All right. Mr. Sims, would you come forward, please.
Gary Sims, called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:
Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
Could you describe the relationship of your laboratory within the state administrative system?
Yes. We are part of the Department of Justice and we are within the Bureau of Forensic Services, and specifically, the DNA laboratory serves the entire state. Our particular jurisdiction is generally those areas that are not covered by a lot of the major cities and that sort of thing and so we have regional laboratories located throughout California and they generally feed cases into us.
Now, what is the relationship of the Department of Justice to the State Attorney General?
And does the Department of Justice have many different branches other than the Bureau of Forensic Services?
There is several divisions such as the Division of Law Enforcement. There is other divisions that include the attorneys, state attorney, deputy attorney generals, that sort of thing.
And other than the DNA laboratory, could you give us an idea of what the Bureau of Forensic Services provides statewide?
Yes. They provide forensic criminalistic services to a number of jurisdictions, a number of different law enforcement agencies throughout the state. As I mentioned earlier, in California most of the major cities and counties have their own crime laboratories, but we provide services to some of the--what used to be more rural areas of California, but will make our services available to other counties, the larger counties also.
Other than the DNA laboratory are there other laboratories under the bureau throughout the state?
Yes. There are laboratories located in places such as riverside, Fresno, Sacramento, Redding, Santa Rosa, Santa Barbara.
The DNA laboratory for the state DNA laboratory was established in late 1989, so a little over five years now.
I was not one of the original, but I was one of the early group, yes. The earliest people were hired in late 1989. I came on board in January of 1990.
Could you please explain to the jury the types of services the DNA laboratory provides to the citizens of this state.
Yes. We analyze biological evidence. Generally the types of cases we work on are homicides or also sexual assault cases, and the types of evidence that we analyze using DNA technology would generally involve blood, semen, hair, other bodily fluids.
Yes. That is our principal case work service. We also are in charge of the felon offender database whereby DNA or blood samples are collected from felons upon release from prison and then we type those samples for the DNA profile and we feed those into the database so that we have an ongoing bank of felon offender data files.
The plans for it have been in place for a number of years. We recently--well, not recently. It has been I think about three years now that we have been putting those sample profiles together.
The goal of this is so that when we have, for example, a sexual assault case where we don't know--we don't have somebody arrested to check their DNA profile on, we can go into this database and see whether or not that DNA profile that we might obtain from, for example, a semen sample on a vaginal swab, whether or not that profile is in our database that we may provide that we may have the perpetrator through the DNA.
Yes. We have a different part of our laboratory that does what we call the--it is a 290 on that so we call that the 290 program.
Starting with your undergraduate education, could you please describe where you obtained it and what your degree was in.
Yes. I obtained a bachelor of science degree in criminalistics from the University of California at Berkeley and that was in 1975.
Could you explain what that means. Phi beta kappa is a Honor society that recognizes a certain percentage of the graduates. I don't know the exact formula, but it is considered an academic Honor.
Yes, I did. I pursued graduate studies in criminalistics also at the University of California at Berkeley and I did that from 1975 to 1976. And then also I worked on a graduate program at California State University, Los Angeles, from 1978 to `80.
Okay. In the graduate program at UC Berkeley in `75 and `76, did you obtain any honors in that program?
Okay. And what specialized courses have you taken over the years that lent to your credentials for forensic DNA typing?
Yes. Among the specialized classes that I've taken, umm, one thing, I've gone back to school with the advent of DNA technology into forensic science, so I went back to school and took courses in recombinant DNA technology through University of California extension and also classes in molecular biology through the extension. And I also I took a class in genetics from the California University at Hayward so I could be brought up to date with the DNA technology.
Well, actually the Virginia training is two-fold. There was a class that I took that is offered through the Federal Bureau of Investigation at their research center in Quantico, Virginia, and that was a one-month class in forensic DNA typing and that is actually credited, along with the laboratory portion, that is credited through the University of Virginia.
Yes, I did. I went back two years later to take an advanced class in 1992. That was a one-week class.
Yes. That was offered through the extension and a lot of the criminalists in the Bay area attended that class. It was about DNA technology. The class was taught by Dale Dykes and also the PCR portion was taught by Dr. Blake and then the--also by Dr. Cecilia Beroldingen.
