[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL Source: From The Trenches URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165 Published: Jun 2, 2017 Author: Justin Gardner Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 119350 Comments: 422 Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.” Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 287. #2. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited) Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine. Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   12:57:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: misterwhite (#2) Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   14:45:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Pinguinite (#5) "Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals." You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   15:34:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: misterwhite (#8) You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped. But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example. I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:18:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Pinguinite (#14) "I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them." I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:53:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: misterwhite (#16) I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:03:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Pinguinite (#19) "Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms." This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it. Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. This could change everything. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:25:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: misterwhite (#21) You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster. But I'm still not going to do that. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. People already do that. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   19:19:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pinguinite (#23) "You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster." My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:19:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#25) My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. Fair? Fair to whom? Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"? The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right. Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted? I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen? As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room. Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   1:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28) "Nullification serves as a test of the law itself" You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:26:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: misterwhite (#42) You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience. The judicial result is that shit happens. Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair? OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand. What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   1:27:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: nolu chan (#83) "OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime." And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man. I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-05   8:40:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: misterwhite (#89) The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification. Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess. The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died. They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses. The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-06   17:33:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: nolu chan (#94) The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   9:44:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #119. To: misterwhite (#106) 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html 1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ. Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything. Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-07   12:29:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #120. To: nolu chan (#119) "Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on." Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones. But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching. Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   14:23:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #144. To: misterwhite (#120) (a) OJ's blood at the crime scene, You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA? Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content? (b) victim's blood in the Bronco, You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was. (c) the gloves with victim's blood, Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit. Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects. (d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others. (e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court. It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something. (f) hair and fibers matching. They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination. One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster. [7457] Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence? MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample. MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion? MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean? MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [9807] Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes? MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes? MR. YAMAUCHI: Two. MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously. MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time. Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi [10,000] MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th? MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes. MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19. MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period. MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation. MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips? [10,001] MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison. MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in-- MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi-- MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time. THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer. MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer. MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps. MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training. THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up? MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me. MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide? THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept. MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training. [10,002] THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it. MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct. THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed. MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is. THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide. MR. SCHECK: And you studied it? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. THE COURT: And you rely upon it. MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking. MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. MR. HARMON: May I see that section? THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. [10,003] MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that. MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15. MR. SCHECK: You do? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do. And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out? [17544 - 17545] DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis. [17620] DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   3:59:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #268. To: nolu chan (#144) What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony. Correct. But that testimony did not say (much less prove) the gloves Nicole purchased were NOT an Extra Large. Or that she DIDN'T give them to OJ. Or that the gloves OJ wore in the pictures and video were NOT Aris. Or that the gloves found at the crime scenes were NOT OJ's. Or that evidence WAS planted by Fuhrman or others. Or that the blood WAS cross-contaminated. Or that the watch cap was NOT OJ's. Or that the shoeprints were NOT made by OJ's "ugly- ass" shoes. Your "actual" testimony said nothing. Proved nothing. All that testimony did, and all it was intended to do, was cause doubt. The defense hoped it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. To me, it didn't. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   11:40:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #273. To: misterwhite (#268) What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony. Correct. But that testimony did not say (much less prove) the gloves Nicole purchased were NOT an Extra Large. Or that she DIDN'T give them to OJ. Or that the gloves OJ wore in the pictures and video were NOT Aris. Or that the gloves found at the crime scenes were NOT OJ's. Or that evidence WAS planted by Fuhrman or others. Or that the blood WAS cross-contaminated. Or that the watch cap was NOT OJ's. Or that the shoeprints were NOT made by OJ's "ugly- ass" shoes. All the things that the testimonial evidence at trial did not prove do not amount to proof of anything. Your "actual" testimony said nothing. Proved nothing. All that testimony did, and all it was intended to do, was cause doubt. The defense hoped it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. To me, it didn't. My actual testimony is non-existent. I did not testify at the O.J. trial. Presumably, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was intended to prove the prosecution case. It did not. The prosecution took up the vast majority of the time. The defense was not required to prove anything. The prosecution case went from January 31 to July 6. The defense case went from July 10 to September 19. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   4:00:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #276. To: nolu chan (#273) "You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA." Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial. By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:28:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #280. To: misterwhite (#276) "You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA." Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial. By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence. The purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot. Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives. Martz testified that he tested matter from an evidence sock and the test responded like the substance was EDTA and the test result was consistent with the presence of EDTA. As we previously learned from Dr. Frederic Rieders, the Martz test only detected threshold levels of parts per million, a fatal dose for circulating blood in a human. Roger Martz, direct examination by defense counsel Robert Blasier, MR. BLASIER: And you actually had the sock itself? MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did. MR. BLASIER: And when you got the sock was the green area indicated on the chart already cut out? MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was. MR. BLASIER: And you then took a cutting from the edge area of the stain? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: Now, you were also sent A--another swatch inside a little aliquot tube, were you not? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: That is what you call Q207? MR. MARTZ: Yes. [...] MR. BLASIER: I would like to put Q207 on the elmo. (Brief pause.) MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a picture of what was sent to you, Q207? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: And you now know that that came from the stain area that had been cut out of the sock? MR. MARTZ: Yes. MR. BLASIER: Once you found out what that was, did you ever request to have it sent back so that you could run tests, positive ion tests on that? MR. MARTZ: No. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-R. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is the chart that is now on the screen an accurate depiction of the two tests that you ran on Q206, the stain from the--the cutting from the edge of the stain? MR. MARTZ: Two of the tests that I ran, yes. MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that the peaks demonstrated on the chart were peaks that you found in your testing? MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct. MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that you detected the presence of the 293 parent ion which is the parent ion for EDTA? MR. MARTZ: Umm, I detected the 160 ion which came from the parent ion of 293. MR. BLASIER: Well, isn't it true that the machine is set so that it only let's through the 293 parent ion? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate to say that you can conclude from that chart that you have found both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that the pattern that you got on the sock, Q206, is consistent with the presence of EDTA? MR. MARTZ: Umm, it certainly warrants further testing. It responded like EDTA responded, yes. MR. BLASIER: Is it consistent with the presence of EDTA? MR. MARTZ: Yes. Rieders testified that EDTA was normally present in human blood in parts per billion, not exceeding 4 ppb. Martz' test found EDTA and had a threshold sensitivity of parts per million. Stop making shit up. Rieders testified that maximum blood level was 4 parts per billion, citing to the EPA and the Foreman and Trujillo studies. EDTA in blood levels in parts per million would be fatal. Martz being alive was an indication that his purported test was more of his horsecrap. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found, "Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing. We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable." With the publication of the USDOJ/OIG Special Report, Martz' empire of incompetence and corruption fell apart. MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right. MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better. [...] MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion? DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd. - - - - - - - - - - MS. CLARK: Now, do you know whether these forms of EDTA were ever tested for the purpose of determining what the maximum tolerance would be in a normal healthy person? DR. RIEDERS: You mean in food? Is that it? When you say maximum tolerance, how? Intravenous or in food or what? Vast difference. MS. CLARK: No, sir. I asked you whether there was any testing that you know of that determined whether any of the forms of EDTA that we have just talked about, those four-- DR. RIEDERS: Right. MS. CLARK: --was ever done to see what the normal level would be in an average healthy person? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. The study of Foreman and Trujillo dealt with normal healthy persons. MS. CLARK: Objection, nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled, overruled. DR. RIEDERS: And in this they determined what the level in their blood was, which was in the low parts per billion below their detection levels. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we need to take a comfort break for the jurors. We will take ten minutes. - - - - - - - - - - Roger Martz testified that he did not know how much EDTA was normally present in blood. MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that under those circumstances that we have described that is consistent with the literature, that the amount of EDTA that you might expect to find in a person's blood after they ate something with EDTA in it is likely to be very, very small, in the range of parts per billion? MR. MARTZ: Well, I think if you take everything into account it would be difficult to say that. I mean, you are looking at one study in 1954 and it mentions at the end of that that there its some conflicting data based on iron and yttrium being eliminated very quickly from the body when it is ingested, when EDTA is ingested, and that paper only mentions one of the salts that the FDA permits to be used in the food. There is two other salts. So relying totally on one paper in 1954 with a lot of other conflicting information and information that is not available, I--to be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe that anyone knows exactly how much EDTA is present. - - - - - - - - - - USDOJ/OIG Special Report The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April 1997) E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F) [...] We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz demonstrated an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. That is polite science-speak for he did not know what he was talking about, and Dr. Frederic Rieders embarassingly depantsed him on national television. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz maintained insufficient documentation, and that CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner, he should be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work, he be counseled on the appropriate matter for testifying about forensic work, and another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony. - - - - - - - - - - Insufficient Documentation of Test Results by the examiner who had performed work on hundreds of cases, including Psinakis and the UNABOM investigation, and by the CTU Chief. The cited CTU Chief was Roger Martz. - - - - - - - - - - CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner. - - - - - - - - - - CTU Chief Martz was derelict in his technical review and misleading memorandum in 1989. The 1992 review largely failed as an effort to ascertain fully the true extent of the deficiencies in Rudolph's files. Had Laboratory managers performed responsibly, the Rudolph matter might have been appropriately resolved much earlier than 1995. Instead, the Rudolph problem continued to fester. - - - - - - - - - - 4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient. - - - - - - - - - - CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony. - - - - - - - - - - Ninth, the FBI should develop a uniform program for training examiners with respect to court testimony and monitoring such testimony. We found the problem of examiners testifying to matters beyond their expertise or in ways that were unprofessional in Hahn's testimony in the Avianca case, Williams'testimony in the World Trade Center case, and Martz' testimony in Trepal and Simpson. Testifying to matters beyond their expertise is science-speak for trying to baffle the jury with bullshit. Laboratory management failed to assure that concerns about Rudolph's casework were thoroughly investigated in 1989. First, neither Butler in his initial review nor Martz in his subsequent review addressed the concern raised by AUSA Burch that Rudolph in Psinakis had erroneously relied on information from a field agent instead of conducting sufficient confirmatory tests to identify PETN. On a related point, as part of the 1989 reviews of Rudolph's work, Laboratory management failed to obtain and review a transcript of Rudolph's trial testimony in Psinakis. In light of the prosecutor's complaints, the transcript should have been reviewed. - - - - - - - - - - We also find fault in the way Nimmich and Martz handled the follow-up review. Given Butler's findings, the Laboratory should have reviewed Rudolph's work to determine whether sufficient analyses were done to support the stated conclusions. Although Nimmich might reasonably have expected Martz, as an experienced examiner and unit chief, to understand the need for a thorough technical review, in retrospect Nimmich should have taken steps, preferably through written instructions, to assure that Martz understood this to be his task. It also would have been desirable for Martz to have clearly stated the object and methodology of his review in his memorandum. Whatever he understood Nimmich's instructions to be, Martz stated the conclusions of his review in a misleading way. He observed that analyses had been performed that were sufficient, yet he told the OIG that he did not review the sufficiency of Rudolph's work to support the stated conclusions. Martz's August 16, 1989, memorandum shows that he knew of Butler's August 2, 1989, memorandum, which recommended an in depth review of Rudolph's cases. Martz in his memorandum