Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. And let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. Sims, yesterday you testified that you have qualified as an expert in the field of forensic DNA typing eight times; is that correct?

Yes.

And all of those cases involve PCR typing of one sort or another?

Yes. I believe most of them did. There may have been one that did not.

Okay. And what about how often or how frequently among those eight cases did you testify about RFLP?

I believe that was in seven of the eight I discussed RFLP.

And in each of those cases which involved RFLP typing, were you qualified to express an opinion about the frequency estimate of the significance of the matches?

Well, in those cases in which that came up, yes, I was qualified to do that.

Okay. And do you keep abreast of the scientific literature in the area of forensic DNA typing as it relates to the frequency estimates?

Yes, I do.

Have you reviewed numerous scientific articles which address the frequency estimates which are designed to express significance of these matches?

Yes.

Objection. Vague.

Overruled.

Among those articles, are there actually articles in which frequency data, the raw data is actually published?

Yes.

And are there other sources of frequency data which are made available to forensic DNA typing experts?

Yes.

What kinds of--or what are those other sources?

Well, for example, there are exchanges such as the California association of criminalists, one may exchange data, present it and then exchange it in that fashion.

And what's the purpose of that exchange of data?

Well, it's a--it's a professional exchange of information so that--that--for example, a compilation of data may be transferred from one individual who has put such a compilation together to the rest of the forensic community so that they can use it.

And is there also a massive compilation of RFLP data that's available through the federal government?

Yes. There is a very large set of data now that is available through the federal government.

In a very brief description, could you tell us what that data consists of?

That data is a compilation of actually worldwide RFLP data. It encompasses I believe four volumes in a government publication. It's a worldwide study.

Not to get too technical here, but does it include data produced from the restriction enzyme HAE-3, which you use?

Yes, it does.

And data produced by the restriction enzyme that Cellmark uses, hin-F1?

Yes. There is a volume dedicated to the HIN-F enzyme as I recall.

And more specifically, do you have a compilation of data that was compiled by Dr. Edward Blake and others?

Yes, I do.

And is that additionally one source of PCR data information that you use?

Yes.

And what sources is that data derived from?

Well, there's a large number--there are a large number of sources for that data. Most of it is published data. Some it has been presented, that sort of thing.

And that's the same Dr. Blake that took all the pictures in this case?

Yes, it is.

Have you compiled population frequency estimates for the testing that your lab conducted in this case?

Yes.

And are you prepared, if we go in ascending numerical order, to write those frequency estimates on the board for us?

Yes, I can do that.

Okay. Can we start out with the Rockingham board, your Honor?

Yes.

Exhibit 261.

Mr. Sims, I'm going to ask you to write these things up in a minute. I want you to explain where the data was derived from for the DQ-Alpha frequencies that you're about to put up there and what source the data for the D1S80 frequency was from.

Yes. The--the DQ-Alpha frequencies are derived from a worldwide's or the worldwide compilation of Dr. Edward Blake's that was put together in 1994 by Dr. Blake. The--and that would encover--that would cover the three different groups that I will mention, which are the African American, the Caucasian and the Hispanic data. Then the D1S80 data arrives from--derives from two sources. The African American and Caucasian D1S80 is from the FBI and then the Hispanic D1S80 data was derived from the Orange County Sheriff's Department database.

What I'd like you to do--we're--I only want to put a range of numbers up there. Could you please describe for the jury the frequency of the combined type that you produced from DQ-Alpha in this case and in all three of those groups?

This would be just DQ-Alpha--

Just--and I'm not asking you to write it. I just want you to articulate it for us and then--

Okay. For a particular type?

For DQ-Alpha 1.1 and 1.2.

Okay. Would you like the range?

The three groups and then the range.

Okay. The three groups would be the African American group, the--and would you like a figure for that?

Sure.

The African American group for the 1.1, 1.2 would be about 1 in 12. The figure for the Caucasian group would be 1 in 18 and the figure for the Hispanic group from--would be 1 in 40.

Okay. And I'd like to ask you the same question about the frequencies for those same groups for the D1S80 type that you found, 24, 25.

Okay. 24, 25? Excuse me. For the African American database--this is just D1S80 type 24, 25. African American would be about 1 in 47 or 1 in 48 one might round it to. For the Caucasian, it would be about 1 in 29 and for the Hispanic, it would be about 1 in 36.

Okay. And if you would, I'd like you to--strike that. Is it appropriate based on your review of the scientific literature to multiply the combined frequencies of the DQ-Alpha type by the D1S80 type?

Objection.

What's the nature of the objection?

Your Honor, it's the issue that you haven't decided. No, no, no.

