Skip to content

March 24th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Dr. Antonio Cantu (Cross Examination), Lisa Susan Hemman, Charlene Marie, Heriberto Martinez, and Timothy Sutcliffe (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 1 of 2

August 21, 2012

Sanger’s cross examination of Dr. Cantu continued today and focused almost exclusively on the techniques that Dr. Cantu uses to analyze fingerprints. Sanger obviously tried to impress upon the jury the fact that fingerprint analysis isn’t infallible, and in fact he referenced a communication that Dr. Cantu sent to the senior program manager at the National Institute of Justice in February 2000, where Dr. Cantu stated that fingerprint examiners need to be provided with hard data to counter challenges to fingerprint testimony:



22 Q. Dr. Cantu, you have expressed an interest in

23 countering the challenges that have recently come up

24 to fingerprint identification; is that correct?

25 A. I’ve been involved in discussions of that

26 nature, yes.

27 Q. And recent challenges have involved, for

28 instance, a fairly well-known court case in 3324

1 Pennsylvania, where Judge Pollack ruled on

2 fingerprint admissibility?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Okay. There have been some rather

5 remarkable issues regarding reliability of

6 fingerprint comparison, correct?

7 A. That’s what I understand.

8 Q. You’re aware of the Oregon attorney who was

9 accused of the Madrid terrorist bombing; is that

10 correct?

11 A. I’m aware of that.

12 Q. The people that did that fingerprint

13 comparison were in the FBI office in Washington

14 D.C.?

15 A. That’s correct.

16 Q. Those are people you know, right?

17 A. No, I do not know them.

18 Q. Okay. That’s fine.

19 In the context of this, you have expressed a

20 desire to see that the second part of what we have

21 been talking about — we’ve been talking about the

22 first part, which is being able to see fingerprints

23 so you can look at them, and then presumably compare

24 them, right?

25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. And the second part is comparing them?

27 A. That is correct.

28 Q. And you have indicated that you believe 3325

1 there needs to be additional validation studies in

2 order to bolster the admissibility of fingerprint

3 evidence in this country, correct?

4 A. No, sir, that is not correct. I’ve been

5 involved in discussions of that nature, but I don’t

6 think you’ve ever seen coming out of my mouth a

7 statement like that.

8 Q. Do you remember sending a communication to

9 Richard Rau, R-a-u, who’s the senior program manager

10 at the National Institute of Justice?

11 A. He was.

12 Q. He was. And in February of 2000, did you

13 tell him, “It will not be long before more and more

14 cases come up where fingerprint testimony will be

15 challenged, and therefore we need to provide the

16 examiners with necessary hard data on validation to

17 counter challenges”?

18 A. I believe I did say that.

19 Q. Okay. All right. So when you’re talking

20 about validation, additional hard data on

21 validation, you’re talking about validating the

22 second part, which is the aspects of comparison,

23 that there’s permanence, there’s individuality, and

24 that comparisons can actually be made to come up

25 with a positive conclusion, right?

26 A. Well, that’s what some people contend. I’m

27 not, as I mentioned earlier, in that area. My

28 particular expertise has been in the first part, 3326

1 coming up with technology for the visualization of

2 fingerprints and advanced technology to be able to

3 detect fingerprints that would not be able to be

4 detected by the ordinary methods.

Under redirect examination, Auchincloss questioned Dr. Cantu about the validity of the prosecution’s fingerprint testing in order to bolster their credibility in the eyes of the jury:

15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Then I’ll ask it in

16 hypothetical form.

17 Assume that — and this is a hypothetical.

18 Assume that a large number of magazines are being

19 looked at for latent fingerprints. Assume that the

20 first step is to use an alternative light source,

21 look at the magazines visually, see if you can find

22 any biological evidence, including fingerprints, on

23 those magazines.

24 Assume the next step is that you then fume

25 the magazines with the super glue. And then you

26 again look at the magazines using the Scenescope and

27 the alternative light source that’s provided by the

28 Scenescope. You identify notable prints, you circle 3340

1 them, you have a system by which you identify those

2 prints, and then you take it a step further.

3 You use a ninhydrin solution and go on to a

4 second phase of looking for prints on these

5 magazines where — or I should say a third phase,

6 where you’re actually looking for identifiable

7 prints that are shown by the ninhydrin solution, and

8 you note those items, circle them, and document

9 their location on the individual pages.

10 In your opinion, do you have an opinion as

11 to the validity or integrity of such a protocol for

12 identifying and locating fingerprints on smooth

13 magazine paper surfaces?

14 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object that that’s

15 an improper hypothetical, and it’s vague as to “the

16 validity or integrity.”

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 You may answer.

19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: You may answer.

21 THE WITNESS: I gave an answer yesterday to

22 that effect when you asked me about smooth paper,

23 like on a magazine, and I indicated a protocol that

24 could be used. And I indicated that one would use

25 optical methods first, maybe use the ultraviolet

26 imaging source for the purpose of seeing if there’s

27 any prints that it could bring out before any

28 processing. And then the super glue would be the 3341

1 next step, and see if there’s any prints visually

2 also using the Reflected Ultraviolet Imaging System.

3 And you find some — let’s say you find some

4 in that case, and you mark them. And then the next

5 step, “Let’s go after the amino acids,” and that

6 would be the use of a ninhydrin or other reagents.

7 But in this case, ninhydrin is the one that was

8 used.

9 So I did indicate that yesterday.

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And so what is your

11 opinion about the use of that type of protocol as

12 far as its validity in locating fingerprints on

13 smooth magazine paper?

14 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. Asked and

15 answered.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 You may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: No, I indicated that that’s

19 what would normally be done.

20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is that the protocol

21 that you yourself would use to find fingerprints on

22 such an item?

23 A. Yes, we have used that protocol —

24 MR. SANGER: I’m going to move to strike.

25 That calls for speculation.

26 THE COURT: Overruled.

27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You may answer.