indicated he conducted a technical review and recommended that there be no further review of Rudolph's cases. As a unit chief, Martz should have recognized that this misleadingly suggested that he had completed an in depth review and concluded that further review was not necessary. Martz also failed to note in his memorandum that, in his review, he found that notes and other documentation were missing. These findings deserved comment even if Nimmich did not ask Martz to conduct an administrative review of the files. Finally, Martz stated in his August 16, 1989, memorandum that, while other tests could have been performed, no changes would be made in the reporting of the 95 cases reviewed. Martz lacked any basis to make this statement if, as he told the OIG, he did not assess whether the analyses identified in the files were sufficient to support the stated conclusions. Martz's review of the Psinakis case was inadequate to address the concerns raised by AUSA Burch. Martz commented that LC might be sufficient to identify explosives, depending on other circumstances. This begged the relevant question of whether LC was sufficient in Psinakis, which it clearly was not. Martz also noted that it was not uncommon for defense attorneys to question examiners about tests they knew had not been performed. The proclivities of defense counsel were not pertinent to the issues Martz should have been addressing. Martz's comments about Psinakis inappropriately tended to excuse Rudolph. Nimmich told the OIG that he understood from Martz's memorandum that Martz had concluded that Rudolph had a sufficient basis for his conclusions in Psinakis. Martz confirmed in his interview with the OIG, however, that he did not review Rudolph's work in Psinakis and did not address AUSA Burch's concerns about the lack of confirmatory techniques. Given these facts, Martz should not have included his comments concerning the Psinakis case in his memorandum, because they misleadingly suggested that he had approved Rudolph's work. [...] In sum, the Laboratory's 1989 review of Rudolph was inadequate. The allegations that prompted the review came not from Whitehurst but from an Assistant United States Attorney with first-hand knowledge of the alleged deficiencies. The AUSA not only rendered his own low opinion of Rudolph's work, but repeated the similar view of the district court judge who almost excluded Rudolph's testimony. The AUSA further stated that Rudolph's inadequate work contributed to an acquittal. These were serious charges. That the Laboratory did so little in response to these allegations is deplorable. The Laboratory should have recognized Rudolph's incompetence in 1989 and initiated a complete file review and appropriate disciplinary measures. This was not only required by the proper administration of justice, but it also might have obviated the great time and effort expended in later reviews of Rudolph's files that were still continuing seven years later. Martz was relegated to being one of the deplorables. - - - - - - - - - - Re the O.J. case: We do conclude that because of his lack of preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his presentation and demeanor at trial, Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case. - - - - - - - - - - In July 1995, Simpson's counsel sent a letter to the FBI requesting all digital data underlying the LC/MS and HPLC testing in the case. The FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) responded by letter that the underlying digital data had not been saved in the computer. The following day, the OGC clarified this remark in a letter stating that the FBI had saved the digital data underlying its validation studies at the FSRU, but not the data underlying forensic testing by Martz. - - - - - - - - - - On July 25 and 26, 1995, Martz testified in the Simpson case as a witness called by the defense. [...] Martz also answered questions by defense counsel concerning his failure to retain digital data underlying his charts. Martz explained that the raw data is stored on a computer with limited storage space. Martz stated that in this case he printed out the appropriate charts, drew his conclusions, and did not need to look at the data again. Therefore, Martz told us that he permitted the data to be erased. - - - - - - - - - - Martz made additional noteworthy statements during his testimony. In particular, when the defense counsel asked whether Martz had decided during a break to become more aggressive in answering questions, Martz responded, I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers. . . . I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth. At another point in the testimony, Martz acknowledged that he had performed analyses using his own blood in May and July 1995, but had not made any notes describing how he conducted the analyses. - - - - - - - - - - Although we conclude that Martz did not mislead the court as suggested by Whitehurst, we think this case illustrates the importance of principal examiners reviewing the work performed by other examiners and researchers. Given the importance of this case and the obvious expertise on the defense side, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony. - - - - - - - - - - Although we do not criticize Martz's erasure of the digital data under the circumstances of this case, we are troubled by Martz's other record-keeping practices. Martz testified that he examined his own blood for the presence of EDTA in May and July 1995, but did not make any notes describing how he conducted these analyses. Martz explained at trial that because he examined his own blood in the same way he had examined other samples, he decided not to write down the procedure again. Martz further stated that he did not prepare a report because he considered these runs to be research, not case work. According to Martz, he would not generate a report when he did case-related research if he thought he could readily remember the examination. Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing. We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable. Martz should have made and retained notes describing his procedures, even if he considered the procedures to be background research and not case work. As a general rule, an examiner should make and retain notes for all work related to any case, but especially work that might be the subject of examination at trial. Further, another examiner should be able to review such notes and have a complete understanding as to all procedures performed in any case. Martz's work in this regard was deficient. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:18:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #284. To: nolu chan (#280) Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives. You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong? "purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot." Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:36:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #287. To: misterwhite (#284) Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives. You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong? You are welcome to try. The shit I brought up was quoted from a Department of Justice Special Report. It is rather humorous watching you herniate yourself trying to rehabilitate the testimony of Martz in your rather obvious incorrect impression that he was a prosecution witness. Let me disabuse you of that notion. Martz and his report were so bad for the prosecution that even though they retained his services, the prosecution never called upon Martz to testify at the criminal trial. It was the defense who forced Martz to take the stand during the defense case. Note that defense counsel Blasier questioned Martz on Direct, not Cross. It was the prosecution who ran away from Martz, and it was the defence who put him on the stand after Rieders had testified. Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong. The DoJ Special Report found Martz to be incompetent. In purporting to test his own blood, destroying all evidence of said test, and submitting an impossible result, something was indeed wrong. The DoJ found his record keeping, or lack thereof, unacceptable. The DoJ found Martz had an inadequate level of training in toxological issues and toxilogical analyses in the laboratory. Thje DoJ recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony. With specific reference to the O.J. case, the DoJ found, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony, and that Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case. Martz attempted to maintain that nobody knows how much EDTA was normally present in human blood. He allegedly tested his own blood, destroyed all evidence of said test, and claimed his blood test to the same amount of EDTA as evidence blood. His minor problem was that his test had a threshold of detection of EDTA in parts per million, and this ill-prepared and incompetent toxicologist with his degree in biology was mistaken in his belief that a level in parts per million was normal. The competent toxicological expert set the record straight that the normal level of EDTA in humans was 4 parts per billion, citing an EPA study and a Foreman and Trujillo study. Further, the toxicology expert Dr. Rieders testified that "a 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd." That effectively dispatched a Marcia Clark brainfart. Martz was not all that swift, as the DoJ Report documented. Something was wrong. Martz proved that he would and did submit a false report. Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld had launched an attack against the FBI lab in general, in a series of cases. The outcome was that the science and research underpinning the FBI's DNA typing methodology was flawed, and the FBI tried, but failed, to prevent the release of data to prove it. FBI hair and fiber analysis was relegated to junk science. The FBI DNA standards were cleaned up. Hundreds of cases were shown to have been tainted by bogus evidence. MS. CLARK: Let me show you another report. Now, the report that you just pulled out from your briefcase, sir, I'm going to cite you to a passage where it says, "Insight to amelioration AML, dredge undissolved solid." That's in your report, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's part of their report. That's part of the copy that I gave you. MS. CLARK: This is the EPA report that you used to base your opinion on that the normal amount of EDTA that you'll find in blood or the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be in the parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: This and the paper by Trujillo and foreman is--foreman is the other author. MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to this report, sir, on which you just said you based your opinion from the EPA, you read that to allow for the maximum allowable amount in a normal person to be two parts per billion? DR. RIEDERS: Right. MS. CLARK: Right. Now, is it possible, sir, that you have a typo here that caused you to conclude there were two parts per billion as the maximum allowable when in fact, it is 1,000 times less, two parts per million as the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person? DR. RIEDERS: It's possible that this is a typo, but this is--a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level. MS. CLARK: In other words, if this is the correct EPA report, you disagree with it? DR. RIEDERS: Well, obviously. I mean, it's--obviously it's a typo in there because I can't imagine that the EPA would say that it's all right to run around with blood that won't clot. MS. CLARK: Sir, you earlier just premised your person on the maximum allowable amount for a normal person on the EPA report, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's correct. MS. CLARK: And in your report, it says two mg/ml? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. MS. CLARK: And you interpret that to mean two nanograms per milliliter? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That's the only one possible. MS. CLARK: That's the only one possible from an ng as oppose to an mg, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's correct. MS. CLARK: And so you determined that what the EPA was saying was the maximum allowable amount was two parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That they were saying what is consistent with their radioactive study, and that's what they say, yes. Sure. Makes sense. MS. CLARK: But the radioactive study, sir, was not able to pick up EDTA in the blood, was it? DR. RIEDERS: That's correct. MS. CLARK: It gave no lower trace amounts that it was able to detect or measure in blood, did it? DR. RIEDERS: I'm sorry? MS. CLARK: That report back in the 50's of radioactive EDTA did not state any specific amount for anything detected in blood resembling EDTA; isn't that correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's not correct. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I thought we weren't going into this. I mean I'm happy to. THE COURT: Sustained. MS. CLARK: I can't-- THE COURT: Sustained. MS. CLARK: What was the objection? THE COURT: Court's previous ruling on this regard, that report. Proceed. Dr. Rieders submitted an EPA report that cited a level of 2 mg/ml. Dr. Rieders' professional expertise allowed him to recognize the typo of mg for ng, the only thing scientifically reasonable. Agent Martz did not catch the typo, and his lack of expertise let him proceed as though it made sense. Agent Martz went on to dry lab a test of his own blood for which he claimed a result consistent with the typo, an impossible result for someone still living. As for your desire to bring up cases regarding Rieders, that was attempted at trial. Judge Ito considered the argument out of the presence of the jury and disallowed the proposed argument to continue. I will save you the bother of looking for it. Enjoy your nothing burger. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 24, 1995 9:16 A.M. Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.) (Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.) (Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:) THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we take up the next witness? MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. I am down here not as a result of anyone else's efforts, but of my own accord, because I couldn't help on Friday but review the Court's ruling with respect to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and then to review Dr. Rieders' report, my understanding being that Dr. Rieders will be the next witness called by the Defense. And it struck me as ironic, if nothing else, that in the Court's ruling regarding Mr. MacDonell, the Court, on page 2 of its ruling, noted near the end, just before the section dealing with discovery violations, the previous evidence code section 352 objection by the Defense: "The phenolphthalein based presumptive tests for human blood is still well taken for all the reasons previously advanced." And what struck me from that in the Court's order is Dr. Rieders' report concerning his analysis of the test results of Mr. Martz from the FBI because on page 2 in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Rieders' report he says: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection" and handwritten in is "EDTA tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." What I believe the evidence would show, your Honor, with respect to the analysis by Dr. Rieders, is there can be, among the eleven preliminary organic compounds known in the universe, hundreds perhaps that would give a reading, a pattern, to use a shorthand version, of findings consistent with what Dr. Rieders in his report is only willing to say is a pattern which is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for EDTA. It seems to me that for all the reasons expressed by the Defense to keep out phenolphthalein testing, because it is misleading, confusing to the jury of the real issues, and so forth, the same applies with respect to Dr. Rieders' testimony, proposed testimony, with respect to the EDTA testing of the two bloodstains. This is not evidence that in fact shows there is EDTA, according to Dr. Rieders' own report. It only reflects that the result is presumptive of EDTA, and we can go into the technicalities about basically the full spectrum that you need to see in order to say I identify EDTA is absent, that it is not a full spectrum, and only what is present can be used to say in the opinion of Dr. Rieders it is indicative of, consistent with, presumptive for. What is good for the goose, your Honor, I submit is good for the gander. Now, why is this important? Because if there is only one other compound in the universe which besides EDTA could give the pattern which is the pattern found in the stains from the gate and the socks and from- -I will get into that, Miss Clark, in just a moment--if there is only one other compound that could give that pattern, then the evidence may have far more probative value than if hundreds of other compounds could provide that result. But we don't know which hundreds could provide it because as the evidence would show, Dr. Rieders, no. 1, has never done this test for EDTA using this equipment. His laboratory does not have this equipment. And the laboratory that he has to go to when he wants to use this kind of equipment does not have electrospray which is in fact the process used by the FBI, but it is the FBI's report and analysis which Dr. Rieders is going to come in here and talk about supposedly. Now, I find it most curious that a man who has never been testing for EDTA using this equipment who doesn't have the equipment in his laboratory and who has to go to a lab to do this kind of laboratory test but can't do it on that equipment because it is not previously the same kind is going to come in here and start talking about is this EDTA or is this not EDTA. And what is important, all he is going to say is about his own admission in his own report is it is presumptive of. Let me give the Court a further understanding of why I think it is so potentially misleading and it is an example from Dr. Rieders' past, recent past. A very wellknown case in the southern California area, the sconce, s-c-o-n-c-e, case, oleander poisoning. The history, a gentleman was found dead in 1985, death attributed to cardiac arrest, a young man, a very overweight man and a man in the funeral business, a competitor of Mr. Sconce's. There was an informant who in about 1990 suggested that Mr. Sconce or that the victim, had been poisoned by oleander poisoning. As a result of which the Ventura County District Attorney's office retained the services of Dr. Rieders to perform an analysis of various substances preserved from autopsy to determine the presence of something called oleandrin which is part and parcel of the oleander plant and is a toxin. Let me read the Court just very briefly Dr. Rieders' testimony at the preliminary hearing in 1990, October 4th, regarding his findings. "In this case three independent tests were done; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrophotometry and radioimmunoassay. These are physiochemically different things. The chances that a substance has all the properties in all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance," and his opinion was that these tests showed it was oleandrin, "From experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact it is. A hundred percent, never. For a hundred percent you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent, it is statistical, and it is reasonably certain that chances are remote. And if you want to go over into the area of, in that area, the hand of all mighty God can make anything happen, so possibilities of course are there, but it is a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty and the operative word is `reasonable' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling." Well, the Defense attorney for Mr. Sconce didn't think going by feeling was a very good way to go either, so he proposed having additional and more sophisticated tests performed. And guess what? The Prosecution, which included Mr. Giss of our office as a specially designated Prosecutor for Ventura County, agreed to split the $20,000 bill to have the sophisticated testing done using LCMS/MS equipment at Cornell University, incidentally, where Mr. MacDonell, I believe, makes his headquarters, Cornell, New York, and that the testing was to be done to determine the presence or absence of oleandrin and another metabolite product. And guess what? Wasn't there. The testing by Dr. Henion demonstrated that what Mr.