I do believe they're unaffected by contamination, yes.

No further questions.

Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:

Dr. Popovich, you're the cleanup hitter, aren't you?

Objection, argumentative.

I'll give him that.

I'm not sure what you call me.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You told this jury you visited the lab basically to give an unbiased opinion to the standards, right?

That is what I did.

You billed the prosecution $30,000 for that, didn't you?

I did.

How much have you billed the plaintiffs' attorneys in this case?

Probably in the neighborhood of about 5,000.

Okay. Pretty unbiased?

Yes. I put 300 hours into that previous case.

Colin Yamauchi is a friend of yours, is he not?

I would say he's absolutely not a friend. I mean I knew him in no way, shape or form before I became involved in this case.

When did you become involved in the case?

I'd have to look at my CV to look at the exact date. I believe it was September of '94.

And you weren't called by the prosecution as a witness, right?

Objection irrelevant.

Overruled.

You can answer.

I was on their list to be a witness but I was never called.

Okay. And how many times have you met with -- you call him Colin, since September of 1994?

No. I met with Colin on two occasions.

How many times have you talked to him?

Oh, probably two more than that.

Four times?

Yes.

And your opinion is that everything was hunky dory in terms of the examination of the swatches?

I'm not sure what hunky dory means.

Never heard that before?

I've heard of it.

You have no opinion as to that question?

Well, if you define hunky dory, I'll answer it.

Why don't you use your definition.

I wouldn't use the term "hunky dory." (Laughter.)

All right. How many nanograms of DNA are in a drop of blood?

Depends how big the drop is.

It's generally held in the scientific community that approximately a thousand nanograms are found in a drop of blood, right?

Well, that would be approximate.

Okay. Do you have a dark pen up there. (Witness handed marker to Mr. P. Baker.)

How many nanograms of undegraded DNA was found in Item 47 on the Bundy walk?

I'd have to look at my notes on that.

Is it about 33.6?

I would say that's probably in the right neighborhood. Then again, I wouldn't testify to any of the numbers if I don't look. It's a specific science.

Go ahead.

I do not have that with me.

Okay.

I'd have to look.

Do you have any notes on the DNA nanogram Bundy walkway?

No. I know that Gary Sims --

A question is not pending, sir. How many nanograms were found in Item 48, about five, more or less?

I don't have those numbers memorized.

Okay. 49; about 1.8 nanograms?

Seems to me that the lawyer is testifying here other than the witness.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, he's testifying as to the DNA in this case. If he doesn't know the nanograms as to the Bundy walkway, we got problems.

You may. (Laughter.)

MR. P. BAKER: I'd agree with that.

Why don't you present figures to him and let him look at it if he doesn't remember.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) I just have my notes. I don't have the exact drawings, you understand, of the five Bundy swatches. The maximum amount of nanograms is 33.6, right?

That's including 52?

Yes. 52 had 31.6, right?

Well, it depends on which lab you're referring to.

Un degraded DNA testified the LAPD?

Okay. This is strictly by LAPD.

Correct?

Again, I'd have to look at the bench notes for that. I mean I'll -- basically, if you put a number up there and you want me to give you an interpretation of what it means, I'll be happy to do that.

Let's assume for a hypothetical Item 52 had 31.6 nanograms, Item 58 had 12.1, Item 49 had 1.8, Item 48 only had 5?

Okay.

That's a lot less than the thousand normally found in a drop of blood, true or untrue, sir?

Well, if a drop of blood has a thousand, 33.6 is less than a thousand.

A lot less?

It's significantly less.

Okay. Now, what about Item 117. How many nanograms did that have?

Again, I don't have any of this committed to memory.

Item 117 had 150 nanograms, didn't it? Do you have any idea about that, sir?

Well, I know it had more than the others.

And Item 117 is a stain collected on the back gate?

That's correct.

That was checked on July 3?

It was collected after the others, that's correct.

Collected about 19 days after the five other swatches, right?

Sounds about right.

About five times as strong in terms of nanograms, right?

Approximately, yes.

And you know that the Bundy walkway was washed down after the crimes, right?

I did not know that.

Never heard that.

I mean I -- again, that part of the transcript -- I mean I may have read that at one point. Again I -- again, that's not something that was fundamental to my part of this investigation.

Okay. Now, you can have contamination in terms of DNA from simply changing gloves, right, you can transfer DNA by changing gloves, transfer from one to the other, right?