28 A. Very well. 3342

1 We had a similar case in our laboratory

2 where exactly the same protocol was followed.

3 MR. SANGER: I’m going to move to strike as

4 nonresponsive.

5 THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.

6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll just ask you to

7 answer this question — just to satisfy the rules,

8 to answer the question in a “yes” or “no” fashion.

9 Isn’t this the type of protocol you yourself

10 would use if you were trying to locate fingerprints

11 on smooth magazine papers?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. No further

14 questions. 

Upon recross-examination, Sanger once again tried to discredit the prosecution’s handling of the fingerprint evidence due to their sloppy mishandling of the evidence (e.g. waiting a year to test for fingerprints, etc. )



18 Q. Okay. Now, you said you have done this a

19 few times in actual cases; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Okay. For the most part, somebody else does

22 this in actual cases, does this — bringing the

23 fingerprints up either through alternative light

24 source, fluorescence, ultraviolet, super glue,

25 ninhydrin, or one of the other means; is that

26 correct?

27 A. Yes, sir. They do it, but I consult with

28 them, and they consult with me, occasionally on the 3343

1 technology that they’re using.

2 Q. Okay. That’s fine. And I didn’t mean that

3 to be a demeaning-sounding question. I’m just

4 saying as a practical matter, you’re not the one out

5 there putting on the rubber gloves and doing this in

6 real cases?

7 A. Well, I have done that, too.

8 Q. You have. For the most part, not, correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. There you go. All right.

11 Now, nevertheless, you are aware that

12 fingerprints are the type of evidence that you want

13 to preserve at a crime scene, is that correct?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. Okay. And when I say “a crime scene,” you

16 understand law enforcement, whatever type of law

17 enforcement, Secret Service, FBI, the Santa Maria

18 Police Department, sheriff’s department here in

19 Santa Barbara, whatever, they go to a scene where

20 they think they may be recovering something that’s

21 going to have evidentiary value, right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And if there’s any issue with regard to who

24 may have touched something, you would think, based

25 on your professional experience, that you would want

26 to preserve that very carefully so that if there are

27 any fingerprints there, they will be intact so that

28 they can be made visible and then evaluated by a 3344

1 latent fingerprint examiner, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. All right. So you would not recommend, for

4 instance, that somebody seize an item and not note

5 for forensics that it should be preserved for

6 fingerprints, right? Is that clear? It was kind of

7 a negative.

8 Let me rephrase it.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as

10 vague.

11 MR. SANGER: Let me rephrase that.

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Object as vague and beyond

13 the scope.

14 MR. SANGER: First of all, I’m withdrawing

15 it. So I can rephrase it, if I may.

16 THE COURT: Go ahead.

17 Q. BY MR. SANGER: You talked about the

18 protocol here. You just — in response to Mr.

19 Auchincloss’s question. Part of the protocol is to

20 preserve the evidence, right, so you can get — you

21 can visualize — you can make visible the prints

22 that are there, right?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. And you would expect that law enforcement,

25 when they are seizing something that may have

26 fingerprints, and fingerprints where identity may an

27 issue in the case, for whatever it’s worth, you

28 would expect them to note for the purpose of 3345

1 forensics that this item is being preserved for

2 fingerprints, correct?

3 A. I would expect that, yes.

4 Q. And then you would expect that that item

5 would be carefully handled until fingerprints are

6 taken, correct? When I say “taken” — fingerprints

7 are developed?

8 A. Well, you are speaking about an area that we

9 call collection and preservation of evidence. It’s

10 like a first part before we enter the part of the

11 development and the part of comparison. There’s

12 actually another part if you do comparison with a

13 computer with a set of database. But in any

14 event —

15 Q. Let’s stop there, because that’s — that’s

16 like the AFIS system?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. That’s at the very end?

19 A. That’s right.

20 Q. And I just want to focus so we don’t lose

21 the jury here. We’re at the very beginning?

22 A. The very beginning, the preservation and

23 collection of evidence. And I get involved in the

24 second phase.

25 Now, I know some of the rules and

26 regulations about conservation, preservation of

27 evidence, and that is, you know, first of all, don’t

28 put your prints on there. Wear gloves. And put it 3346

1 in a plastic bag. And all depends on the evidence

2 as well. Some people — well, again, I’ll just

3 leave it at that. There’s some rules and

4 regulations about how to do this, and people that do

5 crime scene investigations are trained to be able to

6 do this.

7 Q. All right.

8 A. You always see them wearing gloves or

9 wearing a handkerchief and picking things up so that

10 they minimize the amount of handling. That’s the

11 object.

12 Q. Because when you get involved as a

13 scientist, your part — and we understand sometimes

14 you’ve done it, other times you’ve supervised, and

15 other times you’ve studied it. But your part is the

16 visualization of these prints, the science of trying

17 to make the prints more visible, okay? But you are

18 aware of the issue of contamination of evidence,

19 correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that’s something that comes up not only

22 in fingerprints, but comes up with documents, and

23 with fiber comparisons, and all sorts of things; is

24 that right?

25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. So the — it’s very important that evidence

27 be preserved as it is found, as best as possible, so

28 that the scientists and the examiner can do their 3347

1 job, correct?

2 A. That is correct. That’s also part of the

3 chain of custody. That’s why we establish things

4 like that, to avoid things of that nature.

5 Q. When you say “chain of custody” — we

6 introduced a term here that hasn’t been fully

7 explained yet, so I’m going to ask you to do it.

8 When you say “chain of custody,” each person

9 who touches the item, or takes the item somewhere,

10 should clearly record what they’re doing and make

11 sure that they do not contribute in any way to

12 contamination of that item; is that correct?

13 A. That’s part of the regulations of chain of

14 custody.

