Cross-examination of Roger Martz (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Roger Martz (part 1) — Tuesday, July 25, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\25\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-ROGER-MAR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 121 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Roger Martz (part 3) Sidebar: expert capability ▶

Witness: Roger Martz
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, July 25, 1995 • Utterances: 53

Marcia Clark's cross-examination of FBI forensic chemist Agent Roger Martz, who had been called by the defense, focuses on two points: first, Martz reaffirms his conclusion that blood from the rear gate and the defendant's socks did NOT come from EDTA-preserved blood; second, Clark methodically establishes that defense experts Dr. Rieders and Dr. Ballard possessed the equipment necessary to conduct experiments testing EDTA degradation under the relevant conditions — but never did. The examination ends at a sidebar before Clark can complete the final question in this line.

# 1 THE COURT:

Miss Clark.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

# 2 MS. CLARK:

Good afternoon. Agent Martz, first of all, based on all of the testing that you conducted in this case, did you come to a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence bloodstains taken from the rear gate and taken from the socks found in the Defendant's bedroom had blood that came from the tube with the preservative known as EDTA?

# 3 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I did.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

And what conclusion was that?

# 5 MR. MARTZ:

I concluded based on the work that I'd done on the 19th, the 22nd and the 28th that the bloodstains in question did not come from preserved blood, they did not come from blood that was preserved with EDTA.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MS. CLARK:

Now, you were subpoenaed to testify here by the Defense; is that correct?

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. MARTZ:

That is correct.

# 8 MS. CLARK:

You've been asked a series of questions by Mr. Blasier concerning experiments and whether or not you'd conducted them.

# 9 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 10 MS. CLARK:

Is that correct?

# 11 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, it is.

# 12 MS. CLARK:

You were asked whether you conducted experiments to determine whether EDTA will break down if it is in blood that is on a metal surface such as a rear gate.

# 13 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

You know who Dr. Rieders is, correct?

# 15 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I do.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

You are familiar with the equipment he has in his lab?

# 17 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I am.

# 18 MS. CLARK:

Do you know who Dr. Ballard is?

# 19 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I do.

# 20 MS. CLARK:

Is he present here in court today?

# 21 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, he is.

# 22 MS. CLARK:

Is he seated right back there at counsel table?

# 23 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, he is.

# 24 MS. CLARK:

Is he the gentleman in the long blond hair and the glasses?

# 25 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, he is.

# 26 MS. CLARK:

Are you familiar with the equipment that he has, sir?

# 27 MR. MARTZ:

Some of the equipment that he has, yes.

# 28 MS. CLARK:

Does he have a liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer?

# 29 MR. MARTZ:

To my knowledge, he does not have a liquid chromatogram mass spectrometer.

# 30 MS. CLARK:

What is it that he has to your knowledge?

# 31 MR. MARTZ:

I believe that he--

# 32 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 33 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 34 MR. MARTZ:

I believe that he has mass spec, mass spec capabilities.

# 35 MS. CLARK:

Then the equipment that is possessed by Dr. Rieders and by Dr. Ballard, is that equipment sufficient to conduct the experiment of determining whether or not EDTA will break down or degrade when in blood on metal such as a gate?

# 36 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, it is.

# 37 MS. CLARK:

And did Dr. Rieders ever confer with you about any experiments that he had conducted in that regard?

# 38 MR. MARTZ:

No, he did not.

# 39 MS. CLARK:

Or did Dr. Ballard?

# 40 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 41 MS. CLARK:

You were asked whether or not you conducted any experiments to determine whether the type of paint found on the rear gate at 875 South Bundy would degrade EDTA in blood if placed on that paint. You remember that?

# 42 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I remember.

# 43 MS. CLARK:

To your knowledge, could Dr. Rieders perform such an experiment?

# 44 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, he could.

# 45 MS. CLARK:

Could Dr. Ballard perform such an experiment?

# 46 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, he could.

# 47 MS. CLARK:

To your knowledge, have they?

KEY QUOTE

# 48 MR. MARTZ:

To my knowledge, they have not.

# 49 MS. CLARK:

You were asked also, sir, about whether or not rust, such as what may be present on the rear gate at 875 South Bundy, may interact with EDTA to degrade it if in blood on that surface. Do you recall that question?

# 50 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, I do.

# 51 MS. CLARK:

Could Dr. Rieders perform a test to determine whether or not that substance would degrade EDTA in blood?

# 52 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning and ask to approach if necessary.

# 53 THE COURT:

With the court reporter, please.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Roger Martz

I concluded based on the work that I'd done on the 19th, the 22nd and the 28th that the bloodstains in question did not come from preserved blood, they did not come from blood that was preserved with EDTA.

Core affirmative conclusion: Martz definitively rules out planted, tube-preserved blood as the source of the rear gate and sock stains — the central defense theory.

Marcia Clark

You were subpoenaed to testify here by the Defense; is that correct?

Clark immediately flags that Martz is the defense's own witness, framing his damaging-to-the-defense conclusion as especially credible.

Marcia Clark

To your knowledge, have they?

The punchline of Clark's repeated pattern: Rieders and Ballard had the equipment and capability to test EDTA degradation on gate paint and rust — and never ran the experiments they implicitly criticized Martz for not running.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Blood from the rear gate at 875 South Bundy Drive

discussed — Martz's EDTA testing results cited

Informal

Socks found in the defendant's bedroom

discussed — Martz's EDTA testing results cited

Informal

Rear gate at 875 South Bundy — paint surface and rust as potential EDTA-degrading variables

discussed as conditions under which no defense expert conducted experiments

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Roger Martz

Clark runs a precise three-part pattern: for each experimental variable the defense raised on direct (EDTA on metal, gate paint, rust), she asks whether Rieders could run the test, whether Ballard could run the test, and whether either has. The answer is always: yes they could, no they didn't.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Lance A. Ito

Blasier objects to the relevance of Dr. Ballard's equipment; overruled. He then objects more broadly to the entire line of questioning and requests to approach — suggesting Clark is landing serious blows.

defensive

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Dr. Fredric Rieders / Dr. Ballard (defense experts)

Omission / failure to conduct experiments

Clark establishes that defense experts had the equipment and capability to run every experiment they implicitly criticized Martz for not conducting — testing EDTA degradation on metal, on gate paint, on rust — but did not do so, undermining the basis of the defense's attack on Martz's methodology.

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7024 • 53 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103