Okay. Now, these are all formal classes and courses that you have taken over the years. Are there other ways that people in your field keep abreast of things and further their intellectual and educational--
Yes. We do that by attending specialized classes that are designed for people in our field and they are typically--sometimes they are a one-day seminar, sometimes they are a week, something like that, and I have taken a number of those.
Yes. Umm, one of the most recent ones was in 1992, a one-week class taught in population genetics and statistics by Dr. Bruce weir. That was put on by the California Association of Criminalists and that was one week as I mentioned. I have also took a one-week class that was offered by the Cetus Corporation. They are the company that under--in which PCR was developed. They held the patent on the PCR. And that was in the use of doing PCR, DQ-Alpha typing in forensic work.
All right. Mr. Harmon, Mr. Sims, I think the record should reflect that the witness is referring to a CV.
I have also attended, for example, in DNA a non-isotopic detection class that was offered by allo-type genetic testing services down in Atlanta, Georgia. That was taught by Dr. Moses Schanfield and also by Dale Dykes. That was my first formal course work in--first formal class in DNA procedures and that was in 1988. I have also taken various workshops, such as workshops in statistics, blood spatter, that sort of thing. I have also taken a three-week class in conventional forensic serology, such as the EAP marker that I think you have heard some things about. That was in 1979 and that was a three-week class.
Okay. Over the years have you been recognized or been awarded certificates in areas of expertise in your field?
Yes. Most recently I obtained a certificate of professional competency in criminalistics from the American Board of Criminalistics and that was in 1993.
Yes. What this program reflects is a nationwide effort to enhance the professionalism of criminalistics is what it is all about, and what it involves is taking examinations in certain areas to show that you are competent and also now it will involve proficiency testing and that sort of thing, so it is to raise the professionalism.
Well, California took an early lead in this--in the late 1980's this was the--the program was offered through the California Association of Criminalists and I first obtained my certificate in 1990 from the California Association of Criminalists, and then this program has now gone nationwide.
Okay. Now, you have used the word "criminalistics." could we broaden that definition and explain what is entailed? Let's say in that certificate, what kinds of things did that certification process cover?
What the certification program in criminalistics entails is the various aspects of physical evidence examination and that would include the collection of evidence, the analysis of evidence, the interpretation of evidence.
Various kinds of evidence. For example, biological evidence, trace evidence, firearms evidence, all the different disciplines within criminalistics.
Did you necessarily feel much more qualified simply because they gave you the certificate than you did before you obtained it?
No. But I think that kind of program is valuable in that you have to have a certain level of knowledge to pass the exam.
Please describe the nature of your employment in the field of criminalistics from the first job in this area.
Yes. My career began in 1976 about almost 19 years ago now, June of 1976, with the Department of Chief Medical Examiner Coroner here in Los Angeles where I worked in the laboratory. I performed toxicological and serological examinations at that time. Some of that would be blood-alcohol testing, that sort of thing, but also doing blood typing, examination and sexual assault evidence.
And I worked at the Coroner's office for three years and then in 1979 I went to work at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in their crime laboratory where I worked in the serology program again doing what we have termed conventional serology. And after a little over a year in that I took an opportunity to go work at the institute of forensic sciences criminalistics laboratory, which is a private crime laboratory in Oakland, California, under the directorship of Charles Morton.
Well, since we were a private concern, we had--we did work for both Prosecution agencies, police agencies, but most of our work was for Defense attorneys.
No. As a criminalist I approach the evidence. I don't care which side it is coming from. My concern is with the evidence and the examination of the evidence.
KEY QUOTEOccasionally. Sometimes in--when you are doing this kind of reanalysis, this Defense reanalysis, you may--you may, for example, have a situation where you out and out disagree with the result, and then you have to be able to go in and defend that, but also you have situations where there is other types of evidence that perhaps the Prosecution has not looked at and then you might examine that evidence and say this is what my findings are and they are really contradictory to other findings.
I worked at the institute of forensic science from 1980 to 1990 and then it was in early 1990 that I went to work at the Department of Justice.
Okay. Would you describe the nature of your initial responsibilities at the Department of Justice.