15 Q. All right. So at the very end, when

16 somebody comes into court and wants to say to the

17 Court, and to the jury, and counsel, and the

18 department, and everybody, “Here’s this piece of

19 evidence,” they can say, “Well, I took it out of the

20 evidence locker today, here it is, and prior to

21 that, I booked it into the evidence locker,” or we

22 can bring in a series of people saying, “They were

23 booked in by me, it was taken out by the next

24 witness, it was put back in,” so on, correct?

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as

26 beyond the scope.

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

28 MR. SANGER: Okay. 3348

1 Q. When you’re talking about the protocol here,

2 the issue of evidence collection and preservation is

3 something that you’re assuming or hoping would be

4 done properly before you would get involved in the

5 case, right?

6 A. That’s correct.

7 Q. All right. Now, with regard to fingerprints

8 in particular, are you aware of — let me withdraw

9 that.

10 Are you aware of an alternative light source

11 process to look at something to determine whether or

12 not there are bodily fluid stains?

13 A. I’m aware of that, yes.

14 Q. Okay. I’m not going to ask you to go into

15 that in detail, but tell me — can you tell me how

16 that works in general?

17 A. Yes. An alternate light source came into

18 existence after the laser-induced fluorescence was

19 introduced, and that was — probably goes back to

20 the ‘70s. But some people said, “I can get the same

21 effect by using a powerful light and just filtering

22 it at a particular color that I want using a device

23 that selectively picks out the frequency that you

24 want.”

25 So the alternate light source is alternate

26 to the laser, basically. And the lights range

27 normally from the blue region all the way to the red

28 region. And depending on which one that you have, 3349

1 some of them are very selective, like several

2 wavelengths at a time, and a very narrow band.

3 That’s terminology used in optics. But in any

4 event, very precise colors is what I’m trying to

5 say.

6 And what happens with this thing is you

7 illuminate something, and it is possible that that

8 material may have something that glows. You

9 mentioned body fluids. Some of them actually have

10 fluorescence that use goggles that block the

11 illuminating light and you see any of the

12 fluorescence that comes out.

13 Q. All right. So what color light might you

14 have and what color of goggles, just so we have a

15 picture?

16 A. I mentioned yesterday that in fingerprints,

17 they usually have one that would be a blue-green

18 light and they use orange goggles.

19 Q. Just so we have a mental picture, without

20 going into a lot of detail, because I’m sure we’ll

21 have more of this later, somebody’s got these

22 goggles on that filters the light to a particular

23 wavelength, or filters out other light, however you

24 want to look at it, and they’re looking with a light

25 and they’re able to see some things you couldn’t see

26 if you took the goggles out and just turned the

27 house lights on, correct?

28 A. That’s correct. 3350

1 Q. And is that destructive — let’s assume

2 we’re looking at magazines. Is that destructive of

3 the magazine, do you —

4 A. Normally not.

5 Q. Okay. So you do not consume the magazine,

6 you don’t interfere with subsequent tests like

7 fingerprint tests; is that correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Okay. And that type of a test can be done

10 quickly, in a matter of minutes, or an hour, or a

11 couple of hours, right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. All right. So it’s not something that takes

14 weeks or months to do?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. All right. Now, in a case — in a case

17 where there is — the case is considered to be an

18 important case, let us say – I suppose all cases are

19 important to the people involved – you would expect

20 that fingerprint evaluation would take place sooner

21 rather than later, right?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. You certainly wouldn’t want to take, for

24 instance, a container with all the materials, and

25 take it to a grand jury and book it into evidence

26 and then take it out months later and do

27 fingerprints, would you?

28 A. Well, let me make a point here, if I may. 3351

1 Q. Before you make the point, is that what you

2 would prefer to do, or not?

3 A. Not necessarily.

4 Q. Okay. You would prefer to do the

5 fingerprint evaluation first, before you go book

6 something into evidence before a body, whether it’s

7 a grand jury, a trial court, or anything else,

8 right?

9 A. Yeah, you would expect to do the analysis

10 first.

11 Q. Okay. And were you aware that the

12 fingerprint analysis in this case wasn’t done for

13 over a year after the items were seized?

14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;

15 beyond the scope.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 THE WITNESS: Very well.

18 First of all —

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware of that, was

20 the question, sir.

21 A. I was not aware that they were a year old.

22 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. No further

23 questions.

Under further redirect examination, Auchincloss tried to minimize the significance of the almost year long wait to fingerprint the magazines:



27 Q. Dr. Cantu, assuming that an item of evidence

28 is properly handled with gloves — and let’s narrow 3352

1 our hypothetical to magazines, all right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. — bagged in paper or plastic at the scene,

4 and preserved in that fashion for a period of 8 to

5 12 months, would you expect the fingerprints that

6 might be located on that magazine to disappear

7 during that 8 to 12 months?

8 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m going to object

9 that that is an improper hypothetical and misstates

10 the facts in evidence. Misstates any facts that may

11 be shown in this case.


13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 You may answer.

15 THE WITNESS: Fingerprints, I would not

16 expect it to go away. We have had cases — perhaps

17 you have heard of a fingerprint that’s — you know,

18 a 50-year-old fingerprint. The FBI used to talk

19 about this quite a bit —

20 MR. SANGER: I’m going to move to strike as

21 nonresponsive.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine. That’s fine.

23 I’ll —

24 THE COURT: Strike the second sentence.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

26 Q. Dr. Cantu, why do you say that?

27 A. Which of the statements?

28 Q. You just said you would not expect the 3353

1 fingerprints to disappear over that period of time,

2 and now I’m asking you to elaborate. Why do you say

3 that?

4 A. By experience.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. We have studied how long fingerprints last

7 for the ninhydrin process or the amino acid process,

8 and for the physical develop process, which I

9 haven’t gone into, but let’s say the lipid portion

10 of the wax and oils of the fingerprint, and they

11 last a significant amount of time and can be picked

12 up by the chemical methods that we have mentioned.

