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
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:
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
21 BY MR. SANGER:
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. )
16 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. SANGER:
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:
25 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
26 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
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.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That —
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:
13 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. SANGER:
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:
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. SANGER:
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.
lynande51
sanemjfan
thetis7