Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 5)

📄 Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 5) — Thursday, May 18, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\18\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-GARY-SIMS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 77 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Gary Sims (part 4) Jury instruction: adjournment ▶

Witness: Gary Sims
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, May 18, 1995 • Utterances: 91

Barry Scheck cross-examined DNA expert Gary Sims on the quantitative DNA measurements from the Bundy rear gate blood sample (item 117, collected July 3rd) and a handrail sample. The key finding Scheck elicited at the end was that item 117 did not show the bacterial degradation found in the Bundy drops, a point significant to the defense's theory about the timing and integrity of the rear gate evidence.

# 1 (Brief pause.)

# 2 MR. SIMS:

Did you say 31.6 nanograms? That is what I came up with also.

# 3 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. Remember that is the total, right?

# 4 MR. SIMS:

Well, I don't know that. I'm assuming that.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

Assuming?

# 6 MR. SIMS:

Your 11 and a half percent.

# 7 THE COURT:

Wait, wait. Let him finish his answer. Let him finish answering the question--asking the question. What is your answer?

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

My question simply is--

# 9 THE COURT:

No, no. He was in the middle of an answer.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. SIMS:

The assumption was that we had 11 and a half percent of the sample.

# 11 MR. SCHECK:

That's correct. Now, you in fact used 3.64 nanograms yourself?

# 12 MR. SIMS:

Well, we extracted that much, yes.

# 13 MR. SCHECK:

Yes. Okay. Now, you recovered--you tested the amount of human DNA found on item--LAPD item 45, a handrail?

# 14 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

Blood on the handrail, correct?

# 16 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 17 MR. SCHECK:

You haven't even typed that yet, have you?

# 18 MR. SIMS:

That's correct, we have not.

# 19 MR. SCHECK:

But you did a quantitation on it?

# 20 MR. SIMS:

Yes, we did.

# 21 MR. SCHECK:

And you got from those swatches human DNA of 2.6 nanograms?

# 22 MR. SIMS:

Give me one minute, please.

# 23 (Brief pause.)

# 24 MR. SIMS:

That was item no. 51?

KEY QUOTE

# 25 MR. SCHECK:

No, 45.

# 26 MR. SIMS:

45.

# 27 MR. HARMON:

Your Honor, object. This is beyond the scope. There has been no testimony about that item.

# 28 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 29 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, it will be connected up in a second.

# 30 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 31 MR. SCHECK:

You did typing of sample 117 from the back gate?

# 32 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 33 MR. SCHECK:

And that substrate is--have you seen--you were shown pictures of that on direct examination?

# 34 MR. SIMS:

Yes, I believe I was.

# 35 MR. SCHECK:

That is the gate?

# 36 MR. SIMS:

The rear gate, yes.

# 37 MR. SCHECK:

Rear gate. Rust on that rear gate?

# 38 MR. SIMS:

I don't recall seeing rust that clearly, but I would have to see the photo again. I looked at it mainly for the location. That was the main thing in my mind.

# 39 MR. SCHECK:

Dirt on that rear gate?

# 40 MR. SIMS:

I don't know. Again I didn't look--I looked at it for the location of the blood drop. That was my interest. I didn't study the substrate in particular.

# 41 MR. SCHECK:

You have been able to conduct RFLP testing on the sample from the rear gate recovered on July 3rd and got seven probes from it?

# 42 MR. HARMON:

Your Honor, I'm objecting.

# 43 MR. SCHECK:

To this point?

# 44 MR. HARMON:

Objection.

# 45 THE COURT:

Objection. Legal basis?

# 46 MR. HARMON:

Beyond the scope. We have talked about this yesterday.

# 47 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, he asked about RFLP testing of the rear gate.

# 48 THE COURT:

I'm going to sustain the objection. I don't recollect. I will have to check my notes.

# 49 MR. SCHECK:

All right.

# 50 MR. HARMON:

Would you caution the jury, please, your Honor?

# 51 THE COURT:

No, no.

# 52 MR. SCHECK:

You did quantitative calculations projecting the amount of DNA from swatches in the rear gate for purposes of your PCR-based testing?

# 53 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 54 MR. SCHECK:

And you got three swatches from 117, the rear gate?

# 55 MR. SIMS:

That's correct.

# 56 MR. SCHECK:

Weighing 6.2 milligrams?

# 57 MR. SIMS:

That sounds about right, but let me check that.

# 58 (Brief pause.)

# 59 MR. SIMS:

6.2 milligrams, yes.

# 60 MR. SCHECK:

And the weight you extracted was four milligrams?

# 61 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 62 MR. SCHECK:

Which would be 65 percent of the total?

# 63 MR. SIMS:

Yes.

