All right. Proceed.
Gary Sims, (402) recalled as a witness by the People, pursuant to evidence code section 402, was sworn and testified as follows:
Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
Your Honor, I would be--I have put my own chronology together and I know Mr. Sims has reviewed it, these are my notes, but I don't have any problem sharing them with everybody. Would you like me to have a copy marked as well?
Okay. And why don't we use the actual exhibit that has been marked. Is it your recollection that on or about March 19th, after some discussions and you filing an affidavit with the court, you received approval from the court, over the Defense's objection, to combine what remained of 303, 304 and 305 for the purposes of doing RFLP testing?
Okay. Did you actually conserve some of the samples? Are there still samples remaining, to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. As I put in my declaration to the court that I would preserve samples on all of those, and in fact I did preserve samples on all three of those samples.
On March 9th, one of the samples, 305, was brought back to the laboratory, and we spent a lot of time just documenting what was present in that sample and then sampling it and then repackaging for return.
Okay. What--did you next do with respect to this case, any aspect of this case, or specifically samples 303, 304, 305?
Okay. At that point we did--on March 14th there was DQ-Alpha typing on that original sample of 303 and 304, and in other words, prior to the time that they were combined, so at this point we wanted to know that independently they shared a consistent DQ-Alpha type so that we could then proceed with the further analysis, and that DQ-Alpha typing was completed on March 14th.
Okay. Did you miss--I think you misspoke. Were 303 and 304 previously typed with any marker?
Well, the DQ-Alpha testing was to again look for consistency of the results to see whether or not it was consistent with the mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
Did you obtain consistent results on 303 and 304 consistent with what you had seen in 305?
Okay. Had you not obtained consistent results on 303 and 304 with the DQ-Alpha marker, would you have gone ahead with combining those three samples for the purposes of RFLP testing?
Well, because then there wouldn't probably be enough DNA of the people that may be involved in that mixture to get an RFLP result. In other words, there may be other people. We have got an exclusion perhaps.
Okay. So as of March 14th then you had decided that even though you had the court's permission, that scientifically was appropriate in your mind to go ahead with combining those three samples?
That in--I wanted to do that testing. Even though I had the permission, I still wanted to look at those DQ-Alpha types before I did the actual combination.
Okay. Do you recall if you did anything else with respect to this case on March 14th?
Okay. March 15th, what activity did you--did you perform with respect to this case?
On March 15th I laid out in my notes, what samples I still planned to extract in this case. I included these--the combination samples as well as some other samples in this case.
So were there actually other samples being evaluated and tested in this case during this same time period?
Okay. March 16th, do you recall if did you any work on this case or the--or specifically the console stains?
I have nothing in my notes on that particular time. I should point out, too, sometimes what I'm looking at here are my laboratory notes and there are instances where I may be working on the case but not making entries in my laboratory notes. For example, I may be reviewing some other results or photographs or something like that, or consulting, that is not al showing up in these particular results--in these notes.
Now, just to jump ahead a little bit, did you have a report that you knew you were going to have to start putting together toward the end of the month?
Yes, there was. The second big report we put out was in early April and so we started getting ready for that also at this time.
And the notes you are referring to that actually reflect scientific or technical activities that you engage in?
That was a time when we started some extractions on some--on some of these various samples that we listed. This is when we actually--I want to make sure I've got the right set here. This is--this is when we are actually doing the extraction of the combined set.
So when you say you are doing extraction, you can't use the DNA or you are not using the DNA that you used for PCR typing; is that true?
That's correct. At this point now we've--we are starting with the additional swatches to do the combination. In other words, we took those additional swatches that were from 303, 304 and 305 and we are extracting them now as a group.
Okay. How much time do you think the activities that are reflected in your notes took?
I'm working on that at night it looks like. The time I've got is--there is two different sets going; one that goes in at 2120 hours and another one goes in at 2218 hours.
There is about I think seven or eight in each one, something like that. Four--I'm sorry. Eight in one, I think six in the other.
On March 18th I completed the--I completed the extraction on some of these sets. No, I'm sorry, I did not complete it. I continued the extraction on some of these sets and then it was on March 19th, Sunday, when the--the extraction was actually completed.
That--that is probably some more time there. That is maybe at least half a day, something like that. It could be longer. I'm not sure.
Okay. On Monday, March 20th, were you advised that the Defense had filed a new motion challenging the DNA evidence?
Yes. I think I--I think I was aware the very day that it was filed and I think that was on March 20th.
Okay. Did that ultimately take some time, toward the latter part of March, for you to review that motion and counsel us?
Do you recall if you did any--do your notes reflect specifically any other work you did on this case on that date?
Okay. March 22nd, did you again perform some specific hands-on work on the console mix in this case?