Can you be a bit more explicit.

Sure. If you have DNA on your right hand and you touch the left hand with it, you can transfer the DNA?

Yes.

You can transfer it when you pick up some tweezers, right?

It's possible.

Can I stop holding this? (Indicating to chart.)

MR. P. BAKER: You can put it down.

Thanks.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You can transfer DNA when you touch your glasses, right?

It's possible.

Now, did the plaintiffs show you the demonstration that Andrea Mazzola did of her best collection techniques?

I have never seen any collection techniques of Andrea Mazzola.

They never showed you -- they never showed you the videotape that Andrea Mazzola presented at the prosecution of -- about what was her best collection techniques?

I am not -- I have never seen that, no.

Okay. You never heard that in that videotape she touches the pavement, moves the swatches, transfers the tweezers, touches her glasses; you never heard anything like that?

No. I mean --

Answer my question yes or no.

I mean I have heard bits and pieces of this, yes -- I mean from the transcript, reading the transcript of the civil trial.

And you have no independent knowledge, as you sit here today, how Andrea Mazzola collected the swatches at the crime scene, correct?

Personal knowledge?

Yeah.

Well, I read the transcript.

Personal knowledge, independent knowledge; you have none, right?

Other than from the official transcript I have none.

Okay. Now, you can have contamination by bottles of reagent, right?

You can, right.

That's another liquid that's used when you're working with DNA; the liquid you use in the process, correct?

You may, yes.

And in your lab you use reagents, right?

We do.

How often do you change those reagents?

It all depends on the reagent.

Okay. Do you leave some reagents there for more than six months?

Some reagents are years old, yes.

Okay. Had you ever looked at the reagents of the LAPD crime lab?

I did.

Did you see that a lot of the reagents used were old?

I'm not sure what old means.

More than six months old?

Well, there were some reagents that were that old, but I saw no reason to worry about those, no, I didn't.

So you had no concerns about reagent contamination at the LAPD crime lab; is that your testimony?

And that's in terms of all the work you've done on this case; that's your testimony?

In terms of the work on this case, I -- the work presented in this case, I have seen no evidence of reagent contamination.

I'm talking about the civil case and the criminal case. You've never said to anyone that you were concerned about reagent contamination at the LAPD crime lab?

Have I observed reagent contamination.

At the LAPD crime lab.

Now, contamination can happen pretty easily, right?

It can.

DNA can transfer from surface to surface without anyone seeing it, right?

I mean something has to make that transfer occur. But it can occur -- you can't see DNA, so sure, it can occur without you seeing it.

And you're talking about Mr. Yamauchi's work with the reference vial, and you basically told this jury you had no criticism of Colin, right?

I have no criticism whatsoever of the way he removed the blood from that vial, that's correct.

He spilled the blood, didn't he?

There's no place that he says he spilled blood that I could find.

You never heard that before?

I mean I've heard it said that he spilled blood. Colin never said he spilled blood.

Did you review his civil trial testimony?

I did.

Now, Dr. Popovich, you wouldn't work at the same area with the reference vial and evidence samples, right? You wouldn't?

Well, if one is working with a sample with high DNA amounts and other samples with lower DNA amounts, one can work with those very easily at the same time, yes.

So you would do it?

Well, one has to be conscious, one has to -- one has to know what they're doing to do that, but yes, one can do it, and we do that in my own lab.

I'm going to read page 54 of your deposition taken on August 15, 1996. (Mr. P. Baker read a portion of the deposition transcript of Bradley Popovich.)

Is it good practice to process reference samples at the same location within the same sitting as evidence samples?

Well, it all comes down -- I mean one has to be very precise about this. I mean if you're asking me is it good practice for me to have a reference tube of blood and right next to it have evidence that I'm working with that is going to be in trace amounts, potentially in trace amounts, the answer is no, that's not good practice.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Remember testifying to that?

I sure do.

You would work with the reference vial on the same table as evidence samples, is that what you're telling this jury?

Misstates the evidence if we're talking about what Colin Yamauchi did.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm asking a question.

It's irrelevant otherwise.

Overruled.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You may answer.

We work with samples with high concentration and low concentration samples on the same table all the time.

Well -- really?

Yes.

Do you bleach down the area in between samples?

No, we do not.

