Administrative matters: DNA terminology

📄 Administrative matters: DNA terminology — Friday, March 31, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\31\ADMINISTRATIVE-MATTERS-DNA-TER.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 49 of 167

◀ Opening remarks on evidence collection Videotape hearing and witness scheduling ▶

Date: Friday, March 31, 1995 • Lines: 21

Marcia Clark says she believes Scheck and Neufeld raised an issue concerning terminology she used in the Christopher Johnson case. She accuses counsel of misrepresenting the context and explains that the earlier matter concerned a paternity-based identification without a body, which she says differs from the current case. Ito says he has ordered the complete court file, declines to litigate the issue then, and indicates it will be addressed when the proceedings reach DNA testing.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

# 2 THE COURT:

MISS CLARK.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THERE WAS AN ISSUE RAISED BY I BELIEVE MR. SCHECK AND MR. NEUFELD CONCERNING THE TERMINOLOGY THAT I USED IN THE CHRISTOPHER JONES CASE -- JOHNSON CASE CONCERNING A MATCH AND COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED TO THE COURT THE IMPORT OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE EXCHANGE THAT OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING FROM THE CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON CASE. THE UNFAIRNESS OF THAT IS THAT THIS COURT AND THE PUBLICITY THAT DEGENERATES GENERATES FROM EVERY HEARING THAT WE HAVE HAS NOW BEEN COMPLETELY FALSIFIED IN TERMS OF WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED IN COURT. COUNSEL NOW PROFFERS TO THE COURT A MERE FEW PAGES FROM A TRANSCRIPT SEEKING TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS OF THEIR -- OF THE MISREPRESENTATION THAT THEY HAVE MADE TO THIS COURT. I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE MERE FEW PAGES THEY HAVE PROFFERED AND INSIST ON THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT.

# 4 THE COURT:

MISS CLARK, LET ME -- FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT I HAVE A DISLIKE OF EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPTS AS WELL. I'VE ALREADY ORDERED THE COMPLETE COURT FILE. MRS. ROBERTSON ADVISES ME THAT THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT AT MY REQUEST HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE COURT.

# 5 MS. CLARK:

GREAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE OTHER POINT I WISH TO MAKE TO THE COURT IN ADVANCE --

# 6 THE COURT:

WHICH MEANS, I GET TO READ A WHOLE LOT MORE STUFF.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MS. CLARK:

YEAH. EVEN THOUGH -- WHICH IS EXACTLY I KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

# 8 THE COURT:

THIS WEEKEND, YES.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

EXACTLY. YOU HAVE VOLUMES. AND I WANT -- AND LET ME ASSIST THE COURT IN THAT REGARD WHEN YOU SEE IT. THE CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON MATTER WAS A PATERNITY MATCH. IT WAS A MURDER CASE --

# 10 THE COURT:

I NOTED THAT.

# 11 MS. CLARK:

-- WITHOUT A BODY --

# 12 THE COURT:

I NOTED THAT.

# 13 MS. CLARK:

OKAY. SO WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF A MATCH, THE WITNESS SAID, "WELL, I CAN'T SAY THERE'S A MATCH BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A KNOWN SAMPLE FROM THE VICTIM." WE HAVE NO BODY OF THE VICTIM. ALL WE HAVE IS A BLOODSTAIN AT A CRIME SCENE AND WE'RE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THAT BLOOD COULD HAVE BEEN THE BLOOD OF THE SON OF THIS FATHER, THE HUSBAND OF THIS MOTHER OR WIFE, THE FATHER OF THIS CHILD AND THE SIBLING OF THIS SISTER. SO I MEAN, IT WAS A PATERNITY MATCH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT'S WHY THE WITNESS WAS SAYING, WE CAN'T SAY A MATCH BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING TO MATCH IT TOO. WE CAN ONLY SAY THAT THIS BLOOD IS CONSISTENT WITH BEING A RELATIVE OF THESE PEOPLE IN THIS REGARD.

# 14 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, I DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE THAT ISSUE NOW.

# 15 MS. CLARK:

OKAY. BUT IT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE SITUATION FROM WHAT WE HAVE HERE. IT'S NOT THE SAME SITUATION.

# 16 THE COURT:

IN READING THE EXCERPT, ENOUGH INTERESTING THINGS CAME UP, SPECIFICALLY THE PATERNITY ISSUES AND WHAT THE TEST WAS THAT CAUSED ME TO ORDER THE COMPLETE FILE, WHICH I'VE DONE.

KEY QUOTE

# 17 MS. CLARK:

OKAY. WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER IF EVER?

# 18 THE COURT:

OBVIOUSLY WE'LL HAVE TO REACH THAT ISSUE SOMETIME WHEN WE GET INTO THE DNA TESTING.

# 19 MS. CLARK:

OKAY.

# 20 THE COURT:

BUT I'VE GOT IT. I'LL LOOK AT IT. WE'LL SEE WHAT'S THERE.

# 21 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

COUNSEL HAS DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED TO THE COURT THE IMPORT OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE EXCHANGE THAT OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING FROM THE CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON CASE.

Clark opens with a sharp accusation that counsel deliberately misrepresented the prior hearing.

Lance A. Ito

WHICH MEANS, I GET TO READ A WHOLE LOT MORE STUFF.

Rare moment of dry humor from Ito, acknowledging the burden of reviewing a complete court file over the weekend.

Marcia Clark

WE CAN ONLY SAY THAT THIS BLOOD IS CONSISTENT WITH BEING A RELATIVE OF THESE PEOPLE IN THIS REGARD.

Clark explains the technical distinction between a paternity-based DNA consistency finding and a direct match — the heart of her argument that counsel mischaracterized her prior statements.

Lance A. Ito

IN READING THE EXCERPT, ENOUGH INTERESTING THINGS CAME UP, SPECIFICALLY THE PATERNITY ISSUES AND WHAT THE TEST WAS THAT CAUSED ME TO ORDER THE COMPLETE FILE.

Ito says the excerpt raised questions about the paternity issues and the test, leading him to order the complete file; he does not resolve the dispute here.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Excerpt from the Christopher Johnson case transcript; Clark said counsel proffered it and described the matter as a paternity match in a murder case without a body

challenged by Clark as incomplete and misleading; Ito orders full transcript

Notable Exchanges (1)

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark briefs the court on the contextual differences between the Johnson case DNA terminology and the current case; Ito interrupts once to say he has already ordered the complete file and later says he does not want to litigate the issue prematurely.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Ito says ordering the complete material means, 'I get to read a whole lot more stuff.' After Clark responds, he adds, 'This weekend, yes,' and Clark later observes, 'You have volumes.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Marcia Clark

prior inconsistent statement / mischaracterization of prior testimony

Clark said she believed Scheck and Neufeld had raised an issue concerning her use of the term 'match' in the Christopher Johnson case. She accused counsel who proffered a few transcript pages of deliberately misrepresenting the terminology and exchange.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 5537 • 21 lines

Criminal Trial

Department 103