Redirect examination of Roger Martz (afternoon)

📄 Redirect examination of Roger Martz (afternoon) — Wednesday, July 26, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\26\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ROGER-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 122 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Roger Martz (morning, part 2) Jury returns ▶

Witness: Roger Martz
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, July 26, 1995 • Utterances: 64

Defense attorney Robert Blasier cross-examines FBI Agent Roger Martz on his EDTA testing methodology, walking him through a mathematical hypothetical: if Martz overestimated the blood quantity from evidence by a factor of four, would the ion counts be consistent with EDTA-preserved reference blood? Martz resists the hypothetical, expressing confusion and ultimately disagreeing with Blasier's arithmetic, though he concedes key individual premises along the way. The exchange is technical and grinding, ending at the mid-afternoon recess.

# 1 (Peo's 1271-C for id = slide)

# 2 MS. CLARK:

Again objection, your Honor. This is two different days that are reflected. It is misleading.

# 3 THE COURT:

Overruled, overruled.

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, this is the same day, isn't it, the 28th, these two tests, aren't they?

# 5 MR. MARTZ:

That is what it is labeled, yes.

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

Now, would you agree--

# 7 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence.

# 8 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

May the witness be shown the underlying graphs, your Honor?

# 10 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 11 MR. BLASIER:

Do you feel the need to check your data, Agent Martz?

# 12 MR. MARTZ:

Are these the areas or the peak heights?

# 13 MR. BLASIER:

Areas.

# 14 MR. MARTZ:

Areas. And what is the first sample, the gate one?

# 15 MR. BLASIER:

The gate and your can.

# 16 MR. MARTZ:

Okay.

# 17 MR. BLASIER:

If you had overestimated the amount of blood from the evidence that you started with by four, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that your ion count should be four times higher to make the same--you know, to equate the amounts together, correct?

# 18 MR. MARTZ:

Can I look at my data?

# 19 MR. BLASIER:

Sure.

# 20 (Brief pause.)

# 21 MR. BLASIER:

Do you recall this is the same sample from the earlier chart where you got--

# 22 MR. MARTZ:

The one you have got labeled "Positive control, 4043"?

# 23 MR. BLASIER:

Uh-huh.

# 24 MR. MARTZ:

You said that was my area?

# 25 MR. BLASIER:

That was your can. This is your can reduced--I haven't finished the whole chart, so let's talk about the gate first.

# 26 MR. MARTZ:

Okay.

# 27 MR. BLASIER:

You got an ion count of 210,000, correct, from the earlier chart?

# 28 MR. MARTZ:

Now, when you refer to 4049--

# 29 MR. BLASIER:

Yes.

# 30 MR. MARTZ:

--I have a different chart labeled 4049.

# 31 MR. BLASIER:

Well, you had an ion--okay. What is your ion count on 4049?

# 32 MR. MARTZ:

200,000.

# 33 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. That is the one we were just talking about from the last chart.

# 34 MR. MARTZ:

Okay.

# 35 MR. BLASIER:

Now, my hypothetical is that you have overestimated the amount of blood by a factor of four.

# 36 MR. MARTZ:

So this is not my data?

KEY QUOTE

# 37 MR. BLASIER:

This is four times your data to adjust for the quantities.

# 38 MS. CLARK:

Same objection, your Honor.

# 39 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 40 MR. MARTZ:

I don't understand what you are trying to--

# 41 MR. BLASIER:

Let me ask it this way: If you got 210,000 ion count from a half a microliter of blood would it be reasonable to assume that you might get in the range of 800,000 from two microliters of blood?

# 42 MR. MARTZ:

No, because we had mentioned once before this could be a matrix effect. We don't know what that is or where it is from. You can't assume that.

# 43 MR. BLASIER:

You can't assume that if you used four times more blood from the evidence that you would get four times higher ion count?

KEY QUOTE

# 44 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 45 MR. BLASIER:

How much more would you get?

# 46 MR. MARTZ:

It depends on what this compound is and the source of it. I told you I don't know what it is and I don't know the source.

