All right. With the Court's permission I would like to use the first People's exhibit 566.

Yes.

Now, just while we are at the board--doctor, would it be easier for you at the witness stand or would it be easier for you to come down to see what is projected?

I believe if I can operate from my photo, if I have to be back to the table to look at the recording, it would be best from here for the moment.

That is fine. Just in terms of People's exhibit 566, this is hybridization record 182?

Can't read it.

On the upper right-hand corner. Actually zoom in on the very top of the document.

How about the right-hand?

Over to the right-hand side. Yes, this is 182.

And this is a series of eight strips that were run on May 6th, 1994?

Yes.

And is this one of the, as we have used the term, validation studies that you looked at as part of your review?

These are some of the samples I have looked at, yes.

The analyst in this case, or at least in the instance of these eight samples, was Collin Yamauchi?

Yes.

And the confirming analyst was Erin Riley?

That's correct.

Is it correct that none of these were case work samples?

That's correct.

You identified in this particular set of eight samples two samples as containing contamination; is that right?

That's correct.

Would the--

Basically they were identified as contamination and/or DX.

And that was, in your opinion, the result, that is, these reactions, of either contamination or this DX gene activity?

Could you tell us, in terms of the photographs that go from top to bottom, and let's start with the first one, which would be easier to start with, from your records?

In terms of which one was identified as a contaminant?

Yes.

Let's start with no. 2.

Okay. That would be the sample and perhaps we can zoom in on that horizontal strip. In fact, I don't know if you can tell, doctor, but in terms of talking about both samples, is this zooming point going to be enough to be able to describe both samples that you have offered opinions about?

Yes.

All right. Now, the second sample down is labeled off to the far right "52-2"?

Yes.

And the analyst noted a particular result with that sample; is that right?

That's correct.

What did the analyst note?

A 1.2, 1.2 and then there is a notation that is difficult to read, but it says "With 1.1 very faint."

Okay. That is actually written by the analyst off to the far right?

It is.

Perhaps if we could just show that off to the right of that sample, I'm sorry, by going down in that the written portion.

The results are actually written in; isn't that right, doctor?

That's correct.

I believe to the right.

You have to go to the right.

And is that, Dr. Gerdes, when you look at the second row down, where you have described 1.2, 1.2, and then is that with--I'm sorry, weak 1.1?

Okay. And in your opinion and what you have described in your chart and the summary of your findings that that 1.1 you have offered the opinion is either a contaminant or this DX activity?

And in fact--

And therefore represents, you know, this--a--either DX or a contaminant.

And this is because you know the sample's type is a 1.2, 1.2, right? It is from a known person?

That's correct, proficiency testing, and that was the correct type that it should be.

All right. If we could then zoom in on the strip as we had it previously. And what I'm going to ask you to do when we reach that point, Dr. Gerdes, and perhaps we can use the arrows to actually locate the arrow next to the dot on the sample, this second sample down, where you concluded that there was an additional 1.1 contaminant or DX gene activity?

Do you want me to do that?

Well, would it--let's see if we can just place it while we are there.

Okay.

If we take the arrow and go to the left or go off the screen.

It is on the monitor here still?

I think we just lost our projection. We may have to do this the old-fashioned way.

Or ask jurors to crowd around the monitor, but I don't think that will work.

It appears to me that we have lost our large monitor unit. Matt?

Yes, sorry.

How long does it take us to switch in the back-up?

Ten to fifteen minutes.

Mr. Clarke, what is your pleasure?

I would prefer to continue on based on the foundation I have already laid, rather than interrupt this topic.

All right. Proceed. All right. I do have a monitor here in front of juror no. 1 that is still working; is that correct?

Yes.

Matt, how long is the cable on the monitor in front of monitor no. 1?

About 50 feet. I can move it.

It is a large monitor. It is 20-inch monitor; is that correct?

21 inches.

21.

May I make a suggestion?

Can we move this one?