Do you use UV rays when you change your notes?

No.

You change the paper at least?

It all depends.

Sometimes you don't?

Sometimes it's unnecessary.

Okay. You think that's good practice?

It entirely depends on the sensitivity of what one's trying to do. If one is executing a procedure where one is looking for single molecules of DNA, it would be absolutely essential to do -- to bleach, to change the paper, to do everything that you're alluding to. If one's working with a test that has a much higher threshold of sensitivity, it becomes necessary to do those types of things. It all depends on what you're threshold of sensitivity is.

The LAPD didn't bleach down the area, change the paper, or use UV rays on the notes when they processed these evidence samples, right?

It's my understanding from personal conversations with Colin Yamauchi, and from his transcript, that he did not work with a reference vial of blood at the same place that he worked with the samples on June 14.

Okay. That's your understanding?

Well, it's my understanding from being in the room and having him show me exactly where he did it.

Well, you weren't there on June 14, were you?

Well, he took me in the room and said, on June 14 I sat here and did this and I went over there and did that.

If he testified differently, your opinion as to how he handled the reference samples would be null and void?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. He didn't testify differently.

Overruled.

MR. P. BAKER: You can answer.

His testimony from the transcripts is exactly what I'm just saying.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) If he testified differently, your opinion would be different, right?

If he --

It's like saying if he said something different than what he said, his opinion would be different. It's completely improper.

It's foundational. He can show that's different if that's what he wants to show.

He's specifically misstating the evidence.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor's arguing. You can answer.

If Colin said something different, I would have to take into account what he said in forming my opinion.

Okay. You can get strike that. Contamination the difference between contamination and cross-hybridization is difficult to ascertain, right?

It can be very difficult.

And the dots on the DQ Alpha strip are will meant to reveal the presence of DNA, correct?

Yes.

And weak signals can reflect the defect, right?

I'm sorry a defect, an artifact, it can show that a sample's not been washed properly.

Weak signals can do that?

Weak signals can be due to a number of things.

And if a testing kit is prepared by Kirk and Zelmer (phonetic) is properly used you won't get the weak signals, correct?

If a kit is properly prepared by Perkin Elmer, you would not get these signals you're saying.

Yes.

Again it just depends on how one executes the test.

If it's properly used, you're not going to get cross-hybridization, true?

I'm not sure I follow your question exactly. There's experimental variations and even if one follows the protocol to the "T," it's possible that one can get cross-hybridization.

Did you ever see photographs of blood on the side of the reference vial?

Blood on the side of the reference vial.

This reference vial blood that spilled over on the side of it?

I never looked at his reference vial.

They've showed you pictures of the reference vial?

I may have seen it but again that is -- Is something that I never studied and looked at in any great detail.

Okay. I want to talk to you a little bit about some of the testimony you referred to a little bit earlier. (Exhibit 1279 displayed.)

You've seen this board before, right? Civil exhibit 1279 is up on the . . .

I have seen this, yes.

Okay. Now, QC816 is the quality control, right, for the DOJ testing of the DQ Alpha strip?

Yes, it is.

And that was supposed to come up with 1.2, 1.2, right?

That is correct.

And every person has only two alleles, correct?

That is correct.

Did -- there's more than that. It's either an artifact or it's contamination, true?

It's an artifact or it's contamination. An artifact in a broad sense, it can be due to any number of experimental variabilities and if one is calling all those artifacts, it can be due to artifact or contamination.

But the DOJ testing of the DQ Alpha strip QC816 didn't come back as only 1.2, 1.2, did it?

It did not.

It showed a 1.3 also, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And the positive control which is submitted in order to determine whether the DQ Alpha testing is being done properly didn't come back the way it was supposed to either, did it?

Well --

Let me rephrase it. That's not a very good question. The positive control was supposed to come back as a 1.1, 4?

That's correct.

It also had a hint of a 1.3?

That is correct.

So both controls came back with a hint of 1.3 where they shouldn't have, right.

It's a very, very weak 1.3; the DOJ policy is anything they see, they write.

Okay. And LAPD item 30 had the same 1.3 hint, right?

That's correct I'm not sure that the 1.3 hint is actually what Colin Yamauchi would have written. I'm not sure he uses the same terminology but there is a very faint 1.3 that one can see.

