Redirect examination of Roger Martz (morning, part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of Roger Martz (morning, part 2) — Wednesday, July 26, 1995

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 122 of 167

◀ Sidebar: exhibits Redirect examination of Roger Martz (afternoon) ▶

Witness: Roger Martz
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, July 26, 1995 • Utterances: 216

Defense attorney Robert Blasier continues systematically attacking FBI forensic chemist Roger Martz's EDTA testing methodology. Blasier exposes that Martz never inquired about the conditions the gate stain or sock were subjected to before testing, had no studies supporting his assumption that EDTA is stable under various environmental conditions, and kept no notes on key experimental variables. Most damaging, Blasier uses Martz's own ion count data to show that when comparing metal to metal (rather than cloth to metal as the prosecution's charts did), the ion count difference between the positive control and the gate evidence is roughly 14-fold, not the thousand-fold difference the prosecution's charts implied.

# 1 THE COURT:

Proceed.

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, you were asked some questions yesterday by Miss Clark regarding why you don't belong to any professional societies that specialize in mass spectrometry other than the one that you mentioned. Do you remember that?

# 3 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

And the one that you mentioned doesn't specialize in mass spec, does it?

# 5 MR. MARTZ:

No, and I think I said that.

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

And I believe your answer or your response to Miss Clark's suggestion was that you can keep up with current trends by talking to your peers; is that right?

# 7 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I think I can do it in more ways than that. I have twenty people that work for me and some of them are very highly educated. I have four Ph.D.s presently working for me. They are out attending a lot of meetings, presenting papers. We have a staff at Quantico, a lot of Ph.D.s that do a lot of research and we keep in contact with them. We are constantly bringing people into the FBI academy for training. The FBI is constantly sending people outside to give speeches, lectures, talks, papers. Some of the organizations that were mentioned that I don't belong to, I have attended some of their meetings. I have co-authored papers that were presented at those meetings. So with the staff that I have, it is very easy to keep up because we have 20 people that are very aggressively do forensic science.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, does the FBI prohibit you from joining professional organizations in your specialty?

# 9 MR. MARTZ:

No, they don't.

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

So you could if you wanted to?

# 11 MR. MARTZ:

I am a member of one, and like I said, a lot of the people in the unit are members of other ones, yes.

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

The papers that you say you published, is that the four you mentioned yesterday over 17 years?

# 13 MR. MARTZ:

Well, there is four there and then I have two papers that are being published right now.

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

Now, does the FBI require that you obtain an undergraduate degree in chemistry or toxicology to become a chemist and toxicologist?

# 15 MR. MARTZ:

To work in the chemistry unit you have to have a certain number of chemistry hours that are required. I met that specification. I had extensive training in chemistry in college.

# 16 MR. BLASIER:

Is that answer to that no. That the FBI doesn't require that you have a degree in it?

# 17 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, either chemistry, toxicology or equivalent.

# 18 MR. BLASIER:

Which includes biology?

# 19 MR. MARTZ:

Which includes a certain number of hours in chemistry.

# 20 MR. BLASIER:

Now, yesterday I asked you some questions about your--the blood test that you ran on your blood. Do you remember that?

# 21 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct, yes.

# 22 MR. BLASIER:

And I made some suggestions about the possibility that maybe the EDTA or the EDTA like substance that appears in your blood may have come from the tube itself. Do you remember that?

# 23 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 24 MR. BLASIER:

Had you thought of that when you did that little experiment?

# 25 MR. MARTZ:

No, I did not.

# 26 MR. BLASIER:

Do you think it is a reasonable point to consider?

# 27 MR. MARTZ:

Umm, no, not really.

# 28 MR. BLASIER:

But you didn't think of it at all, did you?

# 29 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 30 MR. BLASIER:

When you got the stain from the back gate you never inquired at all what conditions under which that stain might have been subjected to either before it was collected or after, correct?

# 31 MR. MARTZ:

I think the only question that I had is whether or not DNA was identified, because in my opinion if DNA was present, the EDTA would still be present.

