Redirect examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 2) — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Sidebar: proficiency test testimony Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi ▶

Witness: Collin Yamauchi
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 189

Robert Blasier cross-examines LAPD criminalist Collin Yamauchi on DNA testing methodology and the controversial sock evidence. Blasier attacks the DQ Alpha typing as incomplete (only 6 of 8 alleles tested, potentially missing exclusions), challenges why a Bronco sample reported inconclusive in June appeared with specific allele results at the criminal trial, and presses Yamauchi on why no blood was visible on the socks during the June 29 and August 4 inspections — ending with a pointed question about where the reference blood vials were on August 4.

# 1 Q:

Mr. Yamauchi, you testified as to Dr. Cotton that the DQ Alpha system only has 6 alleles?

# 2 A:

Yes.

# 3 Q:

That's not correct, is it; it has 8 alleles, doesn't it?

# 4 A:

Well, in the DQ Alpha system that we use, or that I use, it has 6.

# 5 Q:

There is a 4.1 and a 4.2 in addition to the 4, is there not?

# 6 A:

In the new kits.

# 7 Q:

Those are different alleles in that system, are they not?

# 8 A:

Of course they are.

# 9 Q:

So when you call somebody a 4, you never did the testing to find out whether they were a 4, a 4.1 or a 4.2, did you?

# 10 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor.

# 11 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 12 A:

No, I didn't.

# 13 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) So all of the results that might be consistent with Mr. Goldman with a 4 allele, you don't know whether this might actually be an exclusion?

# 14 A:

Well, for that matter, there could have been other systems and other tests that we could have run to narrow it down further.

# 15 Q:

You didn't though, did you?

# 16 A:

No, I only ran --

# 17 Q:

Thank you.

# 18 A:

-- that one test.

# 19 Q:

Now, with respect to the Bundy drops, none of the bindles that you looked at had Andrea Mazzola's initials on them, did they?

# 20 A:

I don't recall if they did or not.

# 21 Q:

Thank you.

When you ran the reference samples for both victims and for Mr. Simpson --

# 22 MR. BLASIER:

This is 1275.

# 23 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is it accurate on June 15 when you ran the victims DQ Alpha results from Nicole Brown Simpson showed a possible 1.2 allele?

# 24 A:

That was on her exemplar?

# 25 Q:

Yes.

# 26 A:

I don't recall that.

# 27 Q:

You have your strips with you, your pictures?

# 28 A:

I don't have pictures of the strips with me.

# 29 Q:

Those were provided to the defense in the criminal trial, weren't they?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

Thank you.

And with respect to Mr. Goldman, isn't it true that you found an indication of a 1.1 allele and a possible 1.2 allele on his reference sample?

# 32 A:

Yes.

# 33 Q:

Possible 1.2.

# 34 A:

No --

# 35 Q:

Those strips --

# 36 A:

Let me look at my notes first.

According to my notes, I don't have any extraneous dots indicated. I'd have to look at the strips again.

# 37 Q:

All right. You don't have those with you, do you?

# 38 A:

No, I don't.

# 39 Q:

Those strips were provided to Dr. John Gerdes, who was a defense expert, correct?

# 40 A:

A lot of strips were provided to him, yes.

# 41 Q:

Okay.

# 42 (Counsel displays board entitled "Results of DNA Analysis Bronco Automobile.")

# 43 MR. BLASIER:

This --

MR. P. BAKER: 293.

# 44 MR. BLASIER:

293.

# 45 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, on the 15th you processed, among other samples, samples from the Bronco, correct?

# 46 (Exhibit 293 displayed)

# 47 A:

Yes.

# 48 Q:

And one of those samples that's on your results is 31, correct?

# 49 A:

Yes.

# 50 Q:

And you reported that as an inconclusive, didn't you?

# 51 A:

Yes, that was reported inconclusive.

# 52 Q:

Let's look at 2189, the second page.

If we zoom in on 31. They say inconclusive. That's what you reported out, correct?

# 53 A:

Yes, that's correct.

# 54 Q:

You didn't report out 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, did you?

# 55 A:

As a result, no.

# 56 Q:

Thank you.

Now, you also tested 33, which was a carpet fiber from an area in the floor board of the Bronco, correct?

# 57 A:

Yes.

# 58 Q:

And you got no results, didn't you?

# 59 A:

On 33?

# 60 Q:

Yes.

# 61 A:

No results, yes, that's correct.

