Cross-examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 2) — Thursday, May 11, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\11\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-ROBIN-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 72 of 167

◀ Sidebar: hypothetical questions and cross-contamination Sidebar: NRC report reliance ▶

Witness: Dr. Robin Cotton
Examiner: Peter Neufeld
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, May 11, 1995 • Utterances: 210

Peter Neufeld continued cross-examination of Cellmark's Dr. Robin Cotton, pursuing two main lines of attack: first, a contamination hypothetical asking whether degraded Bundy blood swatches could have picked up Simpson's DNA from Rockingham swatches through inadvertent contact; and second, an extended battle to use the 1992 National Academy of Sciences report on forensic DNA as a cross-examination tool. The NRC report effort was largely blocked by Judge Ito's repeated rulings that mere familiarity with a document is insufficient — reliance in forming an opinion is required — culminating in a sidebar request after Dr. Cotton twice answered 'No' when asked if she had considered the report's chapters in forming her trial opinions.

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

# 2 MR. NEUFELD:

Dr. Cotton, now, just again, because we had a little bit of a break, assuming again that the drops at Bundy were not deposited by Mr. Simpson, but were deposited by someone else, and assume that in the process of collection, processing and handling and packaging of those drops that the stains became so degraded as to lose their DNA content, to some extent, as it would look like here on item 56. I believe that also happened in your laboratory with respect to item 42, didn't it? That was the--from the pool of blood near Mrs. Nicole Simpson--Nicole Brown Simpson's body? Did you see that same phenomenon?

# 3 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. No foundation.

# 4 THE COURT:

Overruled. Do you recall that?

# 5 DR. COTTON:

No. I'm sorry, I don't.

# 6 MR. NEUFELD:

Don't you recall that you didn't even see a control dot on item 42?

# 7 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection, your Honor.

# 8 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 9 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, put aside item 42 then, okay? I just would like you to make this assumption, that that degree of degradation occurred so that the items actually lost that DNA content.

# 10 DR. COTTON:

Right. I understand.

# 11 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Now, even when that happens--

# 12 MR. CLARKE:

I'm sorry, your Honor. Objection. No foundation. Actually misstates the evidence.

# 13 THE COURT:

Rephrase the question.

# 14 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm asking you to assume for the purpose of this hypothetical that the items, the swatches taken from the Bundy blood drops became so degraded as to lose all recognizable DNA. Okay?

# 15 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 16 MR. NEUFELD:

Thank you. And I'm asking you to assume that at a later point in time, at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory, they came into contact inadvertently with swatches from Rockingham that had Mr. Simpson's blood on it and that had more DNA in them. Okay?

# 17 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 18 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm asking you to assume that they also came into contact with Mr. Simpson's reference sample, meaning the vial of fresh blood. All right? Just assume those three premises.

# 19 MR. CLARKE:

Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, no foundation.

# 20 MR. NEUFELD:

Your Honor, subject--

# 21 THE COURT:

Sustained. As to that additional item, that's more than we discussed at sidebar. Sustained.

# 22 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Fine. Limit the hypothetical then to the Bundy swatches coming into contact with the Rockingham swatches. All right?

# 23 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 24 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Now, given those assumptions, is it possible scientifically that the--when they come into contact with Rockingham swatches, that they can be cross-contamination from Rockingham swatches to the Bundy swatches? Is that scientifically possible?

# 25 DR. COTTON:

Are you asking me if it's scientifically possible or does the state of the DNA in this case support that?

# 26 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm asking you whether it's scientifically possible, Dr. Cotton.

# 27 DR. COTTON:

Certainly I suppose it would be scientifically possible for a very small amount of material to be transferred from one swatch to another.

KEY QUOTE

# 28 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Now, Dr. Cotton, furthermore, we're talking about--oh, let me back up again. And if some of the material from the Rockingham swatches--

# 29 THE COURT:

Excuse me. Mr. Neufeld, forgive me. Is--the autorads that are on top of the monitor here, are those evidence?