Yes. Our initial responsibilities were two-fold. One, we had to set up the laboratory because all we had was a building, a room in a building, and we were working through Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, we had sublet space within their facility up in Berkeley, and so we obtained the equipment. And then the next portion was to go through the training and the--what we call in-house validation procedures to take validated procedures and put them on line in our own laboratory, and that went on for about two years until we actually started doing any case work.
My specific role was to take part in some of these research projects and to get trained in these other areas.
Okay. Now, at the time the DOJ began were there other laboratories around the country and the world that were already providing forensic DNA services?
Well, for example, the FBI went on line with DNA in I believe late 1988. Cellmark has--was on line before that time, life codes, and then some of the other state laboratories. I believe Virginia was on line before that, too, but I don't know those exact dates.
Okay. Please describe the next phase of the implementation of what your specific role was.
Well, the next phase was then to prepare myself to actually do case work and so we went through proficiency tests, that sort of thing, mock evidence samples, and then once we showed--once we had shown that we could handle that type of evidence and get the correct result, then we actually started accepting cases and I was one of the first case workers.
Other people have asked me that same question. Umm, the approach that we took was to--first of all, we wanted some experience with the techniques and that takes some time. We didn't want to rush into this. We didn't want to make a rush to just get on line for the sake of going on line. We wanted to feel confident in our abilities to analyze this evidence and also some of the types of research studies that we did involved trying to make what starts out, for example, as a good bloodstain, a bad bloodstain. In other words, to see what can happen to various types of forensic evidence so that you are just not dealing with fresh samples, you are looking at samples that may have been degraded, for example, and seeing what you can do and what happens when you challenge those types of samples with various environmental conditions. And that was one of our big experiments that took a long time.
Well, at that time some of the studies weren't all published, so this is--you have to remember that some of these plans were laid down in 1990 and then some of the publications that came along would be maybe `91, `92, but there was not a lot of published information at that time. But also, I think it is important for somebody who is going to look at this type of evidence to get an appreciation for what can really go wrong with this type of evidence and why you have to be concerned about degradation and those sorts of things.
We will get back to your experience at DOJ in a moment. Have you made, you yourself made presentations at some of these scientific symposia over the course of your clear?
And typically are there co-presenters or co-authors at some of these presentations?
In our laboratory some of these presentations involve a team approach and usually one person becomes a speaker.
Yes. Again I'm going through my CV to review this. My most recent presentation was regarding some case work analysis that I did. This was presented in 1993 to the California Association of Criminalists at their seminar and they have a seminar twice a year where criminalists get together and exchange ideas, so this was just a part of that. And this was specifically now what we call the western region DNA laboratory's workshop where the field has gotten somewhat more specialized, and so the DNA people will huddle together in a room for a day and talk about DNA. Another presentation that I did was at the second international symposium on forensic aspects of DNA analysis that was hosted by the FBI academy and this was in March of 1993. I presented a poster regarding concordance of RFLP results between laboratories contributing to the DNA data bank that I mentioned. And what that basically involved was having different laboratories in the state, such as Orange County, San Bernardino and our laboratory, being able to show that we could exchange our data and that it could all go into the same data bank for this profile offender.
The next presentation was a study that I did with Allen Keel at the--and also Martin Buoncristiani from our laboratory which was presented at a statewide criminalist Department of Justice criminalist convention, it is called the step conference and that was in 1990. And we did a study whereby we took actual sexual assault evidence and compared our results with the results of an analyst at the Oakland Police Department.
The next presentation that I gave was one where we did fairly early on in 1990, the recovery of--and we also--we extracted DNA from bone samples that had been very badly burned to show that you could still do typing on this kind of sample. This was presented at the California Association of Criminalists' meeting in Long Beach in October, 1990, and then it was also presented by Jennifer Mihalovich at the American Academy of Forensic Science meeting in February of 1991.
On that particular presentation from our laboratory myself, Lance Gima, Ken Konzak and then the other authors on the paper or the presentation were Jennifer Mihalovich and Dr. Edward Blake from Forensic Sciences Associates.
Now, this Dr. Blake, has he also made presentations at your laboratory, educational type presentations in the field of PCR typing?
