Direct examination of Dr. Terry Lee

📄 Direct examination of Dr. Terry Lee — Thursday, January 16, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\16\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-TERRY.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 43 of 57

◀ Re-redirect examination of Officer Angelica Guzman Cross-examination of Dr. Terry Lee ▶

Witness: Dr. Terry Lee
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 • Utterances: 204

Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Terry Lee, a research scientist and head of the mass spectrometry section at the City of Hope's Beckman Research Center, testified about FBI Agent Martz's EDTA testing on evidence samples. Dr. Lee — notably testifying as an expert for the first time — explained that all three of Martz's tests (negative ion, HPLC, and positive ion LCESMSMS) showed no meaningful presence of EDTA in the evidence samples, directly rebutting Dr. Rieders' interpretation. He attributed the tiny trace signals detected to instrument carryover contamination, not EDTA from a purple-top test tube.

# 1 A:

No.

# 2 Q:

Any officer enter the car?

# 3 A:

No.

# 4 Q:

Thank you.

# 5 THE COURT:

Okay. You may step down. You're excused.

# 6 DR. TERRY LEE:

Thank you, sir.

# 7 MR. LAMBERT:

Plaintiffs call Dr. Terry Lee, Your Honor. TERRY LEE, was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

# 8 THE CLERK:

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?

# 9 DR. TERRY LEE:

I do.

# 10 THE CLERK:

Please be seated.

# 11 THE BAILIFF:

Please be seated.

# 12 THE CLERK:

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

# 13 DR. TERRY LEE:

My name is Terry Lee, T-e-r-r-y L-e-e.

# 14 MR. LAMBERT:

Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 15 Q:

Good morning, Dr. Lee. You are a Ph.D., sir?

# 16 A:

Yes.

# 17 Q:

When did you obtain your Ph.D.?

# 18 A:

I obtained my Ph.D. degree in 1977 from the University of Oregon.

# 19 Q:

And in what field did you obtain that degree?

# 20 A:

Chemistry.

# 21 Q:

And since obtaining your Ph.D., what has been your occupation, sir?

# 22 A:

I have been a research scientist.

# 23 Q:

Where were you first employed after obtaining the Ph.D.?

# 24 A:

I first took a post doctoral position at Oregon Graduate Center for a period of three years, after which I took a position at Cetus Corporation which is a technology company in the Bay area. And then finally, I ended up at Beckman Research Institute at the City of Hope.

# 25 Q:

Dr. Frederic Rieders told the jury when he was here that he's testified as an expert witness in excess of 100 times.

# 26 MR. BAKER:

Objection, irrelevant what he told this jury.

# 27 MR. LAMBERT:

I haven't asked the question.

# 28 MR. BAKER:

The preamble is argumentative. (The Court reviewed real time screen.)

# 29 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 30 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) How many times, Dr. Lee, have you testified as an expert witness?

# 31 A:

This is my first time.

KEY QUOTE

# 32 Q:

So you are not a professional expert witness?

# 33 A:

No.

# 34 Q:

If you are not a professional witness, sir, would you tell the jury what you are, sir?

# 35 A:

I'm a research scientist. I do research and analysis of molecules by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry.

# 36 Q:

You indicated you're now employed by the Beckman Research Center of the City of Hope?

# 37 A:

Yes.

# 38 Q:

Would you tell the jury what the City of Hope is?

# 39 A:

The City of Hope is -- it's two things: It's a national cancer treatment center, it's also a research institute.

# 40 Q:

And you're involved in the research side of that institute?

# 41 A:

That's correct.

# 42 Q:

How long have you been affiliated with Beckman Research Center with the City of Hope?

# 43 A:

14 years.

# 44 Q:

Can you tell the jury what your position is at the City of Hope?

# 45 A:

My official title is research scientist. I do studies related to the analysis of biomolecules by mass spectrometry.

# 46 Q:

You had headed the mass spectrometry section of the Beckman Research Center?

# 47 A:

Yes. Immunology has a mass spectrometry section; I'm the head of that section.

# 48 Q:

Are you familiar with the profession known as liquid chromatography?

