All right. We're once again on the record in the case of People versus Simpson. the defendant is present with counsel, the people are represented. Mr. Shapiro, I assume you do now have a copy of the curriculum vitae.
Your Honor, what I have is not a curriculum vitae, but a statement of qualifications.
Miss Kestler, if you'd retake the witness stand. You've previously been sworn and remain under oath.
Your Honor, may I inquire as to whether or not he is, or has been assigned to the very division that's investigating this case? Would that be of relevance to the court?
You have provided us with a statement of qualifications, consisting of three pages, in the form, really, of check boxes. Is this what you consider your curriculum vitae?
This is the only thing that we have used most recent years. Since Prop 115, this is all I have available at this time. This is what we've been considering our C.V., yes.
I have used this type of statement for years. I used to spell it out in terminology, rather than have check boxes. It used to look more narrative, but it didn't go into much greater detail.
Prior to being employed by the Los Angeles Police Department, what was your work experience?
I worked for approximately five years in a private laboratory, performing chemical analysis and biological analysis.
You indicated your training in the discipline of hair. Is that how you refer to it? The discipline of hair?
Mrs. Kestler, you list there "Courtroom experience, discipline hair, 1980 through 1986;" is that correct?
I don't see anything on your statement of qualifications indicating testifying regarding blood, blood samples or blood preservation. Is your qualification statement incomplete in that regard?
No. It's under "Crime scene investigation and preservation of evidence" on page two. I have testified approximately 55 times in crime scene investigation and preservation of evidence. And in each of those cases, or almost all of those, had to do with blood preservation and obtaining sufficient sample for analysis purposes.
When was the last time you testified in a court of law regarding the amount of a sample necessary for preservation for later analysis?
Oh, let's see, probably about 19 -- let's see, when did I prepare this. Actually, the date changes automatically, so last time I testified, and that was probably about 1988, '86.
No, I don't recall, I really don't recall the year. So, sometime between 1982 and now, but only once or twice since then, because I've been in management most of that time.
How many times have you testified since 1976, regarding the amount of blood that is necessary to preserve a sample for later analysis?
Between 30 and 55 times. Almost all those cases listed on page 2, that refer to a crime scene investigation and preservation of evidence, are dealing with blood.
And you were specifically asked the amount of blood necessary to be preserved for later analysis; is that your testimony?
Do you recall when the last time you testified to the amount of blood necessary for splitting was?
Now, I notice in your statement of qualifications that you, indeed, attended a seminar on D.N.A.; is that correct?
That's one, yes. I've attended several which are not on here. As I said, I was not prepared for this, so this is not up to date.
As I explained, the computer automatically updates it, and I did not have time to go back in. There was apparently a rush to get this here, so --
KEY QUOTEIsn't that something that's standard for people who testify as expert witnesses, to have a curriculum vitae that is current to date?
It's only required if I'm going to bring it to court. As I stated, I don't testify much anymore, so I don't update this on a routine basis, no. I keep track of my interests, and what I'm doing, but not -- I don't update the c.v. all the time.
Whenever the case went down, there was evidence. But again, I did not expect to be involved.
Well, the things you haven't had time to add on to your statement of qualifications, let's talk about D.N.A. What additional qualifications do you have since eight hours of a seminar of 1988?
I have spent many, many hours with experts in the field from private laboratories, including cellmark, lifecodes. I've attended all the American society meetings from the past, since 1985, which is once a year for 40 hours a week. And I would say at least two days of that is always devoted to D.N.A. I also have attended all the A.S.C.L.D., as an A.S.C.L.D. board of directors meetings, MUST BE TWICE a year for the last -- since 1985, also. And there's always an update by the FBI and private laboratories on D.N.A. analysis, and what is required for that. AND I have been instrumental in implementation of D.N.A. in our laboratory as the manager, so I'm very familiar with it.
Do you know who the scientist is that is responsible for the D.N.A. subtypes that are being used in this case?
I take it that you haven't taken any courses that directly relate to D.N.A., in a school atmosphere?
