Direct examination of Gary Sims (afternoon, part 2)

📄 Direct examination of Gary Sims (afternoon, part 2) — Wednesday, May 17, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\17\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-GARY-SIM.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 76 of 167

◀ Afternoon session opening Jury instructions ▶

Witness: Gary Sims
Examiner: Rockne Harmon
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, May 17, 1995 • Utterances: 138

Prosecutor Rockne Harmon continues the direct examination of DOJ forensic scientist Gary Sims, covering DNA results from victim clothing (Goldman's jeans and shirt, Nicole's dress), all of which were consistent only with the victims. The bulk of the examination shifts to laying a statistical foundation for Sims to later present population frequency estimates, tracing his background in conventional serology, the product rule, and population genetics education.

# 1 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, I want to ask you a question about the consistency of certain results and specifically I want to ask you about stains in which you did PCR typing and produced results, DQ-Alpha, 1.1, 1.2 and D1S80 24, 25?

# 2 MR. SIMS:

Okay.

# 3 MR. HARMON:

Is it true that as a result of your testing you achieved those same results which are consistent with Mr. Simpson on item no. 6 from Rockingham?

# 4 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 5 MR. HARMON:

Item no. 42A2 which is sock 13A?

# 6 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 7 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, this is asked and answered four times now, so if we to get to another point.

# 8 THE COURT:

We have heard this and we have seen it on the result board.

# 9 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Is it true that you produced the same results for DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2, on items from Rockingham, from Mr. Simpson's sock, from Mr. Simpson's Bronco--

# 10 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, this is--

# 11 MR. HARMON:

From the Bundy crime scene?

# 12 MR. SCHECK:

It is leading and it is getting kind of--

# 13 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained. We have heard this.

# 14 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, as a forensic scientist, what is the impact or what is the implication of duplicate testing by separate labs? What issues does that address?

# 15 MR. SIMS:

Well, duplicate testing is important in a way that it--it provides a control in case any mistake might be made by one laboratory, then by having a second laboratory do the same operations that would be a check on the consistency of the operations and the process.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 MR. HARMON:

All right. Anything else if the duplicate testing is of the same sample, in terms of conclusions, that one could draw from the same testing?

# 17 MR. SIMS:

Yes. In other words, one would look then to make the same conclusions as to who might be included or excluded as a source.

# 18 MR. HARMON:

Okay. And have you--well, we will come back to that. Mr. Sims, can you think of any scientific reason the tests that your lab subjected the variety of stains that were given to you would produce correct results on stains at the Rockingham address but incorrect results on the Bundy stains and the Bronco stains?

# 19 MR. SCHECK:

Objection, objection, objection.

# 20 THE COURT:

What is the objection?

# 21 MR. SCHECK:

Leading, speculative, vague, not specific.

# 22 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 23 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, what scientific reason, if any, can you produce that would explain why your results might be correct on stains from Rockingham but incorrect from stains that were collected at Bundy and the Bronco?

# 24 MR. SCHECK:

Objection.

# 25 THE COURT:

Do you understand the question?

# 26 MR. SIMS:

I think I do, although there is some question about scientific reasoning.

# 27 THE COURT:

Why don't you rephrase the question.

# 28 MR. HARMON:

Is there any scientific reason why your tests would work on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but not on stains from the crime scene and his Bronco?

KEY QUOTE

# 29 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, objection to "tests working" as being vague--

# 30 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

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

# 32 THE COURT:

Why don't you just narrow it down to one and the other. It is also compound.

# 33 MR. HARMON:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 34 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, and listen very carefully, if you will, what scientific reason, if any, is there that your test would produce reliable results on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but unreliable results from Bundy?

# 35 MR. SCHECK:

Objection, argumentative.

# 36 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 37 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, is there any scientific reason why--that you can think of why your tests would work correctly on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but incorrectly on stains from his car?

# 38 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained.

# 39 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, now, there are some other results that we have not discussed; is that true?

