Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (part 1) — Friday, May 26, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\26\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-COLLIN-YA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 83 of 167

◀ Jury procedures and witness preparation Sidebar: validation study documents ▶

Witness: Collin Yamauchi
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Friday, May 26, 1995 • Utterances: 194

Barry Scheck cross-examines LAPD DNA analyst Collin Yamauchi, methodically attacking the qualifications and oversight of the LAPD DNA laboratory. Scheck establishes that Yamauchi had only about six months of casework experience before this case, that no PhD in molecular genetics supervised or advised the lab, and that lab supervisor Greg Matheson had explicitly testified he was not a DNA expert and that his subordinates knew more than he did. The transcript ends mid-session at a bench conference over documents Scheck sought to introduce.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Good morning, Mr. Yamauchi.

# 2 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Good morning, your Honor.

# 3 THE COURT:

Mr. Yamauchi, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Scheck, you may commence with your cross-examination.

# 4 MR. SCHECK:

Thank you very much, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Yamauchi.

# 6 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Good morning, Mr. Scheck.

# 7 MR. SCHECK:

It's Friday, your Honor.

KEY QUOTE

# 8 THE COURT:

Thank God. Proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

KEY QUOTE

# 9 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Yamauchi, you had just finished your training when you were assigned this case?

# 10 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No.

# 11 MR. SCHECK:

Well, your training period was six months of hands-on work?

# 12 MR. YAMAUCHI:

The question?

# 13 MR. SCHECK:

Yes.

# 14 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Was it six months of hands-on work? No. What it entailed was a training process where I learned the theoretical as well as practical aspects of the PCR program.

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

Well, at the Los Angeles Police Department, as part of your training requirements, you must have a minimum of approximately six months of actual DNA laboratory experience before you can do casework?

# 16 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Can I see that?

# 17 MR. SCHECK:

Do you have a copy of your protocol there?

# 18 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No, I'm sorry. I don't.

# 19 (Brief pause.)

# 20 MR. SCHECK:

My apologies, sir. I have to go back and get the book. Let me just ask you though, you're saying that you have no recollection that your protocol requires that you must have forensic DNA laboratory experience including successful analysis of a typical range of forensic samples and that that takes six months?

# 21 MR. HARMON:

Objection. It's argumentative, compound, calls for hearsay.

# 22 THE COURT:

Overruled. Do you have any recollection of that?

# 23 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No, I don't, not as far as the specifics. But parts of what you said is true in that we do have to go through a battery of proficiency tests as well as validating the process in our own hands that we can get the results that are expected.

# 24 MR. SCHECK:

And that took you six months?

# 25 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, along with the theoretical background and that sort of thing that's necessary to become proficient and be able to run these tests.

# 26 MR. SCHECK:

So your training period was six months with the hands-on work and the other instruction you received?

# 27 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Theoretical, approximately, yes.

# 28 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And so you began doing DNA work sometime in October of 1993?

# 29 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. On casework.

# 30 MR. SCHECK:

So are you saying that you were doing casework since October or you were saying that your training period, your hands-on training period began in October and your training period ended in March?

# 31 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No. My hands-on casework was started in October. Prior to that was my training period.

# 32 MR. SCHECK:

So you're saying then that you were doing casework for six months before you took the case and--before you handled this case?

# 33 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That misstates the testimony.

# 34 MR. SCHECK:

I'm asking.

# 35 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 36 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Okay. On--in October is when I did my first case. So November--yes, I was doing casework for at least six months.

# 37 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh. And do you know how many cases you did before you did this one?

# 38 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I'd have to go back and look at the records.

# 39 MR. SCHECK:

Give an estimate?

# 40 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I'm sorry. I'd really like to go back and look at the records on that.

# 41 MR. SCHECK:

Do you think it was more than five, six?

# 42 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, yes, it was more than that.

# 43 MR. SCHECK:

More than 10?

# 44 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I can't be any more specific than that. I'm not sure. I would like to go back and look at the records to answer your question accurately.