KEY QUOTE

# 30 MR. NEUFELD:

Yes.

# 31 THE COURT:

Okay. Just don't want you to melt them there. Proceed.

# 32 MR. NEUFELD:

If some of the blood from the Rockingham swatches that represent Mr. Simpson's blood came in contact with the swatches from Bundy which were degraded, so degraded as to not have any more DNA recognizable, given my hypothesis, my hypothetical--excuse me--under those facts and circumstances, Dr. Cotton, is it possible that the contaminated sample, contaminated by Mr. Simpson's blood is what you would see if you did a DNA test?

# 33 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence.

# 34 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 35 DR. COTTON:

You'd have to ask me what kind of DNA test before I could answer you.

# 36 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Well, in the first instance, let me ask you about item 52. Item 52 was a blood drop from Bundy; is that right?

# 37 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 38 MR. NEUFELD:

And I think you said that based on your own experience in the laboratory, item 52 appears to have very little DNA in the lane; isn't that right?

# 39 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 40 MR. NEUFELD:

And, in fact, you mentioned that there is a method that Cellmark has at its disposal to estimate the amount of human DNA in a sample; isn't that right?

# 41 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 42 MR. NEUFELD:

And what is that called, Dr. Cotton?

# 43 DR. COTTON:

It's referred to as a slot blot, which is just a way to use a probe that's human specific on a small part of the sample and see how much signal you get and compare that to a whole series of controls of known amounts, and you can make an estimation from that as about how much human DNA that you have. And it has some limitations, but it's very useful.

# 44 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. And did you in fact do a slot blot in this case on item 52?

# 45 DR. COTTON:

Yes, I believe we did.

# 46 MR. NEUFELD:

And did that slot blot produce a result giving you an estimate as to approximately how much DNA was present in the entire sample?

# 47 DR. COTTON:

I'd have to go into the records to tell you.

# 48 MR. NEUFELD:

Please do.

# 49 DR. COTTON:

Okay. For this, I'm going to get out the original records since those will be better for me to be looking at.

# 50 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay.

# 51 (Brief pause.)

# 52 MR. NEUFELD:

While you're looking, Dr. Cotton, I'm just going to--with the Court's permission--replace the exhibit that's on the elmo with item 257-b, which reflects item 52.

# 53 THE COURT:

People's 257-b.

# 54 MR. NEUFELD:

People's--

# 55 THE COURT:

Item 52.

# 56 MR. NEUFELD:

People's 257-b--

# 57 THE COURT:

Item 52.

# 58 MR. NEUFELD:

--which reflects item 52. Thank you, your Honor.

# 59 (Brief pause.)

# 60 THE COURT:

All right. Dr. Cotton, do you have the slot blot?

# 61 DR. COTTON:

I have it.

# 62 MR. NEUFELD:

You have looked at it?

# 63 DR. COTTON:

I've looked at it, and if you can ask the question again so--

# 64 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Based on your review of the slot blot, is there an estimate as to how much DNA was present at least in the sample that you did the slot blot on?

# 65 DR. COTTON:

From the slot blot, the amount of DNA appears to be about 25 nanograms altogether. However, the slot blot is a separate extraction from the DNA that was extracted that goes on the autorad. There is no slot blot for the DNA that was loaded on the agarose gel, which is what you're seeing on the autorad. The only estimation of that amount of DNA would come from the yield gel or looking at the film itself and making an estimation.

# 66 MR. NEUFELD:

Well--okay. Let's just back up a second. The yield gel simply tells you how much DNA is present. It doesn't tell you whether or not it's bacterial DNA or human DNA; isn't that right?

# 67 DR. COTTON:

That's absolutely right.

# 68 MR. NEUFELD:

And you're saying that this slot blot does not represent 10 percent of the entire sample you received minus that 10 percent cut that's saved?

# 69 DR. COTTON:

That's what I'm telling you.

# 70 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. What percentage of the entire sample is represented in the slot blot approximately?

# 71 DR. COTTON:

About 10 percent.

