Dr. Cotton, given the observed alleles on item 29, the mixed bloodstain on the steering wheel, there is a category here called "not excluded." Do you see that?
And if we were able to make a separate column called "not excluded," you would agree--you would agree, Dr. Cotton, that Mr. Simpson could not be excluded as a contributor to this mixture; is that correct?
So I'm going to add his name into the column of people who cannot be excluded. And would you agree that given the alleles in this mixture that Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded?
So I'm going to add her name to the column of people who cannot be excluded. Is that consistent with your testimony?
And would you agree, Dr. Cotton, that also given the presence of the 4 allele, that anyone else who has a genotype for DQ-Alpha of either 4 comma 4, 4 comma 1.1 and 4 comma 1.2 cannot be excluded?
So may I add that collective person, if you will, as a third category under not excluded?
And is it consistent with your testimony if I simply describe this person as someone of either type 4 comma 4 or 4 comma 1.1 or 4 comma 1.2; is that correct?
So but your testimony and your observations of this DQ-Alpha type then, it would be these three different listings under the "not excluded" column; is that correct?
That's the three different listings you get if you are assuming three contributors. You can break it down in that manner--
You could--you could simply also make a list of all the possible genotypes that could be in there and it would include the ones you have listed there, including the one for Mr. Simpson and the one for Nicole Brown.
In your column where you have "not excluded," you didn't make an assumption that there was simply two donors, did you?
Right. So likewise, if we don't make any assumption as to how many donors there are in the categories of people not excluded, then would you agree then with the three different groupings that I have placed on Defendant's next in order--which would be what, your Honor?
Yeah. What I'm--you are correct, but what I'm trying to get--the point I'm trying to get to is that if you don't make any assumptions at all about how many donors there are in there, there are genotypes that aren't on your list.
You wouldn't exclude a 1.1, 1.1? You wouldn't exclude a 1.2, 1.2? I'm sorry. 1.1 is on the list, isn't it?
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. First of all, you can't talk at the same time. Secondly, when I say "Wait," everybody stops, including you, Dr. Cotton, including you, Mr. Neufeld.
You can't argue with the witness and with the answer that she is giving. You get to ask questions and you get to give answers, doctor. Proceed.
KEY QUOTEWith the Court's permission, your Honor, I would just like to be able to move the pad so the rest of the jurors can see it as well.
Now, in terms of eliminating other possible contributors to this mixed stain, Dr. Cotton, are you aware that neither Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola could have contributed the no. 4 allele to this mixture?
All right. Let me ask you a hypothetical based on a good faith basis. May I just show something to the Court?
Your Honor, this is outrageous in my view. Counsel is producing pieces of paper, attempting to show them in front of the jury as a basis for asking questions and is being demonstrative in front of the jury--let me finish, please--to be able to establish certain points to the jury. Now, I think that is absolutely outrageous conduct. It is done with a particular point to make in front of the jury. It is done--and I don't know about in New York it being proper, but it is clearly improper in a California courtroom, and I venture to say certainly in any courtroom, for counsel to be attempting to prove facts in front of the jury through an improper means, knowing that objections will be made to those acts and seeking to get across those points by the very acts themselves.
When the Court takes that into consideration, along with what happened this morning, which was blatantly showing an item that had never been shown to us, had never been brought up with the Court and was knowingly objectionable, this is twice within the first short period of time and I think counsel needs to be told by the Court this cannot happen again.
My understanding under California law is for a hypothetical I don't have to--I'm not limited to the facts that are actually in evidence if I have a good faith basis for asking the question. The hypothetical will be as follows, your Honor--
A tow truck driver testified that the Bronco was locked when he towed it from Mr. Simpson's home to the LAPD print shed for safekeeping. Dennis Fung testified the Bronco was locked when he and Andrea Mazzola arrive at the print shed to collect the bloodstains the next morning. Assume that the LAPD ran DNA tests on some of the employees in the SID lab. And assume further that criminalist Dennis Fung and Mazzola were among the group tested. Would you agree as an expert that if their DQ-Alpha types did not include the no. 4 allele then they could not have contributed--
They could not have contributed the no. 4 allele to the mixture? That is it and this is the good faith basis for asking that question.
I think it is just outrageous to take that report and parade it in front of the jury. I can't urge that to the Court enough, particularly since it has happened twice today. I think it is absolutely wrong. And I'm going to ask that the jury be admonished about this waving, showing exhibits that are absolutely improper in court.
