Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
Now, we were discussing before we took our lunch break notes. And would you agree that there is an important scientific reason that one makes lab notes that are detailed?
Important scientific reason? Okay. You're going to have to explain and be more specific about what you mean by detailed.
Well, do you believe that it is important for purposes of another scientist looking at your notes and trying to evaluate exactly what you did and how you did it that your notes be detailed as to what procedures you performed and the order in which you did them?
We have protocols and procedures manuals that state and explain exactly how we operate and what conditions we use and everything like that's available. Notes are taken to aid in recollection and to help an analyst recall and remember important points that are happening through the examination process.
So you're saying, sir--are you saying, sir, that you have a protocol in place and there's no need to take detailed notes as to what you did and the order in which you did it because one can just simply assume that you followed the protocol?
Well, in your answer, you just indicated that you--did you indicate, sir, that it's not important to take detailed notes as to what you did and the order in which you did it because one can just rely on the assumption that you followed everything that's in your protocol?
Well, sure. The protocol is there to represent what we do and the manner in which we do it. There are guidelines set up so that the analyst has a way and a reference to know the proper techniques. That's what that's for.
Well, aren't there many important issues of evidence handling that are not addressed in your protocol?
Are there important issues of evidence handling that are not addressed in your protocol?
Well, Mr. Yamauchi, you take a look at it and you satisfy yourself. Don't take my word for anything. You look at it. Does that look familiar to you?
If this is a copy from our--from our protocol and procedures manual, I'll take your word for it.
Now, Mr. Yamauchi, your section on evidence handling doesn't discuss how swatches, bloodstain swatches ought to be handled in the evidence processing room when they're collected?
Well, I would have to read through this thing again to refresh myself completely, but what you're talking about doesn't sound like it's a complete issue for our unit. That sounds like it's an issue that has to do with processing of evidence that would be associated with a crime scene investigation.
So the DNA unit has nothing to do with the way that bloodstain evidence is collected at a crime scene, dried and packaged in the evidence processing room?
Well, Mr. Yamauchi, did I understand your answer to the last question correctly, that the evidence--that the procedures used in handling blood swatches from the point of their collection to their drying in the evidence processing room and their packaging in coin envelopes and bindles in the evidence processing room has no relationship or is not covered under the responsibilities of the DNA unit?
So from the point of view, from your point of view as an analyst in the DNA unit, the collection, drying and packaging of bloodstains is not for purposes of d--stains that are going to be used for DNA testing is not part of your responsibility?
Mr. Yamauchi, when you and Miss Riley and others were sitting up your DNA unit, you did not regard it as part of your responsibility to monitor the methods that were used for the collection and packaging and drying of bloodstain evidence that would be tested in your DNA unit?
All right. Did you regard it as part of your responsibility, meaning the DNA unit, to review and monitor the procedures that were used for the collection, drying and packaging of blood swatches that would be subjected to DNA testing?
That's the responsibility of the trace unit, and they would be open to any advice that we give them. As far as the handling or implementation of any newer protocols and procedures in their end of the laboratory, that's kind of out of my hands. Erin Riley has done training where she's explained handling of evidence and collection. But personally, no, I haven't been involved in that directly.
Was it part of your training--withdrawn. Did the issue arise in your training that the collection and handling of biological evidence before the formal DNA testing starts can result in cross-contamination of samples?
Now, in the evidence handling section of your protocol, is there anything in there about how to handle a suspect's reference tube?
Is there any section in your DNA protocol that lays out procedures for handling a suspect's reference tube during the process of examining and cutting specimens?
I'm really not sure if there is specifically addressing that issue in the detail that you described.
So in terms of how you handle the reference sample of Mr. Simpson in relation to the other crime scene specimens on the morning of June 14th, we cannot get any assistance from the protocol?
Can we get any assistance from the protocol in terms of the procedures that are supposed to be used in handling a reference sample and crime scene specimens?
Quite possibly, there could be something that alludes to what you're getting at. But specifically what you're talking about, I'd have to go through and review the notes and that protocol and dig through it.
But as you sit here today, to the best of your knowledge, there's nothing you can recall here that specifically lays out how a suspect's reference sample is supposed to be handled in the evidence processing room when you're cutting crime scene specimens?