Okay. How frequently has this Dr. Blake made these kind of presentations at your laboratory?
What would be the next presentation then in the order after the Jennifer Mihalovich at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences?
I have given a lecture on DNA typing to the California District Attorney's Association. That was in 1990. And then in--also in 1990 I gave a talk at the California Association of Criminalists on the role of the special master for the serological evidence in the case of People versus Richard Ramirez.
Yes, that was the night stalker case, and our laboratory, institute of forensic sciences, was assigned the role under Judge Tynan, I believe it was, to act as a special master, which meant that we were in control of the serological evidence and we would bring it to the Defense laboratory and let them reanalyze it while it was still under our care. So we were responsible for taking evidence from LAPD, getting it over to the Defense laboratory and monitoring their testing, not--not that we would record what they were doing, but just to keep an eye on the evidence, basically to ensure the safety of the evidence.
What other contributions have you made, either in presentations or in publications?
Umm, I've also contributed to, in our seminars among the California Association of Criminalists, I've gone before our--the CAC or California Association of Criminalists and talked about what I thought was, for example, questionable testimony regarding sexual assault evidence and hair examinations. Those are things that I saw as a Defense expert that I--that I thought needed to be brought out that I was not pleased with.
The next presentation was one on the value of Defense reanalysis in forensic serology. That was given at a medical/legal seminar sponsored by the institute of forensic science in May of 1987.
Was that based on your years of experience of reanalyzing physical evidence for defendants in criminal cases?
Yes. And what I did is I showed what I thought were the value of certain illustrative cases where doing the Defense analysis proved to be very useful, provided useful information.
I've presented aspects of physical evidence to the criminal Defense panel of the Sacramento County Bar Association. That was in 1985. And I have also given talks on paternity resolution with using conventional serology. That was a medical/legal seminar in May of 1985. And I have also given a lecture on problems observed in the comparison analysis of human and animal bloodstains. And again that was a medical/legal seminar institute of forensic science back in 1984.
Okay. The next category is co-presentations where you co-presented papers. Could you describe those in order, please?
Yes. This next series of papers where I have just been one of the authors or I have been on the group of people that actually did the paper, but I wasn't the one who actually presented it, the first one is the application and evaluation of D1S80 for case work analysis. That was presented by Renee Montgomery at the California Association of Criminalists seminar in May of 1994.
This was a paper presented at the second international symposium hosted by the FBI academy in March, 1993. The title was penile swab evidence in the investigation of sexual assault. The actual presenter was Allen keel. This was a poster presentation and what we did in that case was to look at some swabs that had come--that had been taken from the penis of a rape suspect and looked at that using PCR markers to see if we could get information about the victim's type transferring to the male.
All right. And in those instances that research demonstrated that with that kind of physical contact you could find the trace of the female's DNA on the assailant's penis?
The next--the next presentation was--this was actually presented by Dr. Nora Rudin of our laboratory in February, 1992, at the American Academy and this was the environmental abuse sample that I--or abuse study that I mentioned earlier where we took a large number of blood and semen samples, subjected them to things like ultraviolet light, heat, humidity, looked at various substrates and see what the effect would be. And then we presented that work at this American Academy meeting and then the next one was another American Academy meeting, this was actually presented by Keith Inman of our laboratory in February of 1990, involving establishing the matching guidelines within the California Department of Justice laboratory, and that was basically to establish how our laboratory went about saying when do two bands match that you heard some talk about earlier.
The next presentation was a poster presentation involving--it was presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1990. It was entitled DNA electrophoresis tank evaluation. And this was basically one to evaluate which equipment would be best for our needs, which equipment gave us the best results, and we looked very seriously at the different types of apparatus available to perform these electrophoretic gel separations and we evaluated that and presented our results.
The last one goes way back to May, 1977. This was regarding a toxicological presentation about barbiturates in radio-immunoassay screening and postmortem samples. This was done by Ron Bergeson along with George Nakamura who were at the Coroner's office and this was back in 1977.
Okay. Could you please describe the courses or teaching classes that you've been a teacher in.