# 32 MR. BLASIER:

So you asked no questions at all about the conditions under which that stain got there and may have been subjected to prior to collection?

# 33 MR. MARTZ:

Only that it was identified as blood and had DNA present.

# 34 MR. BLASIER:

So you didn't consider the question as to whether the effect of the environment might have any effect at all, did you?

# 35 MR. MARTZ:

In my opinion EDTA is a very stable chemical and when dried in a bloodstain the environment would not affect it.

# 36 MR. BLASIER:

You didn't consider that question at all when you designed this test, did you?

# 37 MR. MARTZ:

No. As I mentioned, EDTA is a very stable chemical and in dried conditions in my opinion it will not break down in that short a time.

# 38 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry?

# 39 MR. MARTZ:

That short time period.

# 40 MR. BLASIER:

Is there any study that you are aware of with dried bloodstains and whether or not the EDTA degrades with weathering?

# 41 MR. MARTZ:

No, but I contacted the manufacturer that makes the preserved blood tubes of EDTA and the shelf life of the tubes when it is in solution is 18 to 24 months about.

# 42 MR. BLASIER:

Move to strike, nonresponsive.

# 43 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 44 MR. BLASIER:

Are you aware of any study that anyone has ever done on bloodstains, dried bloodstains, that have been subjected to environmental influences in terms of whether or not that diminishes the amount of EDTA that you can recover?

# 45 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 46 MR. BLASIER:

Do you know of any scientific literature that is relevant at all to that question?

# 47 MR. MARTZ:

Probably the most relevant is the testing that I have done myself on some old bloodstains from 1993 and one from 1991.

# 48 MR. BLASIER:

That is the test you never wrote a report on, correct?

# 49 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 50 MR. BLASIER:

Did the Prosecution tell you in this case that you are supposed to write a report when you do testing?

# 51 MR. MARTZ:

In the laboratory when a case is submitted we will perform or supply a report. When we do research we generally don't supply a report.

# 52 MR. BLASIER:

Move to strike as nonresponsive.

# 53 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 54 MR. BLASIER:

Were you instructed that if you did testing related to a case that you are supposed to write it up as a report?

# 55 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 56 MR. BLASIER:

Is it your practice then, when do you a test on something, even though it is related to a case, you don't feel the necessity even to take notes?

# 57 MR. MARTZ:

It would--it would depend on the circumstances. If it is something that I can remember readily, no, I wouldn't.

# 58 MR. BLASIER:

So that the criterion you use is whether you can remember it down the road as to whether you write anything down?

# 59 MR. MARTZ:

Yes. I mean, if I can remember what I did, I won't write it down.

KEY QUOTE

# 60 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

# 61 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, do you think it would make any difference on your ability to recover EDTA from the stain from the back gate if was placed in a wet condition in a plastic bag?

# 62 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Improper hypothetical. No--no facts in evidence, your Honor.

# 63 THE COURT:

Overruled. Overruled.

# 64 MR. MARTZ:

It would depend on--was it in solution or just damp?

# 65 MR. BLASIER:

Did you ever ask that question?

# 66 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 67 MR. BLASIER:

It is an important question, isn't it?

# 68 MR. MARTZ:

I don't believe that it is. I believe EDTA is stable, even in those conditions in that short a time period.

# 69 MR. BLASIER:

So these assumptions that you are making that nothing is going to happen on the EDTA on the sock or the back gate would be the conditions under which they were put there, collected, stored, handled, since EDTA is stable, that ends the inquiry as far as you are concerned? You don't need to do any specific testing on that question at all?

# 70 MS. CLARK:

That is argumentative. Objection.

# 71 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 72 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I did test the blood which is this solution, the known blood sample. That is the best control in the world. EDTA is more stable, in my opinion, as a stain than it is in solution and it survived in the blood sample, the known sample that I tested.

# 73 MR. BLASIER:

Now, which sample is this?