# 49 A:

Yes, I am.

# 50 Q:

One of the processes that is at issue in this case is a cell called HPLC test. Are you familiar with that test?

# 51 A:

Yes.

# 52 Q:

How long have you been involved in doing HPLC tests?

# 53 A:

Since my graduate work, so it would be in excess of 20 years.

# 54 Q:

How many times have you yourself run tests using the HPLC method?

# 55 A:

Hundreds of times.

# 56 Q:

One of the other tests at issue in this case involves the use of liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry using an electrospray interface, what Dr. Rieders referred to as LCESMSMS; are you familiar with that technology?

# 57 A:

Yes, I am.

# 58 Q:

How many times have you, yourself, run tests using such technology?

# 59 A:

Hundreds of times.

# 60 MR. LAMBERT:

I'd like to mark as the next exhibit in order which is --

# 61 MR. FOSTER:

It's got a number.

# 62 MR. LAMBERT:

No, the next exhibit in order, which is --

# 63 THE CLERK:

2403.

# 64 MR. LAMBERT:

2403. (The instrument herein referred to as curriculum vitae of Dr. Terry Lee was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2403.)

# 65 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) This is a copy of your resume, Dr. Lee?

# 66 A:

Yes, it is.

# 67 Q:

Is that current?

# 68 A:

Yes.

# 69 Q:

According to your resume, you've written 129 articles that are listed on the resume. Do any of those articles deal with mass spectrometry of the type that's at issue in this case?

# 70 A:

Yes. Nearly all of the articles in recent years have been related to that particular topic.

# 71 Q:

And are any of those peer review articles?

# 72 A:

Yes. Nearly all of them.

# 73 Q:

Now, have you reviewed the various tests performed by FBI Agent Martz on certain evidence samples from this case?

# 74 A:

Yes, I have.

# 75 Q:

Can you tell the jury precisely what you have reviewed in preparation for coming here?

# 76 A:

I reviewed the analyses that were submitted to the -- to the I.G.'s -- the Court, related to direct analyses of the samples. There was also a set of analyses that were termed validation studies which I believe were not done by Agent Martz but by other people at the FBI. I reviewed Martz's testimony that he gave in the criminal trial. I reviewed Dr. Rieders' testimony that he gave at the criminal trial. I reviewed Dr. Rieders' testimony that he gave in this trial.

# 77 Q:

Have you been asked to determine from the test results of Agent Martz whether or not the evidence samples tested by Agent Martz could have come from test tubes treated with the chemical EDTA?

# 78 A:

Yes.

# 79 Q:

Have you formed an opinion in that regard?

# 80 A:

Yes, I have.

# 81 Q:

What is that opinion?

# 82 A:

My opinion is that it could not have come from those test tubes.

KEY QUOTE

# 83 Q:

Now, one of the tests that Agent Martz performed is a test that he called a negative ion test. What kind of a test is that, sir?

# 84 A:

That refers to negative ion mass spectrometry. In mass spectrometry, you have the option of looking at either positive ions or negative ions. In that particular analysis, Agent Martz found no evidence that there was any contamination in the blood samples by EDT

# 85 Q:

When Agent Martz performed the negative ion test, was he able to see any EDTA at all in the evidence samples?

# 86 A:

No.

# 87 Q:

Have you yourself ever performed a negative ion test?

# 88 A:

Yes.

# 89 Q:

Have you reviewed the results of other persons who have performed them?

# 90 A:

Yes, I have.

# 91 Q:

Are you familiar with those tests?

# 92 A:

Very familiar.

# 93 Q:

Now, another test that Agent Martz performed is what we've talked about earlier, this so-called HPLC test, and would you describe briefly what an HPLC test is?

# 94 A:

HPLC is -- is short for high pressure or high performance liquid chromatography. It separates mixtures, and the analysis relies upon being able to separate what you want to look for from everything else and assign what is called a retention time to it. The identification is based on the retention time of the compound coming out of the instrument and the UV absorbance signal that the detector monitors.

# 95 Q:

You mentioned before you yourself have performed many of these tests?

# 96 A:

Yes, hundreds.