# 45 MR. SCHECK:

And you said on direct examination that you had only reported your results in court on two occasions prior to this case?

# 46 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Reported my results to this case--

# 47 MR. SCHECK:

No. No. Reported your results in other cases. You had two other instances where you came to court and reported your results to a jury?

# 48 MR. YAMAUCHI:

That's correct. In PCR testimony, yes.

# 49 MR. SCHECK:

All right. So there were two cases prior to this one?

# 50 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. Oh--yes, that's correct.

# 51 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And those--when you mentioned those two court appearances, you weren't referring to the brief appearance that we had in August of this case?

# 52 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No. This case is not included in that.

# 53 MR. SCHECK:

Now, let's discuss your training period a little bit here. During your training, was there anyone with a Ph.D. in molecular genetics or a related field in your laboratory supervising you?

# 54 MR. YAMAUCHI:

In my laboratory, no.

KEY QUOTE

# 55 MR. SCHECK:

Was there a Ph.D. in molecular genetics or a related field that was retained as a consultant to the Los Angeles Police Department who advised you?

# 56 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, I did go to the Roche Molecular Systems class for PCR amplification, and there are a battery of Ph.Ds associated with that program.

# 57 MR. SCHECK:

I understand you went to this--Roche is the manufacturer of the kits?

# 58 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 59 MR. SCHECK:

And so you went and you attended some classes there, right?

# 60 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 61 MR. SCHECK:

But I'm talking about the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory. Okay?

# 62 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Once again, at the laboratory, there's no Ph.D..

# 63 MR. SCHECK:

So the answer to my question, was there a Ph.D. in molecular genetics or a related field who was retained as a consultant to the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory on an advisory basis, the answer to that question is no?

# 64 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. That's correct.

# 65 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And so I take it that there was no Ph.D. in molecular genetics or any related field who on any basis was there to assess the validation studies that you were performing during your training period?

# 66 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No, there was no Ph.D. there.

# 67 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Was there anybody there, whether or not they had a Ph.D. in a field related to molecular genetics, but had significant expertise, many years of DNA typing work, was there any such person who was retained as a consultant at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory to assess your validation studies and your training?

# 68 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No, there wasn't anybody retained like that, but we do do testing with outside proficiency samples.

# 69 MR. SCHECK:

I'm not talking about your proficiency tests. I'm just talking about, was there a person that was brought in by the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory, whether or not they had a Ph.D., that person, but somebody who had long experience doing DNA typing to assess your work during your training period? Did that happen?

# 70 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No.

# 71 MR. SCHECK:

All right. When the DNA laboratory at LAPD was set up in terms of where you would do the extractions, in what room, where you would do the sampling, where you would do the amplification, where you would do the PCR product gels, it was a time when you and Erin Reilly made decisions about where to set things up, correct?

# 72 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, there was a time period where decisions had to be made like that.

# 73 MR. SCHECK:

And was there any Ph.D. in a field related to molecular genetics or any expert who had significant DNA typing experience who went over that with you and Miss Erin Reilly to set up the work flow in your DNA laboratory?

# 74 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Miss Reilly had extensive training at the FBI Academy, and she often corresponded with them and got their input as to the best way to set things up, as well as the people from Roche Molecular Systems. They also offered us their help and advice in setting up our laboratory situation.

# 75 MR. SCHECK:

Somebody from Roche Molecular came down and looked at the laboratory set-up at LAPD?

# 76 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Miss Reilly brought over the sketches of what our laboratory set-up and got their advice.

# 77 MR. SCHECK:

Who?

# 78 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Miss Reilly.

# 79 MR. SCHECK:

No. Who from Roche Molecular looked at your plans?

# 80 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I don't know personally.

# 81 MR. SCHECK:

You sure that happened, huh?

# 82 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, I am.

# 83 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. When?

# 84 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I'm not sure.

# 85 MR. SCHECK:

Now, so who--so Miss Reilly, she went to a course taught at the FBI on how to do forensic DNA typing?

