1159-C.

Mr. Yamauchi, was it part of your training to avoid cutting evidence items with high DNA content in the same period and in the same location as you are dealing with evidence of low DNA content?

Objection.

Was that part of your training?

It is compound, your Honor.

Rephrase the question.

All right.

As part of your training were you given any instruction on how to handle evidence items that might contain high DNA content and low DNA content?

Well, we already went over this. You can't really know whether some items have high DNA or low DNA by looking at them, so falling back to my normal standard procedure, I make sure I don't open up an evidence item along with another one. In other words, I only work on one item at a time so at no time are two items of evidence opened simultaneously, and I think that would address your question, because if I don't have two of them opened simultaneously, then they wouldn't be done at the same time.

Well, so as far as you are concerned, there are no dangers then of first cutting a sample with high DNA content, putting that aside and then moving to a sample with low DNA content?

Objection, it is vague, argumentative, misstates his testimony.

Do you understand the question, Mr. Yamauchi?

I believe I do.

All right. Go ahead and answer it.

Once again, if I sample an item and I don't know what the--the contents of DNA is in there, regardless of that, I sampled that, close it off and take care of everything with that one sample first, and only then my samples encased into one of those microcentrifuge tubes, only after all that is capped and everything is closed off will I move on to another sample.

All right. And so as far as you are concerned, as long as you do sample no. 1, then you take sample no. 2, there is no problem?

Objection. It is vague, argumentative.

Overruled.

Following my procedure where I close everything off, no, I don't see a problem with that.

Now, let's move to the DNA extraction phase and the DNA amplification phase. Are you with me?

Okay.

On those two phases was it part of your training to avoid analyzing samples with high DNA content and low DNA content in the same series--in the same run of microcentrifuge tubes?

My procedure of only keeping one tube opened at one time and working on one--one sample at a time goes through to my handling in the amplification process also. So at no given time do I have two tubes opened of extract simultaneously. I will only have one opened at each individual time and I will pipette from that into the next step, and in that case those two would be opened, but one is receiving the sample.

So it was never part of your training to avoid the extraction phase or the amplification phase doing in the same run samples with high DNA content and low DNA content just in case there was inadvertent cross-contamination? That is not part of your training.

Objection. That is compound.

Overruled. Do you understand the question?

Yes. Once again, they are closed off from each other so there is no way they can contaminate each other.

No way you can make an inadvertence mistake, a mistake you are not aware of?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Sustained, sustained.

You received no training to avoid situations with high DNA content and low DNA content samples in analysis to lower the risk of cross-contamination? That is not part of your training?

Once again, the whole procedure by which I sample and do the analyses precludes that from happening because I separate each and everything off from each other.

1159-D.

Is it part of your training not to cut evidence samples from two different crime scenes in the same place during the same period of time?

Objection. That is compound.

Sustained.

All right.

In the evidence processing room, within a half hour period taking sample after sample, was it part of your training to avoid cutting samples from different crime scenes in the same series?

Once again, my procedure, I don't allow two items of evidence opened at the same time. I do them one at a time.

So since you do the evidence items one at a time, it doesn't matter to you that you will handle evidence item no. 1 from one crime scene and then you move to evidence item 2 from another crime scene?

It is not happening at the same time.

Well--

I sample everything one by one.

You have--you do a series of five items. Are you with me?

Okay.

Item 1 comes from crime scene no. 1. You finish with that, then you go to item 2 from crime scene no. 2. You to go item number 3 from crime scene no. 3. You go to item 4 from crime scene no. 4, item 5 from crime scene no. 5. No problem with that?

Provided the conditions and the procedure that I use is in effect where I make sure each item of evidence is closed off from the next one to eliminate chances of cross-contamination, that is fine.

1159-F.

Your answer would be the same with respect to handling samples from a suspect and a victim in a series?

Yes. My answer is the same using my protocol and procedure.

1159-E.

Now, Mr. Yamauchi, let's talk about handling reference samples from a suspect and evidence samples. Do you not agree that a reference sample from a suspect creates a special danger of cross-contamination?

If mishandled, of course it would create a danger, but if it is handled correctly, there is no danger.

Would you agree that reference samples contained highly concentrated amounts of DNA?

They have--yeah, they have a good amount of DNA in them.

Well, the blood from a reference sample, you would expect to have--to be much more highly concentrated in terms of its DNA content than the blood swatches that you handled on the morning of June 14th?

How would I know that?

You wouldn't--

You can't tell by--I'm sorry. Can I finish?

I thought you had.

Well--

You asked me how would you know? Let me pose another question to you. Okay?

Your Honor, I think he was going to embellish.

Have you completed your answer?