Yes. On March 22nd I ran the yield gel on these particular samples, the Bronco console samples, as well as some of the other--the other extracted sample in this case.
Okay. Was there more than one set of samples upon--upon which you ran on the yield gel?
It is what we call a double origin where you take one gel but you have two places where you enter samples, two parallel lines of slots.
Yes, it tells you how much total DNA. It doesn't tell you whether or not it is all human.
How long do you think this work on both of these sets of samples in this case took on March 22nd?
Given the number of samples involved and all that, it was probably the better part of the day we spent on that.
March 23rd, what sort of activity did you participate in with respect to the sample you had processed on the 22nd?
The main thing that I did on the 23rd was to go through and actually evaluate the results of the--of the yield gel. And at that point I decided that I would--would want to do a--what we call a blotting of the yield gel to see whether or not the DNA that was present was human.
Well, it was important because as we've talked about at length in this case, there were other samples where there was--appeared to be a lot of high-molecular weight DNA, but it was not of human origin. Some of it turned out to be not of human origin, so I figured it was worthwhile to evaluate whether or not the DNA that we saw at the high-molecular weight end, which is the RFLP-able type DNA, was in fact human.
Just to go back to the beginning, why was it your judgment, real briefly, to have to combine these three samples, 303, 304 and 305 for RFLP purposes?
Because individually I didn't feel there was enough there to get a good RFLP result and I wanted to operate optimize the chances of getting a clear RFLP banding pattern, and to do that I had to have more DNA to work with than any single one of those stains offered.
KEY QUOTEThat--that looks like the better part of the day also, because there was the evaluation and then there was also the starting of the--the blotting process. My notes indicate I am working on that latter part around four o'clock in the afternoon and then I went overnight at 5:30.
Yes. The better part of the day, as I recall, was spent meeting with you. There was a relatively minor part of the time spent in the actual laboratory analysis.
That is after the southern blot of the yield gel went overnight, then I processed it and it was not ready to be hybed and tested with the human probe.
What did you actually do that day and how long did it take, with respect to the console mix?
Well, what I'm doing is evaluating the yield gel for--I'm evaluating the yield gel to see whether or not the DNA on there was human on those samples. And so this is the part now where the southern blot has gone overnight and it is taken apart and then processed in a way that it is now ready to be probed to see whether or not there is human DNA there.
Okay. Now, this is not the RFLP probing, this is just to determine if it is human DNA?
Well, I'm starting on that, according to my notes, at 6:30 in the evening, so I believe I had spent most of the daytime talking to you, consulting, and then it is the latter part of the day then that we--that I actually did part in the laboratory and that is probably about a hour's worth of work, something like that, maybe less.
Yes. I was asked to participate in a PCR round table discussion in a training class at--at what's called ABI.
Applied bio systems. They are--they are part of the company that actually produces these kits, the PCR kits, and they put on training classes for how to do this kind of PCR testing. And as part of their training course they usually have an afternoon devoted to a round table type discussion of some of the issues that come up in courtroom interpretation, that sort of thing.
At that point I actually probed it with a human probe and product, what's called a lumirad which is like one of these autorads, but we are using a probe now that produces luminescence so you can actually read the intensity of these bands now to get an idea of how much human DNA is present in a sample on this particular gel.
That would have been the better part of the day. I have my final film coming off around looks like around 5:30 in the afternoon, something like that.
And so--strike that. Did you perform any other work, other than just getting that final film off, and was that it for that day?
Well, there is the whole hybridization process. That is done by the analyst, in this case me, during that whole course of the day, and you finally produce a film at the end of the day.
Okay. What I'm saying is when you ended up with the film, did you call it quits for the day?
I attended a--the main thing I did that day was to attend a California association of criminalists DNA study group meet.
That was an all day? And in my summary is it true you worked about 115 hours on this case in March?
And you were working on five other cases as well that are not reflected in this chronology?
All right. Before you move on any further, Mr. Scheck, do you want to consult with your client for a moment.
Your Honor, I would ask--Mr. Simpson won't be able to eat if he doesn't leave now, so he has agreed to waive his presence for the remainder of the hearing.
All right. Mr. Simpson, is it agreeable to you that the court, witness and the lawyers continue the hearing and you agree to waive your presence for the remainder of the hearing?
This is just prior to the time when we produced the second major report in this case, so I was doing some actual--making some notes about sizing of autorads in this case and making assessments of the sizings.
The hands-on work was to actually now look at those lumirads that I produced from this human probing and to make an assessment of the results.
That would probably be a couple hours at the most, something like that. That is not a lot of time.
Okay. April 4th what sorts of decisions or evaluations did you make in light of everything you have described to the court to date?
