All right. Let the record reflect that we've got all of our jurors back. All right. Mr. Scheck.

Mr. Yamauchi, do you have a problem with outbreaks of contamination at the LAPD laboratory?

Objection. It's vague as to outbreaks.

Sustained.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Outbreaks of contamination"?

I take it we're referring to the serology PCR process?

We're referring to the DNA testing.

I've heard it expressed in this case.

Before this case, had you ever heard the phrase?

"Outbreak," no.

Had you read it in any document?

Wouldn't have come to recollection before this case. No.

Have you read the national research council report on DNA typing?

Yes, I have.

All right. Do you recall encountering the phrase in that report?

Objection. Hearsay, no foundation.

Overruled.

Once again, because I saw it talked about in this case, I remember it from that. But prior to that, it wouldn't come to my recollection.

In the course of DNA typing at your laboratory from the moment you started through the time that you did testing in this case, have there been incidents where you as laboratory analysts discovered what you considered to be contamination problems?

No.

Was there an incident involving lots or reagents concerning amplification run no. 33 that caused you to consult with the manufacturer about the kits that you'd been given?

Objection. It's vague. "You" is vague, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

All right. Was there an incident involving contamination which yourself, Erin Riley and others in your laboratory believed came from kits or reagents that you received from Roche?

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

Rephrase the question.

Do you have any recollection of contamination occurring in your laboratory which you believed was caused by kits you received from Roche?

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Have you ever--withdrawn. Was there ever an incident of contamination in your laboratory which the people at the DNA unit believed came from the kits supplied by Roche?

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation.

Sustained. Why don't you cut the question in half.

All right. Was there ever an incident in your laboratory involving contamination from kits?

Objection. Calls for speculation, hearsay, no foundation.

Overruled.

From kits specifically? We--we couldn't prove that or it couldn't be isolated down to actually being there, but it was put into a category where something to do with the reagents at that end were giving an anomalous result.

Well, could you explain for us what the problem was as far as you knew it to--

Objection. No foundation. Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Well, first of all, you're saying "Problem," and it's not necessarily a problem. What it is is, we have these controls like I was explaining before, and they're the indicators to us that something is a little bit different or out of the ordinary. And that indicator, by looking at our controls, we were able to figure out that something anomalous was taking place, and we isolated it to a specific area. As to whoever followed up on that and the responsibility of that, it was Mr. Matheson and Miss Riley.

And you had no part in that?

Well, my initial input.

The anomalous results that you were talking about were contamination appearing in the negative controls on certain items?

Well, the negative controls were showing activity, yes.

Positive controls?

Positive controls were typing as they should.

And as a result of the contamination in the negative controls--you examined some of these strips yourself; did you not?

Yes.

All right. And you tried to make a determination when you examined them as to whether or not there was contamination in the laboratory?

That--well, yes. We would have to discover that, whether or not it's something to do with our handling process or some other area. There's ways of troubleshooting that.

Did you participate in that investigation as to the source of the contamination?

Initially to a small extent, and then Erin Riley handled the rest.

Were you informed about all the other steps that were taken to investigate the contamination?

Well, we discussed her train of thought and her rationale as to--

I'm sorry. Are you finished?

Yeah. As to what her conclusions were and so on and so forth.

What were the conclusions that were reached as a result of this investigation of the contamination?

Objection. Hearsay.

Sustained.

Were you--did you subsequently operate on the premise that this contamination incident that you've just described was limited to just a series of bad lots in kits that you received from Roche?

Objection. It's irrelevant, calls for speculation, hearsay.

Overruled.

There was some correlation, yes.

To your knowledge, did Roche--has anybody--did Roche indicate that any other laboratory had had problems with those kits?

Objection. That's hearsay, your Honor.

Sustained.

The--could you describe for us what the validation samples are that you test on an--withdrawn. Do you test validation samples on an ongoing basis in your laboratory?

Validation samples, could you be more specific.

Do you on an on-going basis test known samples in your laboratory to see if you're getting correct results?

Yes, with each run.

You're now referring to the positive controls?

The positive amplification control as well as blood standards.

Beyond that, do you have a program in your laboratory where you take known blood samples, that is from people in the lab and others, and on an on-going basis, periodic basis, have analysts perform tests on those known standards?

No. Nothing like that. But we do do the proficiency tests on a rather regular basis.

As far--have you reviewed hybridization strips and validation studies and casework from your laboratory from 1993 forward, you personally?

From 1993 forward, I--I know my own stuff that I've worked on.

Have you reviewed other strips?

Sometimes I confirm other hybridization sheets, yes.

All right. As far as you know, from all the sheets you've seen, do you have a contamination problem at the LAPD laboratory?