Yes. The--the experiences that I've had are generally through the California criminalistics institute, which is a research group in--as part of the Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services. One of their principal missions is to train criminalists from throughout the state and I have taught classes involving the investigation of sexual assault, what you do with sexual assault evidence, that sort of thing. I have also taught classes in conventional serology at the California criminalistics institute.
I have also taught in this level at the--in the PCR DQ-Alpha procedures. I have lectured in that.
Yes. This--some of these classes are now offered--this PCR DQ-Alpha class is actually offered through the Department of Justice, through the California criminalistics institute, and I have taught that. I have also taught in the area, or not actually taught, but I have participated in workshop discussions in classes put on by Roche Molecular System. They are the ones that officer these PCR kits such as the DQ-Alpha and the polymarker kit. And I have been invited to speak at their classes to people who are now learning the technology, and I'm exchanging some of the experiences that I've had with the kits.
And the final one is with regard to the forensic academy. Again, this is part of the training of new forensic scientists.
I will ask you to describe them, and if you are members of any specific committees or panels, could you please describe them when you describe the organization you belong to.
The first one, as I mentioned earlier, is the California Association of Criminalists. This is getting to be an very old body now, it goes back into the fifties. I think about the time I was born is when it was established, but it has got a large number of members who practice criminalistics not only in California, but we have members from various states. I was a member of the board of examiners within the California Association of Criminalists and that was--I talked about how we put together this test in certification and I was involved in that process. I was also a member of the quality assurance committee for forensic serology, that is conventional serology, and that goes back now to 1986. I have also been a chairman of the serology studies groups for both northern and southern California because the CAC tends to divide between north and south, as do many things in California, and that would involve the conventional serology. And I am also now involved in the DNA study group.
Yes. I had some unfinished business, as I mentioned earlier, where I was taking my graduate classes and I never did complete my actual degree and so I have gone back now to the University of California at Berkeley to complete my master's degree.
Back in 1976 I had all the course work, but I hadn't finished my thesis, when I opted to get married and take a job in Los Angeles.
KEY QUOTEHave you ever testified in a court of law as an expert in any field of criminalistics?
The areas that I've qualified in initially would be blood alcohol testimony, certainly a lot of forensic serology trace evidence. I've also testified in paternity blood testing and more recently it has all been DNA testing.
And can you give us an idea of what types or what jurisdictions you have qualified as an expert in these various fields?
Yes. I went back and counted up and it is about 27 counties I believe in California, maybe more now. I have also testified in the states of Alaska, Arizona and Nevada and Washington and also in the U.S. District Court.
Okay. In your capacity with the Department of Justice how many times have you actually presented testimony in the field of forensic DNA typing?
Can you give us an idea of what--whether it was RFLP or PCR in the eight cases in which you've testified?
Okay. Now, let's talk about some of the areas of expertise or education that you have as they relate to the various components of forensic DNA typing, okay? Have you taken courses in biology and molecular biology over the years that lend themselves to your credentials as an expert in forensic DNA typing?
I've taken classes in molecular biology and also in genetics and also in recombinant DNA technology to get me--give me the background in the DNA analysis.
Okay. Now, would it be fair to break up forensic DNA typing into, just generally speaking, molecular biology and population frequency statistics?
Maybe kind of a coarse way to break it down is do these things match, what does the match mean?
As well have you taken courses in statistics that lend themselves to your credentials in the field of forensic DNA typing?
Yes, I have, and I have also, as part of my forensic training, statistics is a big part of that, interpreting evidence.
Now, you had mentioned quite frequently the field of conventional serology. Did statistics play an important component, in the years before you became a DNA analyst, in presenting the meaning of conventional serology results to a jury?
Well, we would just type in different genetic marker systems and the population would break down into different percentages for those various types and so we would use that information to come up with an overall statistic as to how common or how rare a certain profile of types was comparing a bloodstain, for example, in a person.
Now, are the population genetics and statistics considerations in conventional serology identical--
The foundations are very similar. There is more complexity because of the greater variation that is seen with the DNA typing.
Yes, it can, because--because of the numbers of types of people and the great amount of what we call polymorphism or typeability of the population. In other words, we can make very discriminating statements using DNA technology that we couldn't make before with just conventional, in most cases.
But in essence you are relying on the genetics and statistics that you relied on when you were testifying in conventional serology?