And the 1.3 determination of LAPD item 30 should be questioned, but you had a 1.3 on the QC816 control and you had a hint on the CSC816 control and you had a hint of the 1.3 on the positive control, right?

Well --

Just answer that question, sir.

Well, whenever one is looking and evaluating these strips, one has to evaluate what was done at LAPD and parallel with everything else that was done in that same run at LAPD, what was done at DOJ with everything else that was done with DOJ on that particular run.

I guess my question was poor. LAPD determined this 1.3 to be of evidentiary value, right?

LAPD reported that as a faint 1.3.

Then when they looked at QC816, and the positive control, they discarded the 1.3 findings on the two controls, right?

They discarded -- I'm sorry, can you repeat the last part.

They ignored them?

They ignored the -- The faint 1.3, you're saying?

Right.

They didn't ignore it.

Well if the control showed a 1.3 at the QC816 and it showed a 1.3 as a positive control, this 1.3 on LAPD item number 30 should be questioned as well. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?

One has to question anything you see.

Okay. But they, nonetheless, determined that it was a 1.3 dot on LAPD item 30 regardless of the 1.3 dots on the other two controls, true?

It's true they were -- they reported there was.

Okay. Now, reviewing those dots is pretty subjective, correct?

Can be, yes.

Now, you've seen the other board which is civil 1281. Okay. Now civil 1 -- or civil 1281, get them mixed up with the numbers. Now, on this one, the positive control should have come back as a 1.1, 4, right?

That's correct. It was the same positive control that was used before.

And it again indicated a hint or trace of a 1.3, right?

That's correct.

Now, the QC877 should have come back at 3, 4?

That's correct.

But it came back with a trace of 1.3, true?

That's correct.

Now, LAPD item number 52, that's a swatch collected on the Bundy walkway. You know that, right?

Correct.

That item showed a trace of a 1.3, true?

That's correct.

Now, on that one, in terms of item 52, they decided to ignore the 1.3 hint on the evidentiary item, right?

That's Gary Sims, his explanation of that?

I don't want his explanation, they can argue it. They've heard it -- they've determined it to be a 1.3 hint but they ignored it, right based on the controls?

They didn't ignore it. He's got it up there.

But they didn't put that down in they're results as the findings of the possible source of this blood on item 512, correct?

A.. Well on every sheet that I've seen in every board it's listed up there it's a 1.1, 1.2 and a 1.3? Mr. Simpson doesn't have a 1.3 allele.

Again, it's subjective science, true, Dr. Popovich?

It can be, yes.

Now, I want to show you the next board, Civil 1276. Now, you reviewed all of Dr. Gerdes's testimony, right?

I did.

And you had no opinions rendered on direct about his testimony as to the contamination in the reference samples, did you?

I had no opinion on that.

You weren't asked any questions by Mr. Lambert about the reference sample contamination?

I don't believe I was.

Okay. Now -- and this board also shows that OJ Simpson doesn't have a 1.3 allele on DQ Alpha line, right?

That's correct.

Okay. And what's a GC locus system?

Well, it's one of the markers that is incorporated into the polymarker. And it stands for group specific compliment and it's just one of the genes that is incorporated into that test.

Okay. Mr. Simpson's locus -- strike that. Mr. Simpson's the only one with a GC locus?

It appears that he is, yes.

Okay. Nicole Brown Simpson had an A, C Ron Goldman had an A, A, right?

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. Now, in terms of the reference sample of Nicole Brown Simpson, the reference is sample supposed to be absolutely clean, correct?

Oh, this -- it should be, yes.

Taken right out of the person's body, right?

It can be, yes.

And on June 14 the reference samples were tested in the order of OJ Simpson.

June 15.

June 15, OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Nicole and Ron Goldman?

On June -- you may want to rephrase things. The dates are a bit off.

They were examined, the reference sample on June 15 in the order of OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Misstates the evidence?

Incorrect.

What order were they tested?

June 14 Mr. Simpson was tested, June 15 Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman's was tested.

They were tested in the order they appear from left to right on the top of that board?

That would be correct.

Okay. Now the reference sample of Nicole Brown Simpson had a 1.1, 1.1, but also showed a 1.2, right?

What was listed as a hint, yes.

And that's consistent with OJ Simpson reference sample?

Mr. Simpson has a 1.2 allele, yes.

Reference sample of Ron Goldman showed a 1.3, 4, and a 1.1 which is consistent with OJ Simpson, right?

