📄 Direct examination of Dr. John Gerdes (part 7) — Wednesday, August 2, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\2\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-JOHN-.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 127 of 167

Direct examination of Dr. John Gerdes (part 7)

Witness: Dr. John Gerdes
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, August 2, 1995 • Utterances: 116
Barry Scheck continued his direct examination of DNA expert Dr. John Gerdes, focusing on the LAPD crime lab's failure to follow basic contamination-prevention protocols — not changing gloves or laboratory paper between samples, and handling as many as twenty samples in a single session. Scheck also introduced four photographs of the LAPD serology laboratory (Defense 1300–1303), with Gerdes offering a detailed technical explanation of why the lab's chemical fume hood was the wrong tool for DNA work.
1 MR. SCHECK:

Is it a good idea to handle reference samples from suspects and victims in the same period and in the same location?

2 MR. CLARKE:

Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise.

3 THE COURT:

Overruled.

4 DR. GERDES:

No, it is not a good idea because of again the risk of cross-contamination.

5 MR. SCHECK:

Let's move to 1159-G.

6 MR. SCHECK:

In terms of forensic or clinical laboratory practice or any kind of practice in DNA laboratories, is it a good idea to handle many samples at the same time in a rush?

7 MR. CLARKE:

Well, objection, argumentative.

8 THE COURT:

Sustained.

9 MR. SCHECK:

All right.

10 MR. CLARKE:

Assumes facts not in evidence.

11 MR. SCHECK:

Handle many samples at the same time?

12 MR. CLARKE:

Facts not in evidence as to the question.

13 THE COURT:

Rephrase.

14 MR. SCHECK:

Is it a good idea to handle as many as twenty samples in a short period of time?

15 MR. CLARKE:

Objection, no foundation.

16 THE COURT:

Sustained.

17 MR. SCHECK:

All right. You've heard the testimony about how Mr. Yamauchi sampled and then proceeded to test on June 14th twenty individual samples?

18 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

19 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Does that seem to you, in terms of ordinary laboratory practices--well, in your opinion, what do you think about handling all those samples in the time period he described?

20 DR. GERDES:

It seems to be a lot of samples for that time period.

21 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Let's turn to 1159-H. Now, you've heard testimony with respect to the practices of the LAPD crime laboratory personnel, Mr. Fung, Miss Mazzola and Mr. Yamauchi with respect to changing gloves. Are you familiar with that?

22 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

23 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now, as a microbiologist and DNA laboratory director do you believe that analysts handling blood samples should routinely change their gloves between handling each item?

24 DR. GERDES:

Yes, I believe they should do that.

25 MR. SCHECK:

And why?

26 DR. GERDES:

Especially with a technique like PCR. This is such a sensitive technique you might not even notice that you have a small amount of blood or even an aerosol of that blood on your glove, and unless you change the glove you can't eliminate the possibility that you might transfer that to the next sample.

KEY QUOTE
27 MR. SCHECK:

Now, in terms of laboratory paper, are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola that when the samples were brought into the LAPD laboratory and they were taken out of the plastic bags and put into the test-tubes that they did not change laboratory paper between handling those items?

28 DR. GERDES:

I'm familiar with that.

29 MR. SCHECK:

Are you familiar with their testimony that when they took the swatches out of the tubes the next morning and scraped them out with a pipette on to a bindle that they did not change the laboratory paper between each item?

30 DR. GERDES:

I'm familiar with that.

31 MR. SCHECK:

In your opinion are those sound laboratory practices in terms of the danger of cross-contamination?

32 DR. GERDES:

That is going to create a shower of an aerosol which is going to fall down on that entire area and can easily be transferring DNA from one item to another.

KEY QUOTE
33 MR. SCHECK:

In terms of aerosols then, since that is one of our little logos, I take it--what was that you were saying about scraping the swatches out of the tubes?

34 DR. GERDES:

Yes. That is going to flake the DNA and it is going to fall down on that area and it is not going to fall down right down straight onto the bindle. It is going to fall in that entire area.

35 MR. SCHECK:

We've heard some questions being asked in this trial such as you heard them, "Can DNA fly?" Have you heard that?

KEY QUOTE
36 DR. GERDES:

Yes, I have.

37 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now, when aerosols are created of these kind of particles in a laboratory do they just fall right to the ground or how long do they remain ambient in an atmosphere?

38 MR. CLARKE:

Objection, foundation, calls for speculation.

39 THE COURT:

Sustained.

40 MR. SCHECK:

Are you familiar with the problem of dust or aerosols in DNA laboratories?

41 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

42 MR. SCHECK:

Is that a problem encountered in forensic as well as clinical work?

43 DR. GERDES:

In both areas and--

44 MR. CLARKE:

I'm sorry, objection, no foundation.

45 THE COURT:

Sustained.

46 MR. SCHECK:

All right.

47 MR. CLARKE:

Move to strike the answer.