Wait. DQ-Alpha--

Multiplying DQ-Alpha against DS180. That's what you just told him you were going to decide.

No. That was Cellmark's results versus--

No, no, no.

Yes.

That's the article that you're about to read, your Honor.

Yes, I know. I understand. Proceed. Overruled.

Thank you, your Honor.

Is it appropriate to do so?

Yes, I believe it is.

Okay. And what I'd like you to do if you would is among--or describe the combined frequency of the DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2 and D1S80 type 24, 25 in those three groups again.

In those three groups?

Yes.

For the--for the African American data, it would be about 1 in--1 in 572--or I'm sorry--about 1 in 570 I would round that to. For the Caucasian group, it would be about 1 in 520 and for the Hispanic group, it would be about 1 in 1400.

Okay. What I would like you to do now is-- would it be appropriate to give the jury an appreciation to describe the range of those three groups from just the more common to the rarest?

Objection to the word "appropriate."

Sustained.

Would you please write, as Dr. Cotton did, the more common type to the less common type and leaving out the one in the middle?

Okay.

Okay. Could we move on to the glove board, the results board, your Honor?

Yes.

That would be 272-A.

As well as could we have B up there, the photo board?

Yes.

I have a few questions that--while we're--

Go ahead.

Mr. Sims, let's talk about--you described very well the mixtures and the significance of the observations on some of these mixtures. But is there some difficulty in expressing some sort of frequency estimate when one has mixtures of the kinds that you described?

Yes. That raises certain issues.

And what are those issues? Well, those issues are about who could have contributed which of the particular alleles in question.

And are there assumptions involved in deciding how these mixtures should be calculated?

Yes.

And have you calculated frequency estimates for the mixtures and the results that you produced in this case and included them in your report?

No.

Why not?

Well, the--the mixtures are subject to certain assumptions.

Your Honor, excuse me. I'm sorry. I would object to this testimony. I think the Court's ruled on this.

On a foundational basis at this point?

Yes.

Sustained.

Is there a scientific basis for your decision not to calculate mixture estimates in your report?

Objection. Again, foundational grounds.

Sustained.

What if any basis is there for your decision not to calculate frequencies for the mixtures that you've found--

Your Honor, objection. Ask for a sidebar on this.

Overruled on the request for a sidebar. Objection sustained.

Is it a simple proposition for you to calculate the frequencies for any of the mixtures that you found in the glove?

Same objection.

Overruled. You can answer that question.

Well, any of the--any of the mixtures are not quite simple when we talk about this glove. There are some assumptions and underlying data and evaluation of data that is made. It's not just a simple matter of looking at the numbers.

And do you feel that the way you have described the data, either RFLP or PCR, explains the significance or lack thereof of the mixtures?

Objection. Objection.

Sustained.

He shouldn't go on.

Okay. Mr. Sims, if you look on the right-hand column under "frequency"--and check this if you will--do those shaded areas in the right-hand column all represent stains for which mixtures were detected by you in your testing?

Yes, they do.

Mr. Sims, let's start out with G3, which is--you've already described that for the jury. That is not a mixture in your opinion; is that correct?

On G3, the calculation was based--for the RFLP was based on the finding that there was no indication of a mixture in the RFLP pattern. I could not exclude the possibility of some trace mixture based on just the PCR results. So I don't--I don't have a particular calculation for the PCR, for example, for the possible 1.2.

And if you did, based on what you observed there, which you don't feel is really there, would you have to include Mr. Simpson as the source of that stain?

Objection. Objection. Speculative on what he will do if he had something which he says he doesn't.

Sustained. The objection is speculation, counsel.

Okay. Mr. Sims, let's talk about the significance of the eight probe RFLP match that matches Ronald Goldman's known reference type. Have you been--have you calculated the frequency for that eight probe match among the three major groups?

Yes, I have.

And what are those groups again?

Well, if we can back up for a minute.

Sure.

The calculation is actually based on six of the loci. There are two--the additional loci that I did not include in the statistics for.

And why was that?

Well, at the time, we didn't have ready access to those other databases.

Okay. So those are genetic marker tests that you conducted, but they did not contribute to the frequency estimate; is that true?

That's correct.

Okay. Would you please describe in the three groups that you used in describing the frequencies in stain no. 6 at Rockingham the frequency estimate for that stain G3 from the glove, no. 9, at Rockingham?

Yes. This was based on the six RFLP loci, D1S7, D2S44, D4S139, DS1510, D10S28 and D17S79.

Okay. And what are the frequencies in the respective groups for a match between samples that you found at six genetic markers?

Okay. Could you go up to the board--I know we didn't leave you much room--and write the more common frequency and the less common frequency.

