when you did the Fitzco card?

I was working on a kind of a laboratory bench that would be on the far, side away from where the evidence was, which were on tables in the middle of the room.

So the evidence item was on a table in the middle of the room while you were doing the Fitzco card on it's work bench?

Yes.

And about how far away from where you did the Fitzco card were the items of evidence?

Can you describe for the jury the condition that the items of evidence, the blood evidence that we're talking about here, was in while you did the Fitzco card?

Oh, the evidence collected?

Yes.

Okay.

Those were packaged in coin envelopes, inside paper bindles. The paper bindles were inside of the coin envelopes.

So the swatches that we've heard of before, that contained the evidence, were inside closed paper bindles at the time?

Yes.

And those paper bindles, were they inside of a coin envelope?

Yes.

And was that also closed?

Well, flap shut or something. Not necessarily gum shut.

But the flap was shut?

Yes.

That was -- all of that evidence was ten to fifteen feet away from where you did this Fitzco card?

Yes.

Now, this process of preparing a Fitzco card or a swatch from a an evidence vial, is that something you've done in the past before this occasion?

Yes.

About how many times have you done it?

It's got to be hundreds.

And when you do this, do you commonly follow the same process you've just described to us here today?

Yes, I -- yes, I did.

And when you did this process that you've described here today, the purpose in putting the chemwipes over the top of the receptacle is to protect any of the blood from getting on you or on any of the items of evidence; is that right?

Yeah. First and foremost, personal protection, and then of course, secondary, of course, we don't want to contaminate any evidence; and that's why we wear gloves and take all those precautions.

Now -- and in this case, after you've gone through the process and taken all the steps you have, you then disposed of the gloves and the chemwipes?

Yes. I'm not sure where. I don't remember specifically that much of it.

You're not sure which trash container you threw them in when you disposed of them?

Objection. Leading.

Overruled.

Yes.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The blood vial, when you first started the process it, was it closed? I mean was the cap on it?

Yes.

Yeah. And when you finished, did you put the cap back on?

Yes, of course,

Now, in his opening statement, Mr. Baker stated that --

I'm going to object to -- I'm going to object. This is argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Yamauchi, when you were -- did you spill the blood at all when you were doing this process?

No.

Did the blood go flying out of the vial and go across the room and land on the evidence envelopes that were ten or fifteen feet away?

No.

Did the blood in any way at all contaminate those items of evidence during this process?

No.

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, after you finished doing the Fitzco card, what did you next do?

Took a look at the glove.

By "glove," maybe you should describe for the jury what glove it is you're talking about.

I'm sorry; it's item number 9. It's a regular brown glove, with blood on it.

And where did you do this process?

Again, in the evidence processing room.

And approximately at what location in the evidence processing room?

It would be on the same workbench in front of where we have clean roll-out paper.

And did you use the roll-out paper?

Yes.

What -- how did you use that?

Well, we lay out paper to serve as a barrier between the counter top and any evidence item that we'll be working on.

So you put the paper down in connection with the examination of the glove?

Yes.

And were you wearing gloves when you did this?

Of course.

So this is a clean set of gloves that you've put on after you did the Fitzco card?

Of course.

Would you describe what you did in connection with your examination of the glove?

Initially, I had to search for signs of blood. It's not readily apparent because the color of the glove is rather brown, but you can see that there's a lot of discoloration on the glove.

We have a test that's a -- what we use is a preliminary screening test for the presence of blood. Doesn't necessarily confirm that it's human blood or not, gives us a good indication whether or not there's blood there.

I utilized some spot checks of this phenolthalein test in order to determine areas that were phenol positive and possible for sampling.

And how many different areas on the glove did you test with the phenolthalein test?

Initially a couple.

Did you then take any samples from the glove for further testing?

Yes.

And how many did you take?

I wound up taking four samples.

And can you just describe generally where on the glove those four samples were taken from.

I took a sample, A, from right around this area (indicating to hand), a sample B from right around this area, (indicating.)

The B sample, rather than making an incision and cutting out a piece of the glove, I used a technique where we use swatches to transfer the stain to the swatch, and then --

May I object? Narrative.

Overruled.

And then C, on the inside cuff, on the inner lining, I cut out a sample.

And then D, on the back side, right here in -- (indicating to hand).

(BY MR. LAMBERT) So just for the purposes of the record, you've demonstrated for us and the jury. Maybe you could state in words, you took some off the back of the glove. And where were the other areas?

Right here and here, off of the back, and right here (indicating).

When you say "here," the court reporter can't take down what that means. I'm trying to get it a little better.

Excuse me.

Off of the back of the glove, beneath about where the middle finger is, and also along the blade edge of the hand, closer towards the wrist, and on the front side of the glove, on the thumb section around where the top joint is, and also on the inner lining, down towards the wrist, the back inner lining of the wrist section.

Now, in the process of doing this glove evidence, item number 9, when you started that process, you, yourself, were wearing gloves?

Yes.

Did you change your gloves at all during that process?

I probably did change a few times.

Objection. Move to strike as nonresponsive, speculative.

Overruled. That was the response.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you tell us, sir, you mentioned that you worked for ICN in your first job.

