Sidebar: Trujillo study and EDTA

📄 Sidebar: Trujillo study and EDTA — Monday, July 24, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\24\SIDEBAR-TRUJILLO-STUDY-AND-EDT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 120 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (afternoon, part 1) Jury removal and discovery matters ▶

Date: Monday, July 24, 1995 • Utterances: 35

The defense sought to introduce expert testimony based on a 1954 Trujillo study and EPA calculations to establish that EDTA levels found in the blood evidence were consistent with preserved blood samples. Clark argued the study was too old and methodologically incomparable, while Blasier countered that the absorption rate data from the study actually supported the defense position. Ito excluded the evidence on both relevance (352) and discovery violation grounds.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

We're over at the sidebar.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

This is a study going back to 1954 with equipment nowhere near the sensitivity that we have today, no. 1. No. 2, what they did is, they injected them. They couldn't take it by mouth. I believe they injected them. It was one-thousandth of a dose that we're talking about to produce--can I get Agent Martz to help me with this.

# 4 (Brief pause.)

# 5 MS. CLARK:

All right. The conditions under which the testing was done bear no resemblance to what we have here neither in terms of sophistication of the equipment nor in terms of what they were able to detect. There were plenty of detectable levels that were unstated in the article. We don't even know what they were beyond knowing they certainly didn't have a test for the trace levels that we have now. I think all they were able to do is attempt to trace it in the urine and the feces and they were unable to. They were unable to detect from blood given the equipment and sensitivity that they had back then. The fact they could or could not detect was not--the conditions were not substantially similar and their equipment was not as sophisticated as we have today to render those findings of any amount in 1995.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

Actually the study at an amount two parts per billion rate is much more sensitive than what we've used here. It shows what the absorption rate is of EDTA. It shows that based on absorption rates, five percent is not absorbed in the bloodstream at all. Agent Martz told me that himself.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 THE COURT:

EDTA is not absorbed in the bloodstream? Is that what you're saying?

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

It is, but very small amounts. It's excreted very quickly, passes out of the system very quickly.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

What is the doctor's testimony going to be concerning the maximum level, amount that would be tolerable?

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

That given the CFR papers that she gave me showing the most you are allowed to put in various types of substances, it's in the parts per billion range if you ate 100 percent of the daily requirements every day and if you were tested immediately afterward and if everything was absorbed instantly.

# 11 MS. CLARK:

What does he base the opinion it would be parts--what, one or two parts per billion would be the maximum we could tolerate?

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

It's not a matter of toleration. It's a matter of what you have in your system given complete ideal circumstances.

# 13 MS. CLARK:

What does he base that on?

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

Calculation of how much, parts per million is allowed to be put in food.

# 15 MS. CLARK:

What calculation did you do? I have no paper work to indicate it's done anything like that.

# 16 MR. BLASIER:

I gave them to Agent Martz. I tried to fax them to you. The machine wasn't on. It's an easy calculation. You take a certain quantity of EDTA you start with and you can calculate how much you get in the system.

# 17 MS. CLARK:

Is this some other article he bases it on?

# 18 MR. BLASIER:

No. This is the main article and the calculation is easy. I mean it's easy for him. It's not easy for me. It's based on the article they gave us. This is the only article that talks about EDTA passing out in the bloodstream.

# 19 MS. CLARK:

The problem is, the article does not talk about--

# 20 THE COURT:

Did the doctor produce a report yesterday?

# 21 MR. BLASIER:

No. I had somebody else do the calculations which I gave to Agent Martz, and I believe--

# 22 MS. CLARK:

I don't believe that's true. And I haven't seen them. So I don't know--we're going to have him extrapolate from an article back in the 50's on testing done--

# 23 THE COURT:

Counsel, you are repeating yourself.

# 24 MS. CLARK:

All right. They're extrapolating from that calculation I haven't seen to determine that the normal amount you would find in the blood would be in parts per billion.

# 25 MR. BLASIER:

One other thing, Judge. We have that document from the Environmental Protection Agency that says that the most you would expect in humans is two parts per billion.

# 26 THE COURT:

Okay. I'm going to sustain the objection on 352 grounds; also, discovery violation grounds since you didn't turn this over.

KEY QUOTE

# 27 MR. BLASIER:

I did. Judge, I did.

# 28 THE COURT:

Yesterday.

# 29 MR. COCHRAN:

So the agent--he misunderstood. Tell him again.

# 30 MR. BLASIER:

I have another expert I'm working with that I probably will not call, that I've asked to do some calculations. I gave them to Roger Martz yesterday.

# 31 THE COURT:

Yesterday, did you give it to counsel?

# 32 MR. BLASIER:

I tried to fax it to them. I've got the proof here. Their machine was turned off.

# 33 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 34 MS. CLARK:

You didn't give it to me yesterday.

# 35 (The following proceedings were held in open court:)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

The conditions under which the testing was done bear no resemblance to what we have here neither in terms of sophistication of the equipment nor in terms of what they were able to detect.

Core prosecution argument for excluding the Trujillo study — foundational dissimilarity.

Robert Blasier

The study at an amount two parts per billion rate is much more sensitive than what we've used here. It shows that based on absorption rates, five percent is not absorbed in the bloodstream at all.

Defense reframes the same study as more sensitive than prosecution's own testing, inverting Clark's argument.

Lance A. Ito

I'm going to sustain the objection on 352 grounds; also, discovery violation grounds since you didn't turn this over.

Ruling excludes the evidence on dual grounds — relevance and late disclosure.

Robert Blasier

We have that document from the Environmental Protection Agency that says that the most you would expect in humans is two parts per billion.

Last-ditch effort to salvage the EDTA threshold argument using an independent government source rather than the contested study.

Evidence (4)

Informal

1954 Trujillo study on EDTA absorption rates

challenged and ultimately excluded

Informal

EPA document stating maximum expected EDTA in humans is two parts per billion

referenced by defense as corroborating source

Informal

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) papers on permitted EDTA levels in food substances

cited by Blasier as basis for parts-per-billion calculation

Informal

Calculations produced by unnamed defense expert and provided to Agent Roger Martz

disputed — Clark denied receiving them; Blasier claimed fax attempt with machine turned off

Notable Exchanges (3)

Marcia Clark•Robert Blasier

Clark and Blasier argue over the relevance and comparability of the 1954 Trujillo study — Clark calls it methodologically incomparable, Blasier argues its sensitivity data actually exceeds what the prosecution's own testing used.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Lance A. Ito

Ito rules against the defense on both 352 and discovery grounds; Blasier insists he turned over the calculations to Agent Martz and tried to fax them to Clark, but Ito treats yesterday as insufficient notice.

heated

Johnnie Cochran•Robert Blasier

Cochran briefly intervenes to suggest Blasier clarify the misunderstanding about the calculations to the judge.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Trujillo study (1954)

foundational challenge — methodological dissimilarity

Clark argued the 1954 study used injection rather than oral ingestion, had equipment far less sensitive than modern tools, and could not detect trace levels relevant to the 1995 evidence — making its findings inapplicable.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7007 • 35 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103