Except in college, and it wasn't -- D.N.A. was, you know, barely mentioned as part of genetics and microbiology.
That's quite all right, counsel, I'm not concerned about my age here. It was 19 -- probably 1970.
Now, I understand that you list as your training the following things: "How to turn your work group into a winning team, Los Angeles Police Department"?
Actually, that's an ongoing management seminar. As I stated earlier, as a member of the American society of crime laboratory directors, board of directors, I attend the management seminars with the FBI twice a year.
Not in D.N.A. I considered myself an expert in preservation, collection and evaluation of evidence for all types of tests.
KEY QUOTENo, not in today's current serology. Again, evaluation, and I understand it, I can review reports, I can review People's analysis. I would never try to do it at the bench, but I do understand it.
well, There isn't really any academic training, other than my masters program and private courses in criminalistics, involved comparison of hair, and also the Mc Crone school hairs and fibers, that's one of the academic courses. And I've been trained as to on-the-job training by the FBI, as to hair and fiber analysis.
I don't know if henry actually does any bench work anymore, or if he's like myself, and he advises and oversees and reviews work, and evaluates evidence. But other than that, I know he's like myself. He used to do a lot of bench work. I consider himself -- I considered at that time that what he was doing, as well as what I was doing, him to be an expert. He is also a member of all the associations that I'm member of.
Objection, your Honor. Counsel is testifying. That's hearsay. We have no evidence of that. If counsel wants to put it into evidence and call Dr. Lee, that's fine, but --
If Dr. Lee is of the opinion that you only need one hair for D.N.A. testing, would you agree or disagree with that? Yes or no?
I'd like to now, your Honor, direct the court's attention, and the prosecutor'S attention, to the list of evidence. I would like to, painstakingly as it may be, go through each item, to see what tests were done, what tests are anticipated, and what the amount of sample is, and how much remains.
I don't think it's irrelevant. However, do you have that information at your fingertips?
You testified there are 60 items of evidence. I'd like to first direct your attention to the items of evidence that relate to blood. And I would like to review with you each one of these items of evidence, what tests have been performed at your laboratory to date, and what tests you anticipate performing in the future, so the judge can make a determination as to whether or not we will be able to perform the exact same tests.
What we would like, your Honor, is this: If they have done serology and D.N.A., and there still remains a sample, we would like to do serology and D.N.A.
I think I understand where you're going with this. You want to know how much of a sample remains?
And what tests have been done. And if no tests have been done, you want the know that also?
Your Honor, I think that perhaps it would be a lot more efficient if counsel would simply look at the documents he was given today, which indicate exactly what tests have been done and not done. And with respect to having the court determine whether or not further testing should be done, or whether sufficient volume exists to provide a split at this point in time, as to any piece evidence, how could the Court do that? That's a matter of expert opinion.
Well, that is correct. And my understanding is that apparently the defense intends to present some expert testimony on that issue.
Well, that was not my understanding. And I expressly asked Mr. Uelmen last night, when he called to ask me what the order of witnesses would be. I asked him what witnesses he intended to call today, and he informed me there were none.
your Honor, I think we will be able to satisfy the court, from this witness, through our cross-examination, that the tests that have been done, samples remain. And those samples would be enough to duplicate those tests in almost every area.
In other words, counsel is indicating that he is not going to call any witnesses, expert or otherwise, pertaining to this blood split issue. Is that the case?
Your Honor, that is a general import. Obviously, we have the right to call witnesses. We do not anticipate calling witnesses. But as the court well knows, depending on the answers that are given, we'll make that determination at an appropriate time.
Your Honor, counsel is in possession of the information he is seeking, in the list that was provided to him this morning. It indicates what tests have been performed. If counsel needs to inquire further, as to what tests are planned, that could be done collectively, as opposed to item by item.
well, I'm not going to tell counsel he has to examine in a collective fashion. you can go item by item. If you have this particular information, it might be helpful if the witness has it also, to refer to it. Because there's so many items by number. I don't want to get into the results, however, of any of these tests.
may I direct your attention to item number 1. Just let me know when you have an opportunity to focus on it.