# 97 Q:

And reviewed results of other people as well. Is that part of your functions as the head of the mass spectrometry unit at the City of Hope, to review other people's test results?

# 98 A:

Yes.

# 99 Q:

Now, what do Agent Martz's HPLC tests show as to the possible presence of EDTA from a purple-top test tube in the evidence item?

# 100 A:

There was no indication at all in those tests of any EDTA present in those samples.

# 101 Q:

So both the negative ion test and the HPLC test showed no evidence of EDTA at all?

# 102 A:

That's correct.

# 103 Q:

Finally, Dr. Lee, Agent Martz also performed a so-called positive ion mode test. What kind of test is that, sir?

# 104 A:

That's a test exactly like the negative ion test except you're looking at the positive ions instead of the negative ions.

# 105 Q:

That's another form of the LCESMSMS testing technology?

# 106 A:

That's correct.

# 107 Q:

Have you yourself performed such tests?

# 108 A:

Yes.

# 109 Q:

How many times?

# 110 A:

Hundreds of times.

# 111 Q:

Have you ever reviewed the test results of other people?

# 112 A:

Yes, I have.

# 113 Q:

How often?

# 114 A:

Hundreds of times.

# 115 Q:

Now, incidentally, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with the equipment that Agent Martz used to perform these tests?

# 116 A:

Yes. We have the same equipment in our laboratory.

# 117 Q:

You have the very same equipment you used in your lab?

# 118 A:

It's the same mass spectrometry and the same electrospray source, yes.

# 119 Q:

Have you yourself used that equipment?

# 120 A:

Yes.

# 121 Q:

So you're familiar with the equipment?

# 122 A:

I'm very familiar with it.

# 123 Q:

When Agent Martz ran the LCESMSMS test in the positive ion mode to determine whether he could detect the presence of EDTA in the known sample, that is in a sample of blood from a purple-top test tube, was he able to detect EDTA in that testing mode?

# 124 A:

Yes, he got a very strong signal for those kinds of samples.

# 125 Q:

So the EDTA was clearly present and visible under the testing procedure?

# 126 A:

Yes.

# 127 Q:

Now, when Agent Martz ran the LCESMSMS test in the positive ion mode on the evidence samples in this case, was he able to obtain the same kind of showing as he did when he ran the known samples?

# 128 A:

No.

# 129 Q:

In those tests on the evidence samples, did Agent Martz obtain signals indicating the presence of blood from an EDTA-treated tube in the evidence samples?

# 130 A:

No.

# 131 MR. LAMBERT:

Let's put up Exhibit 2294. (Exhibit 2294 is displayed.)

# 132 MR. LAMBERT:

This isn't quite focused.

# 133 MR. FOSTER:

It's too far away.

# 134 MR. LAMBERT:

Yeah. This is a little bit out of focus up here. Little more. Little more. Little more. Well, trouble is, we want to be able to see the whole thing.

# 135 MR. FOSTER:

That's the problem.

# 136 MR. LAMBERT:

Put the whole thing up. We'll continue. I want to see the whole chart.

# 137 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Can you explain to the jury what this exhibit depicts?

# 138 A:

This is a direct comparison of the -- of one of the analyses for the blood which came from a purple-top tube comparing that with analyses of the evidence sample blood.

# 139 Q:

This signal here, this mountain-like signal, what is that showing us?

# 140 A:

That's the signal that he got from the EDTA blood.

# 141 Q:

From -- this is the blood from the purple-top test tube?

# 142 A:

That's the purple-top test tube, yes.

# 143 Q:

This small signal down here, what does that signal --

# 144 A:

That's the signal that he obtained from the blood that came from the evidence sample.

# 145 Q:

Okay. Now, this -- this showing that he got from the evidence sample, the small little mole hill of a showing, in your opinion, could that showing be reflecting blood from a purple-top test tube?

# 146 A:

No.

# 147 Q:

And why not, sir?

