Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Yamauchi, would you resume the witness stand, please. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
Mr. Yamauchi, you remember at the very beginning of our discussion here, I asked you about whether your protocol indicated that each analyst must have, at a minimum, forensic DNA laboratory experience, including successful analysis of a typical range of forensic samples, and that this normally takes six months? Remember I asked you that question?
Let me show you this document, see if it refreshes your recollection. And I'm--please, why don't you take a look at the--save time--the paragraph that I've marked for you.
All right. So having refreshed your recollection by looking at that document, do you not agree that your protocol says that at a minimum, an analyst must have forensic DNA laboratory experience including the successful analysis of a typical range of forensic samples, and that this normally takes six months?
Well, you left out the word "Approximately six months." You left out the word "Approximately."
Okay. So in other words, the reason that you did not recall this provision is that you think I left out the word "Approximately" and you were conscious of that?
Was the reason you didn't answer my question before in terms of being able to recall this provision of the protocol is that you thought I left out the word "Approximately"?
Well, I heard it right now and I'm reading it. So I'm comfortable with what I see.
Okay. So the first time I read it, you think I left out the word "Approximately," and that's why you didn't remember it?
And why--did you have--well, did you have six months of forensic DNA laboratory experience, including the successful analysis of a typical range of forensic samples, before you started to do casework?
I'm not sure exactly how much. It's approximately six months. I would have to go back to the records and check exactly how much time I did spend to do all my proficiencies and my validations.
So what you're telling us is, you don't know if you spent six months actually doing hands-on work in validation training before you started to do casework. Is that what you're saying?
How many external proficiency tests did you do before you did the work in this case?
That's another thing I would have to check records on. I don't have that information memorized and it's quite a while ago, but I know I did more than one.
Do you--when you did the work in this case, did you know--had you been graded, did you know the results of both of these proficiency tests?
I don't understand. Did I know the results as to time frame before or after? What do your--what's your question?
Let's try it this way. Did you receive an external proficiency test in November of 1993?
All right. And when you get a proficiency test, you do the typings, and then at some point down the line, you're told how you did?
So my question to you is, how many proficiency tests did you both do and get graded on before you did the work in this case?
Okay. To give you a fair and as accurate an answer as possible, I would have to go back to the records and look that up for sure.
Okay. Now, in taking--your recollection is that you think you took about two external proficiency tests before you did the work in this case?
At least one. Okay. In this test that you did, did you get a set of samples and Erin Reilly get a set of samples?
Uh-huh. Now, just so we're clear, what happens is is that the test provider gives you a set of samples and then you then test them, correct?
Okay. Now, did you hear any of Gary Sims' testimony about the way these kinds of tests were handled at the Department of Justice?
Well, when this kind of proficiency test is given to the laboratory and two different analysts in the lab are performing the test--are you with me?
All right. In this case, a set of proficiency samples was sent to LAPD, and you performed the test and Erin Reilly performed the test?
When he was on line and ready to test samples, yes, he would. He would do it that way. We would all get our sets.
Okay. Now, in terms of the tests that you performed before you did the work in this case, at that point in time, it would be just you and Erin Reilly?
And when each of you got the samples, did you know what the other person's results were before you reported your results?
Uh-huh. So in other words, if Erin Reilly performed the test and got some typings, it would be improper on a proficiency test for you to be the second reader to look at her results and confirm them if you were also going to be performing the test?
All right. Let's be clear. When you take one of these samples, you would do some typing, correct?
Where you put a picture of the strip on the top of the page and then you write down on the bottom of the page what the results are?
And when you write in your initials at the top for analyst, that means you're the one that did the typing?
And when there's another box there for confirming analyst, if you write your initials in there, that means that the person whose initials are there is the one that does the second reading?
Now, in the proficiency tests that you received, did Erin Reilly do the typing and then you were the confirming analyst to look at the results? Did that happen?
Well, if you're the confirming analyst, when she's doing the typing on the proficiency test, doesn't that mean that you're knowing what answers she's getting?