# 72 MR. NEUFELD:

Of the entire sample?

# 73 DR. COTTON:

Well, let me lay it out--

# 74 MR. NEUFELD:

Please.

# 75 DR. COTTON:

--and so that we won't get confused. 10 percent of the sample was appro--and this is an approximation because you're cutting from, you know, an irregularly shaped thing. 10 percent of the sample was used for the PCR test. The slot blot was done for that 10 per--a DNA extraction was done from that 10 percent. Of that DNA--for the PCR. And of that DNA extraction, 10 percent of it would have been loaded on the slot blot. So that all we can really say in response to your question is, of the DNA that was extracted for PCR, approximately 25 nanograms would have been available. That is maybe approximately 10 percent of the entire sample.

# 76 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. Does--would you agree that the banding pattern--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You said a moment ago that one way to estimate how much DNA is present in the sample is to look at the autorads themselves; is that correct?

# 77 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 78 MR. NEUFELD:

And would you agree that there is significantly less DNA present in lane 52 than in any of the reference samples for instance?

# 79 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 80 MR. NEUFELD:

And there's significantly less DNA present in 52 than there is in item 12?

# 81 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 82 MR. NEUFELD:

And what is your target when you are loading lanes to do RFLP typing?

# 83 DR. COTTON:

We don't have a specific target, but generally we will not want to go below 25 nanograms.

# 84 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, does your protocol in fact say that you should have at least 50 nanograms?

# 85 DR. COTTON:

No, I don't believe it does.

# 86 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, does your protocol say with respect to the question of how much DNA one can get a result from, say that 15 nanograms of DNA may give an RFLP banding pattern? Does it say that?

# 87 DR. COTTON:

I don't have that huge protocol memorized. Uh, if that is a copy of it and you're reading from it, then I will agree with you. But--

KEY QUOTE

# 88 MR. NEUFELD:

No. No. If you'd like, I can show it to you.

# 89 DR. COTTON:

Okay. That would be good.

# 90 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 91 DR. COTTON:

Yes. 50 nan--it says 50 nanograms may give an RFLP result.

# 92 MR. NEUFELD:

But what you're saying is that based on your experience, that sometimes you can even get an RFLP result from as little as 25 nanograms?

# 93 DR. COTTON:

Yes. Actually you could probably even go slightly lower than that, but it depends on the quality of the DNA.

# 94 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And would you agree that, as evidenced by the banding patterns here, you are close to that--that minimal amount that you're talking about?

# 95 DR. COTTON:

For item 52, yes, we're very close.

# 96 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Which would mean that somewhere in that 25 nanogram range more or less?

# 97 DR. COTTON:

Yes. That would be my estimation.

# 98 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And would you agree that oh, a microliter of blood has as little as 20 to 40 nanograms of DNA in it if it's in good shape?

# 99 DR. COTTON:

To tell you the truth, I don't actually know what the correct figure for that would be.

# 100 MR. NEUFELD:

Let me just show you something just to see if it refreshes your recollection.

# 101 THE COURT:

What page, counsel?

# 102 MR. NEUFELD:

Page 28.

# 103 MR. CLARKE:

Actually, your Honor, I have an objection as to foundation at this point.

# 104 THE COURT:

Sustained. Ask the question, counsel.

# 105 MR. NEUFELD:

All right.

# 106 THE COURT:

Go ahead, stay there. Ask the question.

# 107 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, I was--

# 108 THE COURT:

Dr. Cotton, are you familiar with the NRC report?

# 109 MR. NEUFELD:

Your Honor, I would do a whole series of questions if you'd like, and I'll do that now.

# 110 MR. NEUFELD:

Sorry. Dr. Cotton, what is the national academy of science?

# 111 DR. COTTON:

It's an organization of scientists who have done very important work in their respective fields and been elected to become members of the national academy of science.

# 112 MR. NEUFELD:

Would it be fair to say that it basically includes the most distinguished members of the scientific community in this country?

