All right. Mr. Scheck, if you recollect, there's a Court order directing all parties to display their documents so we don't have to stand around and do this again. So both sides are reminded of that. All right. What's the problem with this?
Well, this--can I speak? I made the objection. This would seem to relate to the whole Gerdes thing. They said they have one question about it, and I have accepted that. I had meant to bring that up again before we started. But it can go on and on.
Yes, your Honor. They have nothing to do with Dr. Gerdes. If I can explain to the Court--
--what these were. What this is is the PCR validation study that was turned over to us in discovery before we even had the jury. So what this is is a report from LAPD, the very first discovery we got indicating that the validation work performed by criminalists Reilly and Yamauchi and that every sample gave the expected typing result or no typeable result was observed, at no time was there incorrect typing observed. They then produced for us a code indicating mock vaginal swabs where they simply list here what the expected types are for each of these different samples. Then they produced for us in the same batch the hybridization validation studies. And this had nothing to do with Mark Taylor going to the lab and looking at those books. They produced this in the first round and this has nothing to do with reading strips. This has to do with their readings. When one reviews what Mr. Yamauchi reported as the typing results and compares it to the code, which I did myself, you can see that he got two different answers. So has nothing to do with the reading strip. It has to do what he reports his results are. It's not a contamination issue. It's just a mistake.
Somebody else graded them and said he got the right answer? I'm not sure I follow that. How do you get--
Well, he'll explain it. But all I can do from my discovery is go through this. I have a listing of one to 11 mock vaginal swabs and we have typing of one to 11, and what we can see is that there are two mistakes. And this is the only such document I'm going to go into. But this has nothing to do with Dr. Gerdes. This has to do with their discovery and what their reported results are.
Well, he can tell us if they're not. If I'm--you know--when one looks at the--compares the typing results with the other samples, they all correspond except for certain ones. Maybe he can explain it. This is a document they gave us.
"This is a document they gave us," that's a nice--that hasn't been incorporated into California evidence code as a hearsay objection or exception. So he wants to show him pieces of paper that he hasn't produced and confront him with--we see the problem. This is September `93. Had there been a question, your Honor, these guys have open access to Greg Matheson all along. But they just want to confront him with a piece of paper they say, "Well, this is what we got in discovery." So there's a problem here, right? And I just don't think they have made an offer of proof. And given that date on it, it sure seems like it's irrelevant.
Well, you have a foundational problem at this point with these documents. But if you can lay a foundation and if he says the right thing, you get all the right answers, these are appropriate documents--you've got to ask the questions.
KEY QUOTEWhen one reviews what Mr. Yamauchi reported as the typing results and compares it to the code, which I did myself, you can see that he got two different answers.
It's not a contamination issue. It's just a mistake.
'This is a document they gave us,' that's a nice--that hasn't been incorporated into California evidence code as a hearsay objection or exception.
Well, you have a foundational problem at this point with these documents. But if you can lay a foundation and if he says the right thing, you get all the right answers, these are appropriate documents--you've got to ask the questions.