Well as you can see, it's a long protocol. I can't just pull it out of the air. I would have to go look through it.
Well, can you suggest any section other than the evidence handling section where you would expect to find it?
So in terms of the details of how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample and the crime scene specimens on the morning of June 14th, would it be fair to say that the written record we would have to rely upon are your notes?
And you mentioned just a second ago that one of the purposes of notes is to aid in the recollection by an analyst when you come and talk to a jury about what you did and when you did it?
Not so much when I did it, but what I did. And basically it speaks for itself. We do things in normal--the same fashion over and over again, and we'll take notes if there's anything that's out of the ordinary or that would need--would be needed to refresh your recollection. It's--it's not something that's overly detailed and it's not something that you just scribble a few lines on either because quite obviously, if you're taking notes, you're not working, and if you're working, you're not taking notes. So we have to take a good balance of both in order to get done what we're intending to accomplish. And that's, in the end, to have something to refer back to in case something becomes an issue and say, "Yes, I have that in my notes. I can recollect that now." That's what it's all about.
Thank you. In the course of your training, did you consult with other laboratories to see what procedures they used in terms of note keeping?
How many samples do you think you've processed, that is the evidence processing room, since June 14th and 15th of 1994?
And you could not remember without the aid of notes what you did to those specimens and the order in which you did it?
Can you remember what you did with those over a hundred specimens since June 15th, what you did and the order in which you did it without notes?
You're asking me in general or in great detail? Because in great detail, yes, I would like to refer to my notes. But in general, I know I would have extracted them and went about the normal procedures that I do for the PCR DQ-Alpha process.
Did you not testify on direct that it is not your custom or practice to prepare detailed notes on items that you sample?
Did you tell us on direct examination, if you recall, that you take general approximations? That's how you described your note taking procedure, cus--your note taking custom and practice.
Now, referring to June 14th and your notes of June 14th in the morning, your notes do not indicate when you received Mr. Simpson's reference tube, do they?
So in terms of time, you do not have--your notes do not indicate when you received Mr. Simpson's reference tube, true?
And they do not in--your notes do not indicate whether you created the fitzco card before or after you did cuttings on the glove?
And your notes do not indicate whether you created the fitzco card before, after or during your cutting of the Bundy swatches?
Mr. Yamauchi, is your memory improving about how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample on the morning of June 14th?
Has your memory been improving since August of 1994, this--I'm sorry. August 19--yes--August of 1994 about how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference tube?
Well, in certain areas. It would depend on what things I would have to spark my recollection.
Well, in August of 1994, you gave some brief testimony concerning your handling of Mr. Simpson's reference tube and the crime scene specimens.
Still, that's many pages and that's a while ago too. If you've got specific areas, please show them to me. I would like to see them, and then I'll answer questions about them.
In August of 1994, you were not sure if you received Mr. Simpson's reference sample before or after you received the crime scene samples?
In August of 1994, were you sure if you received Mr. Simpson's reference sample before or after you received the crime scene samples?
Sure. In August, were you sure if you had received Mr. Simpson's reference sample before or after you received the crime scene samples?
I would have just at that time probably been going off my notes. Overall, that's a closer date to the time when it actually happened. So maybe my recollection was a little bit better. But unless I know specifically what you're referring to, I really can't be of much help.
Well, what I'm referring to is, can you remember whether you received Mr. Simpson's reference sample before or after you received the crime scene samples? That's what I'm referring to.
You mean now based upon my notes or you're trying to make me remember what I remembered back then? That's--that's not easy to do.
Mr. Yamauchi, I'm interested in what you can remember now from your own independent recollection as you sit here today and you testify to this jury under oath. Do you know whether you received Mr. Simpson's reference sample before or after you received the crime scene samples, the Bundy swatches and the glove?
Well, judging by my notes and the order of things that are going on, I--I would say that's the time when I received it.
Okay. And--and those are the same notes that you're looking at now that we just went over with the jury, that's 1185, right, page 1?
And isn't it true that the best you could remember in August is that it all happened at approximately the same time? That is, that you received the crime scene samples and the blood vial at approximately the same time, but you weren't sure which you received before and which you received after?
