📄 Arguments and ruling on preservation and independent testing of forensic evidence — Thursday, June 30, 1994
Address:
C:\DEPT103\PRELIMINARY\1994\JUN\30\ARGUMENTS-AND-RULING-ON-PRESER.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 1 of 6

Arguments and ruling on preservation and independent testing of forensic evidence

Date: Thursday, June 30, 1994 • Lines: 11
The defense argued that prosecution testing could consume all available blood samples and prevent an independent analysis, while the prosecution maintained that complete testing was necessary and offered defense experts full access to observe it. Judge Kennedy-Powell ordered that the defense be present for sample testing and limited the prosecution to collecting 40–100 hairs from five areas of Simpson's scalp so material would remain available for defense testing.
1 THE COURT:

Ms. Clark, do you intend to present any other evidence with regard to this issue?

2 MS. CLARK:

Not at this time, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT:

Mr. Shapiro, do you intend to present any evidence on this issue at this time?

4 MR. SHAPIRO:

No, Your Honor, thank you.

5 THE COURT:

All right. Does either side wish to be heard?

6 MR. SHAPIRO:

Yes, Your Honor. Regarding the issue of blood samples, I think clearly with the number of samples that have been taken and the tests that have been done, to allow the Los Angeles Police Department crime lab to consume all of the samples deprives Mr. Simpson of his right to an independent analysis of the samples, and therefore will prevent him from ever coming forward to show that errors have been made in the analysis.

7 THE COURT:

Ms. Clark.

8 MS. CLARK:

I think that we have repetitively covered that ground. If what counsel is attempting to assure himself of is that there are no errors in the methods employed in the analysis, I have invited him and a team of experts to examine and observe every step of the procedure of testing as to every single item. I repeat that invitation again. I can only reiterate, Your Honor, that the investigation has to be governed by the appropriate scientific procedures as determined by the experts, and that the prosecution must be permitted to investigate its own case. To do otherwise would permit counsel to come forward, limit the number of tests that we conduct on a piece of evidence, and then argue to the court that the results of testing are unreliable because they were incomplete. Obviously, that's a catch-22 situation that the people should never be placed in. We want to thoroughly investigate this case and obtain every result possible to gain maximum confidence in the results. Any exclusion that is obtained by the result of any test may very well indicate that the source of the item in question is not the source that was anticipated, either be it victim or witness or defendant. Likewise, any inclusion would tend to corroborate the conclusions indicated by prior tests. So the complete testing of every item of evidence is clearly a very necessary and important thing. Therefore, the people simply indicate that they are desirous of -- we are desirous of pursuing every test possible. And we invite counsel and all the team of experts he wants to have present to please come and observe every process, test every buffer and every solution to make sure that nothing is contaminated, and that we will preserve every right to which he's entitled to.

9 THE COURT:

All right. The court is prepared to make its ruling at this time. And that is this: What Ms. Clark has characterized as an invitation to the defense to be present at these various testing of these various samples about which we've heard testimony today is going to be more than an invitation. It's going to be subject to a Court order that in fact the defense be present for the testing that's performed on any of these items, particularly in light of the fact that the only testimony that was presented today is that Ms. Kestler -- who is the expert in this area who testified -- does not know whether in fact any of the tests that are going to be performed will in fact consume the entire sample. In light of that fact, that we do not know whether there will be a sample remaining, in order to safeguard Mr. Simpson's rights in this matter, the Court does order that the defense be entitled to be present as indicated, and not just by mere invitation but as a requirement in this case. With regard to the hairs and the number of hairs, the court will order that the prosecution be entitled to obtain at least 40 but no more than 100 hairs from the various areas, the five areas as denoted in the scalp of Mr. Simpson. That should accommodate a sufficient sample of hair to perform microscopic analysis or any other analysis that the people have indicated that they may do, and sufficient sample for the defense also to perform their tests after the prosecution has finished performing whatever tests they need as well. If at some point in time it's insufficient, then the matter can be revised at some future date, but I think that really should accommodate the needs of everyone, and hopefully we can put this issue to rest at this point.

10 MS. CLARK:

Thank you, Your Honor.

11 MR. SHAPIRO:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Robert Shapiro
to allow the Los Angeles Police Department crime lab to consume all of the samples deprives Mr. Simpson of his right to an independent analysis of the samples
Shapiro stated the defense's central concern: destructive prosecution testing could eliminate its opportunity to conduct independent analysis.
Marcia Clark
we invite counsel and all the team of experts he wants to have present to please come and observe every process, test every buffer and every solution to make sure that nothing is contaminated
Clark argued that defense observation and scrutiny of laboratory procedures would adequately protect Simpson's rights while allowing complete testing.
Kathleen Kennedy-Powell
What Ms. Clark has characterized as an invitation to the defense to be present at these various testing of these various samples about which we've heard testimony today is going to be more than an invitation.
The judge converted the prosecution's voluntary offer into a binding requirement that the defense be present for testing.
Kathleen Kennedy-Powell
the court will order that the prosecution be entitled to obtain at least 40 but no more than 100 hairs from the various areas, the five areas as denoted in the scalp of Mr. Simpson.
The court imposed a specific range for collecting Simpson's hair so both sides would have enough material to test.

Evidence (3)

Informal
Forensic blood samples held for testing by the Los Angeles Police Department crime lab.
discussed; testing regulated by court order to permit defense observation and protect against total consumption
Informal
Buffers and solutions used during forensic testing.
discussed as contamination controls available for defense examination
Informal
Between 40 and 100 hairs to be obtained from five designated areas of O.J. Simpson's scalp, leaving enough material for defense testing after prosecution testing.
collection and testing authorized with limits

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert ShapiroKathleen Kennedy-Powell
Shapiro argued that allowing the police laboratory to consume the blood samples would prevent independent defense testing and leave Simpson unable to demonstrate analytical errors.
strategic
Marcia ClarkRobert Shapiro
Clark countered that full testing was essential to a reliable investigation and renewed her offer to let defense experts observe every step and check for contamination.
adversarial but procedural
Kathleen Kennedy-PowellMarcia ClarkRobert Shapiro
The judge required defense attendance at testing because it was unknown whether the procedures would consume entire samples, then limited collection to 40–100 hairs to preserve material for both sides.
decisive

Objections

None recorded
Proceeding 9056 • 11 lines
Preliminary Trial
Department 103
📂 JUN 30, 1994 📄 Arguments and ruling on preser
JUN 30, 1994