# 86 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. She also acted as a scientific researcher for a few months over at that facility.

# 87 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh. So she was the experienced person that was setting up your DNA laboratory?

# 88 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 89 MR. SCHECK:

And it was Greg Matheson, he was the then head of serology?

# 90 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Mr. Matheson's a supervisor at that time.

# 91 MR. SCHECK:

And he was assisting in setting up the lab?

# 92 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, he was overseeing it as a supervisor would.

# 93 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh. And he was the person that was administering and reviewing your DNA proficiency tests?

# 94 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. He would take on that responsibility.

# 95 MR. SCHECK:

But Mr. Matheson had never done DNA testing casework himself, had he?

# 96 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Not to my knowledge.

# 97 MR. SCHECK:

And Mr. Matheson had little experience with DNA typing?

# 98 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, as far as practical aspects are concerned, that's true. But you have to understand, this is a relatively new field and a lot of this has been going on and leaps and bound have been made in this area. He's been quite proficient at keeping up with the technology and the administrative aspects in this area. So it's not like he's completely unknowledgeable in this area.

# 99 MR. SCHECK:

But my question, he had little experience with DNA typing himself. The answer to that question is yes?

# 100 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's vague, your Honor. It misstates the testimony, his own testimony.

# 101 THE COURT:

Overruled. Overruled.

# 102 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Matheson had little experience with DNA typing himself?

# 103 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Right. The practical aspects, that's correct.

# 104 MR. SCHECK:

Right. The practical aspects. How the test is actually done.

# 105 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 106 MR. SCHECK:

And he, however, was the one who was reviewing the tests that you were doing when you were performing validation studies?

# 107 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. He would be a part of the review process.

# 108 MR. SCHECK:

And when the proficiency tests were given out, he was the one that was reviewing and signing them and grading them?

# 109 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, for the in-house one, yes, he would take care of that.

# 110 MR. SCHECK:

Okay.

# 111 MR. YAMAUCHI:

But he would also review the results from the tests that are sent out to the organizations like CTS and the College of American Pathologists that run blind tests where we don't know the answers beforehand; and then we submit our results and then these people come back and send us the correct answers and then those are shown that yes, we do have the same answers as they do. And through that process, Mr. Matheson handles that clerical end of it.

# 112 MR. SCHECK:

So Mr. Matheson was reviewing the validation or internal tests, yes?

# 113 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 114 MR. SCHECK:

And those external tests, those are the ones from the College of American Pathology and the Collaborative Testing Service?

# 115 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 116 MR. SCHECK:

And those are the ones where you know you're being tested?

# 117 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. You know you're being tested.

# 118 MR. SCHECK:

And those were the ones that Mr. Matheson reviewed and graded?

# 119 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, he would--he would take our results and then compile the necessary information. That would be sent out along with the quality control person who is Alex Inogia, and they would handle the results and come back and tell us yes, you're okay. You've passed the test.

# 120 MR. SCHECK:

He was reviewing that work, Greg Matheson?

# 121 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Asked and answered.

# 122 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 123 MR. SCHECK:

Was Mr. Matheson in your opinion somebody that you could go to and get knowledgeable advice about how a particular DNA test went or how it was performed, correctly or incorrectly?

# 124 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, yes, you could. He--he understands the theoretical background to this, and in a lot of respects, a lot of this is common sense, as we've stated earlier. You know, for contamination purposes, you don't want to have two envelopes opened at the same time. That makes common sense. I think everybody can see that. And that sort of thing goes on to Mr. Matheson's end in this situation also. We can go to him to say, "Well, should we set this up in this area?" And from an administrative point of view, he might say, "Well, maybe we should go to PAB and set this up, this particular section of the lab because we have more room over there." So he is knowledgeable because he does have theoretical background and he does have common sense. And, you know, he was on the stand already. So you could see that.