Did that job have any effect on the way in which you change your gloves when you're doing scientific procedures?

Well, generally speaking, at ICN, I worked with radiochemicals. One of the things about them, you can't see them. You can't see the radiation. So working in that kind of environment, you change gloves on a more than routine basis; you've got to constantly change gloves working with radiation.

And I probably have taken that particular part of my work on to working at SID, because I tend to change my gloves a lot more than most of the people I work with.

And then, after doing this sampling on evidence item number 9, what was the next thing that you did that day, sir?

Started sampling the cloth swatches.

And those were the ones that you listed, the evidence items you listed for us previously?

Yes.

Can you tell us what steps you took to test, or rather sample, the cloth swatches?

When I sample cloth swatches, I take them out of the coin envelope and I'll place the bindle on top of about a stack of three -- what do you call it -- chemwipes.

And the reason is because I'll use that bindle as a cutting surface in order to take my scalpel blade and cut the swatches.

And I've become rather dexterous with this. And I don't know how everybody else does it, but most people that use scalpel blades do it in pretty much the same fashion: You can cut the swatch if you hold the blade at maybe about a 45-degree angle or less and down on it, you can pick it up, and then, manipulating the micro centrifuge tubes, which are scientific tubes we use to hold our samples, you can hold that over there and then put the sample in.

This is probably the most sterile technique to use in this regard, because what I use are sterile scalpel blades that are disposable. That way, after each item I sample, I just toss the blade.

And then I'll move on to the next one, and I'll change the stack of chemwipes that I have underneath each time, thereby insuring that no cross-contamination can occur. And also, first and foremost, actually only work on one item of evidence at a time; that's the key. That way, it eliminates chances of cross-contaminating from one item to another.

So during this process, you only work on one item of evidence at a time?

Yes.

So you take out one coin envelope. And could you describe for us what you would find in each of the coin envelopes.

The coin envelopes contain both evidence samples of the red stain, as well as a substrate control. And what a substrate control is, it's something taken beside the place where the stain is to show that there is no interfering substances already in that particular area that could cause a result or something anomalous.

And therefore, what I expect to find and what I generally do find, would be one paper bindle containing a control swatch and one paper bindle containing the swatch or swatches of the stain itself.

And is that what you found in this case, with these evidence items?

Yes.

And you processed each coin envelope one at a time; is that right?

That's correct.

And you do both the evidence bindle and the bindle containing the control, one at a time, as part of this process?

Yes, that's correct.

And you did that for all of the various evidence items that you sampled that day?

Yes.

And as part of this, did you also examine what was in the bindles and make notes in your work papers to describe what it is you found there?

Yes, I did.

And did you make notes as to which portion of the swatches you, yourself, were then going to use to run your testing?

Yes. I make general approximation drawings to indicate even that.

Okay.

And as you finish with each bindle, examining what's in it and taking a sample for testing purposes, what do you then do with the bindle?

Oh, they're put back into the coin envelopes.

And before you proceed to the next evidence item?

Yes.

And these chemwipes that you said you put underneath each bindle, how often do you change those?

With each bindle.

So you put new chemwipes down for each bindle?

Yes.

And the steps that you've described as to how you do this sampling process, did you follow that same set of steps with all of the evidence items that you processed on the 14th?

Yes.

And you processed for each envelope both an evidence swatch and a control swatch, as well?

Yes.

Now, before we -- after you finished all of this, this evidence sampling, what did you then do with the items of evidence that you had taken out from sampling process?

Well, they were left on that same workbench.

Did you then do any testing with them?

Oh, with the cuttings that I took?

Yes.

They were run PCR analysis.

And what particular test did you employ with those evidence items?

That would be specifically the DQ Alpha.

And why did you choose to run the DQ Alpha test on these items of evidence?

Because it happens rather rapidly, gives you a lot of information.

What, does it give you information -- more information than conventional serology tests would give you?

Take, for example, the A, B and O system. Everybody's familiar with A, B, and O. We have type A people, type B people and type O; also, type AB.

There are four different types there and they're broken down in the population, except approximately half the population, maybe a little less, is type O.

So if I were to run that test, the ability of that test to distinguish between two or three different people wouldn't be all that powerful, being as how approximately half the people are type O.

So what we needed was a test that was a little more powerful. The DQ Alpha test has six alleles or six different types. Like the A, B, O has A, B, O, the DQ Alpha has 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3 and 4. That can make a numerous amount of combinations and give you a lot more information than you could possibly get out of something in conventional typing like the ABO system.

I'll speed up.

-- from every person who testifies.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Okay.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) You then proceeded to do the DQ Alpha test on these items of evidence?

Yes.

Let me show you --

And ask that it be marked as Exhibit 2189, which is the next in order. Copy here to Mr. Blasier.

And I ask that you identify it for the jury, please.

This is my analyzed evidence report associated with DR number 940817431.

That's the DR number for the case of People versus Mr. Simpson?

Yes.

And what does the analyzed evidence report that you're looking at contain?

It contains a list of the evidence items I analyzed and the results.

And before we get too much into that, let me ask if in addition to the items that you tested on the 14th, did you, the next day, do any subsequent testing of any evidence items?