13 Q. All right. And as far as contamination

14 goes, is it fair to say that if a fingerprint is —

15 well, let me strike that.

16 Assume you’re looking for an individual’s

17 fingerprint, a particular individual, Individual X

18 we’ll call him.

19 Is contamination, any form of contamination,

20 going to affect whether or not that fingerprint

21 changes to look like someone else’s fingerprint?

22 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object. The

23 witness — it’s beyond the scope of his professed

24 expertise to do comparison.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is not a comparison

26 question. The question is chemical.

27 Q. Chemically, based upon —

28 MR. SANGER: Excuse me, Your Honor, there’s 3354

1 an objection pending.

2 THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the

3 objection.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry?

5 THE COURT: I am sustaining the objection.

6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Can a

7 fingerprint of one person morph into that of another

8 person with the passage of time or contamination?

9 MR. SANGER: Objection, Your Honor, it’s

10 beyond the scope of his expertise.

11 THE COURT: He has stated that contamination

12 is not within his area of expertise, Counsel.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is there any chemical

14 process, irrespective of contamination, any physical

15 process that you are aware of that will cause a

16 fingerprint of one person to change and turn into

17 that of another’s?

18 MR. SANGER: Objection. Comparison is

19 outside his scope.

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m asking him a chemical

21 question. That is his area of expertise, the

22 chemical formation of fingerprints.

23 MR. SANGER: I object to speaking —

24 THE COURT: Sustained. The question will be

25 allowed.

26 You may answer. Do you want it read back?

27 Would you like the question read back? You may

28 answer it. 3355

1 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sir, chemically, I

2 could only say that the chemicals of the fingerprint

3 residue can possibly change. But as far as the

4 pattern, I don’t think so.

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you.

6 MR. SANGER: I’m going to move to strike the

7 last part, which he said he doesn’t do comparisons.

8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m talking — well —

9 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

10 Motion to strike is denied.

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.

And under further recross-examination, Sanger once again tried impress upon the jury the significance of the excessive passage of time between the seizure and testing of the magazines, primarily the effects of the degradation of fingerprint evidence:



15 Q. Without belaboring this too much farther,

16 there is such a thing as degradation of evidence,

17 correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And degradation basically means that over a

20 passage of time, with or without other factors,

21 evidence can degrade so that the ability to analyze

22 that evidence becomes more difficult; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Not necessarily.

25 Q. Excuse me, let me — I didn’t ask

26 necessarily, so let me ask the question again so

27 it’s clear.

28 Degradation involves something deteriorating 3356

1 over time, correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. And you’re familiar with that in all

4 sorts of areas of evidence besides — other than,

5 let’s say, fingerprints, correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Okay. And degradation can take place

8 because the underlying material on which the

9 evidence is deposited starts to degrade, correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Degradation can take place because there is,

12 in fact, a chemical change in – we’re talking about

13 fingerprints – the actual fingerprints that are left

14 on the item, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And just based on degradation, you can end

17 up with a less clear latent print than you might

18 have had, say, a year before; is that correct?

19 A. Again, I’d say not necessarily.

20 Q. I didn’t ask necessarily. I said, you

21 can —

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. He’s answered

23 the question.

24 THE WITNESS: I would like to —

25 THE COURT: Just a moment.

26 Overruled.

27 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I’m asking, is that

28 something that’s reasonably possible, that over a 3357

1 period of time, there can be degradation of a

2 fingerprint, a latent fingerprint?

3 A. It is.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

5 answered.

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

7 Answer.

8 THE WITNESS: It is possible.

9 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Now, in addition to

10 that — or let me stop on that for a moment. Part

11 of what might happen over a period of time is that

12 you lose some part of a detail in a print that might

13 have been recoverable earlier; is that correct?

14 A. That may happen.

15 Q. All right. Now, in addition to that,

16 there’s contamination besides just degradation of

17 underlying materials and chemicals. There’s the

18 possibility of contamination, correct?

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; beyond this

20 witness’s expertise.

21 THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

22 That’s the same objection you made earlier.

23 MR. SANGER: It was, but I thought it was

24 overruled. I thought it was overruled on the

25 contamination issue. Maybe I’m wrong.

26 Q. In any event, one of the things that you

27 don’t want to — so we’re not being too mystical

28 here with the use of the language, one of the things 3358

1 that you — as a scientist, if the question posed to

2 you is whose fingerprints were on this magazine on

3 November 18th, 2003, you would — and you have —

4 and you know that there’s certain people who are —

5 not by you, but eventually are going to be looked at

6 as possible donors for the fingerprint, you would

7 want to know that that person didn’t handle the

8 items in between November 18th, 2003, and November

9 2004, correct?

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; ambiguous.

11 THE COURT: It’s not ambiguous, but it is so

12 long —

13 MR. SANGER: That was my last question, too.

14 THE COURT: Would you ask —

15 MR. SANGER: I’ll break it down.

16 THE COURT: Just ask the question.

17 MR. SANGER: Okay.

18 Q. Understanding for the moment that the task

19 before long —

20 THE COURT: Wait. Just ask him.

21 MR. SANGER: Okay.

22 THE COURT: The question was — to get right

23 to the question —

24 MR. SANGER: Yeah.

25 THE COURT: Let me stop this thing.

26 “And you know that there’s certain people

27 who are — not by you, but eventually are going to

28 be looked at for possible donors for the 3359

1 fingerprint, you would want to know” —

2 Here’s the question: “Do you want to know

3 that that person didn’t handle the items between

4 November 18th, 2003, and November of 2004?” That’s

5 the question, without the —

6 THE WITNESS: From the point of view of

7 developing fingerprints, I don’t think it matters to

8 me. I just process the fingerprints.