That is correct.

And they had a possibility of a 1.2, right?

It was listed as a possibility of a 1.2.

Consistent with Mr. Simpson's reference vial, right?

That is correct.

There should be no contamination in the reference samples, true?

That is correct.

Now, also, Nicole Brown Simpson's reference samples showed a faint B GC locus?

That's correct.

That's consistent with Mr. Simpson's reference vial?

That is correct. He has a B allele.

Okay. And that demonstrates that there's not cross hybridization right?

I believe that the B allele in the GC is due to cross-hybridization.

You can't differentiate between cross-hybridization and contamination, can you?

No. It comes down to possibility of something versus the probability and what is the bottom line here is that one's dealing with samples that are very rich in DNA and Nicole Brown Simpson -- that's the way this test is designed. Any time you overwhelm the system with too much DNA, one can get cross-hybridization. When one would expect cross-hybridization is in samples that contain a reasonable amount of DNA, and so the explanation that was rendered by Dr. Cotton --

I move to strike.

-- regarding.

Your Honor, let him finish his answer.

Finish your answer.

Nonresponsive.

It is responsive.

The explanation rendered by Dr. Cotton as to that faint allele, I would agree fully that the more likely explanation other than contamination is if, in fact, that is cross-hybridization.

Contamination is an explanation, though, right?

Is one explanation.

And you are just trying to offer up your testimony as to why there is contamination or hybridization of the samples between the reference samples, right?

I wasn't asked to give an explanation. I was just asked if the type was consistent with Mr. Simpson.

And the both of them are, right?

But I didn't -- they are, but I did not give an explanation.

Okay. Now you don't even use the polymarker system in your lab, do you?

It's the only one of the markers that's used in this set -- This study that we do not use, that's correct.

Okay. Now, in terms of the Bundy drops, you are aware, are you not -- we can take that down (indicating to exhibit). You are aware, are you not, Ms. Mazzola testified that she initialed the bindles, correct?

I'm afraid --

Objection. We went through this yesterday. It misstates the testimony.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor the objection was overruled.

No, it was not. It was sustained.

What's the question?

MR. P. BAKER: You are aware that Ms. Mazzola has testified under penalty of perjury that she initialed the bindles?

Misstates her testimony.

Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we can go to side bar?

I'm not going to do that again. I made a ruling, I'll stand on it.

You're aware that the bindles did not have initials of the Bundy swatches?

I'm not aware of that.

You are aware that -- The swatches were purportedly dry when placed in the bindles?

Objection. Beyond the scope; has nothing to do with contamination.

MR. P. BAKER: We're talking about DNA Bundy swatching, the DNA testing of the Bundy swatches.

Nothing to do with this testimony.

You may ask whether that was a factor he considered and ask him his opinion.

MR. P. BAKER: Was it a factor you considered that there was testimony that the swatches were dry when they were placed in the bindles?

Well, there was a lot of -- again, that was outside what I was asked to fundamentally do in this case. Therefore, there was a conflicting testimony about if they were dry, they weren't dry. So I don't know the answer to that. I mean my understanding is that maybe they were dry, maybe they weren't. I can't answer that. Again, that was not fundamentally important for me to know that to evaluate this evidence.

So the handling of the samples was not fundamentally important to your opinion as to whether there was contamination or not. Is that what you're saying?

I'm not a forensic scientist, I do not investigate crime scenes.

So the way the samples were handled doesn't make a difference to you, right?

It's not true at all. That's not what I'm saying.

Well, did you rely on some of the testimony that said that the bindles, that the swatches were wet when they were -- that the swatches were dry when they were placed in the bindles?

To me it doesn't matter if they're wet or dry for my evaluation of the evidence.

So if the bindles showed wet transfers, that wouldn't matter?

If the bindle from the swatches?

If bindle showed evidence of wet transfers from the swatches, that wouldn't matter to you?

I am aware that there was testimony that there was a bit of transfer from some of the swatches onto the bindle, yes.

Now, in terms of the Bundy drops, you talked about a main factor in your determination was the cleanliness of the substrate controls, right?

It's a very important factor, yes.

Can you tell this jury what a substrate control is, remind the jury.