# 148 A:

The intensity difference is too great. Agent Martz, because he didn't have an internal standard, he designed his experiment such that if there was any errors in the quantitation, that he would err in the right way; in other words, he would always attempt to use more blood from the evidence sample than he would from his positive control. In this case, there's 100 times or more greater intensity from blood obtained from a purple-top tube than he would get from his evidence sample. So that result is inconsistent with the blood from the evidence sample having come from a purple-top tube.

# 149 Q:

And the procedure that Agent Martz used, is that a standard operating procedure for somebody using these mass spectrometry machines?

# 150 A:

Yes, it's a standard operating procedure when you don't have an internal standard that you can do exact quantitation with.

# 151 Q:

And when Agent Martz did these tests, was there an internal standard commercially available to do these tests?

# 152 A:

There was not.

# 153 MR. LAMBERT:

Let's put up the next one. This will be a new one.

# 154 THE CLERK:

2404. (The instrument herein described as Chart was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2404.)

# 155 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The one we just looked at was for K206 or Q206 this is for Q204. Is this the same type of chart that you just showed us?

# 156 A:

Yes.

# 157 Q:

So for both of the two evidence samples, socks and back gate, tested by Agent Martz, he got only a trace signal from the evidence sample and some mountainous signal from the known sample?

# 158 A:

That's correct.

# 159 Q:

And once again, Doctor, is it your opinion -- what is your opinion as to whether these little trace signals could have come from a purple-top test tube?

# 160 A:

In my opinion, they could not have come from a purple-top test tube.

# 161 Q:

Now, did Agent Martz also perform these same tests on his own blood?

# 162 A:

He did.

# 163 Q:

And what results did he obtain when he did that test?

# 164 A:

He got essentially equivalent results with his own blood as far as the trace level of EDTA that were detected in his analyses.

# 165 Q:

So when Agent Martz took out his own blood and tested it in the machine, he got this same little signal from his own blood?

# 166 A:

That's correct.

# 167 Q:

And from a scientific point of view, Dr. Lee, could you tell us what the significance of that is?

# 168 A:

The significance, from a scientific point of view, is that since the signal and response are the same, that the likely source of that signal was possibly the same.

# 169 Q:

Well, Dr. Rieders testified that this wide variation between the small signal shown in the evidence sample and the very large signal shown in the known sample could be the result of some error by Agent Martz in measuring the amount of the evidence sample. Do you believe Dr. Rieders could be correct in that regard?

# 170 A:

No, I don't. I think that is extremely unlikely. Blood is a colored substance, so if there was a very large error, in this case it would have to be larger than a -- greater than a ten-fold error, then the solution you were sampling from would have been colored differently. That's a difference that you would not be able to overlook.

# 171 Q:

And did Agent Martz run these experiments more than one time?

# 172 A:

He ran them several times.

# 173 Q:

So if Dr. Rieders is right, would Agent Martz have to have made the same error every time he ran them?

# 174 A:

That's correct.

# 175 Q:

And I think you mentioned that Agent Martz was intentionally trying to use more of the evidence sample than the known sample. Is that your understanding?

# 176 A:

That's correct --

# 177 MR. BAKER:

Objection, no foundation for that.

# 178 A:

-- Yes.

# 179 THE COURT:

Lay a foundation for that.

# 180 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) You read Dr. Roger Martz's testimony?

# 181 A:

It's contained in Dr. Martz's testimony in the criminal trial.

# 182 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 183 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) So he was intentionally trying to use more evidence sample than the known sample; is that your understanding?

# 184 A:

That's my understand.

# 185 Q:

That's what would be standard operating procedure for a mass spectrometer doing these tests?

# 186 A:

For doing these kinds of analyses, that's what you would do, yes.

# 187 Q:

Dr. Rieders also tried to explain the difference between the small signal from the evidence sample and the large signal from the known sample by saying that it was possible that the EDTA in the evidence sample had somehow degraded before these tests were run. Is there any scientific literature that supports Dr. Rieders' opinion that EDTA could degrade so significantly?

# 188 A:

None that I'm aware of.

KEY QUOTE

# 189 MR. BAKER:

Objection.

# 190 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Do you believe that Dr. Rieders is correct or incorrect in that regard?

# 191 A:

I believe he's incorrect.