Just to make it really clear, those other two probes, did they exclude Mr. Goldman as the source of that?

No.

They continued to show that he matched that stain?

Yes. He matched those loci.

And you just don't have data from which to derive a frequency estimate?

I don't have it readily available.

Okay. Let's talk about the PCR results if you will. Have you calculated the combined frequency for the DQ-Alpha and D1S80 results that you obtained on G3?

Well, I did not calculate that based on the possible 1.2 because that was the mixture possibility. So I don't have that figure.

Okay. Even though you don't think it's a mixture?

Well, again, when we're talking about a mixture, as far as the RFLP pattern, you can clearly see that there is one person's DNA across those loci. When we talk about the PCR, we have to--we have to consider the possibility that there may be some traces of DNA from another individual contributing to the overall pattern. But that's just because of the relative sensitivity of the PCR as opposed to the RFLP.

Okay. And looking on the chart, the next one that appears to be not a mixture is one that you've described as consistent with Ronald Goldman?

Well, again, that's--that's based on the DQ-Alpha 1.3, 4. Again, there was a possible 1.2 in that and then the 24, 24 on the D1S80, but I did not calculate a PCR for that.

Do you feel that's a mixture?

Well, on G9 in particular, that particular sample I believe was actually a piece of tissue from my examination and the way that sample tested, its appearance and also its behavior in the extraction process. Now, if there was possibly some traces of blood from another individual adhering to that, we know that there is a great deal of mixing going on on this glove. So I couldn't exclude that as an absolute possibility.

Okay. And the others--let's look on the chart and make sure. The others are clearly mixtures?

Yes. The others are clearly mixtures.

Could we have the Bronco board at this time, your Honor, the Bronco result board and the Bronco photo board? The photo board is exhibit 172 and the result board is exhibit 260.

Mr. Sims, while he's setting up the photo board, could you look at that and let's focus on the top, LAPD item 24 from the Bronco instrument panel. You obtained a DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2 in that stain?

Yes.

And would you calculate the frequencies in the three major groups and then please write on the board the more common and the least common?

Yes. The frequencies are as follows: The African American frequency for DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2 is about 1 in 12, the Caucasian is about 1 in 18 and the Hispanic is about 1 in 40.

Okay. Could you step up to the board and write to the lowest and the highest, please?

While you're still up there, would you focus on LAPD item 30, which is your item 17? That is not a mixture; is that true?

I'm sorry. The item number was?

30, the one you have your hand on, the center console item?

Yes.

That is not a mixture?

Yes. There was no indication that that was a mixture.

And is that the same frequency that you found over at Rockingham on no. 6?

Yes.

Same types?

Yes.

Would you write that up there? Do you recall what it is?

Yes I do. I'll put it on the board.

And why don't you stay there. 34, in the driver's side wall, that's the DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2, the same result you got on 24 up at the top?

Yes.

Same range of frequencies then?

Yes.

Would you write that up there, please.

Okay. And with respect to 293 from the Bronco carpet, driver's side, how would you address that? Is that a mixture or not?

I would characterize that particular bloodstain as being from a type 1.1, 1.1 individual. I couldn't rule out the possibility that there was a trace 1.2, but it was clearly at the trace level. So the actually type of the stain would be 1.1, 1.1. The D1S80 type would be 18, 18.

It's not a mixture?

It does not indicate to be a mixture based on what we can say about that particular type.

Okay. That's a new one now. That's the one that's consistent with Nicole Brown. What is the frequency of those combined types in the three major groups as you have calculated for Mr. Simpson?

For those--excuse me--those three racial groups, the African American would be about 1 in 8900, the Caucasian would be about 1 in 990 and the Hispanic would be intermediate. That would be about 1 in 1300.

Okay. Could you write the ranges of those combined frequencies on the board as you have with the other frequency estimates?

Yes

Okay. And then the next three stains are clearly mixtures in your opinion, 303, 304 and 305?

Yes.

Okay. Those will be addressed later.

Your Honor, I could do some of the Bundy now if you'd like. Could we have the Bundy board result board, 259, and the photo board, 165?

Mr. Sims, while Mr. Fairtlough is finding that other board, let me ask you just a few general questions. Specifically with respect to the PCR data, within that Dr. Blake's world study, that compilation, are there actually many other groups other than the three groups from which you've calculated your statistics?

Yes, there are other groups.

And so if one were interested in a specific Asian group, for example, could one rely on that to demonstrate a difference in frequency?

Objection. Relevancy.

Overruled.

Yes. One could, for example, look at Asian data. One could look at native American data.

And are--in addition to Dr. Blake's published or disseminated study, are there also frequency studies with these PCR markers emerging from all around the world?

Yes, there are.