Well, a substrate control is just simply a -- a sample that is removed from an area adjacent to where the actual stain is being picked up. And it's to tell you a couple things. It's to tell you if there's something that's present on that substrate, on that surface, could inhibit you getting results. And number 2 it's to tell you if there's anything else that's there, that you can't see, that's influencing the results.

So a substrate is almost, in a sense, synonymous with a surface that -- a substrate control of a carpet, you'll take it of a sidewalk, you'll take it of a driveway. The way forensic scientists use the term, it's synonymous with the surface it was taken from. The substrate controls in terms of bindle swatches were totally clean?

They were, yes.

In fact they were immaculate, weren't they?

What do you mean immaculate?

MR. P. BAKER: There wasn't any dirt on any of them, was there?

I was -- again this was not fundamentally important to the DNA evidence in the case, but I thought there was testimony that some of those were pinkish in color.

There was no dirt on any of the Bundy swatches, as far as you know, as you sit on that stand today, right?

Asked and answered, Your Honor. He just answered it.

MR. P. BAKER: Not that question.

Answer that question, if you can.

Well, the color that was transferred on some of these substrate controls is, in fact, evidence that whatever was there was picked up from that surface.

Dirt. The question was dirt, sir. Any dirt on the substrate controls at all?

Maybe there was dirt; it was something that was picked up and transferred to those.

You think you may get some dirt if you took some substrate controls of a muddy, leafy walkway?

No foundation for any of this, Your Honor. It's also argumentative, and has nothing to do with his testimony. It's way beyond the scope.

MR. P. BAKER: I didn't hear the ruling.

I think that's beyond his expertise.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You've seen the photos of the Bundy walkway, have you not?

I've seen those.

You see dirt along the walkway, right?

Well, I've never looked at those photographs in any detail. I've seen copies of them, but I've never seen the actual exhibits. No, I have not.

You've seen dirt and oil along the driveway?

I've never seen that.

Okay. None of the substrate controls, as far as you know, from Bundy, have dirt on them?

Asked and answered.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) By the way, in terms of the reference samples, was there any contamination of OJ Simpson's reference sample?

Was there contamination?

Any sign of contamination or cross-hybridization

I'd have to see the board.

Okay.

I don't recollect --

Which defense exhibit, Phil?

(Continuing.) I'll tell you, as far as I know, there was no contamination or cross-hybridization of Mr. Simpson's reference sample, right.

Just for the record, we have the -- which defense exhibit is that?

MR. P. BAKER: You're looking at board 1275.

Thank you.

In the DQ Alpha or the polymarker?

Yes.

I'm trying to recall. I mean -- and you're referring me to that DOJ, or at which lab?

Either one. There was no showing of contamination or cross-hybridization of Mr. Simpson's reference sample, right?

That's correct. I don't believe that -- I don't recall there being any cross-hybridization.

Okay. Now, in terms of the swatches or the socks, rather, what was Nicole Brown Simpson -- what was the nanogram level of Nicole Brown Simpson's stain, the stain we've identified as that of Nicole Brown Simpson?

It was quite high.

Thirteen hundred, right?

Again, I don't have those numbers committed to memory, but there was a lot in that stain, yes.

That's consistent with the blood sample coming from a reference vial, right?

I'm not sure what "consistent" means.

You don't know what "consistent" means?

You mean -- are you saying is it consistent that somebody could have taken blood from a reference vial and put it on that sock and ended up with 1300 nanograms.

Yes.

Sure.

Argumentative.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) There was EDTA found in that sock.

Objection. Argumentative; beyond the scope; misstates the evidence.

Show me where that is. Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. P. BAKER: I don't have that much longer. I've got about --

Well, there's an objection.

MR. P. BAKER: I know.

This witness hasn't testified at all about EDT

He's talking about one examination. EDTA is a planting issue. This witness has nothing to do with EDT

And of course, we've just put on a witness who said there was no EDTA on this sock. This guy didn't know anything about. EDTA --

MR. P. BAKER: He gave conclusionary testimony as to all the evidence. They said, is this evidence reliable.

Where is your document that there was EDTA?

MR. P. BAKER: Mr. Rieders said there was EDTA on the sock.

No; he said EDTA could not be

Then we have our expert who said it.

Did Dr. Rieders testify there was EDTA on the socks?

He said there was EDTA on the socks -- could be EDTA on the socks. My guy said it wasn't. But this guy doesn't know anything about it.