# 192 Q:

Why is that, sir?

# 193 A:

EDTA is a very unstable compound; it's not likely to degrade under normal circumstances. And these evidence samples were -- came from different places and were treated differently; yet they all show the same levels. And so it's difficult to imagine the degradation that would be common to all the samples.

# 194 Q:

And if Dr. Rieders was correct in his degradation theory, how would that explain the results that Agent Martz got in his own blood?

# 195 A:

It wouldn't.

# 196 Q:

As a scientist, Dr. Lee, what is the most likely explanation for this very small trace that is shown in the evidence sample here in this one test that Agent Martz did?

# 197 A:

These results are consistent with a carryover from -- in the instruments. In other words, if you first analyze on the instrument samples which contain a large quantity of EDTA and then you subsequently come in with the samples that don't have any, it's not uncommon to pick up trace levels from various parts of the instruments that have been contaminated with the EDTA and then subsequently alluded off when you did the other analyses.

KEY QUOTE

# 198 Q:

And is that a common problem with the LCESMSMS instruments?

# 199 A:

It's a common problem with those instruments, yes.

# 200 Q:

Is it something that you yourself have experienced?

# 201 A:

Many times.

# 202 Q:

And is it something that other people that do mass spectrometry have experienced as well?

# 203 A:

Yes.

# 204 Q:

And if people are very experienced in doing mass spectrometry, is it something that they are aware of is a problem with the instruments?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (5)

Dr. Terry Lee

My opinion is that it could not have come from those test tubes.

Core conclusion of his testimony — directly contradicts the defense's EDTA-planting theory.

Dr. Terry Lee

There's 100 times or more greater intensity from blood obtained from a purple-top tube than he would get from his evidence sample. So that result is inconsistent with the blood from the evidence sample having come from a purple-top tube.

Quantifies the gap between the known EDTA sample and evidence sample signals, making the contamination theory implausible.

Dr. Terry Lee

None that I'm aware of.

Flat denial that any scientific literature supports Rieders' EDTA degradation theory.

Dr. Terry Lee

These results are consistent with a carryover from -- in the instruments. In other words, if you first analyze on the instrument samples which contain a large quantity of EDTA and then you subsequently come in with the samples that don't have any, it's not uncommon to pick up trace levels from various parts of the instruments.

Offers an alternative, mundane explanation for the trace signals Rieders treated as evidence of planted blood.

Dr. Terry Lee

This is my first time.

Lambert pointedly established Lee is not a professional expert witness, contrasting him favorably with Rieders who testified 100+ times.

Evidence (3)

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2403

Curriculum vitae of Dr. Terry Lee, listing 129 published articles

introduced and discussed

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2294

Chart comparing LCESMSMS positive ion signal from purple-top tube blood (large mountain signal) vs. evidence sample blood (trace signal) — identified as sample K206/Q206

displayed and explained

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2404

Same type of comparison chart for evidence sample Q204 (socks and back gate)

introduced and discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Mr. Lambert•Dr. Terry Lee

Lambert systematically walked Lee through each of Martz's three tests (negative ion, HPLC, positive ion), establishing that all three independently showed no EDTA in evidence samples, building a cumulative rebuttal to Rieders.

strategic

Mr. Lambert•Dr. Terry Lee

Lee dismissed Rieders' two alternative explanations — measurement error and EDTA degradation — on separate scientific grounds: blood's visible color makes a 10-fold measurement error impossible to overlook, and no scientific literature supports significant EDTA degradation.

methodical

Mr. Lambert•Dr. Terry Lee

Lee noted that Agent Martz's own blood showed the same tiny trace signal as the evidence samples, suggesting the trace was instrument carryover, not EDTA contamination from preserved blood.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Dr. Frederic Rieders

expert rebuttal / scientific contradiction

Lambert used Lee to systematically dismantle Rieders' two explanations for the EDTA test results: (1) measurement error — Lee said a 10-fold error would have been visually obvious from blood color; (2) EDTA degradation — Lee said no scientific literature supports it and could not explain why Martz's own blood showed the same trace signal.

Objections

3 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8839 • 204 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103