And it is also misleading because there is a second report that demonstrates, for instance, genotypes that are going to play a role of these particular individuals. Counsel is selectively picking various pieces of evidence to use with these witnesses, and the answer to the question isn't helpful; it is argumentative. This witness has already said the person has a 4 allele, whoever that it is. What good does it do to this jury to establish that this person doesn't have a 4 allele? We could take any of the detectives. I mean, we could go on forever and ever. Andrea Mazzola, for instance, to my knowledge, was never in the Bronco.
I'm not--I'm not going on forever. I'm simply asking about the two other people who said they were at the Bronco collecting this stain. And frankly, the D1S80 result is completely irrelevant because as their witness has already testified once, you have an exclude--the person is excluded. All I want to show is that neither of these people could have contributed the no. 4 allele. Good faith basis.
Dr. Cotton, the first samples that were sent to you by the Los Angeles Police Department were sent on or about June 22nd, 1994; is that correct?
At least initially the person that you were expected to contact with the results of your testing was Michele Kestler with the LAPD; is that correct?
She was one of the contacts, yes. There were--there was another person who could also be a contact, if I remember correctly.
Let me just show you a document to see if it refreshes your recollection on this point. Let me ask you this question: Were you, at least initially, instructed by the Los Angeles Police Department that the results should be communicated to Michele Kestler?
And I believe on September 8, 1994, your laboratory prepared a report on DNA results, did it not?
And isn't it a fact that on September 12th of 1994 Cellmark actually faxed a copy of this report to Michele Kestler at the Los Angeles Police Department?
I will show you a document which has been marked as 1152 which is a five-page letter--five-page report, excuse me, and ask you if you can identify that document?
Yes. This is a copy of the September 8th report, and although the fax cover is not here and I can't exactly read all the figures at the top, it seems to say "From Cellmark Diagnostics." I don't--I can't read any fax date on the top, however.
If you look at the next page, or the page after where it seems to be a little bit clearer, can you see a date?
Okay. So that would indicate, Dr. Cotton, thank you, that this September 8th report was faxed to Michele Kestler at the Los Angeles Police Department on September 12th, 1994?
Now, did Cellmark disclose the results in that report to anyone, other than Michele Kestler, during the month of September?
Did Cellmark disclose any of the results contained in that report of September 8th to anyone in the media?
Are you aware, Dr. Cotton, that there were certain media reports on September 12th concerning the results?
I want to ask you some questions, Dr. Cotton, about the substrate controls in this case. All right?
Now, in this case Andrea Mazzola testified that she created substrate control swatches for every stain that she collected at Bundy and Rockingham. Are you aware of that, by the way?
Umm, no. I've watched little bits and pieces of testimony here and there, but I have not listened to the entirety. I didn't have time to do that, so I'm not--
Now, you stated--okay, thank you. You stated on direct examination, Dr. Cotton, that testing the substrate control swatch can be informative if the testing of that swatch reveals the presence of DNA; is that correct?
And would you agree that if DNA is found, one explanation could be that there were certain biological materials in the area immediately adjacent to the bloodstain?
And would you agree that another explanation, Dr. Cotton, could be that both the blood stained swatch and the substrate control swatch were cross-contaminated at some point after the collection of the evidence? Is that another possible interpretation?
If you are testing the substrate control and you found DNA on it, then that would say that your first explanation would be correct and the other explanation which you just said is that it could have been contaminated later, but it doesn't say anything about whether the actual piece of evidence was contaminated later. It only says something about that substrate control.
I know, but as an expert in the field, Dr. Cotton, if you saw that--if you thought that there may have been a cross-contamination of that substrate control and the substrate control was also handled all the way along the process of the evidentiary stains, would that cause you to consider the possibility in your mind that the evidentiary stains may also have been cross-contaminated?
It certainly would say--it would raise that possibility in your mind, but it wouldn't tell you definitely one way or the other.
Well, it would tell you that you should be concerned about that possibility; is that correct?
Well, I think you also said that you can't know for sure whether there was cross-contamination with a sample before you ever received it anyway; isn't that right?
Well, would you agree with the following proposition, Dr. Cotton: When a stain of blood is analyzed with PCR it is important to analyze the unstained materials next to the stain with PCR as a control for contamination?