Well, that--that was the point at which in my notes I commented that, you know, now I felt I had established that there was high-molecular weight human DNA in the combined sample. I had evaluated some other samples also and in my notes on April 4th I say regarding 303, 304 and 305, proceed to RFLP.
Yes. Dr. Blake came over again on that day and I also did some additional work toward getting the report out and there was also some work on the discovery package at that time, too, so that was a pretty busy day.
Yes. I came down on April 6th with Renee Montgomery. I consulted with you and I believe that was when the report and the discovery package was delivered.
Okay. April 9th, a Sunday, what did you do on that date with respect to this case?
On April 9th there was some consultation with you on that Sunday and there was--that was the main thing that day.
Yes. On April 10th I think--I think I may have misstated April 6th. I'm not sure I delivered the discovery package on April 6th, I think it was just the report that actually came down on April 6th, because I noted that there is more discovery going on as we get into like April 10th and April 11th.
Yes. I think--I think that's correct. I think I misstated that the discovery was delivered on April 6th. We could check that.
Okay. And the outline that we've prepared lists discovery prep on April 10th and April 11th?
Yes. At this point I--I began in earnest to prepare for the upcoming testimony which I anticipated could be some time in either the end of April or in early May, something in there.
And why did you decide to do that instead of continuing with the RFLP testing at that point?
Yes. Well, I--I--two reasons: One is that there was a large volume of material that I felt I needed to be responsible for. In other words, that I had to be prepared to be cross-examined; and also to present direct testimony on a large number of items and a large number of typing results. And also I wasn't sure what sorts of issues might be raised by the Defense based on that motion of March 20th, so I--I prepared in earnest to get all the literature articles in order, that sort of thing, review as many of them as I could and then also to have plenty of time to study my own notes, just the actual notes in this case and not just the other--the other issues involved.
Okay. The next week, April 17th and 18th, did you continue your preparation for trial testimony?
Yes. I believe on the 19th there was some additional analysis as far as just reviewing results.
Yes. That was when my kid's had a school holiday that week and so I took that Friday off.
Okay. Then the following week on April 25th did you actually get back to discussing specifics on the console combinations in this case?
Yes. I decided at this point that I would try to get that RFLP work going and that was April 25th.
On the 25th there was a--I outlined in my notes what sort of results we had on the--this goes now just not the 304, 305, that combination sample, but also the other samples that were being extracted and evaluated at that time. But there were decisions made as to whether or not some of those other samples should go through what we call the slot-blot process because, in other words, there was not enough human DNA in some of those to detect it on the blot of the yield gel, so we had to do an additional test for human DNA on some of those samples. So I made some notes there. I provided some tubes, some extracts to Renee Montgomery for her to proceed with that. And then also on that 25th I actually began to outline how I would do the RFLP, to plan the RFLP on the Bronco console.
It was--it was a fairly involved process because of the limited amount of sample that was available. It involved looking at those reference samples, well the combined console sample now, because that I basically knew what I had to work with. At that point I knew I had about 72 nanograms total available from that console, something like that. I knew that given that low level--and I also knew that it was a mixture of sample, so that told me that I had a very low level of DNA to work with, and in trying to balance an RFLP gel, one wants the samples to be in fairly good balance so that the bands are not blown out on some samples and then very weak on others. And so as part of that balancing act I had to go through what I had of the reference samples from the Defendant, from Nicole Brown and from Ronald Goldman, and to evaluate how much of those extracts I would use to do this restriction analysis.
How about the 26th, what sort of activities did you do with respect to this case on that date?
On the 26th I actually got the tubes out. After having planned it the day before on the 25th, I got the tubes out on the 26th and checked them to see if there was enough sample on these, because on some of these now I was running out of sample. For example, on the Defendant's extract I was getting low on the sample that we had had from one of his swatches that had been extracted, and so I had a note here that I needed to check this previous reference extraction sample and see if there was enough of his extracted DNA to get a sufficient quantity to put on this RFLP gel.
How much actual hands-on time was involved on April 26th with respect to these samples?
Yes. That is the thrust of what I'm doing at that point. Again, it is difficult to say just looking at these notes, but it is probably about a half a day, something like that.
That's right. In other words, they are going to be restricted at the same time and they go through the whole process at that point together.
Umm, there was preparation for testimony on the 27th and also I attended a study group meeting for the California association of criminalists.
Yes. On the 28th of April, as I'm looking at my notes--in the interim Renee Montgomery had run a slot-blot analysis of some of these other samples, and this doesn't relate now to the center console; this relates to some of the other samples that were extracted at that time. And I went through with her the analysis and the quantitations on those samples. Dr. Blake came over that afternoon. We spent about two hours reviewing some autorads as well as the quantitations.