Objection. 1054.

Overruled.

Are the range--what are the ranges that you've calculated here attempting to communicate?

Well, the purpose of putting up this type of data is twofold. One, it shows us that there is variation among the various population groups. That's a known fact. And then the second thing is to get an idea of how--if you look at this broad group of people, how these frequency estimates are generally uncommon no matter what group you look at.

Objection. Move to strike on the previously stated grounds with respect to this witness.

Overruled.

And is the number or at least the range of numbers designed to assist them in deciding how common or uncommon it is?

Yes. That's exactly why we've done this. And I've taken a similar approach when I was doing the conventional serology. It gives an idea of what the range is.

I just want to focus on three samples on here, ones which only your laboratory tested, items 115, 116 and 117. You've already described that those results are consistent with Mr. Simpson across all three of those stains; is that correct?

Yes.

And you've already calculated that frequency when you addressed the Rockingham no. 6 stain. Is it the same frequency from the Rockingham no. 6 stain?

Yes, it is.

Would you please write that range of frequencies up on the board?

Your Honor, I have a couple other areas I can cover before we finish up.

Mr. Sims, reflecting back on the Bronco console mixture results that you obtained, 303, 304, 305--

Yes.

--are those mixture results consistent with the wearer of no. 9, the right-handed glove wiping along the passenger side of the console?

Objection. Foundation.

Sustained.

Mr. Sims, do you have a clear--do you have your results in front of you?

Yes, I do.

Okay. Would you look at your results and look at the mixture results for no. 9, the glove at Rockingham?

Okay.

Are the Bronco console mixture results 303 through 305 consistent with having come from the mixture results on no. 9, the Rockingham glove?

Objection. Foundation.

Sustained.

Mr. Sims, do the Bronco console results, 303, 304 and 305 show the same relevant mixtures as any of the stains on item no. 9, the Rockingham right-handed glove?

Objection. Again, foundation.

Overruled.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

Could I--I haven't asked for a question to be read back yet. Could I do it this time, your Honor?

"Mr. Sims, did the Bronco console results, 303, 304 and 305 show the same mixtures as any of the stains on either item 9, the Rockingham right-handed glove?"

The Court is reading it I take it? Are you reading it?

Item nine.

I think the actual question had to do with relative intensity. So--

That's why I left out the relevant.

Oh. You mean you asked a new question.

When one talks--

Thank you.

The answer to that is yes, to the Judge's question.

Thank you. Are the PCR results that you obtained on the right-handed glove, area G10 and G11 and G13, are those consistent with a person with a type 25 allele depositing blood while removing that right-handed glove at the notch?

Objection. No foundation.

Sustained.

Mr. Sims, just a little foundational question. Each of those stains that I mentioned from the glove all have a 25 allele?

That's correct. That would be G10, G11 and G13.

And that's one that Mr. Simpson has and neither victims in this case have; is that correct?

Are the mixture results surrounding the notch on glove no. 9 that was found at Rockingham consistent with having been removed--with the glove having been removed by Mr. Simpson?

Objection. Foundation.

Sustained. That's really calling for speculation at this point.

Your Honor, I think this might be a good time to break. I want to finish up those statistics tomorrow before we move on.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there's a legal issue that I need to resolve before we move on to the remainder of Mr. Sims testimony, and it will take me some time to resolve. So we'll break early as far as the jury is concerned today. Please remember all of my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll see you tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. All right. Mr. Sims, you can step down.

Thank you, your Honor.

Tomorrow morning, 8:45. All right. After we've cleared the jury, I want to see two representatives of counsel with regards to that one other issue, and then we'll break for the day. And, Mr. Sims, let me give you back a copy of your article. All right. We'll stand in recess.

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 148 pages 27875 - 28089

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday May 17, 1995 A.M. 27875 148 P.M. 28001 148

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX of witnesses

PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sims, Gary 148 (Resumed) 27880rh (Resumed) 28005rh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX of witnesses

Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sims, Gary 148 (Resumed) 27880rh (Resumed) 28005rh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

270-D - Autorad - A11 27886 148

270-E - Autorad - A14 27886 148

270-F - Autorad - A15 27886 148

270-G - Autorad - A22 27886 148

270-H - Autorad - A24 27886 148

271-D - Autorad - A18 27887 148

271-E - Autorad - A19 27887 148

272-A - Posterboard 27949 148 entitled "Rockingham glove blood results"

272-B - Posterboard 27949 148 entitled (Results of DNA analysis: Rockingham glove"

262-A - Posterboard 27980 148 entitled "Rockingham socks LAPD #13 blood results"

271-A(1) - Autorad - A16 28002 148 photograph with 9 arrows