I think it is--I think you can--I know you can do that. Sometimes, depending on the nature of the evidence, it may be more important to do that than other times. We do not in our laboratory routinely request a substrate control. If we are requested to do one, of course we do it, but we do not routinely request one, or if we are given a big stain, we don't routinely take one, because it is--it is not always going to be informative, depending on the nature of the evidence.
So what you are saying is that it is your policy to defer to the submitting agency as to whether or not the control swatches get analyzed?
Now, just getting back to the proposition that I asked you about, Dr. Cotton, would you agree that it is important to analyze the control swatch at the same time for PCR testing as you analyze the evidentiary stain?
I'm not sure what you are asking me. Are you asking me is it important to at the same time that you do the DNA extraction from the evidence swatch that you do the DNA extraction from the control swatch at the same time?
Did you say on direct examination, Dr. Cotton, that it is important, when you have a certain kind of control, be it a negative control or a positive control, that the control should be run in parallel to the actual evidentiary items?
Well, I said you should run a reagent blank control in parallel to the actual items.
And did you also say that you should run the amplification control in parallel to the items?
Yes, the negative reagent--the negative control that you set up at the time of amplification is always run in parallel.
And you said on direct examination that another type of control that exists is this substrate control; isn't that correct?
So my question, Dr. Cotton, is would you agree with the following proposition: That when the bloodstain is analyzed for PCR it is important to analyze at the same time the unstained material which makes up the substrate control?
No, I don't think that--I don't think it is important. I think you can do it later and it will still give you the same information as if you do it at the same time.
So what you are saying, and correct me if I am misstating it, Dr. Cotton, that as long as you do it later, when you do it is not critical?
Now, in this case, Dr. Cotton, you received blood-stained items, swatches from items 47, 49, 50 and 52 last summer; isn't that right?
And is it also true that when the LAPD sent you those items representing stains from the Bundy walkway, they failed to send you substrate control swatches for the same items?
When the Los Angeles Police Department sent you last summer the blood-stained swatches for items 47, 49, 50 and 52, did they send you the substrate control swatches for the same items?
And in October of 1994 you received the blood-stained swatches for item no. 48, did you not?
If you take a look in your report dated November 11, 1994, you may see a reference.
Is that correct, that on or about October 12th you received blood-stained--two blood-stained swatches representing what was purported to represent item 48?
Yes, but I think that was the actual item 48. I got a lot of stuff here, so let me go back, okay?
Dr. Cotton, I may have created a misunderstanding and not as been as clear as I should have been there in my question, and perhaps I could save you some time. Isn't it true that on or about October 12th, 1994, that you received two blood-stained swatches which were labeled item 48 from the Los Angeles Police Department?
Okay. And in that same shipment did they send you the control swatch, substrate control swatch for item 48?
And what record do you have of that--of receiving that control swatch on that date?
--which you referred you to which referred to the October 12th date, didn't that say that you only received two swatches, both of which were stained?
It doesn't refer to an unstained swatch being received in that shipment, does it?
It doesn't, but we have a statement in our--I'm sorry, I misspoke. I'm only finding the information about item 48 itself in this report with the types from item 48.
That's right. That is why I'm getting confused. I'm not finding what you are referring to and I don't know if it is simply not here or I'm not finding it.
Well, there is no indication anywhere in your report that you received the substrate control swatch for item 48 in that shipment on October 12th; isn't that right?
And since you did not receive from the Los Angeles Police Department the substrate control swatches for those five--for the stains from the purported Bundy drops, would it be fair to say that you also did not run control swatches when you actually did the DNA testing on the evidence itself?
We didn't run any control swatches on that early set of evidence at the time that we analyzed that group of samples.
KEY QUOTEAnd would it be fair to say, Dr. Cotton, as an expert, that since the Los Angeles Police Department did not ship to you the substrate control swatches for the Bundy walkway stains at the same time as the evidentiary stains, that you have no knowledge regarding how these control swatches were handled since their purported collection to the present?
That would--that would be true, however, we did receive some control swatches later and I would have to look at which samples those were control swatches for. To say I had no knowledge--
Assuming for a moment that you did receive some control swatches much more recently--is that what you are saying?
Okay. Certainly based on the fact that you didn't receive the control swatches along with the evidentiary stains, last summer and in October, would you agree that you have no knowledge regarding how those control swatches were handled since their purported collection up until the time much more recently that you received any of those control swatches?
