Cross-examination of Douglas Deedrick (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Douglas Deedrick (part 2) — Thursday, July 6, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\6\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DOUGLAS-D.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 109 of 167

◀ Sidebar: prior testimony and discovery Sidebar: presentation objections ▶

Witness: Douglas Deedrick
Examiner: F. Lee Bailey
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, July 6, 1995 • Utterances: 115

F. Lee Bailey cross-examines FBI hair and fiber expert Douglas Deedrick, focusing on two main attacks: (1) that Deedrick has been citing the same '4000 cases' figure since at least 1987 without updating it, suggesting he stopped counting and may be inflating his credentials, and (2) that Deedrick did not apply thin layer chromatography (TLC) to the fibers in this case, a technique that could have more precisely characterized the questioned fibers. Bailey also challenges Deedrick's workload math to imply he couldn't have given cases thorough attention.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

# 3 MR. BAILEY:

Do you recall testifying in that case?

# 4 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes.

# 5 MR. BAILEY:

Do you recall whether or not during your testimony you described the RCMP lab in Canada as having a pretty good set-up as well as a home office central research establishment in the met lab in England? Do you recall that reference?

# 6 MR. DEEDRICK:

I believe they probably do have good set-ups, although I haven't seen any of them. In terms of the data that they put out, the result, the studies that they conduct.

# 7 MR. BAILEY:

What is the met lab in England, incidentally?

# 8 MR. DEEDRICK:

The met lab, it is in London. Actually the met lab, it has actually changed since then. Met lab and the home office central research establishment which handle all the labs in England, they are merging right now, but they are two separate entities. Like the met lab in Toronto and the RCMP in Canada, two separate systems.

# 9 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. Do you remember saying, with reference to the pencil: "When we first get in training and start testifying it is kind of a nice prop, but I don't use it any more"?

# 10 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. Objection. Counsel is reading from a transcript the People have never seen.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained, sustained. Foundational objection.

# 12 MR. BAILEY:

All right.

# 13 THE COURT:

It is called foundation and we stand when we make those objections. Proceed. The objection is sustained.

# 14 MR. BAILEY:

Did you say in that case, if you can recall, that you don't use this analogy any more?

# 15 MS. CLARK:

Same objection.

# 16 MR. BAILEY:

In 1988?

# 17 MS. CLARK:

Same objection.

# 18 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 19 MR. BAILEY:

All right.

# 20 MR. BAILEY:

Mr. Deedrick, you have testified in quite a number of cases, have you not? 400 I believe you have said?

# 21 MR. DEEDRICK:

I have, yes.

# 22 MR. BAILEY:

All right. And in each of those cases you have been disposed to acquaint the Court and jury with your estimation of your experience in the field of hair and fibers?

# 23 MR. DEEDRICK:

I try to do that, yes.

# 24 MR. BAILEY:

That generally involves some description of the number of cases that you've had?

# 25 MR. DEEDRICK:

Generally it does, yes.

# 26 MR. BAILEY:

And the number of places that you've testified; courts, state, federal, territorial, things like that?

# 27 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's right.

# 28 MR. BAILEY:

And other information about your experience?

# 29 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's correct.

# 30 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. Is it fair to say that in about 1984 you had been an examiner, after your one-year training period, for six years?

# 31 MR. DEEDRICK:

Approximately six years, right.

# 32 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. And were you then receiving about thirty cases a month for your own handling? I think that is the figure you gave us yesterday.

# 33 MR. DEEDRICK:

I don't recall exactly how many I have gotten over the years. I would have to go back and take an average, but thirty cases could--would be probably about right.

# 34 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. Well, you have told this jury in this case that you have examined 4000 cases in round numbers and testified 400 times.

# 35 MS. CLARK:

Objection, misstates the testimony.

# 36 MR. BAILEY:

Is that correct?

# 37 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 38 MR. BAILEY:

Wasn't that your statement on direct examination?

# 39 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. In this particular case, yes.

# 40 MR. BAILEY:

All right. Are you a careful person when you give testimony, Mr. Deedrick?

# 41 MR. DEEDRICK:

Sure. I try to be.

# 42 MR. BAILEY:

You know that it may be of importance, in evaluating your, testimony for the jury to have accurate representations as to your experience?

# 43 MR. DEEDRICK:

I try to be as accurate as possible.

# 44 MR. BAILEY:

And you have been working steadily for the 17 years that you have been an examiner?

# 45 MR. DEEDRICK:

I have.