Now, you just said that it wasn't any different from problems with other labs. How much familiarity do you have with work of other laboratories with respect to issues of contamination?

Well, I've talked to Mark Taylor and the people at Roche. That's why they have these controls set up within there, to indicate if anomalies occur where there's something to look at and consider.

Your Honor, may we move now to the socks? And what I would request is that we put out some paper, the witness put on some gloves and that we put the socks out pretty much in the same area that we had them before when we conducted the direct examination.

All right.

Do you have a board or something you want to use, Mr. Scheck? And, Mrs. Robertson, do we have some paper?

Yes. Actually--may I suggest that we follow the same procedure we did before by putting--

All right.

--- I guess the white paper on top of the cart, having the witness come down and remove the socks. And I'll put up the sock board, Prosecution sock board.

All right. What size are those?

These are medium.

Do we have any size large gloves? Mr. Scheck, we have one minor problem here. We don't have the right size gloves. All right. Let's proceed to something else.

I have nothing else. This is the end.

I knew that would persuade--

Deputy Magnera indicates they have some large ones available. He'll make a phone call.

I think I can proceed for just a moment then before we get that.

Now, on June 14th, did you see the socks, item no. 13, that were recovered from Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

No.

To your knowledge, on June 14th or 15th or at any time prior to August 4th, was a photograph taken of the socks?

Prior to August 4th, I really couldn't say. No.

When I say a photograph, I'm referring now to photographs other than those that were taken before it was collected. Are we--do we understand each other?

I wouldn't know.

All right. Now, do you recall a visit by Dr. Michael Badin and Dr. Barbara Wolf to the LAPD lab in June of 1994?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Your Honor, this goes to the socks.

Briefly. Briefly.

Do you know of such a visit by Defense experts Badin and Wolf in June? Were you present for that?

That sounds familiar. I don't know if it was in June or not.

All right. And when Dr. Badin and Dr. Wolf visited the LAPD lab, did you have occasion to view the socks in preparation for that visit?

Objection. It's beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Do you have any specific dates?

Well, would June 22nd help?

Did I see him on the 22nd?

Well, actually what I'm asking you is, do you recall seeing them in preparation for the visit or during the visit of Dr. Badin and Dr. Wolf?

I'm not sure. I didn't take notes that day and I don't have independent recollection using your own terminology.

Well, so you do recall a visit by Dr. Badin and Wolf where you were present?

Yes.

And items of evidence were displayed, but they were in bags?

Some were, yeah.

And Dr. Badin and Dr. Wolf to the best of your knowledge were not allowed to handle and examine them? Is that your understanding and your recollection?

I recall them asking to--to see certain items and then asking if they could look at them with magnifying glasses and stuff, and basically we were obliging them.

Do you recall seeing the socks during that visit?

I can't recall specifically. I didn't take notes and my--Michele Kestler was taking notes.

Now, on June 29th, you--well, actually now that he's outfitted with the gloves, maybe we should--

Proceed.

Could you please come down here, Mr. Yamauchi, and if you would open the envelopes, remove the socks and lay them out.

Just got done opening the first plastic bag. The second plastic bag's already been cut. Removing a white envelope. Removing a brown paper bag from the white envelope. Removing a white envelope from the brown paper bag.

Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, you're going to have to situate yourself to the left.

Sorry, your Honor.

Removing one sock, removing the other sock from the white paper envelope. Laying the socks out.

Now, Mr. Yamauchi, could I ask you to move the various pieces of packaging--

Your Honor, maybe--okay. Your Honor, could we just turn the paper around so the socks are closest to the jury?

Yes.

And could I ask you to move back, if you could, the bags and the scissors.

Yes. Now, on June 29th, you were part of an analysis of the evidence in this case that was being conducted by yourself, Mr. Matheson and Michelle Kestler.

Objection. Beyond the scope. It's also argumentative.

Sustained.

On June 29th, did you have occasion to review various items of evidence in this case?

Objection. Beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Yes. We looked at various items together.

And that was you; is that correct?

Yes.

It was Greg Matheson?

Yes.

And it was Michele Kestler?

Yes.

And Michele Kestler is the head of the laboratory?

She is now.

And at that time, where did you conduct this examination of evidence?

Where? In Michele Kestler's--I believe we were in her office.

And Mr. Matheson was the one who was keeping notes?

Yes.

And you were the one who was actually taking the various items of evidence out and displaying them for the group?

Yes. On a lot of items, I was displaying them.

And the purpose of this examination of each item of evidence was to make an assessment as to what kinds of serological or DNA tests should be performed on the various items of evidence?

Yes. And at that time--let me explain once again.

Was that the purpose of the examination?

Well, your Honor, again--

Yes.