And Dr. Cotton, in this case there was also testimony that--by Andrea Mazzola that when she testified or August 23rd, 1994, that she had testified that she put her initials on bindles that she processed on the morning of June 14th. My question to you, Dr. Cotton, is do your records reflect that any of the bindles that you received from the Los Angeles Police Department bore Mazzola's initials?
Do your records have Andrea Mazzola's initials on any of them--I'm sorry. Do your records reflect that on the bindles that you received, whether Andrea Mazzola's initials appeared on any of those bindles?
They don't reflect whether they do or don't. That is, we wouldn't be writing that down. We would be writing down what was inside the bindle.
We did look at them and we--this is on the first group of stuff that we received, yes, we did look at them.
And to the best of your recollection isn't it a fact that Miss Mazzola's initials were not on any of those bindles?
I don't have any specific recollection. It is not a piece of information that I would have been likely to remember.
Now, Dr. Cotton, you said that you did receive some control swatches more recently; is that right?
And isn't it a fact, Dr. Cotton--I'm sorry. Would that be the only time you received any control swatches in this case?
Okay. Would it be fair to say, Dr. Cotton, that from the very first time you received item 47 in this case until today as you sit on this witness stand, that the Los Angeles Police Department never sent to you the substrate control swatch for item 47?
And so item 47's control swatch has never been examined or tested by your laboratory?
Would it be fair to say, Dr. Cotton, that from the time they first sent up item 48 in this case until today as you sit on this witness stand, the Los Angeles Police Department never sent you the substrate control for item 48?
Dr. Cotton, apparently they did send you, on April 4th, material labeled item 49, but it doesn't say it was the item 49 control; isn't that correct?
All right. So do you have independent knowledge as to whether you received on April 4th the control for item 49 or did you just receive a portion of item 49?
I have photographs in the case folder of what that item looked like, but I don't have any on-paper writing that says anything other than item 49.
Okay. So you have no document or record which reflects that you received the control for item 49 either in that batch; is that correct?
Now, I call your attention to item 50, the fourth of those stains at the Bundy location. From the date that you first received item no. 50, the evidentiary stains, until today, as you sit here on this witness stand, have you ever received the substrate control swatch for item no. 50?
Finally, for item no. 52, Dr. Cotton, on the day you received the evidentiary portion of item 52 until today as you sit here on this witness stand, has the Los Angeles Police Department ever sent to you the substrate control swatch for item 52 for DNA analysis?
In your laboratory, Dr. Cotton, is there a standard procedure that every employee who removes or puts something into a bindle puts his or her initials on the bindle?
Well, Dr. Cotton, to the extent that you have expertise in this area, would you agree that it is a standard procedure at every forensic science laboratory to have an individual who either removes or puts something into a bindle to initial that bindle?
I can really only speak for what we do in our laboratory, and when we take something in and out the bindle is taped and initials are put across the tape and the adjacent paper.
Now, referring to another type of control, Dr. Cotton, you mentioned something called a reagent blank; is that right?
And is that because this control starts at the beginning of the processing of the sample at the laboratory when you first extract the DNA from the sample?
And am I correct in saying, Dr. Cotton, that a reagent blank is simply a tube without any DNA in it that gets processed along with all the other evidentiary samples?
Yes. Generally that is what it is, or it could, on rare occasions, contain--if you had to swab a stain off of something, if we had to do that in the lab and that hadn't previously been done for us, we might include a piece of the swab before it was used, so it is not always absolutely empty, but most of the time it is.
And generally, at least in this case, that is what you meant by a reagent blank, one that was empty?
Now, if at the end of all those steps that comprise the DNA typing procedure, Dr. Cotton, the reagent blank tests positive for the presence of DNA, it means the control failed; is that correct?
You are putting a very black and white interpretation on there. It means that you have some DNA that was in there at some point, and that is not a term to say a control failed. That almost means to me that the control didn't provide you with the information that you need, instead of did, so--
But it does mean that you have some DNA in there that you normally would not expect to have in there.
Well, it is not just normally, Dr. Cotton. The way you run your experiment and the reason you have this reagent blank is--and the way it is run in this case, for instance, is because if the test is run correctly, there shouldn't be any DNA in the reagent blank at the end of all those steps when you analyze it; isn't that correct?
And in fact, if you do see the presence of DNA, it means that the experiment was not a success? Would you agree with that?
