Re-redirect examination of Collin Yamauchi

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

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\18\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-COL.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi Exhibit introductions and scheduling ▶

Witness: Collin Yamauchi
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 78

Defense attorney Blasier conducts a brief recross of criminalist Yamauchi, focusing on two issues: how the blood reference sample envelope got item number 18, and how Yamauchi's 'inconclusive' PCR test result was later presented on a chart as definitive alleles (1.3 and 4). Blasier implies that attorneys — not scientists — drove the decision to report the result more aggressively than Yamauchi's conservative initial finding warranted.

# 1 Q:

Mr. Yamauchi, did you just say that when Mr. Fung gave you the envelope, he didn't know what item number it was going to be?

# 2 A:

The blood envelope?

# 3 Q:

Yeah.

# 4 A:

With Mr. Simpson's blood?

# 5 Q:

Yeah.

# 6 A:

No, I don't think he would have known specifically what item it would end up with.

# 7 Q:

How did it get 18?

# 8 A:

I'm not sure. I can't remember every little detail but that's what I was under the impression of. Either he told me or Andrea Mazzola told me.

# 9 Q:

There wasn't a 17 in red written on the envelope, was there?

# 10 A:

No, there was no item number on that envelope.

# 11 Q:

Thank you.

Now, did you also say that the coin envelopes that had the bindles with the Bundy drops in them had been left unsealed?

# 12 A:

Coin, Bundy blood, yes.

# 13 Q:

You always seal items after you look at them so that -- and you write your initials on the seal and there's special type tape that says seal so that you can tell when somebody else -- when anybody opens up an envelope, don't you?

# 14 A:

On the final packaging, yes. The individual items don't necessarily have to be sealed.

# 15 Q:

The coin envelopes, the packaging is always sealed so that you know how many times people have gone in and out of it, isn't that true?

# 16 A:

Yes, it is.

# 17 Q:

Now, item 31.

# 18 (Counsel displays Exhibit 31.)

# 19 Q:

This chart, under SID -- that's you guys, right -- says 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, correct?

# 20 A:

Yes.

# 21 Q:

Did you report this result or did you report weak 4, very weak 1.3?

# 22 A:

On my report was stated inconclusive.

# 23 Q:

When did it become weak 1.3, 4?

# 24 A:

That's what it always was on my data sheet. That's what's written down.

# 25 Q:

When did it become this result for purposes of documentation?

# 26 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant, argumentative.

# 27 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 28 A:

I'm not sure. Because that result always was indicated on my data sheet.

# 29 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) But your sheet that we showed here, that you brought in, that was introduced as your final results, isn't it?

# 30 A:

That's my report, yes, it is.

# 31 Q:

And then at some point, when this big chart was prepared, the results were put on it as it appears here, correct?

# 32 A:

Yes, somebody -- some attorney decided to put up my results off of my data.

KEY QUOTE

# 33 Q:

Okay.

# 34 A:

And I will confirm that that's what I got as far as my data is concerned.

# 35 Q:

But you took the conservative approach when you did your test and when you found it inconclusive, right?

# 36 A:

When I wrote that down, my initial report, yes, I did.

KEY QUOTE

# 37 Q:

And some attorney said we don't want you to be quite that conservative, right?

KEY QUOTE

# 38 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 39 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 40 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you said that when you -- by the way, you don't have your testing strip with you on this test?

# 41 A:

No, I don't.

# 42 Q:

That was turned over to the defense as well, was it not?

# 43 A:

I certainly hope so.

# 44 Q:

How intense was the 1.3 dot?

# 45 A:

I don't recall.

# 46 Q:

Compared to the C dot?

# 47 A:

I imagine if I wrote weak it would have been less than the C dot.

# 48 Q:

How about the 1.3?

# 49 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, that's the one he just asked.

# 50 A:

Didn't you just ask --

# 51 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) I'm sorry, I thought I just asked for 4.

# 52 A:

The 4, I'm not sure, I'd imagine was less than the C dot also.

