Redirect examination of Gary Sims (part 3)

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

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\1\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-GARY-S.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 86 of 167

◀ Recross-examination of Gary Sims (part 2) Recross-examination of Gary Sims (part 3) ▶

Witness: Gary Sims
Examiner: Rockne Harmon
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, June 1, 1995 • Utterances: 22

Harmon conducts a brief redirect of DNA expert Gary Sims, attempting to rehabilitate testimony about the rear gate blood stains (exhibits 115, 116, 117). Sims confirms that nothing in Scheck's 'microenvironment' theory undermines the possibility that the stains were present since June 13th, and that the absence of bacterial degradation — not the storage conditions — is the key indicator of sample integrity.

# 1 MR. HARMON:

Just a couple questions, Mr. Sims.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

# 2 MR. HARMON:

This rear gate microenvironment with the berries and the dog chew and everything back there and this hypothetical about wind blown stuff up on the gate--

# 3 MR. SCHECK:

Excuse me.

# 4 MR. HARMON:

It is introductory, your Honor.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

Misstates a fact.

# 6 THE COURT:

Sustained. Ask a question, counsel.

# 7 MR. HARMON:

Do you know anything about wind blowing berries up on the rear gate?

# 8 MR. SIMS:

No.

# 9 MR. HARMON:

Do you think the wind could blow a berry up on 117? You have seen that picture?

# 10 MR. SIMS:

Would it have to be a very strong wind, I would think.

# 11 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Mr. Sims, the bottom line: Is there anything about what you saw on 115, 116, 117, even in Mr. Scheck's microenvironment, that undermines the fact that they could have been there from June 13th?

# 12 MR. SIMS:

No.

# 13 MR. HARMON:

And let's talk about how long those stains may have been in plastic bags in a truck on July 3rd when Mr. Fung collected them. Do you remember the question?

# 14 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 15 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Is what is important whether or not you see bacterial contamination causing degradation?

# 16 MR. SIMS:

Yes. It is sort of the bottom line is what do you see when you actually look at the yield gels on these particular samples and whether or not the phenomenon has occurred as indicated by the yield gel.

KEY QUOTE

# 17 MR. HARMON:

And you didn't see the same kind of degradation in 115, 116 and 117 as did you in the ones in the walkway?

# 18 MR. SIMS:

That's correct.

# 19 MR. HARMON:

Even if they had been in the truck as long as they had been on June 13th, is what is important the fact that you don't see the degradation?

# 20 MR. SCHECK:

Objection, objection.

# 21 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 22 MR. HARMON:

I don't have any other questions, your Honor.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Gary Sims

No.

Direct answer confirming nothing in Scheck's microenvironment theory undermines the stains being present from June 13th — the core defense challenge to the rear gate evidence

Gary Sims

It is sort of the bottom line is what do you see when you actually look at the yield gels on these particular samples and whether or not the phenomenon has occurred as indicated by the yield gel.

Sims frames bacterial degradation as the dispositive test for sample integrity, not time or storage conditions

Gary Sims

That's correct.

Confirms 115, 116, 117 did not show the same degradation as the walkway samples, supporting their integrity

Evidence (1)

People's 115, 116, 117

Rear gate blood stain swatches

discussed — Sims confirms no degradation inconsistent with June 13th origin

Notable Exchanges (1)

Rockne Harmon•Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Harmon's introductory framing of the 'microenvironment' question is cut off by Scheck's objection that it misstates facts; sustained. Harmon then simplifies to a clean yes/no question.

strategic

Objections

3 objections (2 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 6261 • 22 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103