# 125 MR. SCHECK:

You watched his testimony?

# 126 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, I did.

# 127 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And did you hear Mr. Matheson say that he didn't regard himself as an expert in DNA typing techniques?

# 128 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Calls for speculation. That misstates the exact testimony without page and line.

# 129 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 130 MR. SCHECK:

Did you--in listening to Mr. Matheson's testimony, do you recall him holding himself out as an expert in DNA typing?

# 131 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No.

# 132 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Irrelevant, calls for hearsay.

# 133 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 134 MR. SCHECK:

Do you recall him saying that he really couldn't answer questions about the details of the PCR typing technique?

# 135 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's vague, calls for hearsay, misstates the testimony.

# 136 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 137 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, I'm now referring to page 25529.

# 138 MR. SCHECK:

Did you hear Mr. Matheson give this answer to this question? "Question: Now, do you consider yourself an expert in DNA technology? "Answer: No, I do not."

KEY QUOTE

# 139 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, I remember that.

# 140 MR. SCHECK:

And did you hear him give this answer to this question? Next--same page, next question. "Question: And during the time you were developing the PCR program for the lab, the people that were working on that under you, did they have more experience than you or less? "Answer: They had more experience."

# 141 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That calls for hearsay.

# 142 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 143 MR. SCHECK:

Hear him testify to that?

# 144 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, I did.

# 145 MR. SCHECK:

All right. So would it be fair to say that he had less knowledge of how PCR testing worked than you did?

# 146 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

# 147 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 148 MR. SCHECK:

Now, during this training period, you did an exercise where you typed what were called mock vaginal swabs?

# 149 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 150 MR. SCHECK:

All right. That was part of the validation study?

# 151 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 152 MR. SCHECK:

And when you did this, you knew you were being tested?

# 153 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Being tested?

# 154 MR. SCHECK:

You knew it was a mock case, it wasn't a real case.

# 155 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Okay. You're going to have to be more specific as to which particular mock vaginal swab we're talking about.

# 156 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Well, do you recall that there were instances where you were given samples and you were told that these are vaginal swabs and you should extract the DNA and test them?

# 157 MR. YAMAUCHI:

There's the one that was set up by Mr. Matheson--excuse me--Mr. Matheson and that was a mock case that was set up specifically by him.

# 158 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And when you did these tests in your validation studies, you were being as careful with those samples as you were with the evidence in this case?

# 159 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, in the time period before starting casework, we were doing a lot of things, experimenting with--in fact, creating vaginal--mock vaginal swabs that would be not so easy and yet they wouldn't be so dilute that we couldn't get results off of. So, you know, part of the case was just trying to develop the samples that we were need--that were needed to test ourselves on.

# 160 MR. SCHECK:

Well, you were using the same techniques on those mock cases as you used in this case, same PCR kit?

# 161 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I'm sorry. One more time, please?

# 162 MR. SCHECK:

You were using the same technique, the same PCR kit when you're doing the mock cases as you used in this case?

# 163 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, we go through quite a few kits. They're--

# 164 MR. SCHECK:

Same kind of kit. Same kind of kit.

# 165 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. The same kind, but there are different lots. And actually, each kit has 50 strips. So we've gone through quite a few of them.

# 166 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Yamauchi, I'm not asking about the reagents. I'm asking you about the PCR typing technique, the strips, the basic tests that you were performing, it was the same on those mock cases as in this case?

# 167 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. The kits were, generally speaking, the same.

# 168 MR. SCHECK:

Yes. The same Roche kit, right?

# 169 MR. YAMAUCHI:

From the same catalog number from the manufacturer, yes.

# 170 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. And you were using the same kind of microfuge tubes?

# 171 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Micro centrifuge tubes, yes.

# 172 MR. SCHECK:

You were doing this--these extractions in the mock cases in the same laboratory that you did the work in this case?

# 173 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 174 MR. SCHECK:

You were doing the amplifications at Parker Center the way you described doing them in this case?