Well, again, it is the same thing. It is--it is informative. It doesn't necessarily mean your results are wrong if you equate wrong with success or correctness with success. That doesn't mean your results are wrong. It does mean that you want to go back and possibly redo it, possibly, you know, relook at what you did. You might only go back--if you thought something had happened just at the very last part, you might want to just go back and do the very last part. That means you want to go back and look at what you've done carefully.
Well, Dr. Cotton, if in fact you see DNA profile in the reagent planning, which is supposed to have no DNA in it, could that also mean that evidentiary specimens that were processed at the same time as the reagent blanks were contaminated by some form of DNA?
In fact, isn't that one of the dangers? When you see a DNA profile in what should be a negative control, isn't that an indication of the possibility that contamination or cross-contamination occur early on in the process?
In fact--now, the first two items of evidence that you received in this case were items 49 and 50; is that right?
And when you received each of those two items, Dr. Cotton, I believe you said you cut off ten percent for future testing and you began your testing on the remaining ninety percent; is that right?
And so the first step that you undertook when you received those two samples in June of 1994, was to extract the DNA from the ninety percent portion of those two samples; is that correct?
And this extraction of items--of DNA from items 49 and 50, this was done before Dr. Blake and Dr. Lee even visited your laboratory; isn't that correct?
After the extraction process, Dr. Cotton, you took a small portion of the extracted DNA and you ran I think what you described as either a test gel or a yield gel to determine approximately how much DNA is present?
And as to both items 49 and 50, when that little mini gel test was run, you concluded that there was too little DNA present for RFLP testing; is that correct?
Okay. Now, in some situations, Dr. Cotton, after you take that small portion of the ninety percent and do that test, would you be able to recycle the balance of the ninety percent to use for other forms of testing, such as PCR testing?
Only--we would only do that if we had run a reagent blank control during that DNA extraction.
If you had run a reagent blank control that we just described during that port--excuse me--during that part of the process of items 49 and 50, then you would be able to recycle the balance of that ninety percent of the unused DNA; is that right?
But in this case, Dr. Cotton, your laboratory simply didn't run a reagent blank negative control for items 49 and 50; is that correct?
And so for use 49 and 50, at least to the bulk of the ninety percent that you received, it could not be recycled for PCR testing, could it?
Well, you could do it. You simply wouldn't have a reagent blank control to run along with it, so we did not use that initial extracted DNA when we did our PCR test on that sample.
Well, the reason you didn't use the balance of that ninety percent portion is because you could not know for sure whether or not there was some contamination that occurred with respect to items 49 and 50 without having a reagent blank; isn't that right?
And so to be scientifically cautious, you didn't use that portion of 49 and 50 which you failed to use a reagent blank on for follow-up PCR testing; is that correct?
Does your laboratory keep a centralized log indicating the number of times that you failed to run a particular control?
No, we don't have any kind of log like that. There are--there--never mind. We don't have a log like that.
All right. Dr. Cotton, do you agree with the following proposition: If a negative control is positive in one experiment, it indicates a potential problem, not just for that experiment but for any experiment performed by the laboratory at about the same time?
I agree that that might be the case, but in other words, it might--it might indicate that there were problems with other experiments or it might indicate there was a problem just with the one thing that you did, and you would have to go back and look at other things to make that determination.
Well the statement simply indicates a potential problem, not a definitive problem?
If a blank control is positive in one experiment, it indicates a potential problem, not just for that experiment, but for any experiment performed at about the same time? Would you agree with that proposition.
Okay. And Dr. Cotton, are you familiar with that portion of the National Academy of Science report, "DNA Technology in Forensic Science," which addresses the issue regarding the consequences of a control failure in PCR testing?
Are you familiar with the portion of the NRC report entitled "DNA Technology in Forensic Science" which addresses that same issue, the consequences of a control failure?
Page 67 of the NRC report, if you would like to take a look at it. It begins on 65 and runs through 67.
In particular, Dr. Cotton, could you take a look at one portion of that, just to save time.
(Witness complies.) The statement that you just pointed out to me is the one that you just read to me.
Okay. And in fact in your own copy of that book do you have that same statement underlined?
And is that statement that I just read to you in fact one of the those statements?
And is that a portion of the NRC report that you in fact relied upon in coming to an expert opinion as to the consequences of the control failure in PCR testing?
I have read this portion of the book. I'm having a little trouble with this concept of "relied upon." I have read this portion of the book. I agree with some of it and I don't agree with other parts. I happen to agree with that statement, but if you ask me did I agree with and rely upon that whole section, I would have to say no.