# 46 MR. BAILEY:

Did you testify in 1987 that you had already handled 4000 cases?

# 47 MR. DEEDRICK:

I don't recall. I may have. I don't know--I don't recall what you are referring to.

# 48 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. Did you testify in 1990 that you had handled 4000 cases, in New York?

# 49 MR. DEEDRICK:

I kind of got stuck on the 4000. I actually stopped counting cases after a while. I used to keep records on all the cases that I worked, all the testimony that I had, and I probably have stopped counting, so it may be more than that.

# 50 MR. BAILEY:

Did you testify in 1991 that you had handled 4000 cases?

# 51 MR. DEEDRICK:

Like I said, I kind of stopped at 4000.

# 52 MR. BAILEY:

Did you testify in 1993 that you had handled 4000 cases?

# 53 MR. DEEDRICK:

Probably so, sure.

# 54 MR. BAILEY:

Mr. Deedrick, in an effort to find out how thoroughly you examined each of these cases as such--and I assume a case means the involvement of multiple materials; hairs, fibers, what are?

# 55 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes, it does.

# 56 MR. BAILEY:

Sometimes I believe you said running into the hundreds?

# 57 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right, that's right.

# 58 MR. BAILEY:

Certainly true in this case?

# 59 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's right.

# 60 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. The amount of time available to you to spend on a case is of some significance as to whether you were seeing everything that you need to see, is it not?

# 61 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. It is relative.

# 62 MR. BAILEY:

If you were forced to accept an overload because examiners got sick or whatever and it had to be done, it would minimize your opportunity to exercise care and be reflective?

# 63 MR. DEEDRICK:

No. I don't believe that it minimizes the attention you spend on a case. Obviously you have to prioritize your operations and the case work is pretty much the same. You give the case the same attention that you possibly can give it.

# 64 MR. BAILEY:

When you look through the microscope initially at an object, hair or fiber, do you just glance at it? Do you study it? How much time would you estimate that you need at a minimum to form the necessary impression of the object being scrutinized?

# 65 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, it depends on the item. Some items are pretty quickly identified and others may take a little while.

# 66 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. Do you have any estimate at all as to the average amount of time that you need in order to make a proper observation?

# 67 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, observations are made very quickly, and as you are going through the material that is on a slide, so that multiple observations can be made within--within a minute. You could identify most of the material on that slide.

# 68 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. And what about the comparison microscope, if you get to that stage as to a certain questioned and a known object, do you take a little more time there in order to study the matter?

# 69 MR. DEEDRICK:

Sure. It takes a little longer to do that.

# 70 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. How many different cases would you say that you could handle in an hour at your laboratory, average type cases?

# 71 MR. DEEDRICK:

In one hour?

# 72 MR. BAILEY:

Yeah.

# 73 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, if the average case is somewhere between ten and twenty items, each examiner has a technician who prepares material. Ten cases could be prepared and ready to work at one time. One could, depending on the size of the case, could work two cases possibly three a day as far as the comparisons go, depending on the size. Smaller cases you can turn around quickly.

# 74 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. You have testified that you do this in a five-hour day, generally?

# 75 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well--

# 76 MR. BAILEY:

That is from 7:00 to 12:00 you are at the microscope?

# 77 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. At the microscope, that's correct.

# 78 MR. BAILEY:

Well, that is all I'm interested in for purposes of this line of questioning.

# 79 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right.

# 80 MR. BAILEY:

As of 1987 in may you had been an examiner for how long?

# 81 MR. DEEDRICK:

`87 would be nine years I guess.

# 82 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. If you work five hours a day, 250 days a year for nine years and examine 4000 cases, do you have an idea at the rate of which you are going through those cases?

# 83 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, I think we've already shown that your mathematics is better than mine.

KEY QUOTE

# 84 MR. BAILEY:

Do you want to take a stab at it?

# 85 MR. DEEDRICK:

Like I said, if you work about three to 400 cases a year, in that range, in ten years you are closing in over the 3000--3000 mark, and that is what it averaged there for a long time. I was really working a lot of cases. It slowed down during the past few years.

# 86 MR. BAILEY:

But it appears that you have increased not one whit since 1987 and we are still at 4000. Is that true, you have done no cases since then?

KEY QUOTE

# 87 MR. DEEDRICK:

No. Like I said, I kind of got to the point where I stopped counting and I probably got stuck on this 4000.

KEY QUOTE

# 88 MR. BAILEY:

Okay.

# 89 MR. DEEDRICK:

I'm sure I have worked more cases than that.