# 40 MR. SIMS:

Yes, I believe that's correct.

# 41 MR. HARMON:

Now, among the other items that were submitted to you was an item described as LAPD no. 113 which was a hair?

# 42 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 43 MR. HARMON:

And I think you actually alluded to it this morning. There was no DNA that was extracted from that hair?

# 44 MR. SIMS:

That's correct. That test was performed by Steve Myers and he obtained no DNA. He detected no human DNA in that sample.

# 45 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, in addition to all the results that you've presented here, were specific items of clothing submitted to you or cuttings from clothing submitted to you for testing?

# 46 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 47 MR. HARMON:

Okay. And specifically was a pair of jeans that was identified as LAPD item no. 19, Ronald Goldman's jeans, was that submitted to you for DNA testing?

# 48 MR. SIMS:

Yes, it was.

# 49 MR. HARMON:

And were tests performed on those stains?

# 50 MR. SIMS:

Now again the number was?

# 51 MR. HARMON:

79, your 59?

# 52 MR. SIMS:

Yes, that's correct, item no. 79, which is our DNA 59, that was a pair of pants.

# 53 MR. HARMON:

And how many separate stains were tested from that item?

# 54 MR. SIMS:

Nine.

# 55 MR. HARMON:

Okay. And item no. 81, LAPD item no. 81, which was identified as Ronald Goldman's shirt, was that also subjected to DNA testing?

# 56 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 57 MR. HARMON:

And how many items, how many specific stains were tested?

# 58 MR. SIMS:

Excuse me. We received eight stains plus one control, substrate control area.

# 59 MR. HARMON:

And those were all tested?

# 60 MR. SIMS:

Yes, all of those were tested.

# 61 MR. HARMON:

And additionally, item no. 86, which was identified as Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, was that also submitted to your lab for testing?

# 62 MR. SIMS:

Yes, it was.

# 63 MR. HARMON:

And how many separate stains were tested?

# 64 MR. SIMS:

Six.

# 65 MR. HARMON:

Okay. As a result--what were you attempting to look for? What was the laboratory attempting to look for when those items of clothing were tested?

# 66 MR. SCHECK:

I think that is--calls for speculation, leading as far as the results.

# 67 THE COURT:

It is compound. Why don't you rephrase it as to the individual items, what tests were performed.

# 68 MR. HARMON:

You have reviewed all the results?

# 69 MR. SIMS:

Yes, I have.

# 70 MR. HARMON:

Were any results produced from the testing of those items that were foreign to either of the victims in this case, Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown?

# 71 MR. SIMS:

No. All of the results that we obtained from those various items that you mentioned of clothing were consistent with either victim or a combination thereof.

KEY QUOTE

# 72 MR. HARMON:

When you say a combination, you mean a mixture?

# 73 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 74 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, we have seen all the boards and you have described the consistency of results and now I would like to begin addressing how you would communicate to the jury the significance of the consistency or the matches between the reference stains and the evidence stains in this case, okay?

# 75 MR. SIMS:

Okay.

# 76 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor--

# 77 THE COURT:

Proceed.

# 78 MR. HARMON:

Mr. Sims, yesterday you described your career for us in great detail and I asked you about your experience in conventional serology and you described how many times you testified. Of all of those times that you testified did you provide, when it was appropriate, the statistical estimate or some sort of frequency data to assist the jury in appreciating how important or unimportant the conventional serology results were?

# 79 MR. SIMS:

Yes, most of the time. Not always; but most of the time.

# 80 MR. HARMON:

When you say "most," why did you not present it in some cases?

# 81 MR. SIMS:

Well, sometimes it was maybe just an exclusion or something like this and type was not--there was no need for a frequency estimate.

# 82 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Now, in those times how--did you actually conduct your own population frequency studies in the conventional serology field that you relied on when you testified?

# 83 MR. SIMS:

No, I did not.