Well, I would like to add something.

All right. Answer the question.

Okay. In terms of looking at swatches, you can't tell the quantity or quality of DNA that is on them just by looking at it. It is not scientifically possible to do that kind of assessment. You can give--you can give a ballpark guess, but you can't know.

Next question.

Mr. Yamauchi, is it not fundamental laboratory practice to assume that the blood from the reference sample of a suspect is going to be much more highly concentrated in terms of its DNA than the sample that you will get from an evidence specimen?

That is not always the case. Sometimes you can get evidence samples that are very concentrated in DNA.

My question to you, sir, is: Isn't it fundamental laboratory practice to assume, when examining a reference sample and examining an evidence sample, that the reference sample is going to have much more highly concentrated DNA?

Objection. It is argumentative, no foundation.

Overruled.

No, I can't assume that. I treat all my samples the same way with the same proper precautions that I explained earlier.

So you make no special exception for handling a suspect's reference sample?

Well, I may take a smaller piece, a smaller cutting.

When handling a vacutainer tube with a Defendant's reference sample, there is a danger of aerosols or sprays when the tube is opened?

Well, there is if you just open the cap up, but if you do as I explained earlier, and put chem wipes over the top of the cap and carefully open up the cap, any aerosol that would be caused would be trapped in the chem wipe. And in that way, rest assured that my procedure is good at keeping any such aerosols from contaminating anything else.

And when opening these tubes there tends to be blood on the caps?

Yes.

And that can present a danger, when you handle it, of getting blood from the cap on your hand or on other items?

Well, yes, and I keep the cap inside of the wad of chem wipes.

And when you are handling a reference tube, there is a danger in opening it of spills?

Well, anytime you hold a vial or a glass of liquid there is a danger of a spill.

And when you are handling these fitzco--you make a fitzco card by pouring how many drops of blood in each of the four quadrants of the card?

I said approximately 250 microliters, 200 to 250, and I don't pour it out of the tube; I use a pipetter.

And how many drops would it take to fill up one of those 250 to 500 microliter quadrants in the card?

I think I said 200 to 250.

How many drops? 200 to 250.

Microliters.

Yes.

How many drops?

Yes, for each quadrant?

You know, I couldn't tell you.

And these cards are wet when you first drop the blood on them?

Are they wet before I drop the blood on them?

No, afterward?

Well, blood is wet. Obviously it is going to be wet after you drop the blood on the card.

Right. And in handling those cards one must protect against the danger of cross-contamination with reference blood?

Yes.

Now, is it part of your training that evidence samples and known exemplars or reference samples be extracted at different times and/or locations?

Objection. That is compound, your Honor.

Sustained.

Have you ever heard the expression that evidence sample and known exemplars be extracted at different times and/or locations?

Once again, my whole practice and procedure allows for every evidence item to be handled separately from another, so it is always happening at a separate time and place. I make sure that none of my evidence is opened up simultaneously. I--once again, I open up an item of evidence, I work on that. After I'm done, I close that off and make sure it is away and in no way allowing the opportunity for that to contaminate with anything else, and then I go onto the next item.

Mr. Yamauchi, my question to you has--was not for you to repeat again, but my question was have you ever heard the phrase that evidence samples and known exemplars are extracted at different times and/or locations? Have you ever heard that?

Yes, and once again, my protocol--

The answer is yes?

--protocol addresses that--

The answer is yes, right?

That is what I said, yes.

Thank you. And that is in fact a phrase that is in section 25 of your protocol?

Well, I can take your word for it or you can show it to me.

Well, first, does it ring a bell with you as an important phrase or admonition?

It sounds familiar, yes.

All right. I show you this document. I call your attention to the last paragraph there. Does that refresh your recollection as to what your protocol contains?

Yes.

Do you rely on that section, that paragraph that is contained in section 25 of your protocol?

Yes.

That is under the section of "Quality assurance program"?

Yes.

And this section says: "To assure that no contamination occurs between known samples and evidentiary samples in a case, the exemplars and evidentiary samples are extracted at different times and/or locations," right?

Yes.

Now, first of all, let's get some phrases down. Do you take it to mean that known samples and exemplars would refer to a suspect's reference sample?

Yes.

Now, do you interpret this section of your protocol to permit you to do an extraction of the Defendant's reference sample in the same run as evidentiary samples?

Yes, and that is the whole idea behind the precautions that I take, to make sure that I don't open up more than one evidence item at the same time and so on and so forth with the tubes that are being transferred from one extraction into the amplification tube. These are not allowing any more than one tube to be opened at a time.

Now--

And that is the reason why I do it that way, to address that particular issue.

