Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon. All right. Miss Montgomery, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Renee Montgomery, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
You are reminded, ma'am, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, folks.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER
When we broke for lunch, we were talking about your level of experience with the D1S80 system. When the program started at DOJ, was there anyone at DOJ that had any experience at all with D1S80?
Yes. Dr. Nora Rudin had looked at some of the gel systems, I believe it was back in 1990, and that was for a brief period. And at that time, our lab decided to focus on other things. And so the project was dropped. She--Dr. Nora Rudin was a researcher at our laboratory.
KEY QUOTEAnd that's the extent of the experience of everybody in your lab with D1S80 prior to when you started--when you were in charge of the program, setting it up?
Now, the period of time from when you started to set up this program until it was actually implemented in casework was eight months?
Yes, it was. We started in--well, actually, it was a little over eight months. We started, like I said, in June of `94 and then began casework in April--or June of `93 and then began casework in April of `94.
Is there any requirement at all that a new marker system such as D1S80 or a new technique have any kind of government approval at all to assure that it's a valid system?
No, but there are guidelines that are set up that must be met. And some of these are--well, actually these guidelines are addressed under Twgdam, and Twgdam's a technical working group on DNA analysis and methods. And they set up criteria that must be addressed--
And you're aware that with clinical testing involving new DNA techniques, they require extensive governmental regulation and approval by the FDA?
But there's no such approval process like that required for a new system such as D1S80?
You indicated Twgdam, that there are guidelines that you must follow. Twgdam is a voluntary program, isn't it?
I believe--well, in our laboratory, it's not a voluntary program. It's something that must be followed--the guidelines have to be followed, first of all, for accreditation purposes and also because our laboratory believes in these--in Twgdam guidelines.
There's no enforcement mechanism, however, is there, if you don't follow the guidelines? Are you aware of any?
And Twgdam is a voluntary--you can run your lab without complying with Twgdam, can't you?
So you're not sure whether Twgdam is mandatory or not in terms of you being governed by someone other than yourselves?
Now, the D1S80 system is really the newest system compared to DQ-Alpha, polymarkers and RFLP; is it not?
Well, compared to those three, yes. But there are other techniques that are being looked at at this time.
I'm sorry. Not techniques. I mean markers, because the technique in general is a PCR technique. But it's actually the marker that's--that's the new part of it.
Well, but this is--you described it as a marriage between RFLP and PCR. It's a different system than just PCR and just RFLP, isn't it?
And just as it might have the strengths of both systems, it also has the weaknesses of both systems put together?
Any indication that it works any better than PCR, DQ-Alpha or any better than RFLP?
Well, I believe that all three of these systems are equally reliable and can give reproducible results. I don't see any of them as being better than the other as far as obtaining results. The difference is, as Dr. Cotton and Mr. Sims stated, is with the RFLP, that you can--you need larger amounts of samples and et cetera.
You're aware of the areas of PCR technology where there can be problems such as contamination; are you not?
Now, with respect to the RFLP half of it, does it have some of the limitations that RFLP has with respect to the size of a sample that you need?
No, it doesn't. And I guess I need to clarify how I meant by incorporating both RFLP and PCR. By incorporating the RFLP, you know, by the marriagement, it's the--we're looking at these repetitive sequences. And so just to clarify that issue, that's how it's similar to the RFLP process. As far as your question, you--I'm sorry. Could you restate your question?
I think you answered it. Now, as being responsible for setting up this program, you're required or responsible for reviewing all of the relevant literature pertaining to D1S80; are you not?
And did you spend a considerable amount of time doing that to make sure that you understood the technology?
Would you agree with--that with respect to D1S80, there's much, much less literature on it than there is, for instance, RFLP?
And during the course of your work at DOJ, you've only worked on 20 cases I believe. Is that what you said approximately?
Yes. Approximately 20 cases. Each case involves more than just one sample though.
Well, our laboratory's not known for quick turn-around time. We tend to be a bit slow at doing cases. So each analyst does approximately two cases a month. That's what we strive for. And in our lab currently, we only have four, I'd say four and a half individuals doing cases. So in the past year, I--this would just be a guess, but, you know, let's say probably around--
And so the--in the 20 cases that you've worked on, does that--is that all of the D1S80 cases?
Would it be fair to say that the D1S80 cases are a relatively small percentage of the total cases that DOJ handles with DNA testing?
Well, anytime there's a small amount of sample, both the DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 system would be used unless the individual is excluded on one of the systems. Then the other system wouldn't be used at that time. So anytime we have the capability of using both systems, both systems will be used. If it's an RFLP case, then typically we only do the RFLP and we don't do the PCR typing.
Now, as of August of last year, had Department of Justice reported or testified about any D1S80 results in any case anywhere?
Well, I know of one case, and that's the case that I did in I believe it was the summer of last year in `94. I don't recall if any other cases were--if any of the other analysts have testified to D1S80--
Now, you were asked some questions about proficiency testing, and I think you indicated that you had been involved in five proficiency tests?
And what does that mean? Does that mean that you got the type that was expected that you'd get?
Yes. That means that the results that were reported out by the laboratory were the expected results.
No. These proficiencies are prepared externally. We subscribe to two systems. One is CTS and another one is cellmark, and we also have in-house proficiencies that have to be done too.
But these far are--the four that related to D1S80, were they externally provided or internally provided?
Dr. Nora Rudin had looked at some of the gel systems, I believe it was back in 1990, and that was for a brief period. And at that time, our lab decided to focus on other things. And so the project was dropped.
No, there's not.
I'm not aware of any.
Yes. These were internally provided.