# 84 MR. HARMON:

Okay. What sources of information were available to you when you testified as an expert in forensic serology to provide these frequency estimates to assist juries?

# 85 MR. SIMS:

I would--in those cases I would look at both published and unpublished data.

# 86 MR. HARMON:

And when you say "published," where would these things be published?

# 87 MR. SIMS:

For example, in the journal of forensic sciences.

# 88 MR. HARMON:

That is a journal that continues to exist today?

# 89 MR. SIMS:

Yes, it does.

# 90 MR. HARMON:

What other sources of information did you rely on?

# 91 MR. SIMS:

I would sometimes look at frequencies put together by various laboratories that had gathered data.

# 92 MR. HARMON:

For example, are you familiar with how the Los Angeles Police Department compiles their conventional serology data?

# 93 MR. SIMS:

Yes. I have some information about that. I believe they take a general population database.

# 94 MR. HARMON:

And is that something that they publish somewhere?

# 95 MR. SIMS:

I have never seen it published.

# 96 MR. HARMON:

So was it unusual, in your conventional serology career, for you to rely on unpublished data as well as published data?

# 97 MR. SIMS:

No. Most of it was published, but I would rely on--on other data also.

# 98 MR. HARMON:

Okay. And in trying to describe to the jury the significance of your conventional serology results, did you rely on the product rule?

# 99 MR. SIMS:

Yes, I did.

# 100 MR. HARMON:

Could you briefly explain the product rule to the jury?

# 101 MR. SIMS:

The product rule describes the process whereby one looks at the various types in each of the genetic marker systems and then multiplies the frequency found in a particular system or times the frequency of a particular type in the next system et cetera, down the line. That is the product rule.

# 102 MR. HARMON:

And that is in a vacuum, but you had individual genetic markers in the conventional serology days that you inserted into the product rule?

# 103 MR. SIMS:

Yes. For example, the ABO type and PGM type.

# 104 MR. HARMON:

EAP type?

# 105 MR. SIMS:

EAP type.

# 106 MR. HARMON:

And the studies, both published and unpublished, justified the use of the product rule in the conventional serology context?

# 107 MR. SIMS:

Yes. In particular, the published studies.

# 108 MR. HARMON:

Okay. I know we went into your background quite extensively yesterday, but do those same principles generally apply in the DNA context, the product rule, multiplying individual markers or individual frequencies together?

# 109 MR. SCHECK:

Objection, no foundation with respect to DNA through this witness, certainly on not what has been--

# 110 THE COURT:

I am not asking you to argue any further, Mr. Scheck. I am thinking.

# 111 MR. HARMON:

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the Court's ruling.

# 112 THE COURT:

I haven't ruled yet; I am thinking about it.

# 113 MR. HARMON:

That is why I didn't hear it.

# 114 THE COURT:

In the eight seconds the trial Court has to think about these things. Overruled. Proceed.

KEY QUOTE

# 115 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, could we have a side bar?

# 116 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 117 MR. SIMS:

Could I hear the question again?

# 118 MR. HARMON:

I will try and get it exactly the way--that is consistent with the ruling. Are the same principles that you relied on in conventional serology, the use of the product rule, fundamental to the estimation of population frequencies in the DNA context?

# 119 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 120 MR. HARMON:

Are you familiar--what is there in your--is an appreciation for statistics also helpful in applying the product rule, both in the conventional serology and the DNA context?

# 121 MR. SCHECK:

Objection, vague as to--

# 122 THE COURT:

Sustained, "appreciation."

# 123 MR. HARMON:

Do you have any training or education in the field of statistics that contributes to your ability to use the product rule in the conventional serology context?

# 124 MR. SCHECK:

Objection to that linkage as compound.

# 125 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 126 MR. SIMS:

Yes. I have taken a formal course in statistics.

# 127 MR. HARMON:

And could you describe that course and how it lends itself to the use of the product rule for frequency estimates and we are just in conventional serology and then we will move up to DNA.