# 53 Q:

Now, you're saying that where you get that result, where you get dots that are less than the C dot, that indicates a mixture?

# 54 A:

Well, it can depending on the intensity.

# 55 Q:

Didn't you just indicate that that indicates a mixture?

# 56 A:

Yes, previously I said that.

# 57 Q:

What did the manual say it means?

# 58 A:

What does the manual say it means?

# 59 Q:

Yes.

# 60 A:

What part are you referring to?

# 61 Q:

Doesn't the manual say that it could be a mixture, it could be contamination, it could be a DX gene, or it would be cross-hybridization?

# 62 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, calls for hearsay, irrelevant.

# 63 THE COURT:

Overruled. Goes to this witness's knowledge.

# 64 A:

No, I don't believe so.

# 65 Q:

The manual didn't say that?

# 66 A:

No.

# 67 Q:

Okay.

How about the difference between the 1.3 and the 4, was there any difference in intensity?

# 68 A:

I have on my data sheet 1.3, very weak, weak 1.3, 4. So judging by what I wrote on my data sheet, the 1.3 was probably a little weaker than the 4, although this is a photocopy of my strip so I can't really tell.

# 69 Q:

Okay. So there was -- But your records indicates there was a difference in intensity between those two, correct?

# 70 A:

Yes, it does.

# 71 Q:

Lots of times when you get a 1.3, that's an indication of cross-hybridization, correct?

# 72 A:

That's a possibility.

# 73 Q:

So some attorney at some point decided we're going for call the 1.3 and the 4 real alleles.

# 74 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 75 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 76 MR. BLASIER:

No further questions.

# 77 MR. LAMBERT:

I have nothing further.

# 78 THE COURT:

You may step down.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Yamauchi

Yes, somebody -- some attorney decided to put up my results off of my data.

Yamauchi acknowledges that legal counsel, not the scientist, made the decision about how to present his test data on the chart — undermining the objectivity of the documented result.

Blasier

And some attorney said we don't want you to be quite that conservative, right?

Blasier's sustained-objection question frames the prosecution as having pressured the scientist to present a weaker result more favorably — the core implication of this entire exchange.

Yamauchi

When I wrote that down, my initial report, yes, I did.

Yamauchi confirms he originally took the conservative approach and called the result inconclusive, validating the defense's implied timeline of subsequent alteration.

Evidence (4)

Exhibit 31

DQ-alpha PCR results chart showing alleles 1.3 and 4 for a Bundy blood drop, derived from Yamauchi's data sheet

discussed and challenged — defense contrasts chart results against Yamauchi's original 'inconclusive' report

Informal

Yamauchi's original data sheet showing 'weak 1.3, very weak 1.3, weak 4' notation

referenced to establish discrepancy between raw data and final documented result

Informal

PCR test manual — Blasier attempts to establish that weak dots could indicate mixture, contamination, DX gene, or cross-hybridization

challenged — Yamauchi disputes the manual says this

Informal

Blood reference sample envelope (item 18, Mr. Simpson's blood)

discussed — Blasier establishes no item number was written on the envelope when Fung gave it to Yamauchi

Notable Exchanges (2)

Blasier•Yamauchi

Blasier walks Yamauchi through the gap between his 'inconclusive' initial report and the definitive allele calls on the trial chart, extracting the admission that 'some attorney' made the presentation decision.

strategic

Blasier•Yamauchi

Blasier probes whether the 1.3 dot result could indicate cross-hybridization rather than a true allele, with Yamauchi conceding 'that's a possibility.'

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Yamauchi

prior inconsistent statement / contradictory documentation

Blasier contrasts Yamauchi's original 'inconclusive' report with the definitive allele calls on Exhibit 31, implying the final documented result was shaped by prosecutorial preference rather than scientific judgment.

Objections

5 objections (2 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 8311 • 78 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103