I'm sorry. Item 1 is one bindle containing two swatches. And item 1-C is a swatch, which is just a control sample.
So, you would say that item number 1 has two bindles, that are composed of a swatch and a control?
Two -- no, that's -- I prefer to keep them separate, because it will just be confusing. If we could stick to item 1 and 1-C separately. Item 1 contains two swatches.
There is one swatch that's approximately two millimeters square, and one swatch which is one millimeter square.
Yes, your Honor. Counsel is in possession of a property report, that indicates where all these items were found.
Objection, irrelevant. Counsel wants to know at this point, what this witness's opinion is with respect to the availability of the blood split. When the tests will be performed in the future, is irrelevant to that determination. I think that counsel should be confining his questioning to matters that are now in issue. And that would be what tests have been performed, what tests are planned, and what volume she anticipates will be available for the blood split, if any.
I don't think the problem -- there is a problem asking about when the test is going to be performed, because that, I suppose, would be relevant in terms of knowing when there would be sufficient sample, since the witness has indicated that apparently she won't know until the tests are actually performed on any of these items, whether there's going to be enough for a split, and We'll just be back here again, doing this in the future, to try to find out this information. If she knows when the test is scheduled at this point, she can tell us.
My point is, your Honor, it doesn't matter. Because with respect to all the items, the few items she's indicated may be capable of providing a split, she won't have the answer for that, either, until the testing is done. So, we're going to be back here anyway, because one way or another --
I understand that. If within her knowledge, at her fingertips, here on the witness stand, she happens to know when a particular test is scheduled, fine, she can answer that. If she doesn't, we're not going to go research it anymore. go ahead, Mr. Shapiro.
We have not had a chance to get back to this at this time, and schedule the testing. We spent a lot of time evaluating the samples. That's about all we've had time to do.
Probably within the next -- they'll be either sent out, or done in our laboratory, within the next -- as soon as it can be arranged, probably -- depends on our schedule. We have other courts, so I'd say within the next three, four weeks.
It depends on whether we believe we can do it in-house. Depends on what we're going to do on it. obviously, if there's the R.F.L.P. that we think needs to be done, it has to be sent out. We don't do it in-house.
No, not necessarily. if we're going to send it for R.F.L.P., there's a good chance that we may decide to send all of it out. again, that determination hasn't been done yet. conventional serology, if it's possible, would be done in-house.
On this sample, it appears that, based on the small size, that we would be best suited to just attempt P.C.R., and possibly limit IT TO conventional. We'll try as much as possible. Doesn't appear to be enough for R.F.L.P.
limited means We will pick the best markers out of conventional serology, whatever they may be, the most discriminating markers, and just do those. We probably cannot do a full battery of conventional serology tests.
Probably most of it will be consumed. It will be extracted. The extract will still remain, but the sample as is, the cross squares, will be consumed.
It's not a volume, at that point. It depends on the concentration of the sample. you can concentrate that down into essentially nil. It's a concentration more than it is a volume. A volume is sort of irrelevant. It's more concentration of sample than volume. I can go into it, and give you a gallon of extract, which means nothing, Because it would be so diluted, you couldn't use it.
In your opinion, is there enough material here for both your laboratory to do a serology, and for a sample to be given to an independent laboratory for serology?
That's not what I said. I said there wouldn't be enough for us to do our work, and someone else to take original sample from scratch, and do any kind of serology testing, whether it's P.C.R., A.B.O. or R.F.L.P., et cetera.
Sustained. I don't want to get into the evidence. just See if there's been tests at this point.
This is going to take hours, in the manner in which counsel is PROCEEDING. I don't know that evidence is required to be taken in this manner. Counsel could sit down with his expert, and talk to this expert, who would be delighted to share all of her findings with counsel, and any expert counsel chooses to have with him, so that he can understand what her position is. And then we can frame a stipulation as to the nature of her testimony. This is going to take all day, in the manner in which counsel is proceeding. And I don't think it's going to assist the court any, in being able to determine its ruling.