# 128 MR. SIMS:

Well, at that basic level of statistics one is dealing with probabilities and that sort of thing. It is very basic statistics. I have also had, as part of my forensic education, discussions and learning in the application of statistics to population genetics issues.

# 129 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Now, so the statistics class was when and where?

# 130 MR. SIMS:

That was at the University of California at Berkeley.

# 131 MR. HARMON:

And when was that?

# 132 MR. SIMS:

1973.

# 133 MR. HARMON:

Okay. And population genetics classes and education that lend themselves to calculating frequency estimates in the DNA context, could you please--could you outline what those classes have been.

# 134 MR. SCHECK:

Objection as to anything in 1973 with respect to DNA.

# 135 THE COURT:

Overruled. He said in terms of conventional serology.

# 136 MR. SCHECK:

I think he just said DNA.

# 137 THE COURT:

No, this question is a different question.

# 138 MR. SIMS:

Well, for the conventional serology, that was part of my education while I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley as part of our forensic biology training. Subsequent to that now, as I mentioned, I reenrolled in the master's program and certainly those issues have come up in suggestions as part of our formal training and also I have taken a one-week course from Dr. Bruce weir that dealt with population genetics and the statistics issues with regards to forensic questions.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Gary Sims

All of the results that we obtained from those various items that you mentioned of clothing were consistent with either victim or a combination thereof.

Establishes that no foreign DNA — i.e., no OJ Simpson DNA — was found on the victims' clothing, a potentially defense-favorable finding addressed neutrally by the prosecution witness.

Lance A. Ito

In the eight seconds the trial Court has to think about these things. Overruled. Proceed.

A rare moment of judicial dry humor; Ito overrules Scheck's DNA foundation objection while gently mocking the pace of trial.

Gary Sims

Duplicate testing is important in a way that it provides a control in case any mistake might be made by one laboratory, then by having a second laboratory do the same operations that would be a check on the consistency of the operations and the process.

Prosecution's key theme — corroborating DNA results across multiple labs undermines defense contamination/error arguments.

Rockne Harmon

Is there any scientific reason why your tests would work correctly on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but incorrectly on stains from his car?

One of several attempts (all sustained) to get Sims to repudiate the defense theory that results could be selectively unreliable; the repeated sustaining shows Harmon pushing the boundary of permissible direct examination.

Evidence (6)

Informal

Item no. 6 from Rockingham — blood stain with DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2 and D1S80 24, 25 consistent with Simpson

discussed (results confirmed)

Informal

Item no. 42A2 / Sock 13A — Simpson's sock with same PCR results

discussed (results confirmed)

Informal

LAPD no. 113 — hair sample; no human DNA detected

discussed (negative result reported)

Informal

LAPD item no. 19 / DNA 59 — Ronald Goldman's jeans; 9 stains tested

discussed (all results consistent with victims only)

Informal

LAPD item no. 81 — Ronald Goldman's shirt; 8 stains plus substrate control tested

discussed (all results consistent with victims only)

Informal

LAPD item no. 86 — Nicole Brown Simpson's dress; 6 stains tested

discussed (all results consistent with victims only)

Notable Exchanges (2)

Rockne Harmon•Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Harmon attempts at least four different phrasings of a question asking Sims whether there is a scientific reason results could be reliable at Rockingham but unreliable at Bundy/Bronco. Each version is sustained as leading, argumentative, or vague. Ito eventually coaches Harmon to narrow the question, but even the narrowed versions are blocked.

strategic/frustrated

Lance A. Ito•Barry Scheck

Scheck objects to the DNA product rule question on foundation grounds and requests a sidebar; Ito overrules both the objection and the sidebar request in succession, with the 'eight seconds' quip.

tense with a light moment

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

After Scheck objects and requests a sidebar, Ito overrules and adds: 'In the eight seconds the trial Court has to think about these things. Overruled. Proceed.'

Witness Demeanor

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

Objections

12 objections (7 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 6092 • 138 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103