9 Q. BY MR. SANGER: You talked about the — you

10 talked about the protocol. And the protocol you

11 told us included all of these steps from the

12 beginning of collection of preservation onto the

13 point of comparison, and you’re involved in the

14 middle. You said the protocol in this case looked

15 okay, from what you saw, right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. And my question is, you would want to

18 know that one of the subjects did not handle the

19 item in between the time it was seized and the time

20 you’re searching for prints, right?

21 A. You would hope so.

22 MR. SANGER: There you go. Thank you. No

23 further questions.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.

25 THE COURT: Thank you.

26 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

27 THE COURT: You may step down

28 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 3360

The next prosecution witness was Lisa Hemman, a senior identification technician in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s department forensic unit. She was assigned to search the arcade and wine cellar during the Neverland raid, and to photograph any evidence that was seized. Here is an excerpt where she briefly describes her handling and testing of the evidence in the subsequent months after the raid:

18 Q. And what period of time do you recall having

19 any contact with any of the evidence from the

20 Michael Jackson case?

21 A. I was at the initial search at the Neverland

22 Ranch in November of 2003.

23 Q. And what were your duties then?

24 A. I was assigned to search the arcade/cellar

25 building, and then the office that was part of the

26 security building.

27 Q. Okay. Did you seize any evidence yourself?

28 A. No. My assignment during that time was to 3362

1 photograph any evidence seized.

2 Q. Okay. When was the next time you had

3 contact with the evidence from that particular

4 search?

5 A. January 2004.

6 Q. Do you recall the circumstances around that?

7 A. Yes, I was asked to examine numerous items,

8 do a cursory search for possible trace evidence and

9 body fluids.

10 Q. Do you recall which items of evidence you

11 were asked to search?

12 A. Yes. Can I just pull them off my report so

13 I get them down correctly?

14 Q. Will it refresh your recollection?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Please do.

17 A. I was asked to examine Item 316, 317, 321,

18 363, and 364.

19 Q. Could you describe for us briefly what you

20 did with those items, the protocol you used?

21 A. I was — I got each item independently,

22 opened up the evidence bag, examined them under 

23 white light. They were books and magazines,

24 basically. And then I searched them through

25 ultraviolet light, looking for trace evidence, dried

26 body fluids, or anything that fluoresced that seemed

27 interesting that wasn’t there when the book was, or

28 the magazine was originally published. And I 3363

1 separated those items and sent them off to the

2 Department of Justice for further testing.

3 Q. When you handled 316, 317, 321, 363 and 364,

4 did you come across, within those evidence bags,

5 multiple items?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And in the circumstance of a multiple-item

8 bag, what did you do, if anything?

9 A. When I came across an evidence bag that had

10 multiple pieces of paper, magazines, or books, what

11 I did with them, as I took them out of the bag, I

12 put a small letter with an item number on the back

13 of them, starting with “A.” So I put, say, 317 —

14 317-A for the first piece of paper. The next piece

15 of paper I came across, 317-B, and would go through

16 the alphabet. And once I completed the alphabet,

17 then I would start with “AA” and so on, and work

18 through.

19 So each individual piece, it could be a

20 magazine intact, or a clipping, anything that was

21 individual, got a letter put on the back side of it.

22 Q. How did you handle the magazines or loose

23 papers within those items?

24 A. I wore gloves, not to transfer anything of

25 mine onto — I placed each piece of evidence down on

26 a clean piece of butcher paper, and then I examined

27 them with a light source.

28 Q. Did you at any time photodocument the items 3364

1 within them?

2 A. Yes. When I originally took them out of the

3 bag, before I did the examination, I took a

4 photograph of it with a little post-it note saying

5 this is “Item 317-A,” and then I’d take the next

6 picture when I examined the next piece of evidence.

And here is additional testimony from Det. Hemman about her analysis and testing of the evidence, and why the magazines were not tested for fingerprints for so long after they were seized from Neverland:

15 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: You mentioned that you used

16 an ALS light source, alternate light source —

17 A. Uh-huh.

18 Q. — on the magazines looking for biological

19 fluids during the break.

20 Is there a reason for doing that prior to

21 checking for latent fingerprints?

22 A. Yes, we wanted to preserve any, if there was

23 any DNA evidence, and some of the processing for

24 fingerprints could possibly damage or destroy any

25 DNA evidence. So if you want to search for DNA, you

26 search for that first prior to doing any processing

27 for fingerprints.

28 Q. Do you do any DNA testing at the Santa 3380

1 Barbara County Sheriff’s Lab?

2 A. No, we send that off to the Department of

3 Justice.

4 Q. Okay. Regarding the items that you did not

5 put in the evidence bag that you’ve described

6 earlier, what did you do with the rest of the items

7 that came out of the briefcase, 317?

8 A. The items that I did not separate went back

9 into the briefcase. I sealed the briefcase and sent

10 it back to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s property

11 room.

12 Q. And at the time you placed the remaining

13 items back into the briefcase, were they now marked

14 with the numbers that — the numbers and letters

15 that you had assigned each of the magazines or

16 pieces of papers?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. Do you recall when you began your

19 examination of Item 317, the black briefcase?

20 A. I started my examination on 1-20-04.

21 Q. How long did it take you to completely

22 photodocument and number what was in there?

23 A. I completed the entire task when I delivered

24 them to the Department of Justice on 2-5-04.

25 Q. Okay. So it took you approximately a week

26 and a half?

27 A. Couple weeks. Yeah.

28 Q. Okay. While you were processing each of the 3381

1 items that were in 317, and then you had to go home

2 at night, what would you do with all the evidence?

3 A. I’d place them there in — all evidence that

4 I took out of the property room goes into our secure

5 lab. The only personnel that has keys are the three

6 people that work in our unit.

7 And then I place them in my cupboard which

8 is assigned to me and place a piece of evidence tape

9 over the top of the — the door so I know that I was

10 the one who sealed them in there. In the morning,

11 the seal was still complete, so I would know that no

12 one has ever looked at them between when I left them

13 that evening and came back the next morning.

