Sidebar: item 31 results

📄 Sidebar: item 31 results — Thursday, May 25, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\25\SIDEBAR-ITEM-31-RESULTS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 82 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 2) Direct examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 3) ▶

Date: Thursday, May 25, 1995 • Utterances: 10

During a bench conference, the parties argued over whether inconclusive PCR/DQ-alpha results for item 31 could be presented to the jury. Scheck contended that because the lab itself classified the result as inconclusive and non-reportable, it lacked foundation and should not be shown. Harmon countered that the underlying data — a visible mixture — was real evidence the jury was entitled to evaluate. Judge Ito overruled the objection.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. We are over at the side bar. What is his answer going to be on this, Mr. Harmon?

# 3 MR. HARMON:

Well, this is why I was very clear before we started, but I think we should talk about this. There is a C dot there. There is a 1.1, 1.2 that is more intense than the C dot. There is a 1.3, 4 that is less intense. It is a mixture and it is consistent with the same results that DOJ produced on it, but it is a totally different category and this is why I don't mind talking about it now, if you want to look at the user guide, but there is a C dot there and it is a mixture and it is a mixture that could be consistent with a whole bunch of other things.

# 4 THE COURT:

Mr. Scheck.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

Well, this analyst in this laboratory called it an inconclusive and by definition not a reportable result and a result from which they can draw conclusions, and they weren't going to over it, so it seems to me that they shouldn't be putting inconclusives was up there when he says it is inconclusive and it is not even up on their board. So to be bringing up this data now seems to be improper and bad foundation by admission of the analyst himself.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MR. HARMON:

Before he got cut off he just said it was a mixture and he was going to tell you what the dots were a mixture of, so I mean, you know, I'm happy that he can speak for the whole scientific community, but he doesn't speak for them. This is evidence. There is a clear 1.1, 1.2. I think we have got to stop pretending that things aren't there just because they don't want them to be. If the stuff--the fact that it is not on the board, none of these things are on the board. We are putting them up there as they come across, so unless he can refer to something in the user guide, if that is what we are operating on, let him show you where it is in the user guide, otherwise let's get moving.

# 7 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, we broached this subject at one point with Mr. Matheson where he--the point here is that where at least he puts in caveats here this lab called it inconclusive, they didn't report out a result based on their readings at the time, and so I don't understand how once it is an inconclusive and to the point where they couldn't even put it up on their board, they didn't put any notations on it, that it is now proper, relevant evidence with foundation for this jury. It doesn't make any sense.

# 8 MR. HARMON:

This is just like the EAP where you can describe the data and let the jury understand the significance. That if Mr. Scheck wants to cross-examine or bring in other scientists like Blake, let him have at it.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 THE COURT:

All right. The objection is overruled.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. HARMON:

Thank you.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Rockne Harmon

I think we have got to stop pretending that things aren't there just because they don't want them to be.

Harmon's sharpest rhetorical thrust — framing Scheck's foundational objection as wishful suppression of real data.

Barry Scheck

This analyst in this laboratory called it an inconclusive and by definition not a reportable result and a result from which they can draw conclusions, and they weren't going to over it.

Core defense argument: the lab's own classification as inconclusive bars the prosecution from bootstrapping it into evidence.

Rockne Harmon

This is just like the EAP where you can describe the data and let the jury understand the significance.

Harmon draws an analogy to an earlier ruling on enzyme analysis, arguing precedent supports showing raw data regardless of lab classification.

Lance A. Ito

All right. The objection is overruled.

Prosecution wins the sidebar; the inconclusive mixture data goes to the jury.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Item 31 PCR/DQ-alpha results showing dots at 1.1, 1.2 (more intense) and 1.3/1.4 (less intense) — characterized as a mixture, called inconclusive by the testing lab

disputed; objection to presenting overruled

Informal

PCR user guide — referenced by Harmon as the governing standard for interpreting dot patterns

cited as interpretive authority

Informal

DOJ results on the same item — Harmon notes they are consistent with the mixture reading

referenced for corroboration

Notable Exchanges (1)

Rockne Harmon•Barry Scheck

Extended dispute over whether a lab's internal 'inconclusive' classification forecloses presenting the underlying data to the jury. Harmon argues the dots are real and visible; Scheck argues the lab's own non-reportable designation is an admission that no valid conclusion can be drawn.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 6195 • 10 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103