# 74 MR. MARTZ:

The K67 and K68.

# 75 MR. BLASIER:

How long did you let those stains dry?

# 76 MR. MARTZ:

As I mentioned, EDTA is more stable--

# 77 MR. BLASIER:

Move to strike, nonresponsive.

# 78 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 79 MR. BLASIER:

How long did you let the reference blood that you put on your controls dry?

# 80 MR. MARTZ:

Approximately an hour.

# 81 MR. BLASIER:

How soon after that did you test it?

# 82 MR. MARTZ:

It was fairly soon the first time.

# 83 MR. BLASIER:

An hour?

# 84 MR. MARTZ:

Yes, that would be--

# 85 MR. BLASIER:

I'm sorry. Did you ever make any inquiry with respect to the sock as to how many times it had been handled by various experts, criminalists, et cetera?

# 86 MR. MARTZ:

No, I did not.

# 87 MR. BLASIER:

Did you make any inquiry whatsoever to determine what kind of light, ultraviolet, infrared, regular light it had been subjected to before you got it?

# 88 MR. MARTZ:

No. In my opinion it wasn't necessary.

# 89 MR. BLASIER:

Do you do any studies to back up the notion that or your opinion that light, different kind of light sources is not going to have any effect on EDTA?

# 90 MS. CLARK:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 91 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 92 MR. MARTZ:

The studies that I performed.

# 93 MR. BLASIER:

Any studies that anybody else has ever performed?

# 94 MR. MARTZ:

There is studies that show that it passes through the body unchanged and that is a severe hostile environment.

# 95 MR. BLASIER:

What does that have to do with light?

# 96 (No audible response.)

# 97 MR. BLASIER:

Let me ask you this--withdraw. Are you saying that because it passes through the body that that is enough for you to conclude that different kind of light on it is not going to have any effect on it?

# 98 MR. MARTZ:

No, no.

# 99 MR. BLASIER:

You said that by your own experiment you determined that. What experiment did you do to test the effects of different kind of light on dried bloodstains with EDTA in them?

# 100 MR. MARTZ:

I didn't do any specifically.

KEY QUOTE

# 101 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

# 102 MR. BLASIER:

You were aware, were you not, that the sock had gone through infrared light or did you know that?

# 103 MR. MARTZ:

I think I knew that because an infrared photograph had been taken.

# 104 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, did do you any experiments to determine whether you could as efficiently remove EDTA blood from metal as you could from a swatch?

# 105 MR. MARTZ:

Umm, the only testings that were done, per say, was the gate which was--that wouldn't count, but the can, I used one metal surface. That was the only one that I had done.

# 106 MR. BLASIER:

You did two positive controls, did you not, for the gate; the can--

# 107 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 108 MR. BLASIER:

--and the swatch?

# 109 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 110 MR. BLASIER:

And that was a control swatch that presumably had been taken from the gate nearby, not part of the bloodstain? That is what your understanding was?

# 111 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I had prepared my own control swab because that one wasn't large enough. I had mentioned that yesterday, I believe.

# 112 MR. BLASIER:

So your control that you used for the gate, you didn't even use the swatch that they sent you, that was their control swatch?

# 113 MR. MARTZ:

No, we had mentioned that yesterday.

# 114 MR. BLASIER:

So you used a swatch that--and you don't know whether it was the same kind of material, the same thickness, do you?

# 115 MS. CLARK:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 116 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 117 MR. MARTZ:

I answered that yesterday, no.

# 118 MR. BLASIER:

So you only ran--two times you ran that control that you just told us about that you made on your material and the can to see how much--what your ion count would be, how much EDTA you got out, correct?

# 119 MR. MARTZ:

For the sock--for the gate?

# 120 MR. BLASIER:

The gate.

# 121 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct, yes.

# 122 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, I would like to have a slide presentation marked next.

# 123 THE CLERK:

1271.

# 124 MR. BLASIER:

1271.

