Re-redirect examination of Bradley Popovich

📄 Re-redirect examination of Bradley Popovich — Thursday, January 16, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\16\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-BRA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 43 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Bradley Popovich Direct examination of FBI photograph expert ▶

Witness: Bradley Popovich
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 • Utterances: 61

Baker conducts a brief recross of Dr. Popovich, probing whether the witness was coached on EDTA before testifying and challenging the DNA typing methodology on Item 52 — specifically the missing development length data from October 31, 1994 testing. Baker is repeatedly shut down by sustained objections as he tries to push into swatch collection procedures, the reference vials (Vannatter's handling), the 1300 nanogram sock finding, and 'dry-labbing,' none of which the court allowed as outside the scope of redirect.

# 1 A:

We did go over the questions.

# 2 Q:

Did you tell him what the answers were going to be?

# 3 A:

Not really.

# 4 Q:

Did the term EDTA come up at lunch?

# 5 A:

Not at lunch.

# 6 Q:

Didn't mention it?

# 7 A:

Nope.

# 8 Q:

Let's talk about 52. December -- or I'm sorry, October 31, 1994, they get a trace of 1.3, right?

# 9 A:

They do.

# 10 Q:

December 31, 1994, they get a very faint trace of 1.3, right?

# 11 A:

That's correct.

# 12 Q:

Neither is consistent with OJ Simpson, correct?

# 13 A:

That's correct.

# 14 Q:

Now, the development length of the December 31 test is indicated with 22 minutes, right?

# 15 A:

That's correct.

# 16 Q:

The development length taken on October 31 is not indicated, right?

# 17 A:

That's partially correct.

# 18 Q:

What was the development length?

# 19 A:

Well, the development time, although not indicated -- Gary Sims indicated that, in fact, what is normally done as a routine part of the protocols at the DOJ is to expose them to a point where it doesn't really matter.

# 20 Q:

The development length time of Item 52 on December 31, 1994, you have no idea what that is, true?

# 21 A:

On December 31?

# 22 Q:

I'm sorry. You're right. October 31, 1994?

# 23 A:

That was performed at DOJ?

# 24 Q:

Right.

# 25 A:

It was done according to their standard protocol.

# 26 Q:

You don't know what time it was on Item 52?

# 27 A:

I do not know the exact time, correct.

KEY QUOTE

# 28 Q:

And the amount of development length can affect the showing of the dots on the DQ Alpha strips; you would agree with that, right?

# 29 A:

I would.

# 30 Q:

Okay. Now, the reference vials -- the three reference vials weren't always in the evidence processing room, were they?

# 31 A:

I just testified that some were never in there.

# 32 Q:

In fact, Phil Vannatter had his hands on all three at one point, didn't he?

# 33 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope, argumentative.

# 34 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 35 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) 1300 nanograms on the socks is also consistent with blood coming from a reference vial; is that true?

# 36 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 37 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 38 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You don't know how the swatches were collected, do you?

# 39 MR. LAMBERT:

Outside the scope, Your Honor.

# 40 THE COURT:

Outside the scope of cross-examination -- or redirect, rather, I'm sorry.

# 41 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You've never collected swatches at a scene, right?

# 42 MR. LAMBERT:

Still outside the scope.

# 43 THE COURT:

Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER: All of your opinions are based on the swatches you observed; you don't know how the blood got there, do you, Dr. Popovich?

# 44 MR. LAMBERT:

Outside the scope, argumentative.

# 45 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 46 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) In your lab you have weekly meetings on PCR?

# 47 MR. LAMBERT:

Outside the scope.

MR. P. BAKER: They talked about PCR testing.

# 48 THE COURT:

Not weekly meetings. Sustained

# 49 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) What's dry-labbing, sir?

KEY QUOTE

# 50 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, beyond the scope, argumentative.

# 51 THE COURT:

Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER: I have nothing further.

# 52 MR. LAMBERT:

Nothing further.

# 53 THE COURT:

You may step down.

# 54 MR. LAMBERT:

I move 2264 and 2265 into evidence.

MR. P. BAKER: No objection.

# 55 THE COURT:

Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2264 for identification was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2265 for identification was received in evidence.)

# 56 MR. GELBLUM:

Plaintiff's call Gerald Richards, Your Honor.

# 57 THE CLERK:

Sir, please have a seat in the witness stand.

# 58 BRADLEY POPOVICH:

Thank you. GERALD RICHARDS, previously called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

# 59 THE CLERK:

You've been sworn previously. You're still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record.

# 60 BRADLEY POPOVICH:

Yes, ma'am. It's Gerald B. Richards, R-i-c-h-a-r-d-s. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

# 61 Q:

Afternoon, Mr. Richards.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Witness

Not really.

Evasive non-denial when asked whether he told the attorney what his answers would be — notably not a flat 'no.'

Witness

Not at lunch.

Careful hedge: denies EDTA came up 'at lunch' specifically, leaving open other times.

Witness

I do not know the exact time, correct.

Admits ignorance of the development length for Item 52's October 31 test — Baker's core point that unreported development time compromises the DQ Alpha result.

P. Baker

What's dry-labbing, sir?

Explosive question implying fabricated lab results, immediately sustained as beyond scope — Baker got it in the record even without an answer.

Evidence (5)

Plaintiffs' 2264

DNA-related document (previously marked for identification)

received into evidence at close of examination

Plaintiffs' 2265

DNA-related document (previously marked for identification)

received into evidence at close of examination

Informal

Item 52 — DQ Alpha strip test results from October 31 and December 31, 1994, showing trace of 1.3, inconsistent with OJ Simpson

discussed, development length challenged

Informal

Three reference vials — alleged to have been handled by Phil Vannatter

challenged as contamination source for 1300ng sock finding

Informal

Socks — 1300 nanograms of blood, questioned as consistent with reference vial contamination

challenged

Notable Exchanges (3)

P. Baker•Witness

Baker presses whether EDTA was discussed at lunch before testimony; witness says 'not at lunch' — a narrow denial that Baker does not follow up on.

strategic

P. Baker•Lambert•Fujisaki

Baker attempts six lines of questioning in a row — Vannatter and vials, sock nanogram figure, swatch collection, weekly PCR meetings, dry-labbing — and is sustained on every one. The recross effectively collapses under objection pressure.

procedural/frustrated

P. Baker•Witness

Baker establishes that the October 31, 1994 Item 52 development length was never recorded, and that development length affects DQ Alpha dot visibility — undermining the reliability of a test result Popovich relied on.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Dr. Popovich

coaching/preparation implication

Baker opens by asking whether the witness went over questions and told the attorney his answers — and whether EDTA came up at lunch, implying the redirect testimony was rehearsed.

⚔ DOJ lab / Item 52 testing

missing documentation

Baker establishes that the October 31 development length for Item 52 was never recorded, while the December 31 test's 22-minute window was. Popovich can only say DOJ followed standard protocol — he doesn't know the actual time.

⚔ DOJ lab

innuendo — dry-labbing

Baker asks 'What's dry-labbing, sir?' before being sustained — planting the implication of fabricated results without getting an answer on the record.

Objections

8 objections (7 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8829 • 61 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103