# 113 DR. COTTON:

Well, I don't know that it includes all of the most distinguished, but it includes a good many of them.

# 114 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. And in 1990, did the national academy of science commission a study on the reliability of forensic DNA profile?

# 115 DR. COTTON:

Yes, they did.

# 116 MR. NEUFELD:

And did that study--to do that study, did the national academy of science appoint a committee to do the investigation?

# 117 DR. COTTON:

Yes. I don't--

# 118 MR. CLARKE:

Excuse me. Objection as to relevance at this point.

# 119 THE COURT:

A few more questions, counsel. I'll overrule it subject to later motion, but let's get to the chase here.

# 120 MR. NEUFELD:

And would you agree that some of the more esteem members of the forensic science community and genetics community participated in this committee that eventually drafted a book?

# 121 DR. COTTON:

I'll agree with you that some of the members were very knowledgeable, but you may have overstated their standing somewhat.

# 122 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. In fact, you personally testified before this committee, did you not, before this report was prepared?

# 123 DR. COTTON:

Testimony wouldn't be my choice of words. I didn't take any kind of oath or anything. I just gave a short talk.

# 124 MR. NEUFELD:

And the participants asked you questions as well?

# 125 DR. COTTON:

Uh, yes, they did.

# 126 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, this report was funded by in part the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

# 127 MR. CLARKE:

Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. Hearsay and relevance at this point.

# 128 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 129 DR. COTTON:

Uh, I believe that was where some of the funding came from and some came from other sources.

# 130 MR. NEUFELD:

Such as the national institute of health and other government agencies?

# 131 DR. COTTON:

Yes. Yes.

# 132 MR. NEUFELD:

And eventually in April of 1992, the national academy of science press published their final report; isn't that right?

# 133 DR. COTTON:

That's right.

# 134 MR. NEUFELD:

And no doubt, you have carefully--I think you even said on direct examination that you have read this report many times?

# 135 DR. COTTON:

I have.

# 136 MR. NEUFELD:

And whether or not you agree with all of its findings, Dr. Cotton, would it be fair to say that you have considered all that is written in this book before reaching your own opinions?

# 137 MR. CLARKE:

Well, excuse me. Objection. Vague.

# 138 THE COURT:

Overbroad. Sustained. Rephrase the question. Let's narrow it down.

# 139 MR. NEUFELD:

Fine.

# 140 MR. NEUFELD:

Have you considered the conclusions and observations in this book as part of the process of reaching your own opinions about the reliability of forensic DNA profiling?

# 141 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection.

# 142 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 143 MR. NEUFELD:

The book--the book has a number of chapters; does it not, Dr. Cotton?

# 144 DR. COTTON:

Yes, it does.

# 145 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And have you considered the chapter entitled "DNA typing technical considerations" as part of the process in reaching your own opinions and conclusions about forensic DNA profiling?

# 146 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection, your Honor.

# 147 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 148 DR. COTTON:

Do you mean have I thought about what they said?

# 149 MR. NEUFELD:

Yes.

# 150 DR. COTTON:

Certainly I thought about it.

# 151 MR. NEUFELD:

And now I'm going to ask you exactly the same question with respect to chapter 3, which is "DNA typing statistical basis for interpretation." have you thought about what they said as well?

# 152 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 153 MR. NEUFELD:

And have you thought about what they said in chapter 4 entitled "ensuring high standards"?

# 154 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 155 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. Now, in that chapter 2, I would like you--what you said you did think about and consider in reaching your opinion and conclusions--

# 156 MR. CLARKE:

Excuse me. Objection. Misstates the evidence.

# 157 MR. NEUFELD:

No, it doesn't.

# 158 THE COURT:

Sustained. It does. Rephrase the question.

# 159 MR. NEUFELD:

With respect to chapter 2 that you acknowledged the thinking about and considering, I would like to ask you about a particular table, table 1.1.

# 160 MR. CLARKE:

Sorry, your Honor. Same objection.

# 161 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

# 162 MR. NEUFELD:

Is there still a foundation?