In August, was it the best you could remember is that it all happened at approximately the same time?
Well, you know, if you could allow me to review that part of my transcript, I'd probably be better off answering your questions.
"Question: So then you received a reference sample on June 14th? "Answer: Yes. "And did you receive that before or after you received the crime scene samples? "Answer: I'm not sure. "Question: You don't know? "Answer: "Indicates in the record no audible response. "Question: Was it around the same time? "Answer: Approximately, yeah." Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?
So in August of 1994, about two and a half months after you actually were in the evidence processing room dealing with these samples, you weren't sure when you received the crime scene samples in relation to Mr. Simpson's reference sample, right?
Yes. And after we've been through this carefully and I've looked through my notes more, that's why now I feel--but I still--and I'm still stating there's no time on here. So I don't know for sure. But based upon my notes, I have a good feeling that that's when it happened, before I received the other evidence.
These notes that we're looking at, 1185, page 1, same notes you were looking at in August, right?
But now on direct examination, you specifically remembered that you received Mr. Simpson's reference tube after a conversation with Dennis Fung, right?
That's right. Since that time, I've had chances to look over my notes more carefully and try to piece together that issue.
And you told us on direct examination that you now specifically remember that you went to the end of the table in the evidence processing room by the garage door.
Did you specific--did you go to the end of the table in the evidence processing room by the garage door with Mr. Simpson's reference tube?
And that's where--it was in that area that you now specifically recall you made the blood swatch card?
All right. And you now can tell us that you made the blood swatch card before you examined the glove?
Judging by the continuity of my notes and the next page entrance here that you pointed out, I would say yeah, that's the most likely scenario.
And you now can tell us that you specifically recall making the fitzco card with Mr. Simpson's reference tube before you did cuttings of the Bundy blood swatches?
And you can now specifically recall that you went--you were concerned about wind currents when you were at the end of the table in the evidence processing room handling the reference sample?
And you now specifically recall that independent recollection--not what you usually do--but you independently recall that you pipetted one--that one milliliter out in your left hand?
I described the procedure that I usually take when I make those cards, and that's to pipette one ml of blood out of the--out of the tube, the reference tube and into the pipetter.
Were you testifying on direct examination about what you usually do or what you independently recall doing on the morning of June 14th?
You just said to this jury when I asked you about pipetting with your left hand that you were testifying--that's what you usually do. Did you just say that?
Well, I'd like you to direct your attention to what you independently remember from the morning of June 14th as opposed to what you think you would have done, okay?
Do you have an independent recollection of walking to the end of that table, the evidence processing room near the garage door?
I have an independent recollection of making that swatch card on somewhere that end of the room.
Now, on direct, you indicated that you walked around to the end of the table, didn't you?
Do you have an independent recollection that you didn't hold the tube in your right hand when you were pipetting with your left, but you put it on a stand?
When you say you have to put it on a stand as opposed to holding it in your right hand, are you telling us that's what you would have done or that's what you independently recall you did?
No. Okay. I don't remember specifically step by step exactly what I did, and that's why I go back to my normal standard practice and procedures.
But when you testified on direct examination, weren't you telling this jury that you had an independent recollection of exactly what steps you took in handling Mr. Simpson's reference sample on the morning of June 14th?
Mr. Harmon asked you very, very specifically, didn't he, did you change your gloves between making the fitzco card with Mr. Simpson's reference sample and then moving on to cut the Bundy swatches? Do you recall that?
And do you recall when he asked you that question, he said--he asked you if you had an independent recollection that you actually changed your gloves? Do you recall that?
Well, then let's get to what you can recall and what you can't. Do you have an independent recollection as you sit here today that you changed your gloves after handling Mr. Simpson's reference sample and then moving on to cut specimens?
Of course I don't remember independently every specific detail. But once again, my procedure and practice is, when I'm doing those blood tubes, I change my gloves.
KEY QUOTEMy question is, do you have an independent recollection that you actually changed your gloves on the morning of June 14th?
Is your memory of those events, handling Mr. Simpson's blood vial, improving since August?