You think that when you are handling a series of tubes that contained evidence samples and one that contains the Defendant's reference samples in one run that you are complying with that section of the protocol?

Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

All right.

Let's assume, as you have stated, that you are opening each of the tubes that contains the samples and closing them one after another.

I only open one at a time.

You open one at a time. Let's assume that. Okay?

Okay.

Do you interpret your protocol as permitting you to do extractions with this series of tubes, all right, in one extraction session, including the Defendant's reference sample and evidentiary specimens, as long as you do them one at a time?

Provided the strict precautions that I use in handling my evidence is taken into consideration, that is all right.

So you interpret the phrase "At different locations and/or times" in a way that doesn't include a situation such as this case, where you handled Mr. Simpson's reference--you extracted Mr. Simpson's reference sample on the morning of June 14th in the same series where you did the Bundy samples?

Objection. It is vague, compound, argumentative.

Sustained.

Let me try it this way: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on Mr. Simpson's reference sample?

Yes.

On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on the Bundy samples?

Yes.

That was in the series of 23 tubes that you were doing in one day?

Yes.

And you did those extractions in the serology laboratory?

Yes.

And you did it in your hood?

Part of the time.

And the location was either your hood or your desk right next to the hood where you were doing these extractions?

My work station and the hood, yes.

That was the location?

Locations.

And the time that it took you to do the extraction on these 23 tubes was how long?

It is approximately an hour and a half that that process would take place over.

And as far as you are concerned, your protocol says it is perfectly all right to handle Mr. Simpson's reference tubes along with those 23 samples in that location during that timing period? That is perfectly fine?

Did you hear Dr. Cotton testify as to the precaution that she takes in terms of extracting reference samples separate from other extractions up until the amplification phase, and I'm referring to page 277305 of Dr. Cotton's testimony?

Objection, still hearsay, beyond the scope, your Honor.

Sustained.

Are you familiar with the practices of other laboratories in terms of extracting evidence samples and Defendant's reference samples?

I'm not familiar with other People's protocols and procedures. I just know that we have ours and it has got a lot of bases back to the Roche user guide.

In terms of your training, did you investigate the methods used by other laboratories in terms of extracting reference samples and evidentiary samples?

Did I--did I investigate other People's protocols and procedures as to that?

Yes.

No, I don't think so.

You said you have some recollection of the CACLD studies. Does that recollection include anything about how a false positive occurred in terms of extracting a suspect's reference sample at the same time as evidentiary specimens?

Objection, hearsay, beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Now, before discussing the way you handled Mr. Reference--Mr. Simpson's reference tube and evidentiary specimens in the evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th, I would like to ask you a few questions about your note keeping practices. Have you taken a look at the way notes are prepared at the Department of Justice?

I haven't seen their notes.

Did you have--did you see any of the testimony with respect to note taking from Gary Sims or Renee Montgomery?

Objection. Calls for hearsay, beyond the scope.

Overruled. He can say whether or not he saw that.

No, I don't recall.

Do you believe it is important that notes are detailed with respect to the order in which samples are handled?

Laboratory notes?

Would you be more specific?

I will try. Do you think that laboratory notes should be specific as to the order in which the analyst handles samples?

You mean write out what time or everything that you handle each sample?

Well, let's just start with order and not with specific time. Should your notes reflect the order in which you handled samples and performed analysis on samples?

Objection. That is compound, your Honor.

Sustained.

Start with ordered samples--handled samples. Should they reflect the order in which you handled samples?

Notes--the reason why anybody takes notes is to ensure that--

Move to strike as unresponsive. My question is simply this--

Sustained. Do you understand the question, sir? Is it important to note the order in which samples are handled?

I would say that it is important, but it is not the most critical issue of note taking.

Is that something that you do in your notes in terms--do you list the order in which you will handle samples?

Well, in my descriptive notes it come out that way because obviously I'm working on one item and so I've got to describe that, and so on and so forth down the line.

And when you are referring to descriptive notes, would that include the pages that you made out on June 14th on your serology item description sheets?

Yes. That is--that would be what I'm referring to.

And how many pages do you have, referring to your handling of samples on the morning of June 14th and June 15th, these serology item description notes?

Do you have a total of five pages, sir?

Yes.

All right. Are they numbered in any particular order?

No, they are not.

Your Honor, I would like to ask that these five pages be marked as Defendant's next in order.

1185.

1185.

Now, I show you these serology item description notes--

--five pages, and ask you to look at them and tell me if I have them in the order in which you wrote them?

No, I don't believe so.

All right. Would you please put them in the order in which you wrote them and mark the first page as 1 and go through 5.

