Cross-examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (part 7)

📄 Cross-examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (part 7) — Monday, August 14, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\14\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-FREDRI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 135 of 167

◀ Sidebar: cross-examination strategy Motion: Kestler testimony ▶

Witness: Dr. Fredric Rieders
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, August 14, 1995 • Utterances: 125

Marcia Clark cross-examined defense toxicologist Dr. Fredric Rieders, focusing on his work in the prior Sconce case to undermine his credibility. Clark used billing records and a report from Dr. Henion to challenge Rieders' memory and chain of custody of tissue samples, then landed her key blow by drawing a parallel between his current EDTA testimony and his prior claim to have identified oleandrin in the Sconce case — which was later refuted.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Miss Clark.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

I have a document, your Honor, I would ask be marked People's next in order, 586.

# 4 THE COURT:

587 I believe.

# 5 MS. CLARK:

587.

# 6 (Peo's 587 for id = document)

# 7 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 8 MS. CLARK:

Okay. I'm showing you what's now been marked People's 587. Do you recognize the letterhead?

# 9 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes.

# 10 MS. CLARK:

That's your letterhead, sir?

# 11 DR. RIEDERS:

The company letterhead.

# 12 MS. CLARK:

And let's see--

# 13 MS. CLARK:

If I may.

# 14 THE COURT:

No. No.

# 15 MS. CLARK:

Well, before the foundation.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

Is this a bill that you submitted to the Prosecution for your work in the Sconce case, sir?

# 17 DR. RIEDERS:

I haven't looked at it. Let me look at it. I just looked at the letterhead.

# 18 (Brief pause.)

# 19 DR. RIEDERS:

That's a bill. Yes.

# 20 MS. CLARK:

Is this the bill that you presented to the Prosecution for your work in the Sconce case?

# 21 DR. RIEDERS:

I really don't know. The company did evidently. I didn't.

# 22 MS. CLARK:

It says, "To Mr. Harvey Giss, Deputy District Attorney"; is that correct?

# 23 DR. RIEDERS:

Right.

# 24 MS. CLARK:

And it says, "For professional services--"

# 25 DR. RIEDERS:

Right.

# 26 MS. CLARK:

"--re Timothy Waters, David Sconce, accused," correct?

# 27 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Hearsay. Objection.

# 28 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 29 DR. RIEDERS:

Right. That's what it says.

# 30 MS. CLARK:

All right. Does that seem to be then the bill for the services you rendered on the Sconce case to the Prosecution?

# 31 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes.

# 32 MS. CLARK:

Now, dropping down to the last paragraph where it is circled in black, do you see a reference there to the, "Examination, securing, storage and shipment to Dr. Henion"?

# 33 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes.

# 34 MS. CLARK:

Does that refresh your recollection, sir--

# 35 DR. RIEDERS:

Absolutely not.

# 36 MS. CLARK:

--as to what tissue samples you sent to Dr. Henion?

# 37 DR. RIEDERS:

Absolutely not. The only thing that I can surmise is that the samples that Dr. Lovell sent to me, I forwarded to Jack Henion. But I have no recollection of this at all. It may have been done by my secretary for all I know.

# 38 MS. CLARK:

Then is it your testimony that this is a reference to the exhumation tissues that were removed from the body of 1991?

# 39 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Misstates his testimony.

# 40 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 41 DR. RIEDERS:

I have no idea what this is. I think that it could be that Dr. Lovell shipped to me his half and I shipped it on to Henion or my secretary did. But--

# 42 MS. CLARK:

Whose half of what, sir?

# 43 DR. RIEDERS:

Whatever was taken at that autopsy.

# 44 MS. CLARK:

At the autopsy in `91?

# 45 DR. RIEDERS:

At the second autopsy in `91, yeah.

# 46 MS. CLARK:

But in your opinion, this does not reflect the shipment by you of tissues that you had from the `85 autopsy?

# 47 DR. RIEDERS:

Absolutely not. I was strictly informed not to ship anything of my own specimen. I think I still have it in the freezer.

# 48 MS. CLARK:

Doctor, were you--was it asked of you pursuant to a letter written by the Prosecution in this case to bring with you to court today your chain of custody documents that reflected the movement of the tissues you had from the `85 autopsy?

# 49 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 50 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 51 MS. CLARK:

Do you have in your possession today a copy of your chain of custody documents that indicate the movement of the tissues that you received from the `85 autopsy on timothy waters?

# 52 DR. RIEDERS:

Up to a point, yes, up to July `88. Not July `88. Yeah. July `88.

