The point is that we--Cellmark has the data, the Prosecution has the data, and I ask you to take it subject to connection and that we will produce the weights that everybody was present for, okay? In order to get what this--to get out from this witness a projection of the total amount of DNA in each of these samples, by methods that he already described to this Court in a Griffen hearing, standard methods in the field for trying to project total weight of DNA, if you recall, we did that at the split hearing, exactly the same procedures when he was trying to project how much would be available for splits, et cetera.
But part of the problem, though, is that you don't know the uniformity of the material on the swatches.
My point is that--that that is something that they can ask on cross-examination or he can qualify, but I think that for these purposes, particularly since that can't be measured, it is a very scientific assumption, and the way he did it in the Griffen hearing--and if you want I will lay the foundation--the way people in this field will do it is to make assumption of random distribution. If we make an assumption of random distribution, what would you project the amount to be? And then they can argue later that, well, it may have him been uneven, et cetera, maybe there is more.
You know, this raises an intriguing point that I know it is about time to burst the balloon on this, and that is reciprocal discovery. I am aware that these things have been reviewed in camera. Mr. Scheck says they are going to tie it up. They are going to present it. We have almost nothing from Defense experts in this case and I think it is about time for them to start giving it up rather than to tell you, which I'm sure they have in camera, that this would undermine or compromise their ability to effectively cross-examine and that is not--I don't know what he is talking about. I don't know everything about their case, but I think that is what is going on and it is time to call a halt to the proceedings and for somebody to start turning over their reciprocal discovery. I would like to know what the offer of proof is. I would like to know who the witness is and I would like to see the documentation for the assertion that he made a couple minutes ago. And unless and until that happens, I think the Court needs to draw a halt to this and turn this back into a fair proceeding where we are entitled to have what we should have had before the trial began, your Honor.
The way that this hypothetical is proceeding is that we are--we know many swatches there are, they know how many swatches. The data comes from them. The weights--because I don't think there is any reciprocal discovery problem at all, just like the pictures, the stipulations, that is, these weights were done by Dr. Lee and Dr. Blake and Cellmark together. Everybody put the swatches on the scale--
--and measured them. Each wrote down what weight, and that is all I'm working with, the number of milligrams in the swatches, the number of swatches.
But I thought you told me that this was a compilation somewhere of the total extractions from all these items.
Yeah, exists in the notes from Cellmark and from DOJ is how much they extracted from--in other words, he has his slot-blot calculations.
So what we are doing in these hypotheticals and what he is agreeing to is in the same method that was applied at the Griffen hearing, is that he is saying, if we assume random distribution and we look at the amount of weight of each swatch and the number of swatches, all right, and the weight--the percentage of weight is the simplest way to do it, and then we look at his DNA extraction and project the total DNA extraction, that is an estimate of how much human DNA was in each of these samples.
Well, I'm not going to assume--I'm going to sustain the objection at this point because we can't assume a random or uniform distribution.
While I did not object, I would like to move to strike the entire line of questioning. I didn't make a timely objection.
KEY QUOTEI'm going to sustain a foundational objection at this point because I don't think you can assume any uniform distribution.
KEY QUOTEIf we make an assumption of random distribution, what would you project the amount to be? And then they can argue later that, well, it may have been uneven, et cetera, maybe there is more.
We have almost nothing from Defense experts in this case and I think it is about time for them to start giving it up rather than to tell you, which I'm sure they have in camera, that this would undermine or compromise their ability to effectively cross-examine.
I'm going to sustain a foundational objection at this point because I don't think you can assume any uniform distribution.
While I did not object, I would like to move to strike the entire line of questioning. I didn't make a timely objection.