Your Honor, with all due respect, I'm representing a man who is charged with two counts of first degree murder, where the people may be asking for the death penalty. And if it takes two hours to determine whether or not there will be enough of a sample for an independent evaluation, where we believe samples can be contaminated, where false positives are possible, and where errors can take place in laboratory procedure, I don't think that's being excessive at all.
Your Honor, I take exception to the manner in which counsel has characterized my response. I am making a suggestion to counsel that would allow him to have much more information than he is going to obtain in the manner in which he is proceeding. If he wants the information so that he can make a determination as to how he wants to proceed with the evidence, and what he wants to argue to the court, what I am suggesting would allow him to learn far more than he will in this manner. He needs an expert at his side, so that he can understand what this witness is telling him. And the manner in which he is proceeding, will not permit him do so. So, I am actually offering him the opportunity to learn a great deal more than he is at the current time. I'm trying to assist counsel in being more efficient and more effective.
Thank you. It's not going to be that time consuming. We have been here since 9:30, and so far, I've been allowed to ask one question.
that's on the direct evidence. There's 60 items, about 30 are blood. And I think the responses should take less than a minute. So, if we don't have any further interruptions, or suggestions as to how we should present our case, perhaps we can finish this.
Well, if you're referring to simply swatches containing red stains that appear to be blood, or that tested preliminary positive for blood, yes.
it's One swatch that is eight millimeters square, approximately square. This is all approximation of these measurements.
I'd like to limit it just to this item, because this has a different quantity than the first, does it not?
Yes, but your battery of tests proceed in the same manner. And the extract on all of them has to be done first, and it's the same extract that is used for both P.C.R. and R.F.L.P.
If you have no strenuous objection, if you could address ITEM NUMBER 4 as a separate item, I think that would be helpful for us.
It appears to be enough to do -- we hope to do both P.C.R., some conventional serology, and possibly R.F.L.P., which would consume the sample.
If you just did serology, would there be enough of a sample left for an independent laboratory to conduct a serology test?
Well, serology to me includes D.N.A., serology, D.N.A., are PART OF IT. ARE you talking about conventional serology?
conventional serology is markers, genetic markers, that is D.N.A., if you will. They're all genetic markers.
Let's start with the first test you would anticipate doing, and use your terms as to what test that would be.
I'm assuming -- What I think we would do here first, would be to attempt to do D.N.A., and then if there's any remaining, do conventional serology.
I indicated that R.F.L.P., which is the most consuming sample consuming D.N.A., as opposed to P.C.R., which requires less sample, that we would consume the sample.
Let's go over what you've done so far. So far, you've done serology on samples and you've done P.C.R. on samples; is that correct?
Do you know, as an expert witness, whether or not the quantity you have is sufficient sample for serology? Yes or no?
As I indicated before, if we only did serology, yes, there's probably enough there to do only serology. But we would anticipate to do R.F.L.P. first.
Objection. Counsel IS argumentative. The witness is attempting to answer HIS question.
If you did standard serology, would there be enough of a sample remaining for an independent laboratory to do serology?
Objection, irrelevant, your Honor. Your Honor, This is the point. We intend to perform serology, R.F.L.P., P.C.R., poly markers, every test available on each piece of evidence. and The only relevant question is whether, after the completion of all those tests, there will be sufficient evidence left for a split.
Have been done by L.A.P.D.: serology and a D.N.A. test known as P.C.R. They have done no other tests. I've asked the witness this, and she has acknowledged that. What I would like to establish, for the record, is this: For those that have not been done yet, just go piece by piece, if you do serology, would there be enough for us to Do serology. If you do P.C.R., would there be enough for us to do P.C.R. If you do other tests, would there be enough for us to do other tests, to make a record. Because if these samples are consumed, and we want to contest the fact that possibly exculpatory evidence existed, that we were deprived the opportunity of exploring, that should be part of the court record.