Now, Mr. Yamauchi, do you think it is good laboratory practice not to note--withdrawn. Do you think it is good laboratory practice not to write contemporaneously the number on your note pages?

On descriptive notes, no, I don't think it is necessary.

How do you know, sitting here today, which of these you wrote in what order?

Now, did you figure this out, the order, in terms of what--how you wanted to--what--withdrawn. Did you number these pages in a way that would be consistent with a reconstruction of events that you think would be good for your testimony?

Objection. That is argumentative and misstates his testimony.

Sustained, sustained.

Do you have some concern, Mr. Yamauchi, that your analysis of the glove, your sampling from the glove, could have occurred between 9:00 and ten o'clock that morning?

Do I have some concern?

Yeah.

You don't, do you?

No, I don't.

And you testified on direct examination that you think it happened some time in the morning, maybe in the afternoon?

Well, if you are reading from an official transcript and that is what I said, then yeah, that sounds about right, approximately.

Well, Mr. Yamauchi, could you have analyzed cut samples from the glove between 9:00 and ten o'clock that morning?

Well, according to my notes I was sampling the other swatches, so I don't think that is--that is very likely. I would have been working on that.

Well, your notes indicate that you sampled the Bundy blood drops between 10:00 and 11:00?

Yes.

And that you sampled the two exemplars from Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman between 11:00 and 11:20?

The--well, they were--you mean the samples that were taken at the scene at that point to act in lieu of having the actual exemplars? Yes.

And you had a conversation that morning with Mr. Matheson and Mr. Fung at around 7:30, eight o'clock?

That is not in my notes, but that is approximately--I talked to Greg somewhere in there or Greg and Dennis.

Have you looked at Mr. Matheson's notes as to what time he recalls the conversation occurring?

No, I haven't seen his notes.

Have you discussed it with him?

Discussed what time I talked to him?

Yeah, when a meeting occurred between you and him that morning?

No.

Now--your Honor, may I put page 1 of 1185, as he has numbered it, on the elmo?

Yes.

Now, let's start reading page 1 of 1185 from the top. Mr. Harris, could you just move it a little to the left.

No, no, I meant to the right. All right.

At the top you indicate here "117, 115, 114, 112." Now, those are the photo identification numbers for the Bundy swatches, correct?

Yes.

And then you indicate to the right of that, "From driveway, from walkway, from walkway" and then you have, what do you call it, ditto marks underneath it?

Yes.

And then you have grouped there "Victim's residence," right?

Right.

And that reflects the notes you took on your conversation with Mr. Fung that morning on what he was telling you those samples represented?

Yes.

And then below that you have "106 and 107" and those reflect the exemplars from Mr. Goldman and Miss Simpson?

Well, what would at that time be used in place of them, yes.

And one of them indicates "Off the stump," the other one indicates "Concrete."

Yes.

And then you have next to that, "These samples not true exemplars," right?

Right.

And then the next thing you wrote is "Glove," right? Can you read that line to us?

"No. 9"--"No. 9 glove" and then there is "Brn," I think that means brown, because that is what--these are all my notes. That means brown. "Brown glove with red stain as per Fung" and then in parentheses "Via RHD O.J.'s cut on left hand" and then underneath "Next page."

What does that say underneath?

"Next page."

Next page, but the next page that you numbered for me just a minute ago is your drawings of the Bundy swatches, right?

Yes.

And page 3 of what you numbered for me is a diagram of the glove?

Yes.

So Mr. Yamauchi, when you put down "Glove" and then "Next page" under that, were you not referring to the diagram you made of the glove?

You know, that makes good sense. That is probably the order that went in.

So page 3 is page 2, isn't it?

Objection. How could that be?

Overruled. Do you understand the question?

Yeah. If you are talking--referring to the numbers, yeah, you had me put on the pages, yes, but once again, I don't number my pages.

I understand, but looking at your notes and reconstructing it now, what you labeled as page 3 should be page 2?

It seems that way, yes.

All right. Do you mind if I renumber them with the Court's permission?

Go right ahead. Sure.

Now, turning back to page 1, the next entry down refers to Mr. Simpson's blood vial, reference tube?

Yes.

And indicates what you did underneath that is you wrote down what you saw on the outside of the tube? Isn't that what you did?

Yes, the ones in the quotes.

And then what appears to be the bottom right-hand side as we are looking on the screen you have a line that indicates "Used about one milliliter for swatching," correct?

Yes.

Now, looking at your notes now, Mr. Yamauchi, in terms of the order in which you listed the items, does it not appear that you handled the glove, as your diagram on what we now agree as page 2 indicates, you sampled the glove before you did the Bundy swatches?

Your Honor, I think this is a good place to stop.