# 125 (Deft's 1271-A for id = slide)

# 126 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, that is 1271-A on the screen. Could you take a look at that. Let me ask you this: Does that represent charts 4085, the control that you just talked about where you used your own fabric?

# 127 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 128 MR. BLASIER:

And 4043 is the one you did on the can, right?

# 129 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 130 MR. BLASIER:

And those are two different days, right?

# 131 MR. MARTZ:

Correct.

# 132 MR. BLASIER:

And what was your ion count for the control on the cloth?

# 133 MR. MARTZ:

A little over eight million.

# 134 MR. BLASIER:

And what was your ion count on the control you did on the can?

# 135 MR. MARTZ:

A little over three million.

# 136 MR. BLASIER:

And there is approximately a three-fold difference on those two, correct?

# 137 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 138 MR. BLASIER:

Isn't it accurate that one explanation--one possible explanation for that is that you can't remove EDTA as efficiently from metal as you can from cloth?

# 139 MR. MARTZ:

Could I give my explanation for it?

# 140 MR. BLASIER:

No. I will let you give that one next. Is that one reasonable explanation that I gave you?

# 141 MR. MARTZ:

I don't believe that that is a reasonable explanation, no.

# 142 MR. BLASIER:

Did you test that hypothesis at all?

# 143 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 144 MR. BLASIER:

Now, your inclination is what, that it is the variation in the machine?

# 145 MR. MARTZ:

It is the variation over the day and as I mention, when I do a control--whenever I perform this experiment we are cutting a piece of a fabric. Okay. I don't know--or on that day the size that I cut, the control is going to be the same size as the known, or the Q and the known are going to be the same. On a different day I may cut something a little larger or a little smaller. I didn't have a particular instrument or a scale to weigh the exact size that I took, so what I took was relative sizes, and the size the one day could have been larger than the size the other day, plus the instrumental conditions. Those would be my explanation as to the difference in the ion count.

# 146 MR. BLASIER:

Agent Martz, did you write down in your work papers that you used different sizes in different tests?

# 147 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 148 MR. BLASIER:

Why didn't you write that down? If you changed the conditions from one test to the next why didn't you write that down?

# 149 MR. MARTZ:

As I mentioned, I didn't check the conditions. I compare the K to the Q and that is what was relevant here, to determine whether or not the stains came from preserved or not preserved blood, so I prepared those the same each day.

# 150 MR. BLASIER:

You wrote down, when you did your first test on February 22nd, the sizes of the sample that you used, the size of the swatches and you wrote down that information, didn't you?

# 151 MR. MARTZ:

I said approximate.

# 152 MR. BLASIER:

But you didn't write anything down for February 28th showing that you had changed the conditions using different sizes?

# 153 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I mean, it is--it would be impossible for me to cut the exact same size stain. I didn't see any reason to write that down.

# 154 MR. BLASIER:

Does that fall in the category of something that you remembered you changed it so you didn't need to write it down?

# 155 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I think it is obvious that I can't cut the exact same size of stain and I mentioned that earlier and that is why I always cut a larger amount of the questioned stain than I did the known. Now, when I'm cutting them right in front of me at same time, I can see that. Now, five days later, ten days later when I'm cutting, I don't have those in front of me any more. I am approximating the size that I am cutting.

# 156 MR. BLASIER:

So you might have actually cut a bigger swatch when you did the can experiment on the 28th than you had for the positive control on the 22nd?

# 157 MR. MARTZ:

Based on my results I would say.

# 158 MR. BLASIER:

So you are using your results to bootstrap and find--and say that you must have used a smaller sample because of the results?

KEY QUOTE

# 159 MR. MARTZ:

To me it is immaterial as long as I used the same size each day.

# 160 MR. BLASIER:

It couldn't be the result you got, not being able to remove EDTA from metal as efficiently as you can from the swatch?

# 161 MS. CLARK:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 162 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 163 MR. MARTZ:

Not in my opinion. That would not be a possibility.

# 164 MR. BLASIER:

Could we have slide b, please.