14 Q. And you kept this going for a couple of

15 weeks until your task was complete?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What did you do with the — it’s going

18 around.

19 What did you do with the briefcase, Item

20 317, when you finished putting the material that you

21 were not going to send to the Department of Justice

22 back into?

23 A. It went back to the property room at the

24 Santa Barbara office.

25 Q. Did you place any kind of seal on it?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Is that the one that you pointed out for the

28 jury earlier? 3382

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And again, what are your initials on that

3 seal?

4 A. It will be LSRH 2696. 2696 is my assigned

5 body number by the sheriff’s department. My I.D.

6 number.

7 Q. Did you also process Item 321?

8 A. Yes.

The remainder of Hemman’s direct examination consisted of her identifying the magazines that she tested.

Under cross examination by Sanger, Hemman was asked to clarify her role during the raid to the jury, as well as her preparations for the raid during a 6:00am meeting with the other officers:



3 Q. Hi.

4 A. Hi.

5 Q. What is your exact title with the sheriff’s

6 department?

7 A. I’m a senior identification technician.

8 Q. So you’re in the forensic —

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. — lab?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And what kind of duties do you have in

13 general?

14 A. My basic duties are crime scene

15 investigation, latent print searches, latent print

16 comparisons, shoeprint comparisons. I run the Cal.

17 I.D. section. I process evidence. I photodocument

18 victims or suspects. I collect evidence.

19 Q. Okay. Do you do any other kinds of forensic

20 or scientific tests on evidence?

21 A. We collect what we think is possible

22 evidence, like body fluids, off — like blood at a

23 crime scene, stuff like that that could be possibly

24 blood, and then it is sent to the Department of

25 Justice for testing.

26 Q. Okay. Now, the Department of Justice, we’re

27 talking about the California Department of Justice?

28 A. Yes. 3389

1 Q. Is that correct? That’s a state agency?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. It’s not the United States Department of

4 Justice?

5 A. No, it’s California.

6 Q. And the California Department of Justice has

7 regional labs; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And they have one in Goleta?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And so when you said you hand-delivered

12 something to the lab, does that mean you went over

13 to Goleta?

14 A. Yes, I just deliver it to the Goleta lab.

15 Q. And your office is located in Santa Maria or

16 is it in Santa Barbara?

17 A. Santa Barbara.

18 Q. So you basically came across the freeway and

19 took it to the people there?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. The Department of Justice Lab is

22 their Department of Law Enforcement Bureau of

23 Criminalistics, right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So they’re a lab that’s set up to assist law

26 enforcement, like yourself, in doing criminal

27 investigations; is that right?

28 A. Yes. 3390

1 Q. All right. Now, besides — you mentioned

2 you’re a latent print examiner?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is that correct?

5 And did you participate in fingerprint

6 examinations in this case?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. And did you do comparisons?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. All right. When you were out at the ranch,

11 you said you were at the search at Neverland Ranch

12 on November 18, 2003, is that correct, to start

13 with?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And your job was to do what again?

16 A. I was to photodocument any evidence seized

17 during — I was assigned to a search team, and

18 anytime they found a peace of piece of evidence that

19 they wanted to seize, I photographed it before it

20 was seized.

21 Q. And what location were you in?

22 A. I was in the arcade cellar and then the

23 office that’s adjoined in the security building.

24 Q. Okay. Mr. Jackson’s office?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And it’s — sometimes people called it a

27 museum as well?

28 A. Yeah, a museum/office. 3391

1 Q. A lot of artifacts?

2 A. A lot of memorabilia.

3 Q. Did you go into Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Therefore you didn’t photodocument anything

6 in the main residence; is that correct?

7 A. No.

8 Q. As far as seizing evidence, did you actually

9 seize, touch, package evidence, or just photograph

10 it?

11 A. Just photograph it.

12 Q. Now, you were aware that your unit, the

13 forensics unit at the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s

14 Department, was going to be involved in some

15 follow-ups based on the evidence that was seized at

16 Neverland; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you go to the briefing that was held

19 before the officers went to Neverland?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And when was that briefing?

22 A. That briefing was in the — I think it’s the

23 veterans hall that’s adjoined in the — in Solvang.

24 Q. Okay. Was that the day before?

25 A. No.

26 Q. When was it?

27 A. It was at 6 a.m. the morning of the search.

28 Q. Okay. The actual morning of the search. 3392

1 And at that time you were given a

2 description by Sergeant Robel and others of the

3 general nature of the investigation; is that

4 correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So you know what kind of investigation it

7 was?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What kind of case? You also were given the

10 names of some of the possible individuals involved

11 in the case; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Given the name, for instance, of Gavin

14 Arvizo and Star Arvizo?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you were aware that Mr. Michael Jackson,

17 my client, was the focus of this investigation; is

18 that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In fact, at that time you were advised that

21 the sheriff’s department had already obtained an

22 arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson; is that correct?

23 A. I believe so, yes.

24 Q. All right. So when you went out there to

25 the scene, how many — approximately how many

26 officers went out to the scene, to the Neverland

27 Ranch, with you?

28 A. I’m not quite sure. Probably 50. 3393

1 Q. Okay. However many it was, this was a big

2 operation, right?

3 A. Yes.

Sanger wanted to impress upon the jury the fact that the police were very sloppy and careless in their handling of the evidence after the raid, and in this excerpt, he repeatedly asked Hemman about the possibility that someone else could have broken the seal or otherwise tampered with the evidence that she first examined on January 20th, 2004:

28 Q. All right. And do I understand that your 3397

1 first contact with the evidence was in November, on

2 November 18th of 2003?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And so that would be right about there

5 somewhere; is that correct?

6 A. Yeah. Yes.

7 Q. Could you please make a notation there,

8 however you want to do it. Just a line, and above

9 it maybe say “Search,” or “First contact,” whatever

10 you’d like, and then tell me what you wrote.