# 53 MS. CLARK:

And July `88--I'm sorry?

# 54 DR. RIEDERS:

That's on one of the sheets, yeah.

# 55 MS. CLARK:

July `88 is when you concluded your testing; is that right?

# 56 DR. RIEDERS:

Yeah. Just about. After that, they stayed in the freezer. That's all I have.

# 57 MS. CLARK:

So you have no documents to indicate what occurred to those tissues after you completed your testing?

# 58 DR. RIEDERS:

Yeah. They went into the freezer and stayed there. I think they're still in there.

# 59 MS. CLARK:

That's your testimony?

# 60 DR. RIEDERS:

They went into the freezer and stayed--yeah. I took them out when Mr. Diamond came to show them to him. He wanted to see them. That's all I recall. After that, I don't recall ever getting back to them except that when we moved the freezer, I saw them still in there, which was maybe months later.

# 61 MS. CLARK:

Do you recall Dr. Brian Finkle, the Defense toxicologist, sir, approaching you to get a split of your autopsy tissues?

# 62 DR. RIEDERS:

In Anaheim, yes.

# 63 MS. CLARK:

And do you recall--

# 64 DR. RIEDERS:

Not approaching me. I approached him. He approached me to look at my tests, and I told him, "Do you want some of what I have?" That's what.

# 65 MS. CLARK:

Sir, do you recall--do you recall him asking you for a split of your tissues and you refusing to give them because you were precluded under Pennsylvania law? Do you recall that, sir?

# 66 DR. RIEDERS:

Absolutely not. That's untrue.

KEY QUOTE

# 67 MS. CLARK:

And so if he so testified, he would be mistaken. Is that your testimony?

# 68 DR. RIEDERS:

I said it's untrue. But if he so testified, then he's very much mistaken.

# 69 MS. CLARK:

Let me show you--

# 70 MS. CLARK:

I'd like to mark People's 588, your Honor, another report by Dr. Henion entitled "Final report from the analysis of T. Waters' tissue samples submitted by the Prosecution, People versus Sconce."

# 71 THE COURT:

So marked.

# 72 (Peo's 588 for id = report)

# 73 MS. CLARK:

Directing your attention, sir, to page 5 in which it indicates tissue samples provided--

# 74 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, I'm going to object. It's hearsay.

# 75 THE COURT:

It is at this point. Foundation, counsel. Are you using this to refresh his recollection?

# 76 MS. CLARK:

Yes.

# 77 THE COURT:

All right. Why don't you review that briefly, doctor.

# 78 MS. CLARK:

I'm asking you to review the legend.

# 79 MR. BLASIER:

I'd ask him to review the whole thing.

# 80 DR. RIEDERS:

May I look at the whole--

# 81 MS. CLARK:

Sure.

# 82 THE COURT:

While he's doing that, let me see counsel at the sidebar without the reporter.

# 83 (A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

# 84 DR. RIEDERS:

All right. I've reviewed it.

# 85 MS. CLARK:

I'm sorry?

# 86 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes, I've reviewed it.

# 87 MS. CLARK:

All right. Do you see your name mentioned?

# 88 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes.

# 89 MS. CLARK:

Does that help to refresh your memory as to whether or not you mailed or sent Dr. Henion some of your 1989 autopsy tissues?

# 90 DR. RIEDERS:

No, it does not. If I may see my own report that I gave you a while before. This is different from my report. This is a chain report.

# 91 MS. CLARK:

No. Sir, are you aware that there were two reports prepared by Dr. Henion in that case, one for the Defense and one for the Prosecution? Did you know that?

# 92 DR. RIEDERS:

No, I didn't know that. Well, how would I know that? I got my report from Harvey Giss. That's all I know.

# 93 MS. CLARK:

Uh-huh. Do you see an entry on your bill that's still in front of you on the witness stand, sir, that indicates that you had conversations with the Coroner, Dr. Lovell, pre and post exhumation?

# 94 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes, I see that.

# 95 MS. CLARK:

During the course of those conversations, you were informed, were you not, that both the Prosecution and the Defense were requesting retesting by Dr. Henion?

# 96 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 97 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 98 MS. CLARK:

Did you discuss with Dr. Lovell the reason for the exhumation in 1991?

# 99 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 100 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 101 DR. RIEDERS:

As I recall, I told him what I understood was the reason for all of this taking place. Yes.

# 102 MS. CLARK:

And what did you understand was the reason for all this taking place?

# 103 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 104 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 105 MS. CLARK:

All right, sir. You've indicated that you can not identify any compound at any time--we're done with that, sir. You indicated that you could not identify any compound at any time to the exclusion of all others; is that correct?