Your Honor, it is irrelevant to our consideration. That is exactly the point I don't think counsel understands. We have a battery of tests to which this evidence will be subjected. The question to be answered is whether or not, after the tests are completed, there's sufficient for a split. That's the question. Not whether, after each test is completed. Because counsel has no right to dictate to the prosecution the manner in which a case is investigated. We will subject the evidence to every test available, and every test possible. And at the conclusion of those tests, if there's sufficient left for a split, we would be delighted to share it with counsel. We have made that clear. this expert is only here to testify as to whether or not, after the conclusion of all the testing we deem appropriate, such amount will be left over. That's the only thing, not after each test. After each test makes no difference.
Mr. Shapiro, I agree with the prosecution on this point. Because I'm not in a position -- I'm not going to put myself in a position to say they can or cannot perform a given test on a given sample. And I don't think what's what the court's position should be.
your Honor, I want the record just to be clear that we are requesting samples of all material relating to blood, that have not yet been tested, for our own testing. I will leave it at that.
Let me make the record clear, then, your Honor, that I have repeatedly advised counsel that I am going to make every single test ready for observation, to him and to his experts. Every test performed, can be observed in every step of the process by his experts, at his choice. And if there is some question he has, or concerns about buffers or solutions being contaminated, we will be delighted to provide a split of any buffer or solution that is being used in the conducting of any test. So, counsel is going to be allowed to examine every piece of evidence, observe the testing process, to make sure that evidence is appropriately handled. And I want to reiterate that invitation on the record once again.
The glove gives quite a bit of positive area for blood. You cannot see it. You cannot differentiate how much is there, because of the leather. Until we actually extract it, and work with it, we don't know -- yes, there's some remaining, we don't know how much.
Is there enough remaining, in your opinion, for an independent laboratory to conduct their own investigation?
Is there enough remaining for an independent laboratory to conduct their investigation? Yes or no?
Some -- well, I have to clarify this. If you mean -- we're not done testing. So, do you mean at this time, or when we're done testing?
We're going to do everything possible, and again, until it's extracted, I believe we'll even try for D.N.A. -- I mean, I'm sorry, the R.F.L.P. and D.N.A. but, we're skeptical there will be sufficient there for that.
Yeah. I didn't hear you. I almost thought you didn't say 12. I thought we were going one at a time.
I believe I answered this earlier. I felt that there would be a possible sufficient amount when we're done, but we won't know until we're done.
That means the portion of which you're concerned about, the contamination in the extraction process, or at least one of the processes involving D.N.A., P.C.R., we extract the sample. We still have the extract, we don't need all the extract.
No, there wasn't any. That's the tests -- we did a search for blood, and didn't find any. I didn't know if we were getting into that.
There's A very small amount of sample left, about -- actually, this is small amount of fibers, small amount of stain, that's kind of like the glove. It's difficult, until we extract it, to know how strong it is.
We don't know until we send it out for poly markers. The extract will always be available. Whether it's sufficient for testing, I don't know.
28 are some threads. The sample is so small, it's not even what I consider a swatch. It's two or three little cloth threads, with red stain on them. That has not been tested.
P.C.R. only, and the extract remains. Plus one small square, and we don't anticipate any of that being left, except the extract.
That's correct. As you can see in the column, it indicates what's still there. That's your two by three millimeter piece.
Item 33 has a -- has blood in several very small areas of some pattern resembling -- resembling possibly a shoe print. So, that's -- we're holding off on that until we can decide how to progress and develop, and look at the shoe print, as well as the blood, without losing either one. We did do --
I don't know, because we're not finished. We're not finished on any of these, actually, except the one that was consumed. We probably can't do anything more on that. But we're going to attempt to, anyway.
May I just have a continuing objection to all of these questions, concerning the request for whether there would be sufficient split after one or two tests, before all the testing is completed? AND Counsel keeps going back to this, and I'm getting tired of objecting to the same thing. And the court keeps sustaining it. He's asking the irrelevant issue, which is whether, after each test, is there going to be enough left. The question is after all tests is there enough left.
it's A glove, and there are -- appears to be stains on it that we have not tested yet. But, they appear to be blood -- I'm sorry, they preliminarily tested positive for blood.
as many as possible. Probably can't do R.F.L.P., but we are going to certainly have it evaluated further.