# 163 THE COURT:

Yes.

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

# 165 THE COURT:

There has to be a fact of reliance here, counsel.

# 166 MR. NEUFELD:

Dr. Cotton, and you said a moment ago that you thought about the contents of each of those specific chapters which I referred to. And did you consider the contents of those particular chapters which I just referred to in formulating or coming to your own conclusions and opinions whether or not you accept or reject the contents of those chapters?

# 167 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection. Also vague.

# 168 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 169 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, Dr. Cotton, did you consider the contents of chapter 2 in formulating your own opinions--

# 170 MR. NEUFELD:

One second.

# 171 (Brief pause.)

# 172 MR. NEUFELD:

--in formulating your own opinions regarding the technical considerations for DNA typing?

# 173 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection, your Honor.

# 174 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 175 DR. COTTON:

I read that chapter. I thought about what it had to say. I don't agree with all the things that are in the chapter, but I certainly thought about them as I read them.

# 176 MR. NEUFELD:

And when you thought about them as you read them, even if you didn't agree with--by the way, are there some things in the chapter that you do agree with?

# 177 DR. COTTON:

In--that would be applied to the whole book. There are things that I agree with and there are things that I don't agree with.

# 178 MR. NEUFELD:

But in helping you to reach your conclusions and your current opinions, did you at least consider the positions taken in those three chapters that we just described?

# 179 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection, your Honor.

# 180 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 181 DR. COTTON:

I don't think--

# 182 THE COURT:

Wait. Sustained.

# 183 DR. COTTON:

Oh.

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

# 185 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. We'll go through it chapter by chapter again, your Honor.

# 186 MR. NEUFELD:

Have you considered--

# 187 THE COURT:

Counsel, I've indicated to you as clearly as I could, the issue is reliance in forming an opinion. The fact that you read something doesn't necessarily mean that you can be cross-examined on it. Has to be the basis of an opinion. Proceed.

KEY QUOTE

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

# 189 MR. NEUFELD:

In forming your opinion that you've given to this jury in this case, did you consider the substance of what appears in chapter 2, "DNA typing technical considerations"?

# 190 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection.

# 191 THE COURT:

Overruled. You can answer that yes or no.

# 192 DR. COTTON:

No.

# 193 MR. NEUFELD:

Didn't consider it at all?

# 194 DR. COTTON:

If you're asking me, did I consider that chapter in forming my opinions that I've presented regarding this evidence, I have to say I did not.

KEY QUOTE

# 195 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, when I say that, what I--let me clarify that. Did you consider this chapter in formulating your opinions on the technical considerations of DNA typing in general, which of course is one of the things that you--well, let me back up. Are the technical considerations of DNA typing one factor that you consider when you assess evidence in a case?

# 196 MR. CLARKE:

Objection. Vague.

# 197 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 198 DR. COTTON:

Of course.

# 199 MR. NEUFELD:

And on a foundation or threshold level, Dr. Cotton, in coming to your own conclusions and understanding about the various technical considerations involved in forensic DNA profiling, did you consider what the national academy of science report said in this book, "DNA technology and forensic science"?

# 200 MR. CLARKE:

Same objection, your Honor. And asked and answered.

# 201 THE COURT:

Overruled. Yes or no?

# 202 DR. COTTON:

No.

# 203 MR. NEUFELD:

One moment.

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

# 205 MR. NEUFELD:

One moment, your Honor.

# 206 THE COURT:

Certainly.

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

# 208 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

# 209 MR. NEUFELD:

Sorry, your Honor. May we please have a sidebar? Might save some time.

# 210 THE COURT:

With the reporter, please.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Dr. Robin Cotton

Certainly I suppose it would be scientifically possible for a very small amount of material to be transferred from one swatch to another.

Defense's core contamination theory gets a partial concession — Cotton acknowledges cross-contamination between swatches is scientifically possible, even if she disputes it occurred here.

Dr. Robin Cotton

If you're asking me, did I consider that chapter in forming my opinions that I've presented regarding this evidence, I have to say I did not.