# 165 (Deft's 1271-B for id = slide)

# 166 MR. BLASIER:

Now, Agent Martz on the 28th you tested the gate, the evidence, the bloodstain evidence from the gate, did you not?

# 167 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 168 MR. BLASIER:

And this is the same positive control, this is your--your can experiment, correct?

# 169 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 170 MR. BLASIER:

And you did those very close together, didn't you?

# 171 (No audible response.)

# 172 MR. BLASIER:

In time?

# 173 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 174 MR. BLASIER:

And your ion count for the can was about three million?

# 175 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 176 MR. BLASIER:

And what was your ion count for the evidence?

# 177 MR. MARTZ:

Approximately 200,000.

# 178 MR. BLASIER:

Was it 220,000?

# 179 MR. MARTZ:

221.

# 180 MR. BLASIER:

210?

# 181 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 182 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you didn't make a chart that showed those experiments on the 28th for the Prosecution, did you?

# 183 MR. MARTZ:

I don't believe I did, no.

# 184 MR. BLASIER:

That doesn't look like a thousand-fold difference, does it?

KEY QUOTE

# 185 MR. MARTZ:

No.

# 186 MR. BLASIER:

Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that all of these charts that you made for the Prosecution have as their basis an underlying assumption that you are using the same amount of blood from the evidence as you are using in the control?

# 187 MR. MARTZ:

Well, I tried to approximate it, but you got to remember here that I'm taking blood off of a surface and I don't specifically remember how much I took off.

# 188 MR. BLASIER:

Wouldn't it be very misleading to put two figures on a chart when they are based on different starting amounts?

# 189 MR. MARTZ:

Well, as I mentioned earlier, when I cut a stain it is very easy, I can see it, but when I took a stain off of a can I removed it with a cotton swatch.

# 190 MR. BLASIER:

Move to strike. I'm sorry, move to strike, nonresponsive.

# 191 THE COURT:

The answer is stricken.

# 192 MR. BLASIER:

Wouldn't it be very misleading to put together a chart when you are starting--when you have different starting amounts for the components of that chart?

# 193 MR. MARTZ:

I don't believe so.

# 194 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you've testified that your ion counts can fluctuate by as much as four times because of the machinery, correct?

# 195 MR. MARTZ:

I testified they fluctuate at that amount on the one particular day.

# 196 MR. BLASIER:

And I want you to assume hypothetically for just a moment that--well, let me ask you this: What is your assumption in terms of how much blood you used for the evidence sample on February 28th for the gate?

# 197 MR. MARTZ:

Umm, it was--it was larger than the minimum amount that I required, which is the one millimeter squared.

# 198 MR. BLASIER:

How much larger?

# 199 MR. MARTZ:

It was probably approximately--probably one and a half by one and a half.

# 200 MR. BLASIER:

Which is how many square millimeters?

# 201 MR. MARTZ:

Well, one and a half square millimeters.

# 202 MR. BLASIER:

One and a half square?

# 203 MR. MARTZ:

Right.

# 204 MR. BLASIER:

And you had determined that the minimum size swatch that you needed to use to get a detectable amount was one square millimeter?

# 205 MR. MARTZ:

Well, that was based on negative ions. For a positive ion I would need one/tenth of that, so it would be a very shall very small.

# 206 MR. BLASIER:

Well, you calculated what size swatch you needed for these tests to have a minimum detectable amount of EDTA blood, did you not?

# 207 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 208 MR. BLASIER:

For the negative ion?

# 209 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 210 MR. BLASIER:

You didn't do a different calculation for positive ion, did you?

# 211 MR. MARTZ:

Based on the fact that the positive ion is ten times stronger or has ten times the ability to detect it, then I would need one/tenth the size stain.

# 212 MR. BLASIER:

I want you to assume, for purposes of a hypothetical, that your estimate of the quantity of the blood that you use from the bloodstain was only one/fourth of what you thought it was. Do you have that in mind?

# 213 MR. MARTZ:

Yes.