# 64 MR. SCHECK:

And the total amount of human DNA that you extracted was 108 nanograms?

# 65 MR. SIMS:

That sounds about right. I remember it being about a hundred nanograms.

# 66 MR. SCHECK:

So based on assumption of random distribution you would project a total of 166 nanograms in 117?

# 67 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Random is not the same as uniform, your Honor.

KEY QUOTE

# 68 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 69 MR. SCHECK:

Would it be your best estimate that in the swatches you have, you will have something on the order of 166 nanograms in sample 117?

# 70 MR. SIMS:

166 sound a little high, but it is in there. 150 I will give you right off the top of my head.

# 71 MR. SCHECK:

And that is a sample that was collected on July 3rd?

# 72 MR. SIMS:

Wait. I'm sorry. Did you say 116 now or 117?

# 73 MR. SCHECK:

117.

# 74 MR. SIMS:

117, okay. Then yes, 150 nanograms sounds about right.

# 75 MR. SCHECK:

I said 166.

# 76 MR. SIMS:

I think I thought I heard you say 116.

# 77 MR. SCHECK:

No, 166.

# 78 MR. SIMS:

Okay.

# 79 MR. SCHECK:

Something on that order.

# 80 MR. SIMS:

No. I thought I heard you say item no. 116.

KEY QUOTE

# 81 MR. SCHECK:

No, no. I'm talking about item 117.

KEY QUOTE

# 82 MR. SIMS:

117.

# 83 MR. SCHECK:

Your best estimate would be on the order of 166 nanograms of human DNA?

# 84 MR. SIMS:

Well, I said about 150 off the top of my head, but yes, you are in the right ballpark.

# 85 MR. SCHECK:

And when you asked, through your quantitative method, the quality of the DNA from 117, you did not find the kind of bacterial degradation that you found on those Bundy drops, did you?

KEY QUOTE

# 86 MR. SIMS:

No.

# 87 MR. SCHECK:

That is it.

# 88 THE COURT:

That is it?

# 89 MR. SCHECK:

For the day. That is the end of my line on this. I'm going into something different.

# 90 THE COURT:

All right.

# 91 MR. SCHECK:

I can't do it in two minutes.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Barry Scheck

And when you asked, through your quantitative method, the quality of the DNA from 117, you did not find the kind of bacterial degradation that you found on those Bundy drops, did you?

The culminating question of the session — Scheck establishes that the rear gate sample (collected weeks later, July 3rd) had pristine DNA with no bacterial degradation, unlike the Bundy drops, supporting the defense's planting/late-collection theory.

Gary Sims

No.

Sims confirms the absence of bacterial degradation in item 117, conceding the key point of the entire line of questioning.

Rockne Harmon

Objection. Random is not the same as uniform, your Honor.

Harmon objects to Scheck's statistical framing — a substantive scientific objection distinguishing random from uniform distribution of DNA across the substrate.

Gary Sims

166 sounds a little high, but it is in there. 150 I will give you right off the top of my head.

Sims negotiates the nanogram estimate downward but concedes the general magnitude — reinforcing the point that item 117 had a large, high-quality DNA sample.

Evidence (2)

Informal

LAPD item 45 — handrail swatches, 2.6 nanograms human DNA recovered, not yet typed

discussed briefly; objection sustained before line could develop

Informal

LAPD item 117 — rear gate blood drop, collected July 3rd; three swatches, 6.2 mg total, ~108 ng extracted, estimated ~150-166 ng total

discussed in detail; bacterial degradation compared to Bundy drops

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry Scheck•Gary Sims

Extended back-and-forth over item numbers — Sims repeatedly confused '117' with '116' and '51' with '45', requiring clarification before answers could proceed.

procedural, mildly frustrating

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Scheck ends the session abruptly, telling Ito 'That is it' and explaining he cannot begin a new line in two minutes.

strategic — Scheck controls the pacing, leaving the no-bacterial-degradation answer as the day's final impression

Rockne Harmon•Lance A. Ito

After a sustained objection on RFLP scope, Harmon asks the judge to caution the jury; Ito declines.

tense

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Gary Sims

concession elicitation

Scheck methodically walked Sims through his own quantitative data to confirm that item 117 (rear gate, July 3) showed no bacterial degradation — implicitly undermining the prosecution's narrative about the sample's origin and integrity without directly accusing Sims of wrongdoing.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — witness requests time to check notes on item 45 nanogram figure

(Brief pause.) — witness checks notes to confirm 6.2 milligram weight of item 117 swatches

Witness repeatedly misheard item numbers (117 vs. 116, 45 vs. 51), suggesting fatigue or difficulty tracking Scheck's rapid numerical questioning

Objections

3 objections (3 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 6105 • 91 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103