I move to strike. I asked him a specific question. I did not ask for an overall explanation. I move to strike.

Reask your question. The answer is stricken.

All right. Did you go through the items of evidence collected up to that time one by one?

I'm not aware of--well, yes, we looked at them one by one, but I'm not aware of what all evidence items were looked at. I was--I was along there to assist in the way that I'm trained.

Well, let me show you--are you familiar with a handwritten summary that was made of this review on June 29th?

Yes. That looks like the one that Mr. Matheson was making out.

Can I mark this Defendant's next in order, your Honor, document that I think previously we referred to as exhibit K.

1190.

1190?

Now, 1190 appears to you to be the sheet that Mr. Matheson was filling out with respect to the various items of evidence that the three of you were reviewing?

It looks like it.

Okay. And in the course of this review on January 29th, you actually measured centimeters the Bundy swatches?

Yes.

You took out a ruler and you didn't even touch the swatches. You just got near them and made your best measurements?

Excuse me. In millimeters I believe. I'm not sure.

All right. Mr. Yamauchi, you've going to have to keep your voice up for the court reporter.

And there came a--and were you reviewing these items on white pieces of lab paper in Miss Kestler's office?

Yes. We had bench stoke, which is--it's like a paper with a kind of a waterproof seal on the back.

Would you be changing the paper as you went from item to item?

Yes, unless we were looking at swatches which have their bindles underneath them, not allowing them to touch the table.

Now, there came a time when the three of you looked at the socks?

Objection. That's argumentative. It calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Did there come a time when the three of you looked at the socks?

If it's--if it's in there, we took a look at it.

All right. I'm showing the witness page 2 of 1190. Does that refresh your recollection?

Yes.

Now, would like you to turn over I guess the sock I'm pointing to now.

One second, your Honor.

There's a sock that is now closest to the jury, and by the heel, there appears to be a no. 13 on it. Do you see that, sir?

Yes.

All right. Now, let me just ask you to come to the board with me, which is 262-A, and I ask you to look at what's being depicted as sock A.

Okay.

And the photograph to the right of sock A. See that?

Okay.

And would you agree that in that photograph of sock A, there appears the same no. 13 that we see on the sock closest to the jury?

That's the way it appears.

All right. Can we agree to call this sock with the no. 13 on the heel sock A? All right? For purposes of making this record.

All right.

Yes.

Now, would you turn sock a over?

Do you see an arrow pointing upwards with the no. 13 on sock A?

Yeah, that appears to be a 13. I'm not sure. It's not clearly legible.

And above that arrow, do you see a cut-out?

Yes.

And what would you estimate the size of that cut-out to be?

Rough approximation, approximately four by one centimeter.

Now, in the notes taken by Mr. Matheson, is there any observation--

Objection. That calls for hearsay, your Honor.

Sustained.

Do you know of any notation being made by yourself or anyone else on June 29th of seeing a reddish stain in the position of the cut-out on sock A?

Objection. Calls for speculation. There's no foundation.

Sustained.

Were notations being made of the observations of yourself, Mr. Matheson, Miss Kestler on June 29th as you examined items of evidence?

Objection. Calls for speculation. No foundation.

Sustained.

Were you making observations, comments on the items of evidence you were reviewing on June 29th?

Was I--Greg was taking notes.

All right. You reviewed those notes?

Yes.

Do those notes reflect--

Your Honor, same objection. It's hearsay.

Sustained.

Did you or anyone else in that room on June 29th observe a reddish stain in the position of the cut-out on sock A?

Objection. Calls for speculation, hearsay, no foundation.

Sustained. You can ask this witness as to what he himself saw.

In terms of your observations, did you see a reddish stain in the area of the cut-out on sock A?

Mr. Scheck, let's--that's not necessary.

Okay.

Answer the question, Mr. Yamauchi.

Did you see a reddish stain in the area of the cut-out on sock A?

No. I've never seen a reddish stain. The only observation I've ever made pertaining to a stain was some discoloration.

All right. Did you see a reddish discoloration in the area of the cut-out on June 29th on sock A?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

No.

Did you see in the area of the cut-out on sock a the material of the sock being crinkled and puckered?

I can't remember that--well, that much detail. But what I do remember, with a cursory observation, look at, you couldn't notice any stains on that particular item. We didn't really look at it in detail at that time because we were just generating notes, and I guess they needed it for some type of a game plan as to how to handle this evidence.

So the answer to my question with respect to whether you saw the material in the area of the cut-out on sock a as being crinkled and puckered on June 29th, the answer is no?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

I don't recall specifically crinkled or puckered or anything like that.

On June 29th, you knew that these socks came from Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

I may or I may not have at that point. I'm not sure.