# 214 MR. BLASIER:

And obviously if you used much less blood you would expect a lower ion count, wouldn't you?

# 215 MR. MARTZ:

That's correct.

# 216 MR. BLASIER:

Now, could we have chart c, please.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Roger Martz

Yes. I mean, if I can remember what I did, I won't write it down.

Martz admits his criterion for documentation is personal memory — deeply undermining the scientific rigor of his work product.

Roger Martz

No, I did not.

Martz admits he never considered that EDTA in the blood sample could have come from the tube itself when designing his experiment — a basic alternative hypothesis he overlooked.

Robert Blasier

That doesn't look like a thousand-fold difference, does it?

Reveals that the prosecution's visually dramatic charts were based on comparing metal evidence to a cloth control; the metal-to-metal comparison yields only a ~14-fold difference, gutting the charts' impact.

Robert Blasier

So you are using your results to bootstrap and find--and say that you must have used a smaller sample because of the results?

Accuses Martz of circular reasoning — working backward from his desired conclusion to explain away discrepancies rather than maintaining scientific rigor.

Roger Martz

I didn't do any specifically.

Martz concedes he conducted no experiments on the effect of different light sources on EDTA in dried bloodstains, despite claiming light exposure was irrelevant.

Evidence (5)

Defense 1271-A

Slide showing ion count charts for two positive controls — cloth swatch (~8 million) and metal can (~3 million) — run on different days

introduced and discussed to expose ~3-fold discrepancy between controls

Defense 1271-B

Slide comparing the can positive control (~3 million ion count) to the gate evidence stain (~221,000 ion count) from the same day

introduced to show the difference is ~14-fold, not 1000-fold as prosecution charts implied

K67 and K68

Known reference blood samples used as controls in Martz's EDTA testing

discussed

Informal

Bloodstain from the back gate

discussed; Martz admits he made no inquiries about collection conditions, storage, handling, or environmental exposure

Informal

The sock

discussed; Martz admits he never asked how many times it had been handled or what light sources it had been subjected to

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier walks Martz through his ion count data using Defense slides, revealing that comparing metal evidence to a metal control yields only ~14-fold difference — not the 1000-fold difference the prosecution's cloth-to-metal charts suggested. Martz concedes the charts were not prepared this way.

devastating

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier establishes that Martz's documentation standard is personal memory — if he thinks he can remember it, he doesn't write it down — and that he failed to document changed experimental conditions between tests.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Roger Martz

Blasier presses Martz to explain the ~3-fold difference between his two positive controls. Martz offers that he may have cut different-sized swatches on different days, but then Blasier catches him using his own results to retroactively infer sample size — circular reasoning.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (4)

⚔ Roger Martz

prior omission / failure to document

Blasier establishes that Martz wrote no report on informal EDTA stability tests on old bloodstains, took no notes on changed experimental conditions between tests, and uses personal memory as his documentation standard.

⚔ Roger Martz

methodological inadequacy

Martz admits he never considered EDTA contamination from the collection tube, never asked about environmental conditions the gate stain was subjected to, never tested the effect of light on EDTA in dried bloodstains, and has no supporting scientific literature for his stability assumptions.

⚔ Roger Martz

misleading charts / inconsistent controls

Blasier demonstrates that the prosecution's ion count charts compared metal evidence to cloth controls, inflating the apparent difference. The actual metal-to-metal comparison (can control vs. gate evidence) shows only ~14-fold difference, not the 1000-fold difference the charts implied. Martz also admits using different-sized swatches across days without documentation.

⚔ Roger Martz

circular reasoning

Blasier catches Martz explaining the ion count discrepancy between two positive controls by working backward from his results to infer sample size, rather than having recorded the actual conditions at the time.

Witness Demeanor

(No audible response.) — when asked what passing through the body has to do with light exposure

(No audible response.) — when asked whether the can and gate tests were done close together in time

Objections

10 objections (3 sustained, 7 overruled)

Proceeding 7042 • 216 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103