Yes, I did.

Okay. Let's go back to the next day, then, and ask you what you did on that day?

Started off in the morning receiving two blood samples from the coroner's office via Detective Vannatter.

I then proceeded to make Fitzco cards in the same fashion I described earlier, except I made them in the serology unit. And then I returned to the evidence processing room and handed over the blood vials to Dennis Fung.

So the first thing you did that morning was to receive from Detective Vannatter some blood vials containing the victim's blood?

Yes.

And you prepared Fitzco cards?

Yes.

And did you use the same steps that you described already in preparing those Fitzco cards?

Yes.

But you mentioned this -- these Fitzco cards you prepared in the serology lab; is that right?

Yes.

Why did you do that?

Well, because I received them in the serology unit.

Is that where you normally work?

And -- of course, that's where I normally work.

So, those cards were done in a serology unit.

When you finish them, they have to dry I take it; is that right?

Yes, that's correct.

Where did you leave them to dry?

It would be on my workbench.

In serology?

Yes.

And after you did the Fitzco cards and left them on your workbench in serology, what did you next do?

I went to the evidence processing unit and returned the blood vials to Dennis Fung.

Were the blood vials closed?

Of course, caps were on, yeah.

And were they in envelopes, as well?

I don't have that in my notes. And to tell you the truth, I don't recall specifically.

Okay.

They could very well have been.

Objection. Move to strike as speculative.

The answer remains.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Then what did you do next?

Just had a discussion with Dennis Fung, where he explained a number of other items that needed to be tested, and I then went about my same protocol and procedure to sample those.

And which items did you sample on this second day?

That would be item number 23, number 34, 33, 25, 31, 12, and 14.

And did you follow the same sampling process with those items of evidence as you already described from the prior day?

Yes.

Did you again do the items of evidence one at a time?

Yes.

Did you again have chemwipes under each bindle when you processed the items of evidence?

Yes.

Did you again use the procedure of using a sterile disposable scalpel that you changed each time?

Yes.

And after you finished doing the sampling of these items of evidence, did you again run the DQ Alpha PCR test on those items of evidence?

Yes, I did.

And so you have two separate sets of evidence items that you ran PCR tests on, one on one day and one on the next day; is that correct?

Yes.

And of -- are all of those results reflected in the analyzed evidence report that you have in front of you?

Yes, they are.

I'm not going to go through all of the results of all of the tests that you did, Mr. Yamauchi, but I just wanted to go over these few that are reflected on this board.

Evidence item number 48, which is one of the drops from the Bundy walkway, did you test that evidence item?

Yes, I did.

And the results you got were what, sir?

DQ Alpha type 1.1, comma 1.2.

And the reference vial for Mr. Simpson, did you get a DQ Alpha type on that, as well?

Yes, I did.

What was the type on it?

1.1, 1.2.

So the DQ Alpha type you obtained for item 48 matched Mr. Simpson's DQ Alpha type?

Yeah. They have the same DQ Alpha type.

Right. And you can see from the chart here, the results you got are the same that DOJ and Cellmark got of that same evidence item. Do you see that, sir?

Yes.

And then for items 50 and 52, did you get the same results on those evidence items?

Yes.

And you can see from the chart that Cellmark and DOJ, they also tested those and they also got the same results. Do you see that, sir?

Yes.

Thank you.

The chart is Exhibit 291 for the record, Your Honor

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Yamauchi, I'd like to turn to another subject.

Did you, in this case also do some work in connection with an examination of the socks evidence, item number 13?

Yes.

Okay.

Did you, on August the 4th, do any anything in connection with those socks?

Yes. I searched them for blood.

And prior to August the 4th, had you looked at those socks on any prior occasion?

On June 29.

And on June 29, was that at a meeting with Mr. Matheson and Michele Kestler?

Yes.

Mr. Matheson already testified about that meeting, so we won't go into it again.

But let me just ask: On that occasion, June 29, did you have occasion to look at the socks?

Yes.

Did you notice any blood on the socks on June 29?

No.

Did you closely examine the socks on that occasion?

No.

Then on August the 4th, you did a search for blood; is that right?

Yes, that's right.

Can you describe for us -- well, first let me ask you this:

When you first took the socks out and looked at them on August the 4th, did they look any different than they had on June 29?

August the 4th? I really didn't look at them all that well on the 29th, and so, no, I wouldn't notice any difference.

When you first took them out on August the 4th, did you notice any blood that was apparent on the socks?

No.

So you then did a closer examination for blood?

Well, yes. That phenolthalein test I described earlier was utilized. I basically looked at the socks, looked closely for slight discolorations or anything that might indicate a stain. It's a very dark surface, so it's hard to see a stain on it.

And I then utilized that presumptive test that I described earlier and it was positive, indicative of the presence of blood.

So you did the phenolthalein test on more than one portion of the socks?

Yes.

And were all the tests positive that you did?

I did two spots. They were both positives.

Did you do anything else with the socks at that point?

So that's all you did at that point with the socks, sir?

Yes.

Thank you.

Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2189 into evidence.

Received.

No further questions, Your Honor.