We are going to begin it early in the week, probably Monday, by determining who's going to be -- who is going to do what testing.
No, there's not. Well, there's more than one. We use two or three labs for different types of testing.
There is a very, very -- there's several little swatches. There's three of them, but they're very weak.
We are going to try to do poly marker, probably. That's our hope, yes. We are going to attempt to do that.
I don't think we've gotten that yet. I want to just check, just for information only.
I don't know if I have them. I DO know I gave them to the defense last week, at that same meeting.
Yes. That's one of the ones that we're hopeful, after testing, after we complete our testing, that there may be some available for the defense, and -- but we're not sure.
Number 44. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm starting to skip to what we already did. I'm losing track in this melee of samples here. Number 43, there are four swatches. And out of those FOUR, they're weak in color. And we anticipate that the entire sample will be consumed when we're done testing.
Number 44. There are several swatches, and it's possible, we're hoping there may be some left when we complete our analysis. We haven't done anything, we're not done.
Number 47. We have done P.C.R. we feel that there, hopefully, based on what's there now, when we're done testing, that there will be some left. Can't guarantee it, but looks promising.
By the way, on 49 we anticipate -- that's one of those we anticipate there will be enough left, hopefully, presuming everything goes well for the defense. Number 50, possibly. It's a little weaker than number 49, but there may be some left.
Number 51, we haven't done anything. We don't anticipate any being left, though, when we are completed.
Yes. Number 54 we have not done it. There's several little swatches, but we feel our R.F.L.P. will consume the sample.
not tested. It's very, very small. We feel that there's not enough for R.F.L.P. and P.C.R. and conventional, and poly marker, of course, is part of the P.C.R. technique, will be all that will be done on that one.
None left, but we feel R.F.L.P. will probably consume the sample. So that means R.F.L.P. and P.C.R.
That's -- 57 is a label found on a walkway, I believe. I made a separate note of this. it's difficult, again, because of the label, to say how strong the stain is, how much interference from the label. But assuming everything goes well, there may be enough left when we're done. We haven't done anything with it yet.
We have not -- any of these were in the column that indicates "split," where I have written yes or no, that means we may do something with them. Number 84-A, we've examined the nail scrapings, and we think that possibly there won't be any sample left when we're done. But possibly, we may be able to do P.C.R., and one or two conventional tests. And 84-B, these are the left and right-hand nail scrapings. Same thing, 84-C, the nail clippings, there won't be any left, but we may be able to do P.C.R. and conventional. Number 84-D are the right hand nail clippings. and There may be enough -- it's even questionable there may be enough there to do our R.F.L.P., but we don't anticipate there being anything left when we're done. number 85-A are some scrapings we received from the coroner, that they scraped. We'll have to refer to their report. We believe we can do P.C.R. and conventional. Again, we don't anticipate enough being left. And 85-B are some scrapings, again, and anticipate P.C.R., possibly some conventional. And don't anticipate any being left over for the defense.
At this time -- At this time we have not looked at -- like I indicated -- as I indicated earlier in my testimony, we have not examined some of the evidence that was recently collected.
Item Number 9, there's hairs removed from item Number 9, which are item number 19 and item number 110.
No, we have not. We don't have the hair sample to compare those hairs to yet. I'M Sorry, you just want a -- did you want a body origin?
I don't have that with me. I don't know if I gave that to -- it's in process. I don't know if that's one of the completed reports that I brought with me last night, which I know the prosecution hasn't had time to review.
Your Honor, I was just provided this this morning. This is a package for counsel, pursuant to the request he made when we were last in court, and I'm going to turn it over to counsel, and give him an opportunity to look at it. I haven't seen it myself. We all just got these packages. So, I'd ask counsel to acknowledge receipt of it on the record, and --
It's from the crime lab. last time we were in court, If the court recalls, I promised to turn over the records requested verbally, and I just got them. I ask that counsel sign where it's indicated, and date it, and he can take possession of that. And I hope I can get mine at some point later today.
