Direct examination of Douglas Deedrick (part 4)

📄 Direct examination of Douglas Deedrick (part 4) — Thursday, June 29, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\29\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DOUGLAS-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 106 of 167

◀ Session opening Sidebar: Grisham book discovery ▶

Witness: Douglas Deedrick
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, June 29, 1995 • Utterances: 67

Marcia Clark continued her direct examination of FBI fiber expert Douglas Deedrick, introducing three scanning electron microscope photographs (People's 472-474) showing different cross-sections of nylon automotive carpet fibers. Deedrick explained fiber comparison methodology and the limits of forensic fiber conclusions — that fibers can only be said to 'could have originated' from a source, never definitively matched. Judge Ito ordered the word 'match' stricken from the record mid-testimony, and the session ended abruptly with a sidebar called by the judge.

# 1 MS. CLARK:

Okay. This was 472. Please tell us what this is.

# 2 MR. DEEDRICK:

It is a regular tri-lobal fiber.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

What does that mean?

# 4 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, the lobes on--the three lobes of the fiber are uniform as--in length and appearance.

# 5 MS. CLARK:

Meaning that no one curve is longer or different than the other two?

# 6 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, that is what that means, yes.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

And is that a photograph taken from the scanning electron microscope?

# 8 MR. DEEDRICK:

It is, yes.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

And what--what does this fiber come from?

# 10 MR. BAILEY:

Object to that.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 12 THE COURT:

Just what type of fiber is this?

# 13 MS. CLARK:

What type of fiber is this?

# 14 MR. DEEDRICK:

It is a nylon automotive fiber.

# 15 THE COURT:

Proceed.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

Next. What is that--may I make this, I'm sorry, your Honor, 473?

# 17 THE COURT:

473.

# 18 (Peo's 473 for id = photograph)

# 19 MR. DEEDRICK:

This is a nylon automotive fiber of a different cross-section.

# 20 MS. CLARK:

Okay. This is a different--this looks different. How is it--

# 21 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, it is different from the standpoint of appearance. That is--I call it the jack cross-section. It has--if you had toys as a child, some of you may not be old enough, but jacks had the little knobby ends on them with the little ball and the jacks. Oh, well. Anyway, I call it the jack cross-section, but it has three lobes, little knobs on the end of them, and it is a little bit unusual, it is different. Again, it is another automotive fiber.

# 22 MS. CLARK:

What is that?

# 23 MR. DEEDRICK:

That is a--that is called the Michelin man. I didn't label this one, but it is the same--essentially the same fiber as the previous one as two components made by the same company but they changed the cross-section of it and it appears differently. This is again another automotive nylon fiber made by the same company.

KEY QUOTE

# 24 MS. CLARK:

People's 474, your Honor.

# 25 THE COURT:

So marked.

# 26 (Peo's 474 for id = photograph)

# 27 MS. CLARK:

Were all three of these, 472, 473 and 474, scanning electron microscope pictures?

# 28 MR. DEEDRICK:

They were.

# 29 MS. CLARK:

And all of them were taken of a nylon carpet fiber from an automobile?

# 30 MR. DEEDRICK:

They were.

# 31 MS. CLARK:

And by the same manufacturer?

# 32 MR. BAILEY:

I'm going to object.

# 33 THE COURT:

Overruled at this point.

# 34 MS. CLARK:

Were they taken from different years?

# 35 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 36 MR. BAILEY:

Objection.

# 37 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 38 MS. CLARK:

All right. After all the tests are conducted with respect to comparison microscope, microspectrophotometer, fluorescent microscope and polarizing light, scanning electron microscope, ftir--have I missed any?

# 39 MR. DEEDRICK:

I think you have them.

# 40 MS. CLARK:

After all of that, what conclusions can be reached concerning the comparison of fibers?

# 41 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, after all that I can only say that the fiber could have originated from that fabric.

KEY QUOTE

# 42 MS. CLARK:

Could have?

# 43 MR. DEEDRICK:

Could have.

# 44 MS. CLARK:

And when you draw that conclusion, what has to be similar? To what agree do you have to find similarity? Can you have any differences at all to reach that conclusion?

# 45 MR. DEEDRICK:

There can't be any significant differences, anything you can't account for. They have to be all pretty much the same right down the line. All the tests, the original tests and the confirming tests, have to agree.

# 46 MS. CLARK:

When you say "No differences you can't account for," what does that mean?

# 47 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, as I said, you may run some tests initially that there may be some--something that comes up in the subsequent tests that you can't explain. You may need to get some information about the--historical information about the fiber or the fabric or what happened to the suspect's clothes before they got the clothes. As an example--as an example, the suspect goes home, changes his clothes, uses an optical brightener, Fab with borax or something, I don't know, but whatever, and the police get the clothing and they think that that is the clothing that he wore. The reaction of that particular fiber will be different using fluorescence for instance. It may fluoresce, whereas the other fiber didn't, so you may have to do a test, you may have to get information, what happened to the clothes afterwards, can we recreate the same situation? You might not be able to, it just depends, but for the most part, they will confirm--conform all the way down the line when a match--when association is made.