Was there any discussion among you and Mr. Matheson and Miss Kestler as to whether the socks came from Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

Objection. Calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

Was it your state of mind on June 29th that these socks were a particularly important piece of evidence?

I don't remember that clearly. But all the items of evidence that we were looking at, I didn't know the history behind each and every one of them. I don't know when I heard that that was from his house or where they collected it from or anything like that.

You just said I believe that you're sure that the examination of these socks was cursory. Were those your words?

Yes.

Do you have an independent recollection that the examination of these socks, a white piece of paper, Michele Kestler's office with you and Mr. Matheson, Michele Kestler is cursory?

You measured the swatches?

There was a purpose behind that and they had their reasons for wanting to do that.

Your purpose in reviewing each of these items was to make a determination as to what kind of further serological or DNA testing should be performed?

I think the key word's "Potential," what potential types of testing could be performed. It wasn't meant to hard and fast draw the line here and say, "We're sending this here and that there." But we needed some kind of idea or, you know, they did. They're the ones that make the decisions in that sort of area.

Mr. Scheck, do you need him there at that location? Because the court reporter is having great difficulty with his back turned toward her.

Well, perhaps--maybe if we face--if he faces this way and I stand over here, that might be better.

Don't forget the jurors.

Well, no, I'm not.

In order to determine the potential for testing, you have to make observations about the amount of blood on an item?

Objection. That's argumentative.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

In the course of determining the potential for testing, is it not important to make observations about blood on the various items of evidence?

Well, if it's not patently obvious, in other words, if you can't--it doesn't jump right out at you, then there's not much we can do about it. At that stage, we just wanted to take a look at it and say, "Wow, there's blood here, okay. Then looks like there's enough potentially to do RFLP." But if it's not obvious in such a quick look, then we couldn't make that determination.

Wasn't--

And it would have to be looked at again more carefully at a later time.

Wasn't one of the boxes on this sheet you were preparing to determine--

Objection. That misstates it. He didn't prepare that, your Honor.

Sustained.

Wasn't one of the boxes on the sheet that Mr. Matheson was writing on--

Objection. That's irrelevant. It's hearsay. It's Matheson's report.

Sustained. The form is irrelevant at this point.

Well, wasn't one of the determinations that you were assisting in making is what kind of future testing could be performed on the various evidence items?

Yes. I--excuse me. I stated that already. We were looking at these things to see whether they had potential for RFLP or PCR and serological testing, conventional serological testing. So we had to take a quick run through and look at them and assess them. They--that was by no means--at least indicated to me by Michele and Greg going to be a final analysis by any stretch.

Well, you were trying to determine whether you could perform conventional serology, RFLP, PCR or all of them on a particular item, right?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

Isn't that right?

Yes.

And you were also trying to determine whether you could perform all of those tests and still have some left over to give to the Defense?

Yes.

And wasn't that the purpose of looking at these items?

To get a general idea, an approximate idea of what you just stated, yes.

And in order to determine if you could do an RFLP test, a PCR test and a conventional serology test on sock A, don't you have to examine it to determine how much blood is on it if any?

Objection. That's argumentative, "Blood."

Overruled.

Once again, I was under the understanding that we were there to do what we could by just looking at the items. Further testing to be sure whether or not there's blood on it would have to be done and tested with something like that phenolphthalein test that I explained earlier. That was not a part or an intention of that particular meeting. At least, that's not what was conveyed to me.

In other words, you were taking out these evidence items and looking at them to determine whether you could perform conventional serology, RFLP and PCR, but you weren't taking any particular care to look at the item to see if there was blood on it. Is that what you're saying?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained as phrased.

Mr. Yamauchi, after you, Michele Kestler and Mr. Matheson put that sock out--put those socks out on white paper, looked at them, did you not conclude that you had done a blood search and none--no blood was observed?

Objection. That's compound.

Sustained.

Did you not conclude after your examination of the socks there was no blood on them?

So from your visual observation and examination of the socks, you saw no blood on either of them?

And after you I guess--did there come a point in time when you wrapped up the socks and you put them back I guess at that point in the brown paper bag?

Yeah. At a certain point, we would have concluded and have to put everything away.

And you put both socks in that same brown paper bag?

I would have put it back as I had found it when I took it out. I can't remember exactly which way that was.

When you found it on June 29th, were both socks just in that--excuse me--brown paper bag?

I believe so.

Sorry?

I believe so.

And they were subsequently put in the envelope?

Yes. I believe that was done at a different time.

And to your knowledge, have any of the cuts in either of those socks been made by Defense experts?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Do--when you put the socks found back in the--in its packaging on June 29th, did you see any reddish powder of any kind on the white piece of paper?

I don't recall anything like that.

No further questions.