Cross-examination of Dr. John Gerdes (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Dr. John Gerdes (part 2) — Friday, August 4, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\4\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-JOHN-G.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 129 of 167

◀ Sidebar: RFLP testing evidence In chambers: RFLP testing admissibility ▶

Witness: Dr. John Gerdes
Examiner: George Clarke
Called by: Defense • Date: Friday, August 4, 1995 • Utterances: 39

George Clarke continues cross-examining DNA contamination expert Dr. John Gerdes, pressing him on specific chain-of-custody dates for evidence item 305 as it moved between LAPD and the Department of Justice. Gerdes struggles to locate precise dates within his voluminous notes, an awkward moment Clarke exploits by questioning whether the $30,000 billed by Gerdes' lab was spent analyzing validation studies rather than the specific facts of the case.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Clarke.

# 2 MR. CLARKE:

I think we are waiting for the witness to locate information.

# 3 (Brief pause.)

# 4 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

# 5 DR. GERDES:

Item 305 from the LAPD was received by--

# 6 THE COURT:

Dr. Gerdes, you are going to have to tell the jury.

# 7 DR. GERDES:

All right. Excuse me. According to the report from Department of Justice they received that on September 7th, item 305.

# 8 MR. CLARKE:

Dr. Gerdes, are you having a little trouble finding some of these details in your notes about the specific--

# 9 DR. GERDES:

Well, there is--

# 10 MR. CLARKE:

I'm sorry, doctor?

# 11 DR. GERDES:

There is a tremendous amount of data here and I apologize to the Court, but it is a tremendous amount of data and it is hard to be able to locate these in a short period of time.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 MR. CLARKE:

All right. Dr. Gerdes, is it fair to say that you are having some difficulty retrieving some of the information about the history of these three samples? Is that fair?

# 13 DR. GERDES:

I think as far as the exact dates and that sort of thing, yes; as far as the general history, no.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 MR. CLARKE:

Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of the $30,000 that your laboratory has billed in this case or will bill was spent looking at the validation studies by the Los Angeles Police Department and not the specific facts and acts in this case?

KEY QUOTE

# 15 DR. GERDES:

I don't think that would be fair to say, no.

# 16 MR. CLARKE:

With regard to item no. 305--and it is your testimony that the swatch--swatches were sent to the Department of Justice on what date?

# 17 DR. GERDES:

September 7th. On the Department of Justice report it says that LAPD item 305, when they renamed DNA 30, was received on September 7th, 1994, by Mr. Stevens, and I have a slot-blot result on that item on 9/23/94 by Renee Montgomery and a D1S80 result on DNA 30 on 10/17/94.

# 18 MR. CLARKE:

All right. As far as the date then you believe instead of September 26th it should be September 1st?

# 19 DR. GERDES:

September 7th.

# 20 MR. CLARKE:

7th, I'm sorry. As far as that item, after it was received at the Department of Justice--and you have just described some DNA typing steps that were taken with regard to 305, correct?

# 21 DR. GERDES:

Correct.

# 22 MR. CLARKE:

Did it or was it later returned, the remaining sample from 305, to the Los Angeles Police Department as is reflected in the next box on the flow chart?

# 23 DR. GERDES:

I believe some of it was, yes.

# 24 MR. CLARKE:

Did there also come a time in the flow chart makes a--comes down and makes a left turn and starts a second row, correct?

# 25 DR. GERDES:

Yes. I will have to get down--

# 26 MR. CLARKE:

That would be easier, that is fine.

# 27 (Witness complies.)

# 28 MR. CLARKE:

What is noted as the date, "March 9, 1995, no. 305 returned to DOJ"; is that right?

# 29 DR. GERDES:

Yes.

# 30 MR. CLARKE:

And is that in fact an accurate description of what occurred?

# 31 DR. GERDES:

I believe so.

# 32 MR. CLARKE:

There is then a notation on the same date that all items were returned to LAPD; is that correct?

# 33 DR. GERDES:

At sometime they did that. I'm not sure of the date.

# 34 MR. CLARKE:

Okay. You are just not sure of the date of March 9, but in fact 303, 304 and 305 were returned to the Los Angeles Police Department, correct?

# 35 DR. GERDES:

Correct.

# 36 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

# 37 MR. CLARKE:

Your Honor, would this be an appropriate time to stop on the chart?

# 38 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 39 MR. CLARKE:

All right.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Dr. John Gerdes

There is a tremendous amount of data here and I apologize to the Court, but it is a tremendous amount of data and it is hard to be able to locate these in a short period of time.

Gerdes' visible difficulty retrieving specific facts undercuts his credibility as a meticulous expert and gives Clarke a foothold.

George Clarke

Would it be fair to say that the vast majority of the $30,000 that your laboratory has billed in this case or will bill was spent looking at the validation studies by the Los Angeles Police Department and not the specific facts and acts in this case?

Clarke implies Gerdes is an ideological critic of LAPD lab practices generally, not a careful analyst of the specific evidence at issue.

Dr. John Gerdes

I think as far as the exact dates and that sort of thing, yes; as far as the general history, no.

A measured but damaging concession — Gerdes admits he cannot command the factual details Clarke is probing.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Flow chart tracking chain of custody for LAPD items 303, 304, and 305 between LAPD and Department of Justice

discussed — Clarke and Gerdes walk through dates on the chart together, with Gerdes physically stepping down to reference it

Informal

Department of Justice lab report showing item 305 (renamed DNA 30) received September 7, 1994 by Mr. Stevens; slot-blot result by Renee Montgomery on 9/23/94; D1S80 result on 10/17/94

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

George Clarke•Dr. John Gerdes

Clarke asks whether the $30,000 billed was spent on LAPD validation studies rather than specific case facts; Gerdes pushes back but has just demonstrated difficulty locating case-specific details.

strategic

George Clarke•Dr. John Gerdes

Clarke walks Gerdes through the flow chart step by step, correcting himself on a date (September 26th vs. September 7th) and confirming the return of items 303, 304, and 305 to LAPD on or around March 9, 1995.

methodical

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dr. John Gerdes

bias / scope of work

Clarke suggests Gerdes' lab focused its $30,000 engagement on critiquing LAPD's general validation practices rather than the specific evidence in this case, implying his testimony is agenda-driven rather than case-specific.

⚔ Dr. John Gerdes

lack of preparation

Gerdes repeatedly struggles to locate specific dates in his notes, forcing him to apologize to the court and concede difficulty with 'exact dates and that sort of thing.'

Witness Demeanor

(Witness complies.) — Gerdes steps down from the stand to consult the flow chart at Clarke's suggestion

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 7180 • 39 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103