# 106 DR. RIEDERS:

In my opinion, nobody can and I certainly can't. I'd like to meet the one who can.

KEY QUOTE

# 107 MS. CLARK:

And you indicated that in order to do that, it requires faith. Is that what you just said?

# 108 DR. RIEDERS:

Require what?

# 109 MS. CLARK:

Faith.

# 110 DR. RIEDERS:

Well, you can say you did and that's an article of faith, but it's not an article of science because you can only exclude it if you compare it with all other compounds in existence, which includes the ones we don't even know. So it's absurd.

KEY QUOTE

# 111 MS. CLARK:

And so you have testified in this case that although you can not say that the substance found in the gate and the sock are EDTA from preserved blood to the exclusion of all other compounds, you have indicated that in order to say that, it would be an act of faith, correct?

# 112 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Asked and answered, argumentative.

# 113 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 114 DR. RIEDERS:

Of course I can't. Nobody can.

# 115 MS. CLARK:

And isn't that exactly what you said in the Sconce case when you claimed to have identified oleandrin?

# 116 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 117 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 118 MS. CLARK:

Wasn't that the very language you used, sir, when you testified at the preliminary hearing in Sconce, that you had identified the presence of oleandrin which was later refuted by Dr. Henion?

# 119 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Irrelevant, misstates the testimony.

# 120 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 121 MS. CLARK:

Nothing further.

# 122 MR. BLASIER:

Doctor, thank you.

# 123 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you very much, doctor. You may step down.

# 124 DR. RIEDERS:

Thank you.

# 125 THE COURT:

All right. Next witness.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Dr. Fredric Rieders

In my opinion, nobody can and I certainly can't. I'd like to meet the one who can.

Rieders concedes no scientist can identify a compound to the exclusion of all others — Clark uses this to undercut his EDTA opinion.

Dr. Fredric Rieders

Well, you can say you did and that's an article of faith, but it's not an article of science because you can only exclude it if you compare it with all other compounds in existence, which includes the ones we don't even know. So it's absurd.

Rieders' own words frame his EDTA identification as non-scientific certainty, weakening the defense's planted-blood argument.

Dr. Fredric Rieders

Absolutely not. That's untrue. But if he so testified, then he's very much mistaken.

Rieders flatly contradicts defense toxicologist Dr. Finkle's account of why tissue samples weren't shared, creating a credibility conflict within the defense's own witnesses.

Evidence (2)

People's 587

Billing document on Dr. Rieders' company letterhead submitted to Prosecution in the Sconce case, referencing services including examination and shipment of tissue samples to Dr. Henion

introduced and discussed to challenge Rieders' memory of tissue chain of custody

People's 588

Dr. Henion's final report on analysis of Timothy Waters' tissue samples, submitted by the Prosecution in People v. Sconce

used to attempt to refresh Rieders' recollection about whether he sent Henion his 1985 autopsy tissues

Notable Exchanges (3)

Marcia Clark•Dr. Fredric Rieders

Clark attempted to establish that Rieders sent his own 1985 autopsy tissues to Dr. Henion without documentation, undermining his chain of custody claims. Rieders persistently denied any memory of doing so and insisted samples were still in his freezer.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Dr. Fredric Rieders

Clark drew an explicit parallel between Rieders' current EDTA testimony and his prior Sconce case identification of oleandrin — which was later refuted by Dr. Henion — using Rieders' own 'article of faith' language against him. Objections from Blasier were sustained before Clark could drive the point fully home.

devastating

Dr. Fredric Rieders•Marcia Clark

Rieders contradicted defense toxicologist Dr. Finkle's account, claiming he offered Finkle a split of his tissues in Anaheim rather than Finkle asking and being refused on Pennsylvania law grounds.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dr. Fredric Rieders

prior inconsistent conduct / parallel case impeachment

Clark used Rieders' own billing records and Dr. Henion's report from the Sconce case to suggest Rieders had poor memory of his own actions and chain of custody, then tied his 'nobody can identify a compound to the exclusion of all others' admission back to his prior Sconce testimony identifying oleandrin — which Henion later refuted — implying his EDTA opinion carries the same flaw.

⚔ Dr. Fredric Rieders

contradiction with another defense witness

Clark elicited Rieders' flat denial of Dr. Finkle's account of a tissue-sharing request, creating an internal inconsistency in the defense expert testimony.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — Rieders pausing to review exhibit before answering

Objections

11 objections (5 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 7284 • 125 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103