Have you relied on the same issues or principles of population genetics and statistics in forensic DNA typing that you have relied on in conventional serology?
How many times do you think you've testified in the area of conventional serology?
In all of the eight cases in which you presented testimony in the field of forensic DNA typing, did you also present some sort of statistical estimate for whatever results you obtained?
Now, you mentioned proficiency testing at different points along the way, I believe, with the American Board of Criminalistics. Is there a proficiency testing component to it?
Okay. Now, have you yourself--let's separate you from the lab for a minute--have you yourself participated in any sort of proficiency testing program at the Department of Justice?
Yes. The analysts at the California Department of Justice are tested twice a year in proficiency tests, so in other words, we are given what is essentially a mock case twice a year to test and try to determine what sample may have come from whom and that sort of thing.
No, but we know we are being tested and the types of samples, they give you a scenario, so they tell you this was a bloodstain found on so and so's car or something like this and these are the reference samples from a victim and a suspect and a witness or something like that.
Are any efforts--what efforts, if you know, are made to actually simulate the case in terms of making up the samples?
Well, sometimes, for example, we will get samples that are--that are mixtures. For example, we will get a vaginal swab that is not just--not just fluid from one person, but fluid from two people.
Currently we have four plus two people that are half time case work, half time research.
What about the other employees, the other bench workers, the database people, do they have to take proficiency tests, too?
They do some proficiency testing that is in-house, I believe, but I don't work in that program so I don't know all the regulations.
So I take it this is all in-house so somebody in-house scores the tests; is that right?
So in other words, some outside agency provides us with these samples and they also hold the answers, so the way it is worked in the past is we have to do one that is--that we have no information as to the answers on. The other one may have been--someone may now know the answers because it may be later that you actually take that--that exam. Let me go back and explain that a little bit. What happens with proficiency testing is somebody manufactures the test. They put together all these tests. Then they send them out nationwide. Now, in our laboratory we try to meet that--in fact, we do meet that deadline of, say, maybe three months later that we submit results for that particular test, so we don't know--nobody in our laboratory knows what those correct results are. We have to submit them. Now, there are other proficiency tests that we take whereby those samples that came to us maybe we hold on to for a certain period of time, maybe even a year, and then the analyst does them blind, but somebody in our laboratory may have access to the correct results, and that is just the way proficiency testing works. But we have to do at least one of those where nobody in the lab, and certainly not the analyst, knows the results. We have to do at least one of these a year and I think that is now changing with some new legislation that we might have to do two of those a year.
Do you--do you try any harder on these because they are mock cases than you do on a real case where life and liberty is at stake?
No, I certainly don't. I approach these proficiency as just very much like a case and--no.
Okay. And do you know whether or not any of your co-workers have made a mistake on any of their tests?
No, I--the latest summary that I have on that is that we have in the laboratory--the case workers have now tested something like 135 samples with no mistakes.
Now, this information is routinely made available to both sides in criminal cases, is it?
Yes. Through discovery and other processes we have opened books on all these things that Defense experts can come and view our test results.
And not only are your conclusions available, but actually all the underlying data upon request or court order?
Just from the chronology, your lab was not in existence when the CACLD trials that cellmark testified about were created; is that true?
Now, the Department of Justice lab has received accreditation through the American Society of Crime Lab Directors; is that true?
And is proficiency testing a component or having a proficiency testing program a component of that accreditation process?
No, I don't really feel that, but I think accreditation is important nationwide as a program. I believe in it. I think it is a step again towards higher--enhancing the profession.
Well, in a typical DNA case you may have one or two questioned stains and then you may have two or three or four reference samples that is the basis for the comparison, and so you usually don't have that much evidence to look at, but in this case we had a large number of evidence items, something like 61 different items, and then there were sub items within those, most of those.
KEY QUOTEAnd are there records--or strike that. Did you receive these items over a period of time?
And are there records that your laboratory maintains to reflect when you received something and to sort of document the intake and outgo of the chain of custody of these things?
Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's 265 chain of custody records for all of the evidence in this case.
Could you describe, while Mr. Scheck is looking at those, could you describe how you document just the intake of items?