Well, the way you're making me think about it right now, I had to remember back to what I did with those gloves. And now I recall I had those gloves in my hand, they had blood on them. I would have to get rid of them, and I couldn't get rid of them right in that area at that time. I had to go around and either put them into the receptacle behind me or take it back to serology to dispose of those gloves. And somehow or another, that's what reminds me of taking off my gloves at that point.
Yeah. You're bringing me back to that time and place where I was doing that and yes, it helped my recollection.
KEY QUOTEWell, on direct examination, didn't Mr. Harmon ask you about a biohazard bag in the evidence processing room?
And that's where you put your gloves? Didn't that come out in the questioning on direct?
Mr. Yamauchi, in preparing for your testimony in this case, did it come to your attention that mishandling Mr. Simpson's reference sample in relation to the crime scene specimens could be a very significant error?
In your discussions in preparation for your testimony, did it come to your attention that mishandling Mr. Simpson's reference tube in relation to the other crime scene specimens on the morning of June 14th would be a very serious error?
Did anybody discuss with you whether mishandling Mr. Simpson's reference tube on the morning of June 14th in relation to other crime scene specimens could be considered a serious error?
In your dis--preparation discussions, was it not brought to your attention that mishandling a reference tube is more serious than mishandling other specimens?
Was it brought to your attention that mishandling a reference tube could be considered more serious than mishandling other specimens?
Well, given any scenario, of course it could be or maybe it wouldn't be. The bottom line is, you don't want to mishandle any evidence or reference sample.
Mr. Yamauchi, in our short discussion here, did you not say that you have an independent recollection now that blood got on your hands when you opened Mr. Simpson's reference tube? Did you just say that?
In other words, didn't you testify before that as you opened the tube, you did it with a chem-wipe?
So you're now saying that you have an independent recollection that the blood soaked through the chem-wipe?
And that's something that you didn't even recall when you were asked about this on direct examination?
Well, do you recall being asked how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference tube on direct examination and giving a description?
And when you gave that description, did you include the fact that the blood went right through the chem-wipe, got your gloves dirty?
Because--in other words, it's--in our discussion here on cross-examination, this came to you for the first time?
When you started talking in that much detail and you asked these specific questions, given it to the best of my recollection.
KEY QUOTEDo you feel confident, Mr. Yamauchi, that your recollection of how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample on the morning of June 14th is not affected by how you think you're supposed to answer these questions?
Do you--you now recall that you put the fitzco card 10 to 15 feet away from the specimens, the Bundy specimens?
But in August, two months afterwards, you weren't even sure whether you got Mr. Simpson's reference tube before or after you received the crime scene specimens; isn't that true?
Now, this morning, in reviewing your notes a little bit more carefully--well, withdrawn. I shouldn't say that. In reviewing your notes, you agreed that you could have cut samples from the glove before you cut swatches from the Bundy samples?
Your Honor, let the record reflect that when I renumbered the pages, I put a cross through and I initialed it.
Now, your notes indicate that you cut the Bundy swatches between 10:00 and 11:00 o'clock, correct?
And then you cut the two exemplars from Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman between 11:00 and 11:20?
Okay. Now, you know--do you know whether Dennis Fung removed a hair, item no. 19, from the Rockingham glove on the morning of June 14th?
Well, you were not there to witness Mr. Fung--withdrawn. You did not see Mr. Fung remove a hair from the Rockingham glove on the morning of June 14th?
Is it true, sir, that Mr. Fung never removed a hair from the Rockingham glove after you did cuttings on June 14th?
Well, after you cut the glove on June 14th, do you have any knowledge of Mr. Fung removing a hair from it?
Do you know if Mr. Fung removed a hair from the Rockingham glove after you manipulated and cut it?
Yeah. You're bringing me back to that time and place where I was doing that and yes, it helped my recollection.
Same note, same piece of paper.
When you started talking in that much detail and you asked these specific questions, given it to the best of my recollection.
Of course I don't remember independently every specific detail. But once again, my procedure and practice is, when I'm doing those blood tubes, I change my gloves.
"Question: Did you receive that before or after you received the crime scene samples? Answer: I'm not sure. Question: You don't know? Answer: [no audible response]. Question: Was it around the same time? Answer: Approximately, yeah."