Devastating admission that undercuts Neufeld's attempt to use the NRC report — but it also shields Cotton from being cross-examined on its contents, a double-edged result.

Lance A. Ito

Counsel, I've indicated to you as clearly as I could, the issue is reliance in forming an opinion. The fact that you read something doesn't necessarily mean that you can be cross-examined on it.

Ito's clearest articulation of the evidentiary standard blocking Neufeld's NRC line of questioning — a significant ruling limiting the defense's ability to challenge DNA methodology via the authoritative NRC report.

Dr. Robin Cotton

I don't have that huge protocol memorized.

Mild defensiveness when pressed about whether her lab protocol required 50 nanograms minimum for RFLP typing — she ultimately concedes the protocol says '50 nanograms may give an RFLP result.'

Lance A. Ito

Mr. Neufeld, forgive me. Is--the autorads that are on top of the monitor here, are those evidence? Okay. Just don't want you to melt them there. Proceed.

Rare moment of levity from the bench, breaking the procedural grind.

Evidence (7)

People's 257-b

Autorad showing results for item 52 (Bundy blood drop)

Placed on ELMO for examination during slot blot discussion

Informal

Item 52 — blood drop from Bundy crime scene

Discussed extensively; slot blot result of ~25 nanograms analyzed; DNA quantity compared to reference samples and item 12

Informal

Item 42 — pool of blood near Nicole Brown Simpson's body

Referenced in contamination hypothetical; objection sustained, line dropped

Informal

Item 56 — Bundy blood drop

Referenced as example of degradation in contamination hypothetical

Informal

Item 12 — referenced for DNA quantity comparison to item 52

Discussed; Cotton agrees item 52 has significantly less DNA

Informal

NRC report 'DNA Technology in Forensic Science' (National Academy of Sciences, April 1992)

Attempted cross-examination tool; blocked by foundation rulings requiring reliance

+ 1 more

Notable Exchanges (3)

Peter Neufeld•Dr. Robin Cotton•George Clarke

Extended contamination hypothetical — Neufeld tries to get Cotton to concede that degraded Bundy swatches could have been contaminated by Rockingham swatches with Simpson's DNA. Clarke successfully blocks inclusion of the reference blood vial in the hypothetical; Cotton concedes contamination between swatches is 'scientifically possible' but frames it narrowly.

strategic

Peter Neufeld•Dr. Robin Cotton•George Clarke•Lance A. Ito

Prolonged battle over using the NRC report as a cross-examination basis. Neufeld attempts multiple formulations to establish reliance; Ito repeatedly sustains objections and finally articulates the legal standard explicitly. Cotton ultimately answers 'No' twice — she did not consider the NRC report chapters in forming her trial opinions — effectively neutralizing both the attack and the report.

procedural/strategic

Peter Neufeld•Dr. Robin Cotton

Slot blot and DNA quantity analysis of item 52 — Neufeld methodically establishes that item 52 had very little DNA (~25 nanograms), close to Cellmark's minimum threshold for RFLP typing, and that the yield gel cannot distinguish human from bacterial DNA.

revealing

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Judge Ito interrupts cross-examination to ask if the autorads sitting on top of the monitor are evidence, then quips he doesn't want Neufeld to melt them.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dr. Robin Cotton

Prior inconsistent statement / protocol impeachment

Neufeld used Cellmark's own written protocol to challenge Cotton's stated minimum DNA threshold, getting her to concede the protocol specifies 50 nanograms (not her stated 25) and that item 52 was near or below that threshold.

⚔ Dr. Robin Cotton

Expert authority / learned treatise

Neufeld attempted to use the 1992 NRC report — which Cotton testified before and had read many times — to undermine her methodology opinions. The effort was largely blocked by Judge Ito's reliance standard, but Cotton's 'No' answers to whether she considered it in forming her opinions created an awkward record.

Objections

16 objections (9 sustained, 6 overruled)

Proceeding 6035 • 210 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103