If she does the typing and then you look at the results as the confirming analyst, that means you know what her results are?
Yes. Provided I know that she's doing those--those samples. In other words, what I do is, I look at the picture of her strips, and then I confirm that the typings that she put for each of those strips is what I would call. That's what I do for confirmation.
Right. So you look at the strips and you see if you agree with her reading of the typing strip, correct?
And these samples in their description box will indicate something like cap, sample, correct?
Now, do you recognize 1182 as being the kind of hybridization record that you would use in a proficiency test, your laboratory?
All right. And in the description box, there's an indication that a sample is called cap, right?
And that would indicate to you or to anyone looking at it that that is a sample from a College of American Pathologists proficiency test?
So in this instance, you would be doing the test and Erin Reilly would be reading your strips to see if you got the right answers?
So you would be looking at each other's strips on the same test that both of you were taking?
Well, in this instance, I might have done the test--she might have done the test already and submitted her results. But I mean, I could very well have. I would have to see the sheets and how she marks her--her proficiency samples on there.
Could it have happened that in one of these tests, she did the test and then you were the confirming analyst for her?
And if that occurred, wouldn't that mean that you would be knowing what her results were before you did the test?
Yes. That's possible, if she wrote in the corresponding numbers and everything like that and I took note of it.
Now, the term--are you familiar with the term "Blind means" in terms of scientific testing?
All right. So it would be fair to say that you're not blinded to the answers when you take a proficiency test if you've already read strips from another analyst in your laboratory who took the same test?
Uh-huh. Now, you have never taken in your laboratory an external blind proficiency test, have you?
This is not an audience participation enterprise here, folks. You're here as an audience, not as participants. If I hear another outburst from the audience, I'm clearing the courtroom. There's nothing funny about this. Mr. Scheck.
It's done from a source outside of the laboratory in question and it's done in such a way that the laboratory doesn't know the results.
Have you ever heard anyone define an open external proficiency test as a test where the samples are submitted from an external source, but the analysts at the laboratory know that it's a test?
That's what I just described, isn't it? They're--it's done by an outside source and they don't know the results. Isn't that what I said?
Wouldn't an external blind proficiency test be one where the samples are submitted by an external source, but the laboratory doesn't know it's a test, they think it's a real case?
Right. And you've never heard anybody--you've never heard of an--an open external test? That definition you've never heard of?
Now, using your phrase then, have you ever in your laboratory, you or any other analyst ever done a double blind external proficiency test?
Mr. Yamauchi, have you ever read the report of the national research council entitled DNA technology in forensic science?
Are you familiar with the section of the national research council report at page 88 concerning laboratory error rates?
I'm really not familiar with this area because generally speaking, that was supposed to be or have to do with the RFLP testing.
So you didn't read that section of the NRC report because you think that the section on laboratory error rates only concerned RFLP testing?
All right. So have you read it--are you sufficiently familiar with it so that you can tell us whether or not you have relied upon it in forming your opinions with respect to forensic DNA typing in your testimony in this case?
All right. Do you rely on that section, the NRC report concerning laboratory error rates, in forming your opinions about forensic DNA typing?
Is there any portion of the NRC report that you rely upon in forming your opinions about forensic DNA typing?
Mr. Harmon asked you on direct examination if you keep abreast of the scientific literature in the field of DNA testing. Do you recall that?
And if you join that organization, don't you get a regular subscription to the journal science?
Okay. Now, in your training--withdrawn. Have you ever read the report of the California association of crime lab directors concerning proficiency tests that they ran in 1988 and 1989 on forensic DNA laboratories?
Yes. The CACLD study that involved open or involved proficiency tests, external proficiency tests for laboratories; namely cellmark, live codes, forensic science associates in 1988, 1989 and reports were published in years subsequent to that. Did you read any of those reports?
Something like that sounds familiar. I'd like to see that though if you have a copy.
Well, do you recall reading anything, reading any of those reports at any time during the course of your training?
