Recross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3)

📄 Recross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3) — Thursday, June 1, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\1\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-GARY-SI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 86 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Gary Sims (part 3) Session closing remarks ▶

Witness: Gary Sims
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, June 1, 1995 • Lines: 11

Barry Scheck concludes his recross-examination of DNA analyst Gary Sims by comparing degradation patterns discussed for item 50, item 51, and the handrail substrate with samples 115, 116, and 117 from the back gate collected July 3rd. Sims said he believed item 50 was among the samples that showed up on the yield gel, confirmed the pattern for item 51 and the handrail sample, and confirmed that the July 3rd samples did not show the bacterial degradation addressed by Scheck.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

The bottom line of the fact, Mr. Sims, about how much bacterial degradation you saw on 115, 116 and 117, you didn't see it?

# 3 MR. SIMS:

I did not see that same pattern that I saw on the other samples from Bundy.

KEY QUOTE

# 4 MR. SCHECK:

And no. 50 collected from the substrate in the area of that gate, you saw it?

# 5 MR. SIMS:

I believe that was one of those that showed up on the yield gel, yes.

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

And the substrate of the front gate, you saw bacterial degradation of that--those stains--item no. 51 that was collected on June 13th?

# 7 MR. SIMS:

Yes, I saw that pattern on the yield gel.

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

And from the handrail, that substrate, you saw bacterial degradation on the sample collected on June 13th?

# 9 MR. SIMS:

I saw that same pattern, yes.

# 10 MR. SCHECK:

But from the samples that were collected on July 3rd from that back gate, 117, 116, 115, you didn't see that bacterial degradation, did you?

# 11 MR. SIMS:

That's correct.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Gary Sims

I did not see that same pattern that I saw on the other samples from Bundy.

Sims identifies a difference between the pattern seen in items 115, 116, and 117 and the pattern he saw in other Bundy samples.

Gary Sims

That's correct.

Sims confirms that items 115, 116, and 117 did not show the bacterial degradation addressed in Scheck's question.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Item 50 — substrate from the area of the gate

discussed — Sims said he believed item 50 was among the samples that showed up on the yield gel

Informal

Item 51 — front gate substrate, collected June 13th

discussed — Sims confirmed bacterial degradation pattern

Informal

Handrail substrate sample, collected June 13th

discussed — Sims confirmed bacterial degradation pattern

Informal

Items 115, 116, 117 — back gate samples collected July 3rd

discussed — Sims confirmed absence of bacterial degradation

Notable Exchanges (1)

Barry Scheck•Gary Sims

Scheck asks Sims about degradation patterns in item 50, item 51, and the handrail sample before contrasting those answers with items 115, 116, and 117 collected July 3rd; Sims confirms the difference concerning the later samples.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Prosecution's back gate evidence

internal inconsistency in physical evidence

Scheck contrasts Sims's observation that items 115, 116, and 117 did not show the same bacterial-degradation pattern with Sims's answers about degradation patterns in other Bundy samples, including item 51 and the handrail sample.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 6262 • 11 lines • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103