48 THE COURT:

In both areas and--

49 MR. CLARKE:

As to forensic.

50 THE COURT:

No. Proceed.

51 MR. SCHECK:

Are you familiar with Mr. Yamauchi's testimony that in processing the Rockingham glove and the LAPD items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 on the morning of June 14th, that he did not routinely change laboratory paper between those items?

52 DR. GERDES:

Yes, I am familiar with that.

53 MR. SCHECK:

Is that a sound laboratory practice?

54 DR. GERDES:

It creates unacceptable risk.

KEY QUOTE
55 MR. SCHECK:

Did you conduct a tour of the laboratory at the Los Angeles Police Department?

56 DR. GERDES:

Yes, I did.

57 THE COURT:

Did he conduct the tour?

58 MR. SCHECK:

I'm sorry, I should--

59 MR. SCHECK:

Were you allowed to go in?

60 DR. GERDES:

Yes, I was.

61 MR. SCHECK:

And when were you allowed to go in? On how many occasions?

62 DR. GERDES:

On two occasions; one in December of `94 and the other was in January of `95.

63 MR. SCHECK:

Did you get to observe the evidence processing room?

64 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

65 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And when you went back the second time you said what date?

66 DR. GERDES:

I believe it was January 18th.

67 MR. SCHECK:

All right. On that occasion were you--were pictures taken?

68 DR. GERDES:

They were.

69 MR. SCHECK:

And who took those pictures?

70 DR. GERDES:

There were two photographs there; one from the police department and Mark Taylor.

71 MR. SCHECK:

And he was--

72 DR. GERDES:

Mark Taylor was working with the Defense.

73 MR. SCHECK:

And first let me just show you this picture.

74 THE COURT:

Has that been previously marked?

75 MR. SCHECK:

What are we up to?

76 THE COURT:

I think 1300. Mrs. Robertson. 1300?

77 THE CLERK:

Yes, your Honor.

78 MR. SCHECK:

All right.

79 (Deft's 1300 for id = photograph)
80 MR. CLARKE:

I'm sorry, could I see it, your Honor.

81 (Brief pause.)
82 MR. SCHECK:

And do you recognize this to be the evidence processing room where--and that table depicted as being the area where Mr. Yamauchi testified he processed the sample on the morning of June 14th?

83 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

84 MR. SCHECK:

You looked around and you are familiar with that room?

85 DR. GERDES:

I am.

86 MR. SCHECK:

And that was part of the basis for your testimony about those procedures that we just reviewed?

87 DR. GERDES:

That's correct.

88 MR. SCHECK:

Now, did you go into the serology laboratory where Mr. Yamauchi and Mr. Matheson work?

89 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

90 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And mark this as 1301.

91 (Deft's 1301 for id = photograph)
92 MR. SCHECK:

And what is that a picture of, sir?

93 DR. GERDES:

This is a chemical fume hood.

94 MR. SCHECK:

That is the hood in the LAPD serology laboratory?

95 DR. GERDES:

Yes, it is.

96 MR. SCHECK:

Could you please tell us what a laminar flow hood is?

97 DR. GERDES:

Yes. In a laminar flow hood there is a screen along the bottom edge of the hood that draws a curtain of air down across that screen around to the back of the hood and then filters across something called a HEPPA filter and the HEPPA filter filters out microscopic particles, dust, certain bacteria and it cleans the air. So the idea behind the laminar flow hood is that there is--actually would have a window in the front that would lower down all the way down, with the exception of just enough room to stick your hands in about six inches. And then this flow of air flows across your hands and that basically forms a curtain of air that doesn't allow air from the room to get into the hood and it doesn't allow anything from inside the hood to get out and it is a hood that is frequently called a biosafety cabinet and the reason for that is it protects the analyst from being infected with--if there is an infectious agent, so in microbiology or virology we use these to protect an individual from being exposed to a dangerous agent they are working with. The other purpose of it is that it prevents anything from the outside from getting in and so the purpose of that, again from a microbiology standpoint, is you don't want things floating around on dust, such as spores or fungi, bacteria, DNA, things that attach to dust and float around, you don't want those contaminating what you are working with. Now, this hood here, the chemical fume hood, this hood was designed for the purpose of drawing fumes away from a chemist, so if they are working with something that has a noxious smell or something that has--can be toxin in terms of breathing that in, this hood is designed to pull air from the room into a hood and up an exhaust vent that goes out to the outside of the building. So the purpose of this is to draw air out of the room, through the hood and then out of the building and therefore pull the fumes away from the individual who is working.

98 MR. SCHECK:

Sorry.

99 DR. GERDES:

So they are two different purposes.

100 MR. SCHECK:

Now, let me just show you two other pictures that we will mark as 1302 and 1303 of the area around this hood.

101 (Deft's 1302 for id = photograph)
102 (Deft's 1303 for id = photograph)
103 (Brief pause.)
104 MR. SCHECK:

What is that?

