Sidebar: DNA typing and blood evidence

📄 Sidebar: DNA typing and blood evidence — Friday, September 29, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\29\SIDEBAR-DNA-TYPING-AND-BLOOD-E.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 164 of 167

◀ Closing argument — Marcia Clark (part 4) Closing argument — Marcia Clark (part 5) ▶

Date: Friday, September 29, 1995 • Utterances: 42

At sidebar, prosecutors and defense argue over whether the trial record supports an inference that EAP blood typing on a rear gate stain degraded from BA to a single B — which would be consistent with OJ Simpson's blood. Clark and Goldberg insist the inference is fair given Matheson's and Gary Sims's testimony, while Scheck argues the cited testimony doesn't actually support that conclusion. Ito overrules the objection and allows the prosecution to read the passage to the jury.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 2 THE COURT:

We're over at sidebar. I don't reflect that in the record. I don't reflect that in the record.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

Yeah, it is in the record. This is a tactic by them. I really wish that the court would--

# 4 THE COURT:

Hold on.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

My recollection--

# 6 THE COURT:

No, counsel.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

25962.

# 8 THE COURT:

Do you actually have a transcript or notes?

# 9 MS. CLARK:

We have a note with a transcript reference.

# 10 THE COURT:

You know, I'm not optimistic we're going to finish today.

# 11 MS. CLARK:

Well, if you don't tell them--you know, Judge, this is such an obvious ploy.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

It's not a ploy.

# 13 MS. CLARK:

Every other thing they're objecting to, it's in the record.

# 14 THE COURT:

All right. You say 25962?

# 15 MS. CLARK:

Uh-huh. That's what we have. Is our numbering the same? What witness is up there?

# 16 THE COURT:

Matheson.

# 17 MS. CLARK:

Yeah. Can Mr. Goldberg help you, your Honor?

# 18 MR. GOLDBERG:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 19 THE COURT:

I don't recollect that.

# 20 MR. SCHECK:

I have a very distinct recollection of what happened. If you recall, your Honor--

# 21 MS. CLARK:

Wait. Could you wait?

# 22 THE COURT:

Let them find it.

# 23 MR. GOLDBERG:

It was also brought out with Gary Sims as well.

# 24 MS. CLARK:

I know it's in Siam's testimony.

# 25 THE COURT:

Here's our problem. I don't recollect that testimony in the record.

# 26 MR. SCHECK:

May I be heard? May I be heard?

# 27 MS. CLARK:

May I get rock? I know it came in.

# 28 MR. GOLDBERG:

I'm sorry. Right over here. I'm sorry, your Honor.

# 29 THE COURT:

All right. 25965. "Question: And was 117 identified as being one of the rear gate stains from the Bundy location? "Answer: Yes, I believe it was. "Question: And you got a B like pattern on that? "Answer: I called it a B, question mark, inconclusive, yes." All right. Mr. Scheck.

# 30 MR. SCHECK:

Could I see the particular transcript?

# 31 THE COURT:

Sure.

# 32 MS. CLARK:

It came in with Sims also, your Honor.

# 33 THE COURT:

Your argument is, that degraded from double band B to a single B?

# 34 MS. CLARK:

No. From BA to a B.

# 35 MR. SCHECK:

That's not the testimony.

# 36 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, our argument is based on inference. We know it's his blood. They've conceded it.

# 37 MR. SCHECK:

Also--

# 38 MS. CLARK:

Wait a minute. What's going on here? This is a fair inference in the record. EAP is a BA. That's in the record. It is also in the record that the rear gate type is his blood. It is also in the record that the EAP is a B on the rear gate, and the inference is, based on other testimony concerning the very same issue, that that's indicative of degradation. This is a reasonable inference and not the only reasonable inference that you can draw.

# 39 MR. SCHECK:

Wait a second. That's not the testimony. "There were eight stains from the Bundy location? "Yes, I believe it was. "You got an AB like a fingerprint on that? "I call it a B question mark, inconclusive, yes." That is not what this woman just said. There is no testimony it degraded into a B. That's what the record says. My recollection is, this particular electrophoretic plate was not allowed in, if you recall, on redirect examination with this witness because it was outside the scope of the direct examination about the fingernail scrapings, and then this particular thing wasn't let in. But the point is, this doesn't support what it just says. That is not Matheson's testimony and they can't argue this.

# 40 THE COURT:

The record speaks for itself. Objection overruled.

KEY QUOTE

# 41 MS. CLARK:

May I please read it to the jury?

# 42 THE COURT:

Objection overruled.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

EAP is a BA. That's in the record. It is also in the record that the rear gate type is his blood. It is also in the record that the EAP is a B on the rear gate, and the inference is, based on other testimony concerning the very same issue, that that's indicative of degradation.

Clark lays out the prosecution's chain of inference — that B typing on the rear gate stain is degraded BA, i.e., Simpson's blood.

Barry Scheck

That is not Matheson's testimony and they can't argue this.

Scheck's core objection — that the prosecution is mischaracterizing what the witness actually said.

Lance A. Ito

The record speaks for itself. Objection overruled.

Ito sides with the prosecution, allowing the inference argument to go to the jury.

Marcia Clark

Well, if you don't tell them--you know, Judge, this is such an obvious ploy.

Clark openly accuses the defense of using delay tactics to run out the clock.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Stain 117 from the rear gate at the Bundy location — EAP typed as 'B, question mark, inconclusive' by Matheson

discussed, transcript read aloud at sidebar (page 25965)

Informal

Gary Sims's testimony on EAP typing and degradation of blood samples

referenced as corroborating the prosecution's inference

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Barry Scheck

Clark argues the degradation inference (BA to B) is supported by the record; Scheck counters that Matheson's actual testimony was 'B, question mark, inconclusive' and does not establish degradation from BA.

heated

Lance A. Ito•Hank Goldberg

Goldberg locates the specific transcript page (25965) and Ito reads the Matheson exchange aloud before ruling.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Matheson

disputed interpretation of prior testimony

Scheck argues the prosecution is misrepresenting Matheson's EAP testimony — the 'B, question mark, inconclusive' result does not, in his view, establish degradation from BA.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7890 • 42 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103