Sidebar: proficiency test testimony

📄 Sidebar: proficiency test testimony — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\18\SIDEBAR-PROFICIENCY-TEST-TESTI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 1) Redirect examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 2) ▶

Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 15

Defense attorney Blasier sought to challenge a DNA analyst's proficiency by pointing out he got a wrong answer on a proficiency test, arguing it was relevant to the weight of his testimony. Judge Fujisaki rejected the proficiency challenge, ruling it cumulative given three independent experts reached the same results, but allowed cross-examination on inconclusive findings the analyst reported.

# 1 MR. BLASIER:

Would you permit me briefly -- may I approach briefly to make an offer?

# 2 THE COURT:

All right.

# 3 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, this witness testified that he did the test in this case the way he always does this test.

We stipulated to what the test results -- what numbers they were going to give. We did not stipulate that they were accurate results, whether the tests were done properly.

The very first sample of this -- first sample of the proficiency test got the wrong answer. He reported that he got the right answer. But he got the wrong answer.

That's relevant to the weight of all of his testimony, and I think it should be admissible and I think we ought to be able to go into that.

# 4 MR. LAMBERT:

How can it possibly be relevant if he did get the wrong test results of a proficiency test he took a year later? They even admitted these test results had the correct answer.

# 5 MR. BLASIER:

No, we admitted that they were the results he got, not that they were accurate or done properly.

# 6 MR. LAMBERT:

They've admitted all the DQ Alpha results for all of the evidence items.

# 7 THE COURT:

It would appear to me that the testimony so far, we've had three different examinations of the same, they all come out with the same results to which you've stipulated with regards to what the result was.

Now, I think it's -- in order to -- it's a waste of time with regard to testing out of the issue of whether he used a -- he was proficient at his testing.

You want to argue contamination, go ahead, examine him on -- all you want on contamination, but as far as the proficiency aspect of it is concerned, on the basis of the evidence that is received thus far, this is almost cumulative.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

I want the record to be clear that we did not agree that these test results were accurate. We had qualifiers in there, some of which the court --

# 9 THE COURT:

Mr. Blasier, three experts examined the same blood coming out with the same result.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

We're going to get into results that are different now.

# 11 THE COURT:

How are they different?

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

He got an inconclusive on two samples where they've reported results. In fact, one of them was on the board.

KEY QUOTE

# 13 THE COURT:

You go ahead and ask him about the inconclusive, you may do that and you may argue the inconclusive.

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

I can?

# 15 THE COURT:

I'm not going to allow examination as to proficiency I think on the basis of the evidence -- on the basis of the fact that you've stipulated to the result. I'm not going to allow it.

Thank you.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Robert Blasier

The very first sample of this -- first sample of the proficiency test got the wrong answer. He reported that he got the right answer. But he got the wrong answer.

Core of the defense argument — that the analyst misreported a proficiency test failure, undermining his credibility.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Mr. Blasier, three experts examined the same blood coming out with the same result.

The judge's rationale for excluding the proficiency attack — independent corroboration makes the challenge cumulative.

Robert Blasier

He got an inconclusive on two samples where they've reported results. In fact, one of them was on the board.

Defense pivot after proficiency challenge is denied — redirecting to concrete discrepancies in the actual case results.

Evidence (2)

Informal

DQ Alpha proficiency test results

challenged by defense as containing a wrong answer misreported as correct

Informal

DQ Alpha test results for evidence items in the case

discussed; parties had stipulated to the reported results but defense disputed accuracy

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Blasier•Tom Lambert

Lambert argued the proficiency test was irrelevant because the DQ Alpha results for evidence items had been admitted; Blasier countered that the stipulation was only to what results were reported, not that they were accurate or properly done.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Hiroshi Fujisaki

After Fujisaki cut off the proficiency line, Blasier pivoted to inconclusive results the analyst reported on two samples; Fujisaki allowed that limited cross-examination.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ DNA analyst (unnamed in transcript)

prior inconsistent statement / professional incompetence

Defense attempted to show analyst incorrectly reported a proficiency test result, but the court barred this line given three independent experts corroborated the same findings; defense was permitted to explore inconclusive results instead.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8308 • 15 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103