105 DR. GERDES:

This is the work stations that are directed--that are found directly across the room from the hood that we just saw a picture of.

106 MR. SCHECK:

This is in the LAPD serology unit?

107 DR. GERDES:

In the LAPD serology lab.

108 MR. SCHECK:

And what does this picture show? That was 1302, your Honor. This is 1303.

109 DR. GERDES:

This is looking--you can see those lab coats on the work stations there looking back again across the room and the hood is located about halfway down the room there.

110 MR. SCHECK:

Could we just direct an arrow toward the hood so we can point it out?

111 DR. GERDES:

There is a hood right here, (Indicating).

112 MR. SCHECK:

Okay.

113 DR. GERDES:

This would be the work stations across, (Indicating).

114 MR. SCHECK:

Just move the arrow to the right.

115 DR. GERDES:

Right there, (Indicating).

116 MR. SCHECK:

To the left, to the left, down. Yeah.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Dr. John Gerdes
It creates unacceptable risk.
Gerdes's blunt verdict on Yamauchi's failure to change laboratory paper when processing the Rockingham glove and LAPD items 47–52 on June 14th.
Dr. John Gerdes
That is going to create a shower of an aerosol which is going to fall down on that entire area and can easily be transferring DNA from one item to another.
Explains the mechanism by which scraping swatches out of tubes without changing lab paper could cause cross-contamination across multiple evidence items.
Dr. John Gerdes
Especially with a technique like PCR. This is such a sensitive technique you might not even notice that you have a small amount of blood or even an aerosol of that blood on your glove, and unless you change the glove you can't eliminate the possibility that you might transfer that to the next sample.
Establishes why PCR amplification makes routine precautions (glove changes, clean paper) critically important — small, invisible contamination events become significant.
Barry Scheck
We've heard some questions being asked in this trial such as you heard them, 'Can DNA fly?' Have you heard that?
Scheck deliberately invokes a sound-bite from earlier in the trial to reframe the aerosol contamination argument for the jury.

Evidence (7)

Defense 1300
Photograph of the LAPD evidence processing room — specifically the table where Yamauchi processed samples on the morning of June 14th
introduced and identified by Gerdes
Defense 1301
Photograph of the chemical fume hood in the LAPD serology laboratory
introduced; used as basis for Gerdes's extended explanation of wrong hood type for DNA work
Defense 1302
Photograph of workstations directly across the room from the fume hood in the LAPD serology lab
introduced and described
Defense 1303
Wider-angle photograph looking back across the LAPD serology lab showing both workstations and the hood's location
introduced; Gerdes used a pointer arrow to orient the jury
Defense 1159-G
Exhibit referenced in questioning about handling reference samples from suspects and victims together
discussed
Defense 1159-H
Exhibit referenced in questioning about glove-changing practices
discussed
+ 1 more

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry ScheckDr. John Gerdes
Gerdes delivered an extended, detailed technical explanation distinguishing a laminar flow hood (biosafety cabinet) from a chemical fume hood, explaining that the LAPD's hood was designed to pull air out of the room for chemist safety — not to protect DNA samples from environmental contamination. The implicit point: the LAPD used the wrong equipment entirely.
strategic
Barry ScheckDr. John Gerdes
Scheck referenced the 'Can DNA fly?' sound-bite from earlier trial testimony, then attempted to ask Gerdes how long aerosols remain ambient. Clarke's sustained objection blocked the answer, but the framing was already delivered to the jury.
strategic
George ClarkeLance A. Ito
Clarke moved to strike Gerdes's partial answer about aerosols in 'both areas'; Ito denied the motion and told Scheck to proceed, though earlier sustained the foundation objection — a split ruling that left Gerdes's partial answer in the record.
procedural

Light Moments (2)

Barry Scheck
Scheck referred to aerosols as 'one of our little logos' — a self-aware acknowledgment that the defense had been hammering the aerosol contamination theme throughout the trial.
Lance A. Ito
Judge Ito interjected mid-question to ask 'Did he conduct the tour?' — catching that Scheck had asked a leading question about Gerdes in the third person rather than addressing him directly.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dennis Fung / Andrea Mazzola
prior testimony used as foundation for expert criticism
Scheck used Fung and Mazzola's own testimony about not changing lab paper between samples as the factual predicate for Gerdes's opinion that their practices 'create unacceptable risk.'
⚔ Collin Yamauchi
prior testimony used as foundation for expert criticism
Yamauchi's testimony about processing twenty samples on June 14th and not changing lab paper between the Rockingham glove and items 47–52 was cited directly by Scheck and condemned by Gerdes as creating 'unacceptable risk' of cross-contamination.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.)
(Indicating) — used multiple times as Gerdes pointed to locations in photographs

Objections

8 objections (6 sustained, 2 overruled)
Proceeding 7149 • 116 utterances • Defense witness
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 AUG 2, 1995 📄 Direct examination of Dr. John
AUG 2, 1995 KRT DvH TD