--Dr. Rieders was willing to say to reasonable scientific certainty, not to a hundred percent because he is not God, it wasn't there. And guess what happened? A man charged with a potential capital offense saw his case dismissed as a result of Dr. Henion's findings. And guess what further happened, your Honor? Because I'm sure the Court understands that before the Prosecutor is going to dismiss a potential capital murder offense based upon an expert's finding he is going to want to go back to the original expert, Dr. Rieders, and say explain, please, where is Dr. Henion wrong? Tell us. Dr. Rieders--I talked to Mr. Giss in Miss Clark's office on Friday--basically gave a rambling nonresponsive answer, but a newspaper account of the story is succinct and to the point. From the April 4th, 1991 Los Angeles Times. "Henion reported last week that he had found no signs of oleandrin but he said he was still looking for substances created when oleandrin breaks down in the body. After trial recessed, when Henion testified with his results, no evidence of poison. Rieders, reached at his home near Philadelphia, said he could not account for the difference between his finding and Henion's. "In science' Rieders said, quote, `nothing is unquestionable,' unquote. Now, your Honor, I submit that this is exactly why presumptive test results should not be given to this jury under 352, because they are so misleading. They are not probative. Dr. Rieders cannot say what other compounds could produce the findings that the lab reports from Mr. Marks indicate, and to allow Dr. Rieders to give presumptive testing when the Court sustained Defense objections to presumptive testing is not to be fair to both sides in this case using basically the same rule of law applied to the same general aspect of the case. Now, as the Court will recall when I was last here arguing the admissibility of Mr. Simpson's statement on the exercise video, I argued something on the assumption the Court may not accept my position that the statement was admissible. That is, I wanted the tape played to show the physical movement. I make the same statement now that I made then, your Honor, that I believe this motion should be granted, but I also feel it incumbent on myself to raise additional points in the event the Court feels that the motion is not well taken. No. 1, the oleandrin incident is a clear mistake by Dr. Rieders, which using the rationale of the Defense with respect to Dr. Golden--and of course that is really why I'm done here because I have some familiarity with the evidentiary issues on this issue where the issue is the competency of the expert witness--the Court found that these specific examples of mistakes become admissible. And here, unlike Dr. Golden with gunshot wounds versus knife wounds, here we have the very same process taking place. Are we looking at something which is indicative of, consistent with and presumptive for the chemical or are we identifying the chemical in the substance? Big difference. And that is exactly what is at issue here, because I believe--I submit to the Court the evidence will show that in fact this is not EDTA. Agent Martz' unpreserved blood gave the same result as was found on the stains from the glove and from the gate, not a quantitative result, but showing the same pattern, unpreserved. That is a pretty interesting finding with respect to whether we carry EDTA in our systems, if it is EDTA, or whether there is some other compound that gives the same pattern. So no. 1, the issue of does he get cross-examined if he testifies about his mistake, I submit to the Court using parity of reason he gets cross-examined. No. 2, and I mentioned this to Miss Clark is really why I thought it important that I come down and argue this point, because the Court will recall in cross-examining Dr. Golden Mr. Shapiro wanted to cross-examine Dr.-- I'm sorry--cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan, wanted to cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan regarding the legal implications from the mistakes in the Gaye Phillips case which Dr. Golden acknowledged making. The Court will recall that area of proposed cross-examination, and I objected to it on, among other grounds, that it is irrelevant and that was because the issue for the mistake went to the competency of Dr. Golden. But I submit to the Court that it is proper cross-examination of Dr. Rieders to show the legal implications from his failure and refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong, because now we are not talking about his competency, we are talking about his bias. Dr. Rieders put his professional standing, his ability to get future business, his ability to retain his position as director of a laboratory, above the liberty rights of Mr. Sconce, rather than acknowledge that Dr. Henion's more sophisticated test proved that in fact there was no oleandrin poisoning. He takes the position in science "Nothing is unquestionable." Goes to bias, the legal ramifications. So I submit to the Court that if Dr. Rieders gets to testify, he gets cross-examined not only about the mistake, but he gets cross-examined regarding his response to that mistake and the legal implications from his failure or refusal to acknowledge it as a mistake because he needed to place his selfish interests above those of Mr. Sconce, the criminally charged Defendant. So again, your Honor, I raise these two points not because I believe our motion to preclude his testimony in its entirety is not well taken; I raise these points because I don't know how the Court is going to rule and I want to give the Court the full picture of what I believe are issues related to Dr. Rieders' proposed testimony. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. MR. KELBERG: May I have just one moment, your Honor? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. MR. BLASIER: Let me talk about the second issue first. I think it is just absolutely outrageous that Mr. Kelberg would come in and read from a newspaper and argue that there has been some determination that Dr. Rieders made a mistake in the sconce case. If we want to litigate the sconce case, we can, but it is going to take us about a month. The testing that was done by Mr. Henion was done on a five-year old autopsy, a different autopsy, different tissue than the testing done by Dr. Rieders earlier. Dr. Henion in his reports, my understanding, acknowledges that perhaps what Dr. Rieders saw might have been there when he saw it, but because the second autopsy five years later might not show the same thing. The case was dismissed. There were other reasons for its dismissal. We can litigate that from here to Sunday. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say that they should be able to cross-examine him on that kind of a case where there has been no legal determination that any mistake was made. In fact no mistake was made. These are contrary opinions on scientific evidence which happens all the time. And the notion that Mr. Kelberg would come in and raise his voice because a scientist would say he is not certain about something is outrageous. No scientist is going to get up there and tell you he is absolutely positive about anything if he's a real scientist. So I make a motion that they not be allowed to cross-examine on that issue at all. On 352 grounds, certainly, and a lack of showing that there is any legal basis to cross-examine. As to the first issue, on whether this is a presumptive test or not, first of all, Mr. Kelberg has not read Dr. Rieders' report carefully. His report states that the testing done by the FBI does show the presence of EDTA in the bloodstain from the sock and from the gate. There is no language about "Presumptive for" in that part of his report. The second part of the report where he tries to attribute a source as to where this could have come from is where he uses the term "Presumptive" not in the sense of a phenolphthalein test where the phenolphthalein test we know that there are a lot of common-occurring substances that can give the same response as blood and therefore it is only a test that narrows it down somewhat, could have been something else, so they have to do follow-up tests to confirm it. These are not presumptive tests. I find it fascinating that Mr. Kelberg would use Mr. Henion's LCMS/MS test to go prove that Dr. Rieders made a mistake when he is claiming now that LCMS/MS is just a presumptive test. That is the same testing that was done in this case. They might say that there are hundreds of compounds that could give this pattern. They can't name a single one. I asked Agent Martz. He can't name a single one. They have not looked at all eleven million organic compounds. There may be eleven billion in the universe, we don't know. So you can't absolutely say that there isn't something else out there that we have never seen before that might give this same pattern. That doesn't make it a presumptive test. I'm assuming that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been prosecuting people for years based on LCMS tests or GC/MS tests which has less information than the tests run by the FBI in this case. Those tests have been used since the seventies to demonstrate that you have a particular substance in your blood, for instance. They are not presumptive tests. There is no case that says they are a presumptive test. They are determinative tests. They can make arguments that maybe there is some other compound out there somewhere, the name of which we do not know, that might give the same result, and Agent Marks will say that and Dr. Rieders will say that also, but they will say the only compound they know that gives everything we see, the right retention time, the right parent ion and the right daughter ion and the right characteristic you must have before something can even be tested, is EDTA. And Dr. Rieders will say in his opinion this is EDTA because it meets every one of those characteristics. On the electrospray issue, electrospray is a process by which you move from the chromatography stage to the mass spec stage. With liquid chromatography you are working with a liquid that has to be converted to a gas before you can do the mass spec part of it. All electrospray does is change the liquid to the gas. It doesn't change the ions. It doesn't change the compound. It doesn't change the measurement system. You still wind up with chromatograms that you look at and you analyze. Saying that this should be determinative of whether an expert testifies is like saying that Julia Childs can't tell you anything about cooking because she doesn't use a Cuisinart. It is one technique that is used as one step in the process. It doesn't change anything. You wind up with a chromatogram that is interpreted just like they all are. So I would submit that this is clearly not a presumptive test, and further, that the Prosecution should not be allowed to cross-examine on the sconce case or any other case that they may not have mentioned, unless they present it beforehand, so that we can litigate that as well. MR. KELBERG: May I just briefly respond, your Honor? THE COURT: Briefly. MR. KELBERG: No. 1, just for consistency, it is Dr. Henion; it is not Mr. Henion. No. 2, it is a more sophisticated test than any of the tests that Dr. Rieders used. No. 3, the evidence is clear Dr. Rieders--in fact, we have his article "A quest for oleandrin in decayed human tissue"--noted his findings showed it wasn't there and he doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Dr. Rieders having been possibly correct in the past with respect to his analysis. If that were the case, this case might still have been prosecuted. We are not inclined to lightly dismiss capital murder cases, your Honor. That is dismissed because of the overpowering and overwhelming and compelling nature of Dr. Henion's results. Last thing is, who is the proponent of this evidence? The people at the left side of counsel table to my left. It is their responsibility to show no other compound. It is not our responsibility to say, oh, gee, you know, there is only one or two others or maybe a couple hundred. It is their responsibility when they are talking about it is presumptive of, and that is really what the conclusion is. The issue for this jury is, hey, where does this stuff come from? If it is EDTA, where does it come from? And that is this issue that the jury is being asked to decide when in fact the expert, the best he is going to say is it is presumptive for. If he is using the language, I didn't put words in his mouth, I didn't put the words in this report; he wrote them. He should have to live by them. I submit for all the reasons previously expressed, your Honor, he should be precluded from testifying. But if the Court feels differently than I on this, that the two areas of inquiry that I have indicated are appropriate, Dr. Henion's--I asked Mr. Hodgman to make sure he is available to clear the air should there be any air need clearing regarding what the test results were and I have every expectation that he would be available. THE COURT: All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Blasier, do we have Dr. Rieders' report marked as an exhibit at this point? MR. BLASIER: I don't think we do. We provided it to the Court last week. THE COURT: I think we should have--I think for the purpose of the appellate court I think we need to have a copy here. MR. BLASIER: I will submit my copy, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. The 352 objection as to Dr. Rieders' testimony regarding his testing for the presence of EDTA, the objection is overruled. I will allow his testimony. The cross-examination as to other testing in other cases done by Dr. Rieders appears to be a fair game for cross-examination. Legal ramifications, however, of scientific testing, appears to the Court to be a 352 problem because there are many explanations as to why things are done legally. It is an apple and oranges argument. So the objection by the Defense as to legal ramifications is sustained. All right. For the purposes of the record we will mark a copy of Dr. Rieders' report as Court's exhibit 18. (Court's 18 for id = Dr. Rieders' report) THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:11:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 287.         There are no replies to Comment # 287. End Trace Mode for Comment # 287. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com