# 90 MR. BAILEY:

Have you had a chance just to glance at the article I handed you? I don't intend to go into its text.

# 91 MR. DEEDRICK:

I read it.

# 92 MR. BAILEY:

Are you familiar with the subject that means TLC which does not mean tender loving care?

# 93 MR. DEEDRICK:

I am, yes.

# 94 MR. BAILEY:

That is a process that can be used to further define the likeness between suspect fibers?

# 95 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes, it could, could be used.

# 96 MR. BAILEY:

Is it a process with which you are familiar?

# 97 MR. DEEDRICK:

I have used it in the past, yes.

# 98 MR. BAILEY:

And its technical name is thin layer chromatography, correct?

# 99 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's correct.

# 100 MR. BAILEY:

In essence what are you doing when you apply that technique to a questioned fiber?

# 101 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, it is a method by which you can extract or take out the color or the dye that is present in the fiber and then separate that dye on a plate or a gel plate and in the dyes or the components of the color that make up the fiber will separate and you will have bands of color.

# 102 MR. BAILEY:

Do you remember what you told us early in your direct examination about the amount of cotton fiber that is manufactured in the United States every year?

# 103 MR. DEEDRICK:

Five billion pounds.

# 104 MR. BAILEY:

Okay. Do you have any idea whatsoever of the number of fabrics of a blue black nature that look black to the naked eye that were distributed in the Los Angeles area in the past five or ten years?

# 105 MR. DEEDRICK:

I have no idea.

# 106 MR. BAILEY:

Did you apply thin layer chromatography to the samples you derived if this case?

# 107 MR. DEEDRICK:

I did not.

# 108 MR. BAILEY:

Thank you. That's all.

# 109 THE COURT:

Miss Clark.

# 110 MR. BAILEY:

Excuse me.

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

# 112 MR. BAILEY:

Excuse me.

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

# 114 MR. BAILEY:

We may approach, your Honor, before I finish the cross? We have a matter to bring up.

# 115 THE COURT:

Yes.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Douglas Deedrick

Well, I think we've already shown that your mathematics is better than mine.

Deedrick concedes Bailey's point that his case count math doesn't add up, a rare moment of self-deprecating admission that undercuts his credibility on case volume claims.

Douglas Deedrick

Like I said, I kind of got to the point where I stopped counting and I probably got stuck on this 4000.

Deedrick admits he has been using the same credential figure for years without updating it, weakening his testimony about expertise and thoroughness.

F. Lee Bailey

But it appears that you have increased not one whit since 1987 and we are still at 4000. Is that true, you have done no cases since then?

Bailey's sharpest rhetorical thrust — using Deedrick's own repeated testimony across years to imply either stagnation or credential inflation.

Douglas Deedrick

I did not.

Deedrick confirms he did not apply thin layer chromatography to the fibers in this case, leaving open the question of whether a more rigorous technique would have yielded different results.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Transcript from a prior case (1988) in which Deedrick testified about using a pencil as a prop

Bailey attempts to read from it; objection sustained on foundation grounds

Informal

Article about thin layer chromatography (TLC) handed to Deedrick by Bailey

Discussed as a technique not applied to the fiber evidence in this case

Notable Exchanges (3)

F. Lee Bailey•Douglas Deedrick

Bailey walks Deedrick through the arithmetic of his workload — 5 hours/day, 250 days/year, 9 years — to show that Deedrick could not have handled 4000 cases by 1987 at his own stated rate, exposing that the figure was frozen and uncounted for years.

strategic

F. Lee Bailey•Douglas Deedrick

Bailey establishes that Deedrick did not use thin layer chromatography on the questioned fibers, closing the cross on a pointed note about a more definitive test left undone.

revealing

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark objects repeatedly to Bailey reading from an unseen prior transcript; Ito sustains and reminds counsel to stand when making objections.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Douglas Deedrick

Deedrick quips 'I think we've already shown that your mathematics is better than mine' when Bailey presses him on the case-count arithmetic.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

Prior inconsistent statements / credential inflation

Bailey demonstrates that Deedrick cited '4000 cases' as his experience figure in 1987, 1990, 1991, and 1993 — and again in this trial — suggesting the number was never updated and may be unreliable.

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

Omission / failure to use superior technique

Bailey establishes that thin layer chromatography, a technique Deedrick knows and has used, was not applied to the questioned fibers, implying the examination was less thorough than it could have been.

Objections

5 objections (4 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 6650 • 115 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103