THE COURT: Overruled. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Dr. Popovich, you are aware, are you not, that EDTA was found in the sample taken from the socks? True?

I am not aware of that.

Never heard of that before?

I don't have any firsthand experience with any of that, no.

Mr. Lambert didn't tell you that Frederic Rieders had testified that there was EDTA found in the sample taken from the socks?

Argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Did he tell you there was EDTA found in the back gate?

Same thing. Beyond the scope, too.

You may -- you know, you can ask whether or not anybody told you there was EDTA on anything.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Anyone ever tell you that?

That would impact your analysis of contamination in this case, wouldn't it?

If there was EDTA present?

Sure.

I mean, what I'm looking at is DNA types and saying if there's consistency or inconsistencies based on DNA typing, not on mass spectrometry and EDT

A.

It would impact your opinion when you tell this jury that the evidence is reliable as to the socks and the back-gate stain, right, Dr. Popovich?

Again, I'm not an expert in EDTA and the techniques used to analyze EDTA, so I can't comment on that.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I ask that the witness be instructed to answer my question.

I just did.

MR. P. BAKER: I move to strike as nonresponsive.

That will remain.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You said the stains in the Bronco were identical, 30 and 303, right?

Objection. Misstates the testimony.

MR. P. BAKER: Concordant -- I don't want to misstate you -- was the concordant -- there was also 30 and 303 of the one Bronco console.

That's not what I said.

You didn't say that to this jury, that the samples of 30 and 303 taken on the console were concordant?

No.

Okay. Page 58 of the depo --

Excuse me. Could we put the board up?

You need the board?

Yes, please.

Their board, the Bronco board?

Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: Phil, do you know the number of this?

293.

MR. P. BAKER: 293, Gina.

THE COURT REPORTER: Okay.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You said that 30 and 303 were concordant to this jury earlier.

I believe the number is 31.

Okay. 31 and 303; is that your testimony?

That's what I believe I testified to, yes.

Okay. I'm sorry. Item 31 was collected on June 14, 1994, right?

That's correct.

That test could only be run with PCR technology, right? You couldn't do an RFLP test on 31 because it wasn't strong enough?

It could be done with PCR technology.

My question is, you couldn't do an RFLP test on item 31 because it wasn't strong enough?

At the time the evidence was gathered, that's correct.

Then, on August 26, they collected item 303, right?

Objection. Actually misstates the evidence.

MR. P. BAKER: This is September 1.

Now you got it.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) September 1. September 1?

Yes, that's correct.

Then it was strong enough to run an RFLP test?

No.

They didn't do an RFLP test?

On 303?

Yes.

Not by itself.

What did they do it with?

304 and 305.

Okay. Were you shown the picture taken on August 10 of the console by George Carmaney that did not show blood on that console where 303 was collected?

Completely beyond the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Dr. Popovich, if there was contamination in the LAPD lab, you'd admit that contamination would have passed to Cellmark and DOJ in terms of these swatches, correct?

Again, I think -- can you be a bit more specific on that?

If a swatch was contaminated at LAPD, it could be contaminated when it went to Cellmark, DOJ, correct?

If all the swatches that were in evidence for a particular item were contaminated, not -- it wasn't the same swatch that went to each of the labs. That's why I'm being very precise here.

I'm just saying, sir, if the swatch was contaminated at LAPD, it would have been contaminated thereafter; true?

That is correct. Absolutely.

You have no independent knowledge, as you sit here today, whether or not there was contamination as to these evidentiary samples, independent knowledge, sir?

What does independent mean? I don't understand the question.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) There could be contamination here, right?

I'm not sure what "independent" means.

There could be contamination; you don't know?

It's my -- my professional opinion that it -- it is not due to contamination. That's what I testified to.

You don't know if there was contamination or not, true?

Objection. Argumentative. He's given his expert opinion.

You understand what the question is?

I think so.

Can you try to answer it?

Okay. I mean --

MR. P. BAKER: Thank you.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Every piece -- every lab that does PCR testing has contamination?

Every lab that does PCR has experienced it, if they know it or they don't.

As contamination?

How long is your redirect going to be?

Probably 10, 15 minutes.

All right. Have lunch, ladies and gentlemen. Come back at 1:30. (At 12:01 P.M., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1997 1:30 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE. APPEARANCES: (Per Cover Page) (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: (continued)

Good afternoon, Dr. Popovich.