# 47 MR. BLASIER:

All right. Let's assume hypothetically that four times as much blood is going to give you four times as much EDTA. Can we assume that, if it is EDTA blood to start with?

# 48 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 49 MR. BLASIER:

And the range of your measurement ability on your positive controls, as well as the gate, you could have a four-fold difference in ion count. Now, you got an ion count of eight million--or I'm sorry--of three million on that I control, correct?

# 50 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 51 MR. BLASIER:

One/fourth of that is 750 thousand, isn't it?

# 52 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 53 MR. BLASIER:

So under that assumption of those different conditions which are within the realm of your experimental basis, you might get--it appears that you get the same quantity in terms of ion count from the evidence as you got from the known EDTA blood, doesn't it?

# 54 MR. MARTZ:

No. I would disagree with that.

# 55 MR. BLASIER:

Are my numbers wrong?

# 56 MR. MARTZ:

Well, you are taking both numbers and moving them four times. You can't do that. That is an factor of eight then.

KEY QUOTE

# 57 MR. BLASIER:

Well, I'm moving the gate four times based on quantity, not on the variance of the machine.

# 58 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I don't see how you can do that.

# 59 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. Now, did you take the same amount of care with everything that you did in your experiments?

# 60 MR. MARTZ:

I did.

# 61 MR. BLASIER:

Did you try to be as careful as possible with everything you did?

# 62 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 63 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, would this be a good time?

# 64 THE COURT:

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for about fifteen minutes. Agent Martz, you can step down. You are ordered to come back in fifteen minutes. Thank you.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Roger Martz

So this is not my data?

Martz appears confused mid-cross, momentarily losing track of whether the chart being shown reflects his own numbers — undermining his command of the evidence.

Roger Martz

I don't know what it is and I don't know the source.

Martz admits he cannot identify the compound producing the ion signal — a significant concession that weakens the certainty of his EDTA conclusions.

Roger Martz

Well, you are taking both numbers and moving them four times. You can't do that. That is a factor of eight then.

Martz pushes back on Blasier's math, but his explanation is not fully articulated, leaving the jury with an unresolved dispute about the arithmetic.

Robert Blasier

You can't assume that if you used four times more blood from the evidence that you would get four times higher ion count?

Blasier's central thesis: Martz's own experimental variance could explain why the evidence blood appeared to have less EDTA than the reference, neutralizing the prosecution's planted-blood narrative.

Evidence (3)

People's 1271-C

A slide used by Blasier to display ion count data from Martz's EDTA testing, labeled as same-day (the 28th) measurements

Discussed and challenged — Clark objected it misrepresented two different days

Informal

Martz's internal chart labeled '4049' showing an ion count of 200,000 from a blood sample

Referenced and cross-checked against Blasier's chart during questioning

Informal

Positive control sample labeled '4043' with an ion count of approximately 3 million

Used as baseline in Blasier's four-fold scaling hypothetical

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier walks Martz through a step-by-step hypothetical — if blood quantity was overestimated by 4x, ion counts could align with known EDTA blood. Martz concedes individual premises but rejects the conclusion, saying 'you can't do that' without fully explaining why.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark objects four times in rapid succession, including a request for Martz to see the underlying graphs. Ito overrules all four, allowing Blasier's hypothetical framework to stand.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Roger Martz

methodology challenge

Blasier constructs a mathematical argument that Martz's own experimental variance — specifically a possible four-fold overestimation of blood quantity — could make the evidence blood ion counts indistinguishable from known EDTA-preserved blood, suggesting Martz's conclusion that the blood was not from EDTA vials is unsupported.

⚔ Roger Martz

admission of ignorance

Blasier elicits Martz's concession that he does not know what compound is producing the ion signal or where it originates, undermining the scientific certainty of his EDTA findings.

⚔ Roger Martz

confusion and disorientation

Martz asks 'So this is not my data?' mid-cross, suggesting he cannot confidently track the charts being presented — a visible sign of uncertainty in front of the jury.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — Martz pauses to review his data mid-examination

Martz asks clarifying questions about which chart and which sample is being referenced, suggesting difficulty tracking Blasier's line of questioning

Objections

4 objections (0 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 7043 • 64 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103