In the course of your training, did you read anything or were you told anything about how cellmark got two false positives in the CACLD tests?
You testified on direct examination that you attend California Association of Criminalists meetings.
At CAC meetings, have you ever participated in any discussions about how false positives occurred on the CACLD tests for cellmark and forensic science associates?
During the course of your training, were you ever--did you ever have any discussion or lectures about how false positives can occur at forensic DNA laboratories?
Did you endeavor to study how false positives can occur at forensic DNA laboratories?
To study it, well, it's all a part of your training. I mean, you have to know what causes a positive result and what doesn't and what makes it valid and what makes it questionable. Of course. That's very important.
Very important. And in the course of pursuing this very important question, did you endeavor to find out how cellmark got two false positives in the CACLD tests?
Did you endeavor to find out how--forensic science associates is a laboratory that does PCR testing?
Did you endeavor to find out how forensic science associates got a false positive in the CACLD tests?
Certainly. When you're learning about the theoretical as well as the practical applications of PCR technology, you have to study these things.
And you were aware during your training period that there had been a false positive on the CACLD tests for forensic science associates, a lab that uses PCR technology?
And you did not endeavor to find out about the testing of CACLD and what results occurred, those tests occurring in 1988 and `89?
Once again, what you're referring to sounds familiar. I'd like to look at the article directly pertaining to that to refresh my memory.
Did you hear Dr. Cotton testify about how false positives occurred at cellmark during the CACLD tests?
In terms of your training about false positives occurring in a DNA laboratory, was there discussion about degraded samples being analyzed in the same place during the same period as the reference sample of a suspect?
Did you receive any training with respect to false positives occurring with degraded samples being analyzed along with the reference sample of a suspect?
A degraded sample--how--how would you know a sample is degraded if it's unknown or--you know, or do you know that it's a degraded sample? I don't--I'm not understanding your question fully. Do you take a--do you take something and do you degrade it?
Let me try to reformulate my question. Did you receive any training about false positives arising when samples that are degraded are analyzed--are examined, analyzed, cut along with blood in a reference tube from a suspect?
All right. You told us that you had a vague recollection of how false positives occurred during the CACLD study.
And in terms of the recollections that you have now, did any of it involve a laboratory handling degraded samples along with the reference sample of a suspect?
When you did your proficiency tests, these external proficiency tests, did you have someone in the room witnessing each transfer of material?
In other words, actually writing down what samples you put at what tubes and what time.
Did you hear Dr. Cotton's testimony that during the CACLD proficiency test where they got a false positive, that there was actually a witness in the room looking at the transfer of materials and witnessing it?
I might have heard that word, but if you were more specific, maybe I could help you out.
Were you told that other laboratories had made false positive mistakes and still can't figure out how it happened?
Were you told in your training that it's more important to be careful and reliable when doing DNA typing than to rush and make mistakes?
One last question in this line. Were you told in your training that it is the job of a criminalist to be independent of the police and to resist pressure to rush analysis that would compromise your work?
Again, that's a common-sense question. You never want to rush your work or do anything at all that could compromise the integrity of your work.
And was there discussion or emphasis in your training that it was important for criminalists to resist pressure from police to do work faster than the criminalists believes it can be safely and reliably done?
Was there any emphasis in your training that it was important for a criminalist on occasion to resist pressure from police to do work in a rush?
Isn't that the same question we asked a moment ago? You said you had one more question on that line. This is about three more.
And what's your--and your answer is, it's just common sense, but you don't recall anybody specifically stressing that?
Well, Mr. Matheson would have told me that because he told me that for conventional testing, that not to let anybody rush you into doing something that you can't do.
Okay. On the afternoon of June 13th, Mr. Matheson chose you to do the DNA analysis in this case?
Well, at that time, he didn't know whether it was just going to be a DNA case or whether it involved other aspects of conventional serology of which I had more experience.
My question to you, sir, was simply, you were not the most experienced DNA analyst in the lab, were you?
And on the afternoon of June 13th, when you were assigned to this case, you knew there was intense police interest in this matter?