# 175 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 176 MR. SCHECK:

And when you were doing the mock cases, you weren't in a hurry, were you?

# 177 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No.

# 178 MR. SCHECK:

And you weren't under a lot of pressure, were you?

# 179 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I'm never in a hurry when I do my casework.

KEY QUOTE

# 180 MR. SCHECK:

Well, you were in a hurry in this case, weren't you?

# 181 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's argumentative.

# 182 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

# 183 MR. SCHECK:

Now--

# 184 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, I'd like to mark two pages at this point in time. What would be our number? Actually--ultimately, I'm going to be using four pages. So maybe I should--group of documents, four pages and--

# 185 THE CLERK:

1181.

# 186 MR. SCHECK:

11 what?

# 187 THE CLERK:

1181.

# 188 MR. SCHECK:

1181-A, B, C and D.

# 189 THE COURT:

All right. Have you shown those to Mr. Harmon?

# 190 (Deft's 1181-A through D for id = four pages)

# 191 (Brief pause.)

# 192 MR. HARMON:

Your Honor, may we approach the bench? This relates to our earlier discussions.

# 193 THE COURT:

With the court reporter, please.

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

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Barry Scheck

It's Friday, your Honor.

Light moment; Scheck's response to accidentally saying 'good afternoon' to the jury, leading to Ito's 'Thank God. Proceed.'

Lance A. Ito

Thank God. Proceed.

Rare judicial levity from the typically stern Ito, getting a laugh to open the session.

Collin Yamauchi

In my laboratory, no.

Confirms there was no PhD in molecular genetics supervising the LAPD DNA lab — a core defense attack on lab credibility.

Barry Scheck

Did you hear Mr. Matheson give this answer to this question? 'Question: Now, do you consider yourself an expert in DNA technology? Answer: No, I do not.'

Scheck uses Matheson's own prior testimony to undercut the credibility of the lab's internal oversight structure through Yamauchi.

Collin Yamauchi

I'm never in a hurry when I do my casework.

Defensive assertion made just before Scheck was about to press him on pressure in this specific case — objection sustained before the follow-up landed.

Evidence (2)

Defense 1181-A through D

Four pages (unidentified in transcript — bench conference called before they were discussed)

marked for identification; bench conference called before use

Informal

Transcript page 25529 — Matheson's testimony that he did not consider himself a DNA expert and that his subordinates had more experience than he did

read into record by Scheck to impeach lab oversight credibility

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Collin Yamauchi

Scheck systematically establishes that no PhD, no outside expert, and no experienced DNA consultant reviewed the LAPD lab setup, Yamauchi's validation studies, or his training — only Matheson, who by his own admission was not a DNA expert.

strategic

Barry Scheck•Collin Yamauchi

Scheck corners Yamauchi into confirming that Matheson had 'little experience with the practical aspects' of DNA typing, while also being the person who reviewed and graded Yamauchi's proficiency tests.

revealing

Light Moments (1)

Barry Scheck / Lance A. Ito

Scheck says 'Good afternoon' to the jury, catches himself, notes 'It's Friday, your Honor.' Ito responds 'Thank God. Proceed.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ LAPD DNA Laboratory (institutional)

qualification attack — absence of expert oversight

Scheck establishes no PhD, no outside DNA expert, and no experienced consultant supervised lab setup, training, or validation studies.

⚔ Greg Matheson

prior inconsistent statement / own-witness testimony

Scheck reads Matheson's trial testimony where Matheson admitted he was not a DNA expert and that his subordinates had more experience, then uses Yamauchi to confirm he heard it — undermining Matheson's role as the lab's oversight authority.

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

experience and training attack

Scheck establishes Yamauchi had only ~6 months of casework experience before handling this case, had testified in court only twice before, and worked under a supervisor who was not a DNA expert.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — when Scheck went to retrieve the protocol document

(Brief pause.) — when defense exhibits 1181-A through D were marked

Objections

11 objections (6 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 6203 • 194 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103