11 A. “Search.”

12 Q. Okay. The next formal contact you had with

13 the evidence was then in January of 2004; is that

14 correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So, could you make a notation there? And

17 how would you describe that contact? That’s when

18 you were assigned to do the ALS?

19 A. The visual search.

20 Q. Okay. All right. Now, in between — in

21 between November the 18th and January, when you

22 checked the evidence out that you told us about, did

23 you determine that anybody else had broken the seal

24 on the bag, or, say, broken the seal? Had, for

25 instance, cut another side open to open it up and

26 look at it?

27 A. The first time I saw that evidence was

28 January, so between November and January, I wouldn’t 3398

1 know, because the first time I ever saw it was

2 January 20th.

3 Q. I see. So you can’t tell us whether or not

4 somebody else checked the evidence out in between to

5 inspect it, or look at it, or do something with it?

6 A. There should be the original seals. You

7 never take another person’s seal off an evidence

8 item number. So whoever’s opened that briefcase

9 will have their seal on the briefcase, and so you

10 can — and — so —

11 Q. All right. You’re saying “briefcase.” And

12 you’re looking somewhere. Is it right down there?

13 A. Yeah, it’s the briefcase.

14 Q. It’s underneath the table?

15 A. But in the evidence bag, every time you open

16 the evidence bag, you got to open it an original

17 way. You can’t open up someone else’s seal. So you

18 cut it down the sides, on the bottom. You got to be

19 creative when it gets opened multiple times, but

20 there’s always a new seal every time you open it and

21 close it back up.

22 Q. You start out with a bag; has no seals on

23 it. Whoever puts it in first, puts a seal on it,

24 right?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And then the next person to open the bag

27 would cut the side or the bottom or someplace where

28 there’s — 3399

1 A. Different.

2 Q. — there’s otherwise not an opening?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Right? And then when they’re through, if

5 they do it right, they’ll seal it up and put their

6 initials and date on it, right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. They should document all this in reports; is

9 that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So my question was, based on your

12 observations, if you can remember — and we can take

13 Exhibit 470, which is the briefcase, Sheriff’s Item

14 317.

15 A. Yeah.

16 Q. Okay. And you looked at that for the first

17 time, the first time ever you looked at that was

18 January of 2004, correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. January 20th?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. All right. When you looked at it, my

23 question was — and perhaps I wasn’t clear. When

24 you looked at it on January 20th, 2004, did you

25 determine that more than one person had sealed the

26 bag up?

27 A. I would have to look at my original — I

28 also photographed it prior to opening it, so I would 3400

1 have to look at my photograph to determine that.

2 Q. Can you — is that possible? Would that

3 refresh your recollection?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you have it here where you can look at

6 it?

7 A. Uh —

8 Q. It’s one of the exhibits?

9 A. I don’t have it with me, no.

10 Q. Okay. All right.

11 So for the purposes of the jury, or anybody

12 else that wants to look at it, we could look at the

13 bag, and presumably there would be some other seal

14 on there if somebody else looked at it in between?

15 A. Right.

16 Q. All right. Now, when you opened — let me

17 withdraw that.

18 As you sit here today, then, you cannot tell

19 us whether or not anybody did anything with that

20 evidence between seizure on November 18 and January

21 20th of 2004, correct?

22 A. No.

In this excerpt, Hemman testified that someone indeed broke the seal on a crucial piece of evidence, thus raising substantial doubts about its proper handling and storage by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department:

17 Q. And see if, by looking at the whole thing,

18 you can tell what happened between November 18 and

19 January 20th of 2004.

20 A. Okay. This would be the last seal on it,

21 and this was 12-03-04, because it’s the last one on

22 the outside. Let me work down.

23 Q. So while you’re doing that, in other words,

24 the bag doesn’t help you answer the question —

25 A. No.

26 Q. — because that’s a later addition.

27 A. There’s a seal from 11 — and unfortunately,

28 it’s 11-03, and it’s after the initial ones, and I 3402

1 can’t quite tell whose it is.

2 There’s one on 1-14-04.

3 And then there’s one on mine, which I sealed

4 up on 1-26-04.

5 And then the one — oops, sorry.

6 And then the top one, 11-26-03.

7 Q. And so the first seal —

8 A. The first seal is the yellow one that’s

9 underneath all the red ones.

10 Q. So you would — based on your experience,

11 you would say that the yellow seal represents —

12 A. The original seal.

13 Q. — the sealing on November 18, 2003?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And then you see at least one seal from

16 later in November of 2003; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So that implies, or suggests to you, based

19 on your training and experience, that somebody broke

20 the yellow seal, opened the briefcase —

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. — and then resealed it?

23 A. Resealed it.

24 Q. And how many other — or were there any

25 others between then?

26 A. Yes, there’s one other. 1-14-04.

27 Q. Okay. So on the 14th of January, 2004,

28 somebody else apparently did the same thing, which 3403

1 was at least open the briefcase and then reseal it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you don’t know what any of those people

4 did with the contents of the briefcase during those

5 two incidents in between the original seizure and

6 January 20th?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Looking at your seal on there, does that

9 refresh your recollection when you concluded working

10 with that evidence?

11 A. Yes, I sealed it back up on 1-26-04.

12 Q. So you had the evidence for about a week; is

13 that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Took it out on 1-20, opened it up, did the

16 things we’ll talk about, which we’ll go into in a

17 moment, and then you resealed it on the 26th?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So you delivered it to the Department of

20 Justice crime lab across the freeway, you said, on

21 February —

22 A. 5th.

23 Q. — 5th, but it was already sealed for a week

24 or so by the time you delivered it, right?

25 A. Yes. Well, this would have gone back to the

26 property room. The separated items were kept in our

27 secure lab behind my cupboard until I finished

28 processing all the other items in there. 3404

1 Q. And then you went back to the property room

2 and checked that out? No?