13? Well, I know it was a high profile case and, you know, I really didn't have that much information at that point.
Uh-huh. So you didn't know at that point whether the District Attorney's office had an intense interest in this case?
When you were assigned this case on the afternoon of June 13th, did you not feel that you had just been given a very big responsibility?
I wasn't sure how involved or important the serology was going to end up being because I didn't know anything about what was at the scenes or any specifics.
All right. Now let's move to the morning of June 14th. Did you meet that morning with Mr. Matheson, Mr. Fung and Detective Lange any time that morning?
Did you attend a meeting at 7:00 o'clock in the morning with Detective Lange, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Fung?
You did not see Detective Lange at 7:00 o'clock in the morning with a pair of sneakers have a--be present during a conversation with him and Mr. Fung, Mr. Matheson?
Do you recall a meeting 7:00 o'clock or early in the morning of June 14th where Detective Lange was present?
Detectives often come in and out of serology. I'm--I'm not sure if he was there or not.
Are you telling us, sir, that you have no recollection whatsoever of seeing Detective Lange in the SID laboratory on the morning of June 14th at any time?
See if I can refresh your recollection. Do you remember him having any discussions with Mr. Matheson?
Do you remember seeing Detective Lange engaged in any conversations with Mr. Fung?
I--I've--I can recall him talking to Mr. Fung on certain occasions, but I don't know specifically of that day I saw them talking or if they were there. I--my recollection isn't all that great.
On the morning of June 14th, you recall speaking first about this case with Mr. Matheson?
I'm asking you whether Mr. Fung was present at the time that you were speaking with Mr. Matheson first thing in the morning.
And have you reviewed Mr. Matheson's notes as to the chronology of events on the morning of June 14th?
Prosecutors shown you or told you about his notes with respect to the chronology of events on June 14th?
Have you discussed with Mr. Matheson at any time prior to coming in here and testifying the chronology of events on the morning of June 14th?
Did you watch Mr. Matheson testify or hear him testify about the chronology of events on June 14th?
Did you watch Mr. Fung's testimony with respect to the chronology of events on the morning of June 14th?
Did you watch Miss Mazzola's testimony with respect to the chronology of events on the morning of June 14th?
Now, in your first conversation with Mr. Matheson on the morning of June 14th, were you not told that the detectives were in a hurry to get DNA testing results?
They needed information from the laboratory. I don't remember anybody talking specifically DNA.
Well, when you had a conversation with Mr. Matheson on the morning of June 14th, were you not informed that you were supposed to be doing DNA testing?
No. Actually, he discussed potential conventional testing and said that what they needed was something that could be--act as kind of a screen, something that could possibly eliminate somebody quickly or possibly include somebody.
Did you reach a decision early in the morning with Mr. Matheson to conduct DNA testing, PCR DNA testing?
And you were told--well, withdrawn. Did you and Mr. Matheson discuss the need to do that PCR DNA testing very quickly?
Well, yes. There was mention that the results were very important to them, and as soon as possible, they would need them.
Were you told by Mr. Matheson that the investigating officers wanted these results in a hurry?
They put a lot of importance on it. I don't know if anybody used the word hurry.
Would it be fair to say that this was sort of conveyed to you that this was what might be called a rush job?
Considering the importance--yes. Well--in a certain expect like well, if you're working on something else, could you work on this case right now.
Drop everything else and do this as fast as humanly possible. Is that the impression you got?
As fast as humanly possible? Well, more like within the perimeters of the scientific technology and the technique.
And he told you about information that he had obtained from the detectives at robbery-homicide?
And he told you that it was important to get DNA typing results on the Bundy blood drops fast?
All right. Mr. Yamauchi, were you under the impression this was a priority matter?
KEY QUOTEWere you told to get DNA results as soon as you could on the glove recovered from Rockingham?
Were you told by anyone in the laboratory on June 14th--withdrawn. Did Greg Matheson tell you on the morning of June 14th, "Mr. Yamauchi, don't be in a rush here. Just be careful"?
