Cross-examination of Dr. Bruce Weir (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Dr. Bruce Weir (part 3) — Friday, June 23, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\23\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-BRUCE-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 102 of 167

◀ Sidebar: NRC report methodology Sidebar: Dr. Thompson's letter ▶

Witness: Dr. Bruce Weir
Examiner: Peter Neufeld
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Friday, June 23, 1995 • Utterances: 74

Peter Neufeld pressed Dr. Bruce Weir on his opposition to the NRC committee's 'ceiling principle' approach to DNA population frequency calculations, drawing out an admission that Weir was excluded from the second NRC committee because he was perceived as a 'partisan.' Neufeld repeatedly attempted to introduce a letter signed by 25 scientists challenging Weir's methodology, but Judge Ito blocked it each time. The session ended with the introduction of Defense exhibit 1205, a letter from Dr. Elizabeth Thompson, which Weir acknowledged having seen.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

Proceed.

# 3 MR. NEUFELD:

Dr. Weir, did you resent the fact that the national academy of science report did not take your advice and recommendations as how to calculate population frequencies?

# 4 DR. WEIR:

That's too broad. I'm sorry. If we're talking--well, you have to tell me exactly what we're talking about because there are many aspects to that question.

# 5 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Dr. Weir, did you resent the fact that the national research council came up with an approach to calculating population frequencies which gives considerable weight to the possible presence of population substructure?

# 6 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

# 7 THE COURT:

Overruled. He's already testified to taking substructure into consideration in his testimony.

# 8 DR. WEIR:

I agree with the need to incorporate substructure.

# 9 MR. NEUFELD:

But did you agree with the manner that the NRC chose to incorporate substructure?

# 10 DR. WEIR:

What are you talking about specifically?

# 11 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Do you agree--I'm sorry. Do you resent the fact that they came up with a ceiling principal approach to handling the issue of substructure?

# 12 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 13 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 14 DR. WEIR:

The ceiling--

# 15 THE COURT:

Go ahead.

# 16 DR. WEIR:

The ceiling approach is not the appropriate way to account for population substructure.

# 17 MR. NEUFELD:

And in your testimony and in your discussions with the NRC committee, did you take a position opposed to using the ceiling approach?

# 18 DR. WEIR:

No. When I had discussions with the NRC committee, it was before the ceiling approach was formulated.

# 19 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Well, did you take a position it was inconsistent with utilizing the ceiling principle?

# 20 DR. WEIR:

That never arose. If you recall, my testimony before the NRC committee had to deal with the measures of genetic distance, and I touched upon my independence testing. The concepts or the issue of substructuring did not arise at that point and I didn't address it.

# 21 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. So do you resent the fact that the NRC committee chose to adopt the ceiling approach to handling population frequencies?

# 22 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Vague. Also--vague.

# 23 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 24 DR. WEIR:

I don't resent anything. I think the ceiling principal is the wrong way to do something. That's not resentment.

KEY QUOTE

# 25 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, I believe you said a moment ago you referred to a second NRC committee; is that right?

# 26 DR. WEIR:

Yes, I did.

# 27 MR. NEUFELD:

And is that--is it true, sir, that once the NRC report was published, it inspired additional controversy in the scientific community?

# 28 DR. WEIR:

I don't like the word "Additional." The report itself generated controversy.

# 29 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, sir, the report itself says it was created and written because of the controversy surrounding these issues, didn't it?

# 30 DR. WEIR:

I've already said that I don't believe that the report was accurate in describing a controversy. However, the book itself certainly created a controversy.

# 31 MR. NEUFELD:

And, in fact, there was sufficient controversy, as I think you pointed out a moment ago, that a determination was made to establish a second NRC committee to reinvestigate some of these issues; is that correct?

# 32 DR. WEIR:

Yes. The NRC committee convened a panel of which I was a member along with members of that original committee, and we recommended that they issue a new report.

# 33 MR. NEUFELD:

And also, I guess you said that some of those other scientists who were not part of the original committee that I just mentioned, namely, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Zabell, were also present at that committee meeting?

# 34 DR. WEIR:

Yes. There were several others, yes.

# 35 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, when it came time though to select the members for the second committee, you were not included as one of those people; is that correct, sir?

# 36 DR. WEIR:

I was excluded by the ground rules of the membership of the committee.

# 37 MR. NEUFELD:

And did those ground rules include the fact that you were perceived as a partisan on this issue?

# 38 DR. WEIR:

Apparently. A partisan, yes. I had spoken out--spoken out sufficiently to be received--to be perceived as having strong opinions.

KEY QUOTE

# 39 MR. NEUFELD:

And the second committee has not yet published its findings; is that correct?

# 40 DR. WEIR:

That's correct, yes.

# 41 MR. NEUFELD:

Isn't it a fact, sir, that as recently as last November--just to give a sense of the continuing nature of this controversy, Dr. Weir, isn't it a fact that as recently as last November, 25 scientists in the fields of statistics and population genetics signed a letter asserting that the--

# 42 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.

KEY QUOTE

# 43 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, did you receive a copy of a letter--

# 44 THE COURT:

Sustained. We're not going into that. We broached this once before. We're not going into that letter.