3 A. No. This did not go to the Department of

4 Justice.

5 Q. Oh, that did not go to the Department of

6 Justice. Okay.

7 So the other items — I’m sorry, the other

8 items you took out went to the Department of

9 Justice?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And this — on the 26th, then, this just —

12 A. Got returned to the property room.

13 Q. This was — this was returned to your

14 property room in the sheriff’s department?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. Good.

17 So now, having refreshed your recollection

18 with all that, as far as Item 317 of the sheriff’s

19 department, Exhibit 470, it took you about a week to

20 go through all the evidence in there and photograph

21 it and number the back of each item; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Yes. Along with this — I did this during

24 that week, and then the other items after that.

25 Q. Okay. So your answer was correct?

26 A. Yeah.

27 Q. — to the question that I asked?

28 A. Yeah. 3405

In this excerpt, Hemman confirms that there was no fingerprint testing done during her initial review of the evidence in January 2004:

6 Q. All right. Now, you are a latent print

7 examiner, you told us?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And that means that you have training and

10 experience in examining fingerprints and then

11 comparing them to known prints; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you examine these documents for

14 fingerprints?

15 A. I did not examine — I looked for

16 fingerprints, visible fingerprints, but until you —

17 I did find one fingerprint on, I think it was UUU,

18 or — I can’t remember. But it was just a partial

19 print. I don’t think it was comparable.

20 Q. Okay. So with regard —

21 A. It was visible. A latent print is something

22 that you can’t see without processing.

23 Q. I was just going to let you explain that.

24 You have three kinds of prints that you

25 find. One would be a visible print, where somebody

26 sticks their finger into wet paint or blood or

27 something, and it’s just sitting there and you can

28 see it with your eyeballs, right? 3414

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And then you have a plastic print where

3 somebody puts their print into clay, or — well,

4 silly putty wouldn’t last very long, would it? Or

5 clay or putty of some sort, and it actually reflects

6 the ridges in three dimensions; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And then you have the latent prints?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And the latent print — the latent print,

11 you’re likely to find more latent prints than you

12 are the other two varieties; is that correct?

13 A. Most of the time, yes.

14 Q. Okay. And in order to determine if there

15 are latent prints, you can use various technologies

16 to try to develop those prints, either using light

17 sources or using chemical technology; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. All right. Now, you did not use any

21 chemical technology in January of 2004 to attempt to

22 find fingerprints on these documents?

23 A. No.

24 Q. And did you use a RUVIS system or a

25 Scenescope system in January?

26 A. I used a — no, not a Scenescope. I used

27 their alternate light source that they provide us.

28 Q. There’s a company that makes Scenescope. 3415

1 They’ve had different names, but it was Crimescope

2 at one time, right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And the official brand name, or whatever it

5 is, of Scenescope is their RUVIS system; is that

6 right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You are referring to something.

9 A. Yes. This is actually the manual to the

10 Scene — the ALS that I used.

11 Q. Okay. And what was — now you’ve —

12 A. This is made by Jovinyvon —

13 Q. Okay. The court reporter is going to want

14 to know how to spell that. You may as well spell it

15 now, while you have a chance.

16 A. It’s J-o-v-i-n-y-v-o-n, and the bottom name

17 is H-o-r-i-b-a.

18 MR. SANGER: May I approach, Your Honor, and

19 look at that?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. SANGER: Don’t put it away until I look

22 at it. I just want to get a quick look of what you

23 referred to, if I may.

24 THE WITNESS: I need to have it back.

25 That’s the only one I have.

26 MR. SANGER: I’m not going to take it.

27 Q. All right. Having refreshed your

28 recollection on that, that is a — the brand name 3416

1 for that particular alternative light source is the

2 Crimescope, right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And, in fact, that was a mini Crimescope?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. So Crimescope alternative light

7 source. Scenescope is the special UV fingerprint

8 scope; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. All right. So, you did not use the

11 Scenescope in January of 2004?

12 A. No. I did not use the Scenescope, no.

13 Q. When you were using the Crimescope — after

14 you used the Crimescope, do you know if anybody had

15 requested that you or another sheriff’s department

16 employee do a fingerprint examination on these

17 documents?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When did that occur?

20 A. It started in late spring, summer, 2004.

21 Q. All right.

22 A. I believe.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. Not by myself, so I’m not quite sure of the

25 date.

Sanger ended his cross-examination by asking Hemman if any DNA of Star or Gavin Arvizo had been found, and not only had it not been found, but it wasn’t even searched for! She requested that Jackson’s DNA be searched for.

1 Q. Oh, by the way, the DNA, you said you sent

2 some things off for DNA testing; is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you are aware that subjects that were

5 being compared to anything that may or may not have

6 been found, or anything that may have been found,

7 included Gavin and Star Arvizo; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. NICOLA: Objection; compound.

10 THE COURT: Sustained.

11 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware that one of

12 the subjects who was a subject to compare any

13 substances found was Gavin Arvizo?

14 MR. NICOLA: Objection; lack of foundation.

15 THE COURT: Overruled.

16 You may answer.

17 THE WITNESS: When I sent these off to the

18 lab, I believe my request was to be compared to the

19 defendant.

20 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Do you know if that original

21 request was superseded?

22 A. I don’t know.

23 Q. So you’re not aware of whether or not Gavin

24 Arvizo’s DNA was searched for in various items of

25 evidence in this case?

26 A. No.

27 Q. Same question pertaining to Star. Would I

28 get the same answers? 3422

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You’re not aware of any matches that have

3 been made to Gavin or Star Arvizo’s DNA in this

4 case, are you?

5 A. No, I do not.

6 Q. Okay. Thank you.

7 Subject to re-call on those issues that we

8 can’t go into now, I have no further questions at

9 this time.

10 THE COURT: All right.

To be continued:

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: