Sidebar: photodegradation testimony

📄 Sidebar: photodegradation testimony — Monday, July 24, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\24\SIDEBAR-PHOTODEGRADATION-TESTI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 120 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (morning, part 2) Lunch recess ▶

Date: Monday, July 24, 1995 • Utterances: 30

Judge Ito convenes a sidebar to express concern about the foundational basis for defense expert testimony on EDTA photodegradation, specifically questioning whether a study on EDTA degradation in Neckar river water is scientifically applicable to dried blood stains. Clark reinforces that the study is irrelevant because EDTA behaves differently in water versus a dried state, while Blasier clarifies the expert's real point is that the FBI failed to conduct necessary tests on high-intensity light exposure. The conference ends with a rare light moment when Ito mentions his personal familiarity with the Neckar river valley.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 2 THE COURT:

I'm just a little concerned about the basis of his expert opinion. Is this one study of water quality in the Neckar river regarding photodegradation of EDTA that if we don't know that it is the same form of EDTA, I don't know that it is valid to base an expert opinion on it.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

Let me add to that, please, because there is another issue of concern which I've conferred about with the FBI which is that this shows the degradation of EDTA when in water. There is a dig difference between the breakdown of chemicals in water versus in dried state, and the stains we are talking about here are in dried state, so you have a complete irrelevance between the article and this.

# 4 THE COURT:

Well, you have a dried state, plus you have it bonded with calcium, so it is a different situation.

# 5 MR. BLASIER:

Let me--

# 6 THE COURT:

The point being I'm concerned about your foundation. Let me let the jurors go.

# 7 MR. BLASIER:

Let me tell you where I'm depending with it. He is going to say exactly the same thing as the other study on photodegradation, that there aren't any studies on high intensity lamps, and the FBI should have done that because there isn't any literature.

# 8 THE COURT:

All right. All right. Other point is my recollection of the EDTA study and the water quality of the Neckar river is that was UV light that they tested for.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

Uh-huh.

# 10 THE COURT:

Not other spectrum, so I think you need to--I think the light we used here was infrared; is that correct?

# 11 MS. CLARK:

Yeah. When the socks were visualized, yes.

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

The high intensity light is not--

# 13 MR. COCHRAN:

High intensity light.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

What high intensity lights? They used infrared and natural light.

# 15 MR. BLASIER:

Every time they looked at it under the microscope there were high intensity lights. I was there when it was done.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

You mean the microscopic?

# 17 MR. BLASIER:

Yeah.

# 18 MS. CLARK:

What period of time?

# 19 THE COURT:

I think there are some foundational items--

# 20 MS. CLARK:

He is going to ask a series of speculative questions, say we don't know when it breaks down, we don't know--

# 21 THE COURT:

I'm sure you will bring that out on cross-examination.

# 22 MS. CLARK:

He is going to do that in order to raise the spectre of something that there is no evidence for.

# 23 MR. BLASIER:

They should have tested.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

I understand the foundation.

# 25 THE COURT:

All right. Just so you understand what my concerns are at this point.

# 26 MR. BLASIER:

Okay.

# 27 MS. CLARK:

Okay.

# 28 THE COURT:

Having traveled extensively in the Neckar river valley.

KEY QUOTE

# 29 MR. COCHRAN:

We can tell.

# 30 (Discussion held off the record.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

There is a big difference between the breakdown of chemicals in water versus in dried state, and the stains we are talking about here are in dried state, so you have a complete irrelevance between the article and this.

Clark's sharpest foundational attack — if the underlying study doesn't match the evidentiary conditions (dried blood vs. river water), the expert opinion built on it lacks scientific grounding.

Robert Blasier

He is going to say exactly the same thing as the other study on photodegradation, that there aren't any studies on high intensity lamps, and the FBI should have done that because there isn't any literature.

Reveals the defense's actual trial strategy: not to prove EDTA degraded, but to argue the FBI failed to test for it — exploiting a gap in the prosecution's scientific due diligence.

Lance A. Ito

Having traveled extensively in the Neckar river valley.

An unexpected personal aside from the judge that deflates the tension and ends the conference on a human note — Ito is signaling familiarity with the region, perhaps vouching for the study's geographic credibility, but delivered with dry humor.

Johnnie Cochran

We can tell.

Cochran's deadpan response to Ito's Neckar river comment — rare levity in a technical sidebar, and a reminder of his ability to find the comedic beat in any room.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Study on EDTA photodegradation using water quality samples from the Neckar river — the proposed foundation for defense expert testimony

challenged on foundational relevance; Ito and Clark both question its applicability to dried blood stain conditions

Informal

The socks — visualized under infrared light during FBI examination

referenced to clarify what type of light was used, relevant to whether high-intensity light exposure could degrade EDTA

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Robert Blasier

Dispute over what kind of light the FBI used when examining the socks — Clark says infrared and natural light, Blasier insists high-intensity microscope lights were used and that he was present when it was done.

strategic

Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark

Ito proactively identifies that the Neckar river study used UV light, not infrared — the same spectrum used on the socks — suggesting a mismatch in the study's applicability beyond just the water-vs-dried-state problem.

analytical

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito / Johnnie Cochran

Ito closes the sidebar by casually noting he has 'traveled extensively in the Neckar river valley,' prompting Cochran to quip 'We can tell.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ defense expert (unnamed)

foundational challenge

Clark argues the expert's opinion rests on a study that is doubly inapplicable — wrong physical state (water vs. dried) and wrong light spectrum (UV vs. infrared) — framing the anticipated testimony as speculation without evidentiary support.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 6996 • 30 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103