Just so -- if I may interject, what is not there is the protocol. We're still copying those. Those are volumes, and we hope to have them early next week, Monday or Tuesday.
The protocol for D.N.A., and proficiency testing for D.N.A., P.C.R., and also conventional serology.
It does, but it's not -- you haven't talked -- We haven't talked about it here today.
No. The point being, does that -- that's a protocol you follow in all cases; is that right?
-- I wonder, based on what the court indicated the schedule would be, if we might take a break, so we can review these records, before we continue questioning. I anticipate very, very limited questions, only on the remaining four hair samples, the amount. And for preparation, so that the records can be looked at over the break, we'd like to know the number of hairs, whether they are follicles or shafts of hair, where they were found, and how many of them there are.
Your Honor, perhaps the reports that counsel has been given indicate all that, and if that's the case, then --
Right. And if that information is contained within what you have, you're going to have the answer to that.
If you haven't got the report, I can't officially, because it hasn't been verified. That means those items are not done yet, not completed, we're still working on them.
You'll have to determine that, and maybe you can sort of confer, if you need, to off the record, with regard to some of these items. I don't think it necessarily has to be part of this motion that we're doing now.
I'm sorry, your Honor. just one more. we received this from GTE. it Looks like a response from the subpoena duces tecum. and It been DELIVERED To me by the CLERK, in a sealed condition, which is the manner it was delivered to her, I take it. Yes. and I'm going to ask to open it now on the record, in open court, so counsel can observe the opening, and the contents of the envelope. If I may.
Excuse me. I can't believe I heard Mr. Shapiro say that. I'd rather conduct everything on the record, your Honor, in open court.
May the record reflect I have now broken the seal. Opening the envelope, and I've retrieved what appears to be a one-page letter. I'm going to show to counsel.
All right, miss Clark. My clerk, Alicia, informs me that came, accompanied by another larger packet of records, which she is holding there, which you'll want to review. I really prefer that you, if possible, can review those records off the record.
I'd been delighted to review them off the record. All I want to indicate now is that they're in a sealed condition, and we may open them, and duplicate them for counsel.
Excuse me, your Honor. I don't think I've engaged in any improper procedures thus far. I don't appreciate counsel's editorializing.
All right. Now, today, only because of certain matters that do not concern the rest of you, we are going to be breaking until 2:00 o'clock. I anticipate the following schedule, and I assume that most of you then, advised of it. That is, that the court intends to start at 9:00 o'clock and go until 12:00, with a 15-minute break somewhere during the mid part of that morning session. The court intends to, under normal circumstances, continue with the proceeding at 1:30, with a 15-minute break somewhere around 3:00 o'clock or so, and concluding the proceeding at 4:30. That's what I anticipate, and that's the schedule, Hopefully, that we will be able to abide by, generally speaking. I'm going to ask everyone's cooperation with regard to the breaks we take, the 15-minute break. I would very much like to see them remaining 15 minutes as opposed to 20, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes. It's really going to be up to you folks, to make sure that you are back in your seats, and all the necessary counsel and so forth, are back, so that we can keep this matter moving along. So, I would request the cooperation of everyone, so that we can handle this matter as smoothly as possible. At this point in time, we will be in recess until 2:00 o'clock. We'll conclude this motion, hopefully, shortly thereafter. And we'll begin with the other motions, including the motion to suppress at that time.
I'm representing a man who is charged with two counts of first degree murder, where the people may be asking for the death penalty. And if it takes two hours to determine whether or not there will be enough of a sample for an independent evaluation, where we believe samples can be contaminated, where false positives are possible, and where errors can take place in laboratory procedure, I don't think that's being excessive at all.
Not in D.N.A. I considered myself an expert in preservation, collection and evaluation of evidence for all types of tests.
As I explained, the computer automatically updates it, and I did not have time to go back in. There was apparently a rush to get this here.
Every test performed, can be observed in every step of the process by his experts, at his choice. And if there is some question he has, or concerns about buffers or solutions being contaminated, we will be delighted to provide a split of any buffer or solution that is being used in the conducting of any test.