# 45 MR. NEUFELD:

Can I have a sidebar, your Honor?

# 46 THE COURT:

Nope.

# 47 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, you said earlier on direct examination that Dr. Elizabeth Thompson is somebody who--whose work you actually relied upon in doing some of the tests that you've done in forensic data; is that correct?

# 48 DR. WEIR:

That's correct. I think very highly of her work and I was pleased to be able to use it.

# 49 MR. NEUFELD:

And you regard Elizabeth Thompson as an extremely well-regarded member of the scientific communities involving population genetics and statistics?

# 50 DR. WEIR:

Yes, I do.

# 51 MR. NEUFELD:

And are you aware that Dr. Thompson takes the position that there's a--

# 52 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Calls for hearsay.

# 53 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 54 MR. NEUFELD:

Have you ever read anything signed by Dr. Thompson describing her agreements or disagreements with your positions concerning use of the product rule?

# 55 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Calls for hearsay.

# 56 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 57 DR. WEIR:

No.

# 58 MR. NEUFELD:

Have you ever seen a letter offered by Dr. Elizabeth Thompson describing the extent of the controversy on this issue?

# 59 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Calls for hearsay. Also assumes facts not in evidence.

# 60 THE COURT:

Overruled. Have you ever seen such a letter?

# 61 DR. WEIR:

I don't think so. I've seen--and I'm trying--you'll need to show me what document you're talking about, of course.

# 62 MR. NEUFELD:

1203?

# 63 THE COURT:

# 64 MR. NEUFELD:

# 65 MR. CLARKE:

Yes, your Honor.

# 66 THE COURT:

1204? 1204. 1205? 1205.

# 67 (Deft's 1205 for id = Dr. Thompson's letter)

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

# 69 MR. CLARKE:

I have an objection based on what the Court has already stated.

# 70 THE COURT:

No. The question was, is he aware of any such. He can be shown the item and asked if he recognizes it.

# 71 MR. NEUFELD:

Why don't you just read these five pages to yourself, sir.

# 72 DR. WEIR:

(The witness complies.) Yes, I have seen this letter before.

# 73 MR. NEUFELD:

And have you not only seen the letter, but you've also seen the list of signatures, correct?

# 74 THE COURT:

Wait a minute. Over at the sidebar. Give me that.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dr. Bruce Weir

I don't resent anything. I think the ceiling principal is the wrong way to do something. That's not resentment.

Weir carefully distinguishes professional disagreement from personal bias, but the exchange still surfaces his strong opposition to the NRC's preferred methodology.

Dr. Bruce Weir

A partisan, yes. I had spoken out--spoken out sufficiently to be received--to be perceived as having strong opinions.

Weir concedes he was excluded from the second NRC committee as a perceived partisan — a key credibility attack undermining his objectivity as an expert.

Lance A. Ito

Nope.

Blunt one-word refusal of Neufeld's sidebar request after repeated attempts to introduce the 25-scientist letter — illustrates Ito's tight control of the courtroom.

Lance A. Ito

Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.

Triple sustained in quick succession as Neufeld tried to get the 25-scientist letter before the jury, showing the court's firm prior ruling on that evidence.

Evidence (2)

Defense 1205

A letter from Dr. Elizabeth Thompson, five pages, which Weir confirmed he had seen before.

introduced and shown to witness

Informal

A letter signed by 25 scientists in statistics and population genetics asserting positions on the product rule controversy (as of November prior to trial).

attempted introduction; blocked by court

Notable Exchanges (3)

Peter Neufeld•Lance A. Ito

Neufeld made repeated attempts to get the 25-scientist letter into the record. Ito shut him down three times in a row, then flatly refused a sidebar request with 'Nope.'

adversarial

Peter Neufeld•Dr. Bruce Weir

Neufeld pressed Weir on whether he was excluded from the second NRC committee for being a partisan. Weir confirmed it, framing it as having 'strong opinions' rather than bias.

strategic

Peter Neufeld•Dr. Bruce Weir

Neufeld used Weir's own high regard for Dr. Elizabeth Thompson to set up the introduction of Thompson's letter, which Weir ultimately acknowledged having seen.

calculated

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Judge Ito's terse one-word denial of a sidebar request: 'Nope.'

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dr. Bruce Weir

bias/partiality

Neufeld elicited from Weir himself that he was excluded from the second NRC committee because he was perceived as a 'partisan' with 'strong opinions,' suggesting his expert testimony favoring the prosecution's DNA statistics is advocacy rather than neutral science.

⚔ Dr. Bruce Weir

contradiction by scientific consensus

Neufeld attempted to introduce a letter signed by 25 scientists and Dr. Thompson's letter to show that Weir's statistical methodology is disputed within his own field, though the 25-scientist letter was blocked by the court.

Witness Demeanor

(The witness complies.) — Weir reads five pages of Dr. Thompson's letter silently as directed.

Objections

8 objections (3 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 6534 • 74 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103