Recross-examination of Dr. Terence Speed

📄 Recross-examination of Dr. Terence Speed — Tuesday, August 8, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\8\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-TERE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 131 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Dr. Terence Speed Redirect examination of Dr. Terence Speed (part 2) ▶

Witness: Dr. Terence Speed
Examiner: Rockne Harmon
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, August 8, 1995 • Utterances: 67

Prosecutor Rockne Harmon pressed DNA statistics expert Dr. Terence Speed to confirm that defense expert Dr. Bruce Weir had misled the jury by presenting DNA frequencies without error rates. Speed reluctantly agreed, distinguishing between 'misleading' and 'misled the jury' as a matter of degree rather than substance. Harmon then exposed Speed's limited familiarity with specific evidence items (exhibits 303, 304, 305) and his complete lack of knowledge about whether those samples had been exposed to the defendants' or victims' reference samples — undermining Speed's earlier speculation about common-mode failure.

# 1 MR. HARMON:

Just a few, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

# 2 MR. HARMON:

So you think Professor Weir misled this jury about not presenting error rates?

# 3 MR. NEUFELD:

Objection as to his impression of someone else. Misleading.

# 4 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 5 PROF. SPEED:

I--that quote that you gave me earlier, I disagree with it.

# 6 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That is nonresponsive.

# 7 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 8 PROF. SPEED:

You are asking me to say did a colleague mislead a jury and that sounds a rather strong sort of statement, but if I've got to answer yes or no, then the answer must be yes.

# 9 MR. HARMON:

Didn't you just say that to Mr. Neufeld--did you hear the question he asked you about that?

# 10 MR. NEUFELD:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 11 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 12 PROF. SPEED:

Sorry.

# 13 MR. HARMON:

Now, this is Mr. Neufeld, okay, and I would like to ask you if he asked you this question about five minutes ago, okay? "Professor Speed, do you believe that providing Dr. Weir's frequencies without providing error rates in this case is misleading?" Did you hear him ask you that?

# 14 PROF. SPEED:

I did.

# 15 MR. HARMON:

And did you say: "That was my direct testimony"?

# 16 PROF. SPEED:

I did.

# 17 MR. HARMON:

Did you mean that?

# 18 PROF. SPEED:

I did.

# 19 MR. HARMON:

He was misleading?

# 20 PROF. SPEED:

All I can say is to say something is misleading is a more benign way than answering yes, this person misled the jury, which is what you asked me.

KEY QUOTE

# 21 MR. HARMON:

Okay.

# 22 PROF. SPEED:

And I would--understandably I'm uncomfortable about having it phrased in that way.

# 23 MR. HARMON:

Now, in fact this jury heard the laboratory error rates for each of the laboratories that were presented from the laboratories themselves; isn't that true?

# 24 MR. NEUFELD:

Objection again to this jury and objection to his misstating the testimony.

# 25 THE COURT:

Overruled. Overruled. Sit down.

# 26 PROF. SPEED:

When I use the term "Error rate" I mean--

# 27 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That is nonresponsive, your Honor.

# 28 THE COURT:

No. He can answer the question. The form of that question allows this type of answer. Go ahead and answer the question, professor.

KEY QUOTE

# 29 PROF. SPEED:

I don't believe that the figures presented by the three bodies, if indeed all three did, are error rates in the appropriate statistical sense, because they were not evaluated on the basis of external blind proficiency tests. So my answer to that question is no, they did not present error rates to the jury. They may have presented figures to the jury, but I would not dignify those figures with the description error rates in the sense that I'm sitting here talking about this term.

KEY QUOTE

# 30 MR. HARMON:

And in the ten months that you have been retained on this case you have made absolutely no effort to calculate an error rate that would meet your satisfaction; isn't that true?

# 31 THE COURT:

We've already covered that.

# 32 MR. HARMON:

So you disagree with the form of the proficiency test results that they have presented to this jury, each of the laboratories?

# 33 PROF. SPEED:

The answer is yes. The design of the study that goes into an estimate is fundamental to the meaning of that estimate.

# 34 MR. HARMON:

Now, let's go back do 303, 304 and 305, if you will. Now, you had never seen or been interested in any of the information that is on that exhibit until I showed it to you today; isn't that true?

# 35 PROF. SPEED:

That is not exactly true, no.

KEY QUOTE

# 36 MR. HARMON:

What is the truth about those items?

# 37 PROF. SPEED:

The truth is a little vaguer. I have sort of patchy knowledge of quite a lot of this evidence, but I do not feel comfortable sitting here claiming to have a detailed and accurate knowledge. But it is just not true to say I have never been interested. I actually have a lot of this stuff just to sort of, as it were, general background so I know the context in which I'm thinking about these issues.

# 38 MR. HARMON:

Now, you allowed, in response to Mr. Neufeld's questions, that there might be something in common with all three of those samples. Is that what you said?

# 39 PROF. SPEED:

I believe so.

# 40 MR. HARMON:

But you have no idea what it is, do you?

# 41 PROF. SPEED:

No, I don't.

# 42 MR. HARMON:

Do you remember what the results are on those three samples?

# 43 PROF. SPEED:

Well, I don't remember them, no.

KEY QUOTE

# 44 MR. HARMON:

So you have no idea whether we--the possibility of this common mode failure actually existed with those three samples; isn't that true?

# 45 PROF. SPEED:

In general--the answer is no, but that is a general situation. Usually you don't know if errors occurred unless it is in a test where the truth is known.

# 46 MR. HARMON:

Now, one of Dr. Gerdes' contentions was that in the sample handling for the evidence that was collected at Bundy, they were exposed to--samples from Bundy were exposed to the Defendant's reference sample. Are you aware of that?

# 47 PROF. SPEED:

I am--

# 48 MR. NEUFELD:

Objection as to Dr. Gerdes' intentions.

# 49 MR. HARMON:

Contentions.

# 50 MR. NEUFELD:

Same objection.

# 51 THE COURT:

Rephrase the question.

# 52 MR. HARMON:

Sure.

# 53 THE COURT:

Counsel, aren't we going a little broadly here?

# 54 MR. HARMON:

I'm almost done, your Honor. It is within the scope. Yes, we are.

# 55 MR. HARMON:

One of Dr. Gerdes' contentions is that the stains from Bundy had potential exposure to Mr. Simpson's reference sample during the sample handling. You were here for that, right?

# 56 PROF. SPEED:

That's right, and I am aware of that.

# 57 MR. HARMON:

Do you have any idea or information, in this general background information that you have, whether or not the same statement could be made about 303, 304, 305?

# 58 PROF. SPEED:

No.

# 59 MR. HARMON:

Not--not a whit of information?

# 60 PROF. SPEED:

At this--sitting here, no, I believe I have some notes, but that is not relevant.

KEY QUOTE

# 61 MR. HARMON:

Okay. And the same question with regard to being exposed to Nicole Brown's reference sample, not an idea at all about whether or not those three samples were exposed to her reference sample during any of the processing?

# 62 PROF. SPEED:

That's true.

# 63 MR. HARMON:

And the same question with regard to Mr. Goldman's sample, you do not have any idea whether or not those three samples had any exposure to Mr. Goldman's reference sample; isn't that true?

# 64 PROF. SPEED:

That is true.

# 65 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Thanks.

# 66 MR. COCHRAN:

May we approach, your Honor, one second?

# 67 THE COURT:

No.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Dr. Terence Speed

if I've got to answer yes or no, then the answer must be yes.

Speed reluctantly confirms that his defense colleague Dr. Weir misled the jury, a damaging concession elicited by Harmon.

Dr. Terence Speed

All I can say is to say something is misleading is a more benign way than answering yes, this person misled the jury, which is what you asked me. And I would--understandably I'm uncomfortable about having it phrased in that way.

Speed tries to soften the blow by parsing language, but Harmon has already locked in the substantive concession.

Dr. Terence Speed

I don't believe that the figures presented by the three bodies, if indeed all three did, are error rates in the appropriate statistical sense, because they were not evaluated on the basis of external blind proficiency tests.

Core defense argument — that lab-reported proficiency figures are not true statistical error rates.

Dr. Terence Speed

At this--sitting here, no, I believe I have some notes, but that is not relevant.

Speed admits he has no usable knowledge about whether exhibits 303-305 were exposed to Simpson's reference sample, undermining his earlier common-mode failure speculation.

Lance A. Ito

No.

Ito's flat one-word refusal of Cochran's sidebar request at the close of examination — a small but pointed moment.

Evidence (1)

303, 304, 305

Evidence items (likely blood swatches) about which Speed admitted having only vague, patchy background knowledge and no information regarding potential cross-contamination with reference samples

challenged

Notable Exchanges (3)

Rockne Harmon•Dr. Terence Speed

Harmon walked Speed through his own redirect testimony — where Speed agreed that presenting frequencies without error rates was 'misleading' — and forced him to confirm that this meant Weir had misled the jury. Speed tried to distinguish the two phrasings but ultimately conceded.

strategic

Rockne Harmon•Dr. Terence Speed

Harmon revealed that Speed, despite ten months on the case, had no specific knowledge of whether exhibits 303-305 were exposed to Simpson's, Brown's, or Goldman's reference samples — gutting Speed's earlier speculation about common-mode failure.

devastating

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran requested a sidebar immediately after Harmon concluded; Ito refused with a single word.

terse

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Ito's blunt one-word 'No.' to Cochran's sidebar request after examination concluded.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Dr. Terence Speed

prior inconsistent statement / commitment to own testimony

Harmon replayed Speed's own redirect admission that presenting frequencies without error rates was 'misleading' and forced Speed to confirm this applied to Weir's testimony — using the defense's own expert against the defense's own expert.

⚔ Dr. Terence Speed

lack of familiarity with evidence

Harmon established that Speed had no specific knowledge of exhibits 303-305 and no information about whether those samples were exposed to any reference sample, undermining his earlier common-mode failure speculation as uninformed.

⚔ Dr. Bruce Weir

testimony of opposing expert

Through Speed's reluctant concession, Harmon effectively impeached Weir — the prosecution's own DNA statistics witness — using the defense's statistics expert.

Witness Demeanor

Visibly uncomfortable being asked to characterize a colleague as having misled the jury

Attempted to parse linguistic distinctions ('misleading' vs. 'misled the jury') to soften concession

Candid about gaps in his knowledge regarding specific exhibits

Objections

8 objections (1 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 7243 • 67 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103