Yes. Dr. Cotton informs me that she will be able to do that, as far as be able to report those results, Monday.
I think we do have to approach at least one item with respect to those numbers though in terms of what's going to happen in court. I don't think there's a problem with PCR markers. Dr. Cotton testified that that method in fact can be used of summing up these various genotype frequencies. As to the RFLP reports, that is the mixture on the boot stain, item no. 78, they don't believe--that is, Dr. Cotton doesn't believe it's appropriate to assign a frequency. It can be done, but I hope the Court isn't under the impression that when she testifies about numbers as to that particular item, that in fact she's going to represent that as this is an appropriate way to do it in the face of what I anticipate is going to be a Defense attack on those numbers. So it's a difficult situation at best. And perhaps the Defense can tell us what number they would like to see attached, for instance, to that mixture on item no. 78 and perhaps we can agree to it.
Your Honor, the problem is, which is what the NRC report says and which the Court accepted, is that you can't present the DNA evidence of a match or even a consistency without a probability. If the People feel that they cannot produce a number for those items, then they have no business producing the suggestion that there's a match in the first place. That's what the scientific community says. That's what the law is in the State of California and that's what should have happened here. And to that extent, your Honor, I believe that, you know, it isn't fair on a very fundamental level. If they have a number that they intend to introduce with each of these items, we would like to hear the number obviously outside the presence of the jury first so we can at least question it because frankly, if it's a number just pulled out of thin air, obviously it would be inadmissible, and there may be other grounds for precluding that number and compelling them to go back to the drawing board to produce another number. But I am somewhat concerned that being the law and you making a decision beforehand that before they could actually testify to a match or a consistency or however you want to describe it for item no. 78, that they didn't have a number that they could put forward with that other expert opinion. And that raises some very, very serious questions. That's all I'm saying at this point.
So we'll have to address it Monday morning, but there may be a need to strike that portion of the testimony or give other curative instructions.
Well, let's wait till you see the numbers, see what you think. And if we can go forward, we will, and if we need to have a hearing out of the presence of the jury, we will.
But don't forget, we don't get to that point until Mr. Clarke has the opportunity to reopen to represent. All right?
Hopefully earlier. I may surprise you. One other item. Carl Douglas brought to the Court's attention earlier today a matter involving a representation that had been made on the record yesterday suggesting that Mr. Simpson, when he was arrested, had thousands of dollars either on his person or his bag. And Mr. Douglas brought that to the attention of the Court because we had never received any discovery and we had no information to support that wild accusation. I think we have now learned or we will hear from the District Attorney hopefully that in fact that accusation that was made yesterday had--it was not--had no basis in fact to support it, was not correct. And what concerns the Defense, your Honor, is again --and it has happened before--of an instance where certain statements are made on the record, not in front of the jury obviously because they're not hearing this, but to another juror. And we just would like the Court to be very careful that if this kind of thing happens in the future, that some type of corrective measure should be taken by the Court. That's all.
Yes, your Honor. During the course of the argument in favor of our calling Mr. Kardashian to the stand, I said that I believed that within the black bag was several thousand dollars along with a gun and the disguise. Apparently--and I was in error in believing that the money was inside the black bag. It was on Mr. Cowling's person, some 8- to $10,000, and I'm informed it was returned to Mr. Cowlings. So it was within the black Bronco--within the Bronco rather, but not within the black bag. And I don't mean to have mislead the Court in any manner. That was an off-hand remark that wasn't germaine to the motion we were discussing.
All right. Mr. Clarke, when do you anticipate that Dr. Cotton will have this calculation available? You said Monday, but is there a possibility that could be faxed to counsel earlier so they can have some opportunity to evaluate it so maybe we can cut to the chase on Monday?
Terrific. Okay. Appreciate that. And let's see. Then the only thing remains is for the Court to evaluate Mr. Sims' declaration and see if there's any problem there. But I see this as a premature objection at this point. All right.
Mr. Sims pointed out one thing with respect to that. I'm pretty sure it's in the declaration and Mr. Scheck I'm sure will clarify how he misspoke on the point. All of those samples were not consumed at that time.
Whatever. I'm only going on what they tell me, and I brought it to the Court's attention because I was concerned that the testing hadn't begun.
All right. I'll note the objection. I'll evaluate the declaration. At this point though, I think the objection is premature.
Well, I'll probably get it this afternoon and I'll get it to the Court this afternoon. They're trying to get it now.
Fine. Okay. Then I can spend the rest of the afternoon working on the other rulings I need to make.
It's not like I haven't been busy. We'll stand in recess, 9:00 o'clock. Thank you, counsel.
I don't think there's a problem with PCR markers. Dr. Cotton testified that that method in fact can be used of summing up these various genotype frequencies. As to the RFLP reports, that is the mixture on the boot stain, item no. 78, they don't believe--that is, Dr. Cotton doesn't believe it's appropriate to assign a frequency.
If the People feel that they cannot produce a number for those items, then they have no business producing the suggestion that there's a match in the first place. That's what the scientific community says. That's what the law is in the State of California and that's what should have happened here.
I said that I believed that within the black bag was several thousand dollars along with a gun and the disguise. Apparently--and I was in error in believing that the money was inside the black bag. It was on Mr. Cowling's person, some 8- to $10,000, and I'm informed it was returned to Mr. Cowlings.
We can't wait, Judge.