# 48 MR. BAILEY:

May the word "Match" be stricken, your Honor?

# 49 THE COURT:

Yes. That is to be stricken and disregarded.

# 50 MS. CLARK:

I didn't hear.

# 51 THE COURT:

Stricken and disregarded, the word "Match."

# 52 MS. CLARK:

I didn't hear it.

# 53 THE COURT:

Not in this context.

# 54 MS. CLARK:

So you cannot say that a particular fiber definitely came from this one piece of fabric and no other?

# 55 MR. DEEDRICK:

Oh, no.

# 56 MS. CLARK:

Can't say that, okay. But if the fiber--if you find that the fiber does exhibit the same characteristics, a questioned fiber as a known sample of cloth, what is the likelihood of finding another fabric at random that has fibers exactly like those of the questioned fiber?

# 57 MR. BAILEY:

Objection.

# 58 THE COURT:

Sustained. Foundation.

# 59 MS. CLARK:

Okay. Let me back up.

# 60 MS. CLARK:

What is the significance of a conclusion that a questioned fiber could have come from a given known sample of cloth or item of clothing?

# 61 MR. BAILEY:

Objection to the form.

# 62 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 63 MR. DEEDRICK:

There is a great deal of significance to certain fiber associations. Some are more common than others. That when you take, for instance, a manmade fiber of a particular type and you color it, you add color to it, it takes on a--sort of a uniqueness. Now, it is a fact that the manufacturer is not going to make--

# 64 MR. BAILEY:

Excuse me. Excuse me, your Honor. I object to "Sort of uniqueness." There are no degrees of unique and unique would be improper.

# 65 THE COURT:

Speaking objection, counsel.

# 66 MR. BAILEY:

All right.

# 67 THE COURT:

I think we are going to quit at this point, though. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess at this point. Hold on. Don't go away. Let me see Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran with the Court reporter, please.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (5)

Douglas Deedrick

After all that I can only say that the fiber could have originated from that fabric.

Deedrick himself caps the prosecution's fiber evidence with a carefully qualified conclusion — not a match, but a possibility. This is the ceiling of what fiber science can claim.

Douglas Deedrick

I call it the jack cross-section. It has--if you had toys as a child, some of you may not be old enough, but jacks had the little knobby ends on them with the little ball and the jacks. Oh, well.

Deedrick's folksy explanation of fiber morphology — and his gentle self-correction when the jury may not recognize the toy — reveals his effort to translate highly technical science for a lay audience.

Douglas Deedrick

That is called the Michelin man.

Deedrick's informal naming conventions for fiber cross-sections underscore that this is expert testimony delivered in accessible, colloquial terms.

Lance A. Ito

Stricken and disregarded, the word 'Match.'

The court's sensitivity to the word 'match' in forensic fiber testimony reflects the ongoing legal battle over what fiber science can and cannot prove — a key limitation the defense has been pressing.

F. Lee Bailey

There are no degrees of unique and unique would be improper.

Bailey's semantic objection to 'sort of uniqueness' illustrates the defense's strategy of attacking the precision of the prosecution's expert language at every turn.

Evidence (3)

People's 472

Scanning electron microscope photograph of a regular tri-lobal nylon automotive carpet fiber

previously introduced, discussed

People's 473

SEM photograph of a nylon automotive fiber with 'jack cross-section' — three lobes with knobby ends, described as unusual

introduced

People's 474

SEM photograph of a nylon automotive fiber Deedrick called 'the Michelin man' — same manufacturer as 473 but different cross-section

introduced

Notable Exchanges (3)

F. Lee Bailey•Lance A. Ito

After Deedrick used the word 'match,' Bailey moved to strike it. Ito granted the motion and instructed the jury to disregard it. Clark said she hadn't heard Deedrick say it.

strategic

F. Lee Bailey•Lance A. Ito

Bailey objected to Deedrick using the phrase 'sort of uniqueness,' arguing there are 'no degrees of unique.' Ito called it a speaking objection but then immediately called a recess and summoned Clark and Cochran for a sidebar.

tense

Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark

Ito sua sponte sustained an objection on the years question before Bailey had even formally completed his objection, then sustained Bailey's subsequent objection as well — suggesting the judge was actively monitoring the examination.

procedural

Light Moments (2)

Douglas Deedrick

Deedrick explained the 'jack cross-section' by referencing the children's game of jacks, then caught himself: 'some of you may not be old enough' — followed by 'Oh, well.'

Douglas Deedrick

Deedrick referred to a fiber cross-section as 'the Michelin man,' noting he didn't label the exhibit that way but that's what he calls it.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

language/precision challenges

Bailey repeatedly targeted the precision of Deedrick's language — objecting to 'sort of uniqueness' as logically impermissible, and moving to strike 'match' as an overstated conclusion — attempting to undermine the jury's confidence in the exactness of the expert's findings.

Objections

7 objections (4 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 6609 • 67 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103