Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 31
by SID in the laboratory, but rather upon contamination allegedly
occurring
during the so-called 'sampling' procedure where portions of the
evidence
swatches to be tested were removed from bindles in the Evidence
[***518]
Processing Room." n11 Goldman asserted the reason Simpson had framed
the
contamination defense in this manner was that two other laboratories,
the
California Department of Justice and Cellmark, had reached the same
results as
SID on other sample swatches, thus "in order to [**71] account for the
incriminating DOJ and Cellmark results, defendant must argue that the
contamination occurred in the Evidence Processing Room, the only place
where all
PAGE 26
86 Cal. App. 4th 573, *610; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, **71;
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, ***518; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 759
of the evidence swatches could be affected." Goldman argued that "by
framing
the contamination defense as he has, defendant has now made clear that
Dr.
Gerdes' contamination theory has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with this
case. Dr. Gerdes studied DNA testing done by SID in connection with its
validation of the DQ alpha process and as part of proficiency tests by
the SID
personnel to determine if they were appropriately running the DQ alpha
tests.
Dr. Gerdes' testimony does not and cannot have anything to do with the
'sampling' procedure followed by Collin Yamauchi on June 14, 1994. In
fact,
since the DQ alpha results that Dr. Gerdes examined were not actual
case
samples, but rather mock samples [*611] which had been prepared in
the SID lab
for testing purposes, no 'evidence sampling' procedure ever even took
place in
regard to the test samples that Dr. Gerdes reviewed." Besides, Goldman
added,
Yamauchi did not testify that he spilled Simpson's reference blood, as
apparently anticipated by the defense opening [**72] statement, and
Yamauchi
changed gloves between handlings of each item of evidence. Goldman next
argued a
second independent reason that developed during trial why Gerdes's
testimony
should be excluded as irrelevant. Simpson's admissions in response to
requests
for admissions had been read to the jury. In those responses Simpson
admitted
the results of the DNA tests. n12 Thus, Goldman argued, "insofar as Dr.
Gerdes'