# 62 Q:

In fact of all the Bronco samples that you tested on the 15th, none of them showed anything consistent with either victim, correct?

# 63 A:

Well, I did obtain results that weren't conclusive.

# 64 Q:

Inconclusive means you don't report the results out, doesn't it?

# 65 A:

And the reasons for that.

# 66 Q:

Okay.

Between the time that you reported inconclusive and we got to the criminal trial, this had been changed to a 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, hadn't it?

KEY QUOTE

# 67 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, changed where, vague.

# 68 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 69 A:

Had it been changed?

# 70 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Yes.

# 71 A:

As far as right here on this board versus the time that it was put up at the criminal trial?

# 72 Q:

No, no. This was -- what you reported or what the prosecutors had you report in the criminal trial was your results for 31, is it not?

# 73 A:

Those are the actual interpretations of the strip. Those are the results.

# 74 Q:

Your interpretation?

# 75 A:

Not conclusive.

# 76 Q:

Your interpretation was inconclusive, wasn't it?

# 77 A:

As far as my report went, yes, it was.

# 78 Q:

And that was before anyone recognized the importance of there being no victim's blood in the Bronco from the June 14 samples, correct?

# 79 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation.

# 80 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 81 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, 293, which is listed on this board, along with 33 -- let me show you property report 12.

MR. P. BAKER: 1412.

# 82 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) 1412. I put a tab there for you.

Do you recognize these as the property reports for this case?

# 83 (The instrument herein described as property reports amended to add page 58 was marked for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1412.)

# 84 MR. PETROCELLI:

Is that for the whole case?

# 85 (Nodded.)

# 86 MR. PETROCELLI:

Thank you.

# 87 A:

They're property reports, I'll take your word for it, sure.

# 88 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) When was 293 collected that got results consistent with Nicole Brown?

# 89 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation to this witness.

# 90 MR. BLASIER:

It's a business record.

# 91 THE COURT:

The way the question is written (indicating to computer), I don't understand the question.

# 92 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) The business records that you have in front of you indicate that 293 was collected on September 1, isn't that accurate?

# 93 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objections, Your Honor. He's having him read from a record.

# 94 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 95 A:

Yes, according to this record.

# 96 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Thank you.

Now, I'll ask you some questions about June 29, your meeting with Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson and yourself.

Do you recall that?

# 97 A:

Yes.

# 98 Q:

And Michelle Kestler was the Acting Director of the lab at that time, correct?

# 99 A:

Yes.

# 100 Q:

And she's now the Director of the lab, correct?

# 101 A:

Yes.

# 102 Q:

She's a highly experienced criminalist, correct?

# 103 A:

Yes.

# 104 Q:

You had the experience that you've testified to, correct, in terms of your experience as a criminalist, you've had several years experience, correct?

# 105 A:

Yes.

# 106 Q:

Mr. Matheson was highly experienced as well?

# 107 A:

Yes.

# 108 Q:

And the purpose of that meeting was to evaluate each piece of evidence for its possible evidentiary value, wasn't it, for possible testing?

# 109 A:

Yes.

# 110 Q:

For possible blood testing?

# 111 A:

Yes.

# 112 Q:

And another purpose of that meeting was to determine if there was enough evidence in the various blood samples to give some to the defense, correct?

# 113 A:

No. I'm not sure if that was the purpose.

# 114 Q:

Do you remember if the paperwork that was filled out, they had a column that said "Split." You ever seen that?

# 115 A:

Okay, that sounds familiar.

# 116 Q:

That was one of the purposes for looking at all those evidence items, wasn't it?

# 117 A:

We could never make that determination fully by just looking at the items, though.

The main purpose of that exercise was to act in sort of a form of a triage and in type of MASH, where four doctors, eight casualties, only four of them can be operated on at a time, so they have to send a doctor out in order to evaluate which ones need high priority.

Well, that's exactly what we did in this situation. We had a large amount of evidence and we didn't have enough of -- the facilities to analyze every single bit of it simultaneously.

So we had to get together and they had to decide from a management standpoint which evidence items took priority over others, and the only way we could do this is by taking a quick look at them and trying to determine which ones should be analyzed first and analyzed in what fashion.

# 118 Q:

So I take it you didn't have enough time to look at all of them carefully, is that what you're saying?

# 119 A:

Again, that's not the point.

# 120 Q:

Well, Mr. Yamauchi, that's what you just said, isn't it?

# 121 A:

No, it's not.

# 122 Q:

Oh.

# 123 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, misstates his testimony.

# 124 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 125 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you have enough time to look at all of this, Mr. Yamauchi?

# 126 A:

To get a look, yeah. Not to analyze them.

# 127 Q:

Well, there wasn't any testing done on that day, was there?

# 128 A:

Of course not.

# 129 Q:

You were looking at them to decide what kind of testing we (sic) should do on them?

# 130 A:

Potential testing, that's correct.

# 131 Q:

In order to decide that, you have to look at the item to see if it has any blood on it or other biological material, correct?

# 132 A:

Potentially, yes.

# 133 Q:

And you did that with the socks, didn't you, as you did with everything else?

# 134 A:

Yes, we took a look at those socks.

# 135 Q:

You didn't see any blood on them on June 29, did you?

# 136 A:

Didn't see anything obvious on June 29, didn't see anything obvious on August the 4.

I could bring those socks out right now, show everybody in this room those socks, you wouldn't see anything obvious that looks like blood on them either.

But the fact remains that those socks have blood on them to this day.

# 137 Q:

Mr. Yamauchi, you knew that the socks were a dark color on the 29th when you looked at them, didn't you?

# 138 A:

Yes, I did.

# 139 Q:

And you knew it's hard to see blood on dark cloth, correct?

# 140 A:

That's correct.

# 141 Q:

So you would have looked at those, if you were doing your job, more carefully than something lighter, wouldn't you?

# 142 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

# 143 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 144 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You would have looked at those more carefully?

# 145 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, same objection.

# 146 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 147 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let's get to August 4.

Now, is it your testimony that when you got the socks on August 4 -- by the way, who told you to look at them on August the 4?

# 148 A:

I believe that must have been from a manager, like Greg or somebody.

# 149 Q:

Do you have it in your notes?

# 150 A:

I don't believe so but I'll check.

# 151 Q:

You don't write those kind of things down, do you?

# 152 A:

No.

# 153 Q:

All right.

So when you got them on August 4, you're saying that you still couldn't see any blood on them?

# 154 A:

That's correct.

# 155 Q:

And you did two phenol tests, correct?

# 156 A:

Yes.

# 157 Q:

And you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle, didn't you?

# 158 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, misstates the testimony.

# 159 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 160 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle with the phenol test?

# 161 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objection, Your Honor.

# 162 THE COURT:

You may rephrase it.

# 163 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did the two stains -- the two areas that you checked, how did you know where to check?

# 164 A:

Again, I looked at them carefully and I -- the only thing I can perceive is a very slight discoloration in certain areas. To be thorough, I did a phenolphthalein test in those areas.

# 165 Q:

You saw a big discoloration around the ankle, didn't you, that you thought was blood?

# 166 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 167 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 168 A:

That's not what I said. I said --

# 169 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) I'm asking you isn't that what you saw, you saw a big discoloration that you could see with the naked eye and you tested it like you should?

# 170 A:

It wasn't a big discoloration. It was barely perceptible.

# 171 Q:

Barely perceptible. How big was it?

# 172 A:

I don't know, I don't remember.

# 173 Q:

Did you draw a diagram of it?

# 174 A:

A cursory one.

# 175 Q:

Can we look at this, please?

# 176 A:

Certainly.

# 177 Q:

Now, let's take it out here.

# 178 MR. BLASIER:

Like to have this marked as next. We can make a copy so he can have it as a written record.

# 179 THE CLERK:

2190.

# 180 (The instrument herein described as a Diagram from Mr. Yamauchi's notebook was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2190.)

# 181 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you saw in the ankle area of the sock, isn't it?

# 182 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. What did he mean by that's what you saw.

# 183 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you diagramed -- you saw on the sock on August 4?

# 184 A:

What that diagram represents is the approximate area where I took the phenolphthalein test.

# 185 Q:

Not -- that doesn't represent the size of the stain you saw?

# 186 A:

You can't see the stains on that sock. There's just slight discoloration, they're barely perceptible.

# 187 Q:

By the way, Mr. Yamauchi, do you know where the reference vials of the two victims and Mr. Simpson were on August 4?

KEY QUOTE

# 188 A:

I don't know specifically.

# 189 MR. BLASIER:

I have no further questions.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Yamauchi

I could bring those socks out right now, show everybody in this room those socks, you wouldn't see anything obvious that looks like blood on them either. But the fact remains that those socks have blood on them to this day.

Yamauchi's most defensive moment — a sweeping assertion that implicitly asks the jury to trust the science over their own eyes, but also confirms the blood was invisible to casual inspection.

Yamauchi

We had a large amount of evidence and we didn't have enough of -- the facilities to analyze every single bit of it simultaneously. So we had to get together and they had to decide from a management standpoint which evidence items took priority over others.

Yamauchi's MASH analogy tries to normalize the June 29 triage meeting, but Blasier uses it to suggest the socks weren't examined carefully — setting up the 'no visible blood' argument.

Blasier

Between the time that you reported inconclusive and we got to the criminal trial, this had been changed to a 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, hadn't it?

Direct accusation that Bronco sample 31's inconclusive result was retroactively upgraded to specific allele findings for the criminal trial — implying prosecutorial pressure or evidence manipulation.

Blasier

By the way, Mr. Yamauchi, do you know where the reference vials of the two victims and Mr. Simpson were on August 4?

The final question of the cross — no follow-up, no fanfare. The implication is that the reference vials were in proximity to the socks, allowing for contamination. Yamauchi admits he doesn't know specifically.

Yamauchi

No, I only ran -- that one test.

Concedes he did not perform additional DQ Alpha subtyping that could have changed or excluded results attributed to Ron Goldman.

Evidence (5)

Exhibit 293

Board titled 'Results of DNA Analysis Bronco Automobile' — displayed to show Bronco sample results including sample 31

displayed, discussed

Exhibit 2189 (page 2)

Zoomed-in view of sample 31 reported as 'inconclusive'

discussed to contrast with criminal trial testimony

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1412

Property reports for the case — used to show that item 293 was collected September 1

marked for identification, read from by witness

Defendant's Exhibit 2190

Diagram from Yamauchi's notebook showing approximate area of phenolphthalein test on the sock ankle

marked for identification, examined

Exhibit 1275

Referenced by Blasier in connection with Nicole Brown Simpson's DQ Alpha reference sample results

referenced informally

Notable Exchanges (3)

Blasier•Yamauchi

Blasier confronts Yamauchi with the fact that Bronco sample 31 was reported inconclusive in his original report but specific allele results (1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4) appeared at the criminal trial. Yamauchi deflects by distinguishing 'my report' from 'the actual interpretations of the strip,' but cannot fully reconcile the discrepancy.

devastating

Blasier•Yamauchi

Exchange over DQ Alpha subtyping — Blasier establishes that the kit Yamauchi used recognized only 6 alleles, omitting 4.1 and 4.2, and that Yamauchi never ran additional tests to determine if results attributed to Goldman might actually be exclusions.

strategic

Blasier•Yamauchi

Prolonged back-and-forth about whether blood was visible on the socks June 29 and August 4. Yamauchi insists the discoloration was 'barely perceptible,' while Blasier presses that a trained criminalist examining dark cloth should have looked more carefully. Multiple objections sustained, preventing the most pointed versions of the question.

tense

Credibility Attacks (4)

⚔ Yamauchi

incomplete methodology

Blasier establishes that Yamauchi's DQ Alpha testing used only 6 of 8 alleles — omitting 4.1 and 4.2 subtypes — meaning results reported as consistent with Goldman could theoretically be exclusions under more complete testing.

⚔ Yamauchi

prior inconsistent result / possible result manipulation

Blasier shows that Bronco sample 31 was reported 'inconclusive' in Yamauchi's original report but appeared with specific allele designations in criminal trial testimony, implying the result was upgraded after the prosecution recognized its evidentiary value.

⚔ Yamauchi

bias / suggestive testing

Final question asking where the reference vials were on August 4 — the day Yamauchi found the sock blood — without answer, implying potential for cross-contamination of the socks with reference samples.

⚔ Yamauchi

inadequate inspection

Blasier elicits admissions that no blood was visible on the socks on either June 29 or August 4, and that Yamauchi knew dark cloth makes blood hard to see, implying the June 29 triage was cursory and the August discovery was convenient.

Witness Demeanor

Yamauchi occasionally interrupts or tries to complete answers after Blasier cuts him off (e.g., 'No, I only ran -- [cut off] -- that one test')

Becomes assertive and expansive when defending the sock evidence, volunteering an extended MASH analogy without being asked

Resists characterizations of his testimony, prompting a sustained 'misstates his testimony' objection

Objections

12 objections (6 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 8309 • 189 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103