(Witness complies.) I don't really agree with this next statement, but our laboratory hasn't been in that position, so I don't know--I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Well, Dr. Cotton, would this be--portion of the NRC report, namely this next sentence, that you relied upon in reaching your own opinions as to what actions to take when there was a failure of a control in PCR testing?
With the Court's permission may I read the entire sentence that she said she agreed with?
As I stated as a proposition, a portion of the sentence. She has now read the entire sentence and said that she agrees with it.
Dr. Cotton, do you agree with the opinion of the scientist who authored the DNA technology and forensic science book or the National Academy of Science in which they say, quote--
Dr. Cotton, a moment ago when you said you agreed with and relied on that sentence, were you referring to this sentence, and I quote--
No. Move on. The objection is sustained. You can make any argument at the break. We will break at 10:30.
In your laboratory, Dr. Cotton, whenever there has been an instant--I'm sorry. One moment.
In your laboratory, Dr. Cotton, has there ever been an instance when in a similar period of time several different technicians saw DNA results on the negative controls where nothing should be visualized?
And whenever there has been an instance when more than one technician or scientist observes a failure in the negative controls, do you document that phenomena in any laboratory-wide log?
The instance is documented in terms of a report that goes to the quality control assurance manager and what was done to correct it also goes to her.
So even at Cellmark there have been occasions where the negative controls failed?
I want to be very clear about what I'm saying. We had one instance in which the negative control that is set up at the time of amplification was giving us a signal and we had to go back and figure out that that negative control just--turned out that it by itself was contaminated, but it could have been some other result. And anyway, we had to stop doing what we were doing, go back and figure that out and then restart testing.
And would it be fair to say, Dr. Cotton, that for each and every time where you've had the negative control failure, you haven't been able to determine, by your investigation, exactly how the contamination occurred in every instance when it did occur?
Well, there have been more than one occasion where a negative control has failed; is that correct?
No. What I--what I'm trying to tell you is there was one instance where we saw that, and I'm calling it one instance because it was confined to a period of one or two days. And so--so it wasn't just one test. Let me be clear. It wasn't just one test. There were several tests done over that period of two days, but it was this period of a couple of days that we had this problem, and that is the only period of time that we have had that particular problem.
So with respect to having that particular problem where the negative control failed over a period of one or two days in multiple tests, were you able to determine the precise cause for that failure?
And Dr. Cotton, in your laboratory when that phenomena occurred over a period of one or to days in multiple tests seeing DNA in the negative controls where it shouldn't be, would you refer to that phenomena as an outbreak of contamination?
You just said a moment ago that you only heard it in court proceedings and not in scientific papers; is that correct?
I said discussions. That is discussions I've had or--I can only talk about what--discussions I've had, discussions I've had with people in other laboratories or in my own laboratory. If we have one instance of contamination, we don't generally refer to it as an outbreak. It sounds like we are getting the measles or something and it is just not a term that I have heard used in discussing this potential problem with other scientists.
And when you read the NRC report did you see them describe it as an outbreak of contamination?
Well, they may well have. I don't know--I mean, if you look at all the stuff that I have to read, I cannot remember word for word what is in the NRC report, what is in our standard operating procedure and so forth, so if it is in there, fine, but--
But it doesn't change the fact that when we discuss it in our lab and when I discuss it with other people that is not the terminology they used or I have heard anyone else use in the setting as I characterized it.
Dr. Cotton, please go back and look at the very same page we just looked at a moment ago, page 67, and the very next paragraph.
Do you agree, Dr. Cotton, that it is important to discover the source of an outbreak of contamination so that the laboratory can be cleansed of it?
No, I don't agree that you must determine the source. Sometimes that is simply not possible.
All right. Mr. Neufeld, the court reporter tells me she is about to run out of paper, so we will take our break at this point. Do you have one or two more wind-up--
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anyone to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we will take a 15-minute recess.
We didn't run any control swatches on that early set of evidence at the time that we analyzed that group of samples.
Yes, we couldn't know what had happened during that DNA extraction.
It sounds like we are getting the measles or something and it is just not a term that I have heard used in discussing this potential problem with other scientists.
You can't argue with the witness and with the answer that she is giving. You get to ask questions and you get to give answers, doctor. Proceed.
Counsel is producing pieces of paper, attempting to show them in front of the jury as a basis for asking questions and is being demonstrative in front of the jury... I think it is absolutely outrageous conduct.