All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel, that Dr. Fredric Rieders is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Miss Clark.

Fredric Rieders, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

And, Miss Clark, you may continue.

Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

Sir, you--I've conferred with your counsel, and he tells me that you have billed so far $13,000 for your services.

Yes.

Does that sound right to you?

Correct.

That does not include your time in court today; is that correct?

Correct.

What else does that not include?

Anything since June 16th.

Okay. And there were hours spent after June 16th I take it?

Yes.

Do you know how many hours were spent after June 16th, 1995?

No.

Can you estimate for us?

Honestly I can't.

Okay. Whatever the number of hours they would be, would you--it was your testimony I think earlier that you bill at the rate of $250 an hour, correct?

For actual work that pertains to the case. Not just time spent, but actual work pertaining to the case. Some of the work, as I'm learning things, I don't bill for them.

All right. In this case, sir, did you spend actual time working on the case since June 16th, 1995?

I can't tell you.

You can't tell us?

I don't know.

At some point, you will submit a bill for those hours; will you not?

Yes, I hope to after I return this time.

And we cannot obtain that information right now?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

Uh-huh. All right. Then that would be another over 10,000 in addition to the 13,000 you've already billed, correct?

Yes.

Now, sir, if you will recall, on July 24th, when I pointed out to you that the gate and the sock gave very similar readings to Agent Martz' own unpreserved blood, your answer was, "Yes, surprisingly yes." Do you recall that?

Yes.

And when I asked you how you could account for that, you stated that you could not account for that and you called the results of Agent Martz' unpreserved blood absurd. Do you recall that testimony?

Approximately, yes.

Would it help you to determine whether or not that is exactly what you said if I showed you a transcript of that testimony?

Would you like to look at it, sir?

No, not particularly.

Now, when you called the result on Agent Martz' blood absurd, it was your testimony that you felt it was absurd to find that amount of EDTA in normal blood, correct?

That's my opinion, yes.

Now, after you wrote your report on July 17th, sir, the chromatographs depicting the readings on the gate and the sock stains did not change, did they?

I don't know what you--

The graphs that were generated by the testing performed by Agent Martz on the gate and the sock stains were the graphs that you examined from March until you wrote your report in July--on July 17th, correct?

Yes.

Those graphs did not change after July 17th, did they?

I didn't see any change, no.

And yet, in that report on July 17th, as you previously testified, you wrote that your interpretation of those graphs revealed the presence of one parent and one daughter ion on the sock stain and on the gate stain, correct?

Yes.

And then--after you wrote the report on July 17th and the graphs did not change, you did get the results of Agent Martz' blood that gave the same one parent and one daughter ion result, correct?

Yes.

And then you testified on July 24th that you found then that the sock chromatograph showed the full daughter spectrum which had not been contained in your July 17th report, correct?

Yes.

Now, given the result--isn't it true, sir, that given the result on Agent Martz' blood, you realized that you could not maintain that the substance detected on the gate and the sock stains came from preserved blood unless you changed your opinion as to what the graphs showed on the evidence stains? Isn't that true?

No.

You did change your opinion, however, with respect to what was shown on the graph for the sock stain; isn't that true?

No.

But your report said there was no--did not document a full daughter spectrum, did it?

It said nothing about the full daughter spectrum.

In fact, it affirmatively said one parent and one daughter; isn't that true?

That's the only thing it referred to, yes.

And in your testimony, you felt it was important to point out to this jury that your interpretation of the sock graphs showed the full daughter spectrum on July 24th; isn't that true?

At that point, yes, after conference with Dr. Martz.

And Dr. Martz, you mean Agent Martz? Agent Martz?

Agent Martz, right. I'm sorry.

And did you see Agent Martz' testi--did you see Agent Martz testify on television or did you read his testimony in transcript form?

Both.

And you also of course heard his opinion that the substance that was detected in the gate and the sock stain and in his blood may be consistent with EDTA, but could not be so identified, correct?

That's what he said, yes.

And he said that because he felt that it would be inappropriate--

We're getting it.

He said that because he felt it would be inappropriate to say that the EDTA substance was identified unless the full daughter spectrum was present; isn't that true?

Pretty much, yes.

Now, sir, when you indicated previously that you could not account for the results shown in Agent Martz' own unpreserved blood, after you received those results on Agent Martz' blood, what effort did you make to perform any test on say your own blood to see if it came out with the same results as Agent Martz'?

The answer is then none?

That's what I--

You did no experiments?

Objection, your Honor.

Again, yes, I didn't perform any experiments.

And you've indicated to counsel on direct that there was a method by which you could quantify the amount of blood in a sample in order to be very precise about the amount that there is in there, correct?

It's very easy to quantify the blood, yes.

Now, you actually had bloodstains 47, 50 and 78 from this case.

Objection. Would like to approach.

All right. With the court reporter, please.

All right. We are over at the sidebar.

Your Honor, these are the items that were transmitted to Dr. Ballard. I thought the Court had previously ruled that the Prosecution was not permitted to go into that. Now, it's beyond the scope of my direct. I didn't ask him any questions about those items and I think it's highly improper that Miss Clark raises them now.

I believe the Court had previously issued an order with respect to Mr. Harmon trying to contact Dr. Rieders about the samples, and in my view, this is intentional misconduct.

Miss Clark.

It's not misconduct at all. The fact that we know that they passed through Dr. Rieders' hand is not inappropriate for us to know. We had to because we have to maintain a chain of custody of the fact that these items went through his hands to Dr. Ballard, is a matter that we have to know for the same reason. And to bring out the fact that he had evidence in his possession which he did not test and did nothing with I think is an appropriate one for the jury to understand as to know where that evidence has been among other things. But given the testimony that he's given us so far, I think that certainly is within the scope.

How is it within the scope since we only talked about the gate and the sock?

Because he has talked about--what he has talked about is critical of Agent Martz' testing methods in that he should have quantified more precisely, that he should have done certain things, he had an opportunity to do that on other bloodstains and chose not to do that, he had the opportunity to test at least the known hypothesis, that whatever substance is on the gate and the sock is not EDTA or is in a low level that would be expected to be found in unpreserved blood. There were a lot of things that could be done with that evidence and I think perhaps had been done, but we don't know about it in order to prove or disprove the theory that what was found in the gate and the sock is or is not EDTA, but will be found in unpreserved blood.

It's obvious from that response she's intending to bring this up to call into question in front of this jury what we have tested and what we have not tested. Chain of custody is not an issue anymore. Their exhibits are all in evidence. They've established that. No further proof is needed in terms of what happened to these three samples. This is a completely phony reason for trying to get into this area and I object to it.

All right.

The problem with that, your Honor, the fact that it's already in evidence doesn't mean it's not appropriate to show the jury the integrity of the chain.

I agree with that, but I think it's beyond the scope. So I'm going to sustain that objection.

Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

I have nothing further.