The summary notes for April reflect that you were working on one other case during that month. Does that sound right?
Okay. In May, Monday, May 1st, what sort of work was done by you or Renee Montgomery with respect to this case?
The one--the one interjection I wanted to make when you asked me if I did any other lab results, keep in mind also that during this whole process we are developing autorads, for example, and that is--sometimes that is involved as far as developing and looking at them and deciding what kind of exposures we are going to use and that is not reflected in any of these lab notes.
Not simply, no, but it could be done, but it is not--it is not simple, but that is part of the process, and I haven't addressed any of that, that is going on as we are doing all of this.
Again, at this point we are--I'm very much in the preparation mode. I put together--I worked on what we call the photo look of keeping track of all the photographs that were taken.
May 5th in my notes I indicate that I am working with Renee Montgomery again on some of these additional samples.
Yes. May 6th, Saturday--May 6th, which was Saturday, I again spent some time in preparing.
That was the point--the time at which Dr. Cotton was testifying and I was monitoring her testimony.
Now, in your laboratory you don't have underlings that actually do bench work for you; is that correct?
Well, that's correct. The only thing that we have, as far as having other people working with us, I wouldn't use the term "Underlings," but they are people that are, for example, involved in the batch processing, batch probing process.
Well, the following weekday, the 15th was a Monday, I was standing by for testimony and my testimony actually began on Tuesday, May 16th and went through Friday, May 19th.
Well, counsel, this part is all part of the court's recollection as to these events.
You have listed 172.5 hours on this case and you worked on no other cases during the month of May; is that correct?
Well, that is not strictly true, because I did testify later in June also as I recall.
That segment of your testimony. On June 6th you do again return to working actual bench work on this case; is that right?
Okay. Now, would you describe what the next steps of the process entailed and why you had to wait so long to begin them, if you did.
You have described everything up to this point and everything else that you did. What would the next steps in the process be and why didn't you do them before?
Okay. The--the main steps in the process would be the restriction analysis where you actually restrict the DNA, and that goes overnight, then the next step is to purify and reconcentrate that DNA and then set it up on the actual electrophoresis, the analytical gel, and that goes over another night. Then the next day one would do the southern blot and then that would go overnight, and so this is a series of events that take place. Specifically once the analytical gel is put into motion, that would be like toward the end of one day, then there is a time period where you basically have to follow up at certain precise times. So for example, you could do the restriction and then put those samples aside and then do the electrophoresis at a later date, but once you start that electrophoresis, then you are tied into a three-day period.
And having that need, once you get started in the process, to do it continuously, was it--did that affect your ability to do it during the month of May?
Well, certainly May--May was very much disrupted by the testimony and being in Los Angeles.
June 6th was back in the laboratory. I don't believe--I think there is some review going on at that point and discussion perhaps and then it is actually June 7th when I set up the actual restriction.
Yes. This was at a time when my--my children were out of school and I took that day off.
June 12th you came back to work and I have listed two hours of analysis. What did that entail?
That--that may have been some actual evaluation of autorads at that time. I don't have anything in my working notes about June 12th, so I believe that is--that is probably some evaluation of autorads that were coming.
June 13th you set up the analytical gel which actually produced the autorads in this case; is that right?
And how long did that probe hybridize or how long did you allow it to hybridize to produce a gel?
That first probe was for locus D2S44 and that took nineteen days before it was complete.
KEY QUOTEThe locus is D10S28 and that was a ten-day exposure from August 26th to 9/5, September 5th.
I was planning on looking at that tomorrow is when I have it designated for the first film to be looked at. And then at that point I make an evaluation as to how much longer the other film--I don't know if this is new material, but the way we do it is we have a sandwich with a membrane in between two films. We look at the top film, which is called the non-DNA film first, and that gives an idea of how it is developing, and then we make a decision at that point as to how long the final film will stay on there.
Was Dr. Blake alerted every time you had a new autorad to see to give him an opportunity to come over and take pictures of it?
Yes. I kept Dr. Blake informed of that. The only one I don't think he is aware of is this very last--I'm sorry, this fourth one, but I provided that in discovery last week when I was down here on Thursday.
Because individually I didn't feel there was enough there to get a good RFLP result and I wanted to operate optimize the chances of getting a clear RFLP banding pattern, and to do that I had to have more DNA to work with than any single one of those stains offered.
In my notes on April 4th I say regarding 303, 304 and 305, proceed to RFLP.
That first probe was for locus D2S44 and that took nineteen days before it was complete. The results were weak.
You worked about 115 hours on this case in March? And you were working on five other cases as well that are not reflected in this chronology?
We have a film sitting on a hybridized membrane as we speak.