Yes. We--the standard form is to list the items, describe the items, describe what purpose it is, and then we document who we received it from, the date and the time and who in our laboratory received it. That is the standard form. And then, of course, the accompanying information, such as the DNA case number and the relevant information.
Now, were you the lead analyst for all the typing that was to be done in this case?
Yes. What that means is basically I am responsible for the--how the evidence is processed and analyzed in this particular case. I have co-workers, other criminalists that I work with, and specifically in this case I worked with Renee Montgomery and Steve Meyers in our laboratory who both performed analyses independent of me and then my actual work and their actual work was all put together in several reports where we combined the findings of the various analysts. And then that work is reviewed by a case work supervisor who in this case was Ken Konzak, so he actually reviewed all these items and all these reports and all these notes before it would go out.
Mr. Sims, I would like to show you People's exhibit 265 for identification. Would you look at that and see if that reflects the complete intake and outgo of the items that the DOJ had and dispensed in this case?
This is complete except there was the one additional transmittal for cellmark to analyze some evidence from the sock bloodstain in October.
That would be--there would be actually one of these forms, this is called a bfs4 form. There would be one of those.
Okay. Umm, I would like you to look at some boards, Mr. Sims. You previously had an opportunity to look at those. Could we start with 177-A, and I want you to reexamine these boards and see if they accurately reflect the items you received and the dates you received them.
Just as a general question, as you struggle to see those, do you recognize photos that are in the "DOJ" column?
I recognize them from my initials, G.A.S., my writing on the photos. Some of them appear to be--for example, this one looks like a photo of a photo of mine. There is a Polaroid photo of mine that is on each one of these.
Okay. Let me know when you have had a chance to assure that, at least for 177-A, which is also from 6--LAPD no. 6 to 24, that there are items in the "DOJ" column, they accurately reflect what you received.
Accurately reflect the packages that you received on the dates that are on the board?
I just wanted to make sure that these are the control swatches and these are the stain swatches, (Indicating).
So 177-D is consistent with your records on what you received and when you received it?
Is it common practice in criminalistics for one such as you, or any responsible criminalist, when a package is opened, that some sort of initials or date or identifier is placed on the package?
Well, to me it is part of the chain of evidence that you want to show that you looked at that particular item and that that way when you go back you can say, yes, that is the item I looked at because there is my initials and case number.
Okay. We will talk about that in this case. I want you to focus just for a moment and we are going to put another board up there, on items 47 and 50. Were those received by the DOJ lab for processing for DNA typing?
Okay. And did you try to conserve evidence each time you sampled--we will talk about your sampling process--but did you try to conserve evidence in every instance where it was possible?
Yes, we did. It is part of our policy with any case, not just this case, but in particular, we are under court order also to be in conservative in our approach to this evidence.
And with respect--specifically with respect to item 47 from the Bundy walk and item 50, the blood drop from the Bundy walk, did you in fact save or conserve evidence?
Do you recall or can you look in your photos to be precise about how much for each of those two items you conserved or you saved?
I would just like to point out that we have about 500 pages of notes in this case, so bear with me if I have to find something.
Yes. I took about half of item no. 50. About half of the material that was there I took for our purposes, left the other half. And then the other page was?
I think in that one it was about--we took about two-thirds maybe, something like that. There were two swatches and I think we took the larger one.
And your notes actually attempt to reflect the size of what you took and what you set aside or saved?
Yes. These--I have details as to actually the measurements in terms of millimeters as to what the estimate of the size of each swatch was, and for most of these stain samples with Dr. Blake we--we actually did a weighing of most of these evidence swatches.
Excuse me, your Honor. I realize we are getting close to the break. I may have an objection about the next few questions that he is going to ask.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. And we will take a break for fifteen minutes. All right. Mr. Sims, you can step down.
As a criminalist I approach the evidence. I don't care which side it is coming from. My concern is with the evidence and the examination of the evidence.
In a typical DNA case you may have one or two questioned stains... but in this case we had a large number of evidence items, something like 61 different items, and then there were sub items within those.
The case workers have now tested something like 135 samples with no mistakes.
Back in 1976 I had all the course work, but I hadn't finished my thesis, when I opted to get married and take a job in Los Angeles.