I will proceed if I can do it the old-fashioned way and have the witness place an arrow on the exhibit and then pass it to the jury.

Be my guest.

All right. I am certainly used to doing it that way.

May I approach the witness, your Honor?

You may.

All right. Dr. Gerdes, on People's exhibit 566, if you would--and do you need a--perhaps we can use a fine pen.

Would have a fine pen there?

I have a felt pen.

Regular pen. Regular pen is okay.

With regard to that 1.1 allele on that second sample down--and in fact is that second sample labeled "52-2"?

Yes, it is.

Okay. Could you place an arrow, and if it is possible to do that without interrupting any other of the results, to point out the 1.1 dot where it is located on that sample. And would a circle around it be easier?

That would be fine.

Okay.

Okay. You have placed that circle--

Yes.

Does that circle then now basically surround the dot where you detected to be either a contaminant or DX activity?

I have circled both the number that designates it and just to the right of that number is where this dot--very faint dot is located.

First of all, that dot is clearly less than the C dot, correct?

It is.

And the C dot is important in the correct interpretation of sample, correct?

It is important in the correct interpretation of samples that are known not to be mixtures. Once you have any suspicion of a mixture it is no longer used for that function.

Well, doesn't the user guide say the C dot is to be used as a guide in interpreting the presence of typeable alleles?

Yes. That is what I explained earlier. If the C dot is not present, that is why this is important. If it is not there you have too little DNA. If it is there and you have any indication of more than the number of alleles you should have, then it is no longer of any function.

While you have that photograph, was there a second sample that you believed similarly contained a contaminant or DX activity?

Yes, there is.

Would that be how far down?

Two strips down from the one we just discussed or 52-4.

Could you circle that particular 1.1 dot?

Certainly.

In the same manner as the previous one?

And you have done that?

I have.

For purposes of your chart, those two samples as a result of that 1.1 activity were listed as unexpected alleles, correct?

That's correct, because the--these are proficiency samples. The typing--

I'm sorry, objection, nonresponsive, move to strike.

No.

Overruled.

They are proficiency samples. The--the typings--expected typings are known, they are not mixtures, they are not supposed to be mixtures as they were provided, and this is an additional allele over those anticipated type results.

Next question.

Was it listed in your chart?

It was.

If that 1.1 reaction was as a result of this DX gene, it wouldn't be a contaminant, correct?

In this case you can't tell if it is a DX or not.

Objection, nonresponsive.

Sustained. That is not the question, doctor.

That's correct.

If that 1.1 dot was the result of cross-hybridization because of the presence of the 1.2 allele, then that activity would not be from a contaminant, correct?

Cross-hybridization is not well-known for this particular gene other than the DX phenomena, but that is true.

So it in fact would be true that it would not be from a contaminant if it was because of cross-hybridization with the 1.2 allele?

There is another explanation for this particular allele.

And in fact this cross-hybridization is described in the user guide, correct?

It is described in the presence of high levels of DNA, yes.

It is described in the package insert, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

And it is described in the scientific literature about DQ-Alpha typing?

Yes.

All right. Your Honor, at this time I would ask that the photograph be passed to the jury.

All right. Let's hand it to juror no. 7.

All right. Mr. Clarke, would you collect that from Deputy Long, please.

Yes, thank you.

Let the record reflect that all the juror members have had an opportunity to review the exhibit. Mr. Clarke.

Yes.

Dr. Gerdes, now, showing you what I believe has been marked People's exhibit 567, I believe you stated already that that appears to be another similar photograph of what was two hybridization records later than the previous run?

Yes.

Was that part of the same DQ-Alpha run by Collin Yamauchi?

Yes, same date.

And in this particular instance you identified two more samples that you believed demonstrated a contaminant?

Yes, 52-20 and 52-22, which is the fourth strip down and the sixth strip down.

Okay. You have used the identifier 52-20 to describe it?

Yeah, because you could use lane 4 and lane 6.

Okay. You concluded from that run--and again this is a series of non-case work samples?

