Redirect examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 2) — Monday, May 15, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\15\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-ROB.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 74 of 167

◀ Recross-examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 1) Recross-examination of Dr. Robin Cotton (part 2) ▶

Witness: Dr. Robin Cotton
Examiner: George Clarke
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, May 15, 1995 • Utterances: 23

In a brief redirect, Clarke asked Dr. Cotton to clarify the statistical independence of the five RFLP probes used in the DNA analysis. Dr. Cotton confirmed that all five probes have been tested for independence, that those tests were published in peer-reviewed literature by Dr. Bruce Weir of North Carolina State University, and that no publication has ever demonstrated the probes are not independent.

# 1 THE COURT:

Mr. Clarke.

# 2 MR. CLARKE:

Yes. Thank you, your Honor. One topic.

# 3 THE COURT:

Okay. If you have to.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKE

# 4 MR. CLARKE:

Dr. Cotton, with regard to these five probes, do you need all five probes run on the same people in your database to create these estimates of frequencies of these various characteristics?

# 5 DR. COTTON:

You do not need to have all five probes on all the people in order to create these estimates. For statistical purposes of independence, when tests are done for independence for RFLP testing, those tests are generally done for pairs of loci. So you need pairs of people that have been done on two at a minimum, and this database has those pairs. It isn't that more information can't be gained if you have people across all five loci, but we do have enough information as a database exists for those tests of independence to be done.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MR. CLARKE:

Has or have your five probes been looked at for purposes of determining if they are independent from one another?

# 7 DR. COTTON:

Yes, they have.

# 8 MR. CLARKE:

And has that exhibit been published in the scientific literature?

# 9 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 10 MR. NEUFELD:

Objection. Hearsay and discovery.

# 11 THE COURT:

All right. The fact that it's been published isn't hearsay. What it says is hearsay. Proceed.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 MR. CLARKE:

I'm sorry. Was the answer yes, Dr. Cotton?

# 13 DR. COTTON:

It has been published.

# 14 MR. CLARKE:

And was that publication an examination of your database and a determination of independence of these five probes?

# 15 MR. NEUFELD:

Objection.

# 16 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 17 DR. COTTON:

Yes.

# 18 MR. CLARKE:

Who published that?

# 19 DR. COTTON:

Dr. Bruce weir from North Carolina State University.

# 20 MR. CLARKE:

Has there been any publication to your knowledge demonstrating that your five genetic markers are not independent of one another?

# 21 DR. COTTON:

No, there has not.

# 22 MR. CLARKE:

Thank you, your Honor.

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

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Dr. Robin Cotton

You do not need to have all five probes on all the people in order to create these estimates. For statistical purposes of independence, when tests are done for independence for RFLP testing, those tests are generally done for pairs of loci.

Rebuts any defense implication that incomplete database coverage undermines the statistical frequency estimates.

Dr. Robin Cotton

No, there has not.

Unequivocal answer that no scientific publication contradicts the independence of the five probes — a clean closing note for the prosecution.

Lance A. Ito

The fact that it's been published isn't hearsay. What it says is hearsay. Proceed.

Clean evidentiary ruling: publication itself is a fact, not hearsay; content of that publication would be.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Published study by Dr. Bruce Weir of North Carolina State University examining the Cellmark database and the independence of the five RFLP probes

discussed

Notable Exchanges (1)

Peter Neufeld•Lance A. Ito

Neufeld objected to the mention of publication on hearsay and discovery grounds; Ito split the ruling, allowing the fact of publication but not its contents.

procedural

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 6049 • 23 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103