Did he tell you to be careful and make sure you didn't do these tests too quickly? Did he say that?
Nobody gave me any deadlines as to, "We want you to have results by here, here, here," or anything like that. There was a priority put on it. And if anything, Greg would have told me to work within my own perimeters of what I know is possible and to--above all, it's--for all of us as criminalists, make sure you do a good job.
Mr. Yamauchi, my question to you is not what he would have told you. I'm asking you, to the best of your recollection, what he did tell you. Did he tell you to be careful and take your time to get it right?
Did anybody tell you to get DNA results on the Bundy blood drops and the glove within one day?
Well, I knew if I worked after hours, I could complete the process. So yes, that was my idea.
So at the beginning of the morning, you had set a goal for yourself that you would be able to process the Bundy blood drops and the glove in one day?
Well, I knew that I would have some kind of interpretable results by that time period. But the whole process wouldn't have been complete. There still would have been product gel that would have had to have been done at a later point.
Did you set a goal for yourself that you would be able to get typing results off the strips on the Bundy blood drops and the glove in one day?
And that was a goal you set for yourself and nobody else told you to do it within that deadline?
It wasn't like it was a goal or anything. I--I knew that if I worked beyond normal working hours, I would have enough time to do that in the same fashion I always do it.
Now, before going through you--withdrawn. Before going through with you what you did on the morning of June 14th step by step, I'd like to just review with you what you did as a whole, okay? On June 14th, you received the specimens from the Bundy blood drops--withdrawn. On June 14th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results in one day on 23 samples?
And refer you to your amplification records and hybridization records. One day, 23 samples.
I'm asking you to look at your DNA amplification and hybridization sheets. I'm talking about the specimens, the controls, the reference samples, all that's involved in doing a PCR amplification run. Didn't you create 23 separate samples and tubes to analyze on June 14th before you reported results?
And on June 15th, the next day, you received specimens--withdrawn. And just so we're clear, the evidence items involved on June 14th were the Bundy blood drops, items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, correct?
Two what you're calling exemplars, that is, bloodstains that were believed to come from both victims in this case?
You received a bloodstain that Mr. Fung told you was believed to be an exemplar or blood from Nicole Brown Simpson?
Well, because we didn't have exemplars at the time, that was to act in lieu of it, to give any possible information it might.
Yes. And so you even put down in your notes you were using it as an exemplar for Miss Nicole Brown Simpson on June 14th?
Well, no. Actually my notes specifically state, "Male victim, exemplar off tree stump, female, best sample exemplar, concrete," and then in bracket, "These samples not true exemplars."
They're not true exemplars because they're not actually blood from the Coroner's office, right?
Right. But as far as you were concerned, you were taking these two samples because Mr. Fung told you that they felt certain that the blood on one of those items could be used as an exemplar for Miss Nicole Brown Simpson because--is that right?
Counsel, wait. He read his notes. It's used in place of an exemplar. The jury's heard the testimony. Let's move on.
Well, you knew that these two exemplars were sam--being used as samples from the victims?
Well, until we got the real exemplars, yes, that was their purpose, to act in that--on behalf of what would be the best possible exemplar.
And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson?
Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples?
You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those?
Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation.
The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips?
The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right?
Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up?
Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in--
Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps.
Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training.
In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up?
No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training.
We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it.
Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide?
Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking.
And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"?
And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"?
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until Monday morning at 10:00 A.M.--Tuesday morning 10:00 A.M. and I want counsel here at 9:00 A.M. all right. We'll stand in recess. Ladies and gentlemen, have a pleasant weekend. Mr. Yamauchi, you are excused, ordered to come back 8:45 on Tuesday. Enjoy your activities. All right.
Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15.
Mr. Yamauchi, were you under the impression this was a priority matter? ... All right.
Yes. That's the bottom line.
Well, I knew that if I worked beyond normal working hours, I would have enough time to do that in the same fashion I always do it.
No. I never did.