Yes, that's correct, they are all standards or proficiency.

Let's start with 52-20. The actual type called by the analyst is a 1.2, 2?

Yes.

Do you agree with that typing?

Yes.

That was a correct typing?

Yes.

You also, as a result of your review of all of these strips, concluded that in your opinion there were two other alleles present that you felt were contamination?

On that particular strip, yes.

And what alleles were those?

The 1.1 and the 1.3 are--are visible on that strip.

Could you then, with the pen, circle those two alleles, the 1.1 and the 1.3 that you felt were contaminants, as you did with the previous photo?

On 52-20?

Yes.

Okay. (Witness complies.)

And did you do that?

I did.

Thank you. Also on that same run you identified another sample as containing contaminating alleles; is that correct?

That's correct.

That was which sample?

Well, lane--hold on. That would be lane 6.

And does it have a 52 dash number, just for the record?

52-22.

What alleles were called by the analyst?

A 1.1, 3 with a very weak 1.2, 1.3, 4 and a 1.3.

Okay. First of all, the type that is called by the analyst--and I may have misunderstood you--did you say a 1.1?

1.1, 3.

And then you also described the analyst made some notations about some other dots?

Yes. It is noted very weak 1.2, 1.3, 4, that is that dot that detects all of those, and a 1.3.

Okay. Just to be clear, when the analyst wrote down "Very weak 1.2, 3 and 4," the analyst wasn't noting that the analyst saw a very weak 1.2, a very weak 3 and a very weak 4?

That is 1 dot. That is that dot that you see all three of those on that 1 dot.

So the analyst is really noting that is a dot that I saw a very weak pattern?

Correct.

Not that I saw a very weak.

Those three individual alleles?

That's correct.

Did the analyst make any other notation?

No. Well, the 1.3 which I discussed earlier, yes.

As far as your review and the opinions that you offered as a result of reviewing that strip, did you then conclude that they were contaminating alleles?

Yes. This is a standard. It should only have the two types and it has these additional dots.

And the additional alleles were what?

They would be consistent with a 1.2 and a 1.3.

Now, these alleles, 1.2 and 1.3, were clearly less than the C dot, correct?

Yes, they are.

As far as the call on the sample by the analyst, do you agree with the call of the actual typing results?

Yes.

The typing results of 1.1 and 3 were called correctly by the analyst; is that right?

That's true.

With regard to--and you described the fact that this sample, the person actually has the 1.1 allele, correct?

Yes.

If the reaction in the 1.2--and again, the 1.2 is a very close probe to the 1.1, right?

There is a single-base pair difference.

If the 1.2 reaction were as a result of cross-hybridization it would not be a contaminant, correct?

That phenomenon is not reported to be a problem with that particular dot, but--theoretically, yes.

Objection, nonresponsive, your Honor.

Overruled.

You said the answer is yes?

Yes, but it has not been reported to be a problem on that dot.

When you say it is not reported to be a problem, what do you mean?

In laboratories, the number of laboratories I have looked at and in the literature, there is no report that the 1.2 cross-hybridizes.

Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true the scientific literature does describe cross-hybridization of all of the 1 subtypes; 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3?

As far as what is observed in laboratories the 1.1 and the 1.3 are observed--

Objection, nonresponsive, your Honor.

Sustained.

Dr. Gerdes, doesn't the scientific literature describe cross-hybridization between all three of the 1 subtypes; 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3?

I don't believe so.

If the 1.3 allele--and we discussed just the 1.2 at this point, correct?

That's correct.

If the 1.3 allele were from cross-hybridization, it would not be a contaminant, correct?

That's true.

All right. Your Honor, then with the Court's permission I would like this particular photograph be passed to the jury.

All right.

Would you like me to mark those dots?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Please, doctor.

Okay. (Witness complies.)

All right. Mr. Clarke, would you hand that to juror no. 7, please.

May we approach for a brief moment, your Honor? This relates to logistics.