3321
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION
4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE
5
6
7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )
8 CALIFORNIA, )
9 Plaintiff, )
10 -vs- ) No. 1133603
11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )
12 Defendant. )
13
14
15
16
17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
18
19 THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005
20
21 8:30 A.M.
22
23 (PAGES 3321 THROUGH 3375)
24
25
26
27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304
28 BY: Official Court Reporter 3321
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2
3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,
4 District Attorney -and-
5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney
6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,
7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and-
8 MAG NICOLA, Deputy District Attorney
9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101
10
11
12 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU
13 BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. -and-
14 SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
15 Los Angeles, California 90067
16 -and-
17 SANGER & SWYSEN BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ.
18 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, California 93101
19 -and-
20 OXMAN and JAROSCAK
21 BY: R. BRIAN OXMAN, ESQ. 14126 East Rosecrans Boulevard
22 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 (Not Present)
23
24
25
26
27
28 3322
1 I N D E X
2
3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index.
4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index.
5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index. Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index.
6 Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index. Mr. Oxman is listed as “O” on index.
7 Mr. Nicola is listed as “N” on index.
8
9 PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
10
11 CANTU, Antonio A. 3324-SA 3339-A 3343-SA (Cont’d)
12 3352-A 3356-SA
13 (Further) (Further)
14 HEMMAN, Lisa Susan Roote 3361-N
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3323
1 Santa Maria, California
2 Thursday, March 24, 2005
3 8:30 a.m.
4
5 THE COURT: Good morning.
6 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)
7 Good morning, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Wasn’t there a witness?
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. Dr. Cantu, please.
10 THE COURT: You’re still under oath. Please
11 be seated.
12 MR. SANGER: May I proceed, Your Honor?
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. SANGER: All right.
15
16 ANTHONY A. CANTU
17 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
18 stand and testified further as follows:
19
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.
5 Q. Okay. I understand. And that’s a science,
6 that’s part of the science that you study; is that
7 correct?
8 A. Well, I’m a chemist.
9 Q. You’re a chemist. You’re a scientist,
10 right?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you’re a very senior scientist for the
13 United States Secret Service, correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. How many times have you testified in court?
16 A. Probably in excess of 40 times.
17 Q. Okay. And how many times have you been
18 called to testify in court before a jury?
19 A. About that many times.
20 Q. About that many times. How many times have
21 you been called by the prosecution, U.S. Attorney,
22 or the District Attorney, or whatever the
23 prosecution --
24 A. Most of those times.
25 Q. Would it be all of those times?
26 A. I’d have to look at my records. I don’t
27 have that. I believe it’s most of those times.
28 Q. All right. You’re pretty sure it’s most of 3327
1 those times, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. So you’re trying to think, was
4 there a time or two that you may have been called by
5 a defense lawyer?
6 A. Yes, that’s what I think.
7 Q. Can’t think of one right at the moment?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. And basically what you’ve come to
10 tell us is that there’s a ninhydrin process which
11 makes it possible to visualize or see latent prints,
12 that is, prints that you can’t really see on paper.
13 You use this ninhydrin, and they turn purple and you
14 can see them, right?
15 A. That’s one of the processes.
16 Q. And that’s been around since the ‘50s,
17 right?
18 A. That particular one has.
19 Q. And you developed actually a newer version
20 of that ninhydrin process, haven’t you?
21 A. Several.
22 Q. Do you know what version of the process was
23 used here in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, with regard
24 to Mr. Jackson’s case?
25 A. Well, as far as the amino acid
26 visualization, it was ninhydrin.
27 Q. So you’re aware of that?
28 A. Yes. 3328
3321
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION
4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE
5
6
7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )
8 CALIFORNIA, )
9 Plaintiff, )
10 -vs- ) No. 1133603
11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )
12 Defendant. )
13
14
15
16
17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
18
19 THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005
20
21 8:30 A.M.
22
23 (PAGES 3321 THROUGH 3375)
24
25
26
27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304
28 BY: Official Court Reporter 3321
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2
3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,
4 District Attorney -and-
5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney
6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,
7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and-
8 MAG NICOLA, Deputy District Attorney
9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101
10
11
12 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU
13 BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. -and-
14 SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
15 Los Angeles, California 90067
16 -and-
17 SANGER & SWYSEN BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ.
18 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, California 93101
19 -and-
20 OXMAN and JAROSCAK
21 BY: R. BRIAN OXMAN, ESQ. 14126 East Rosecrans Boulevard
22 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 (Not Present)
23
24
25
26
27
28 3322
1 I N D E X
2
3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index.
4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index.
5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index. Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index.
6 Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index. Mr. Oxman is listed as “O” on index.
7 Mr. Nicola is listed as “N” on index.
8
9 PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
10
11 CANTU, Antonio A. 3324-SA 3339-A 3343-SA (Cont’d)
12 3352-A 3356-SA
13 (Further) (Further)
14 HEMMAN, Lisa Susan Roote 3361-N
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3323
1 Santa Maria, California
2 Thursday, March 24, 2005
3 8:30 a.m.
4
5 THE COURT: Good morning.
6 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)
7 Good morning, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Wasn’t there a witness?
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. Dr. Cantu, please.
10 THE COURT: You’re still under oath. Please
11 be seated.
12 MR. SANGER: May I proceed, Your Honor?
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. SANGER: All right.
15
16 ANTHONY A. CANTU
17 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
18 stand and testified further as follows:
19
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.
5 Q. Okay. I understand. And that’s a science,
6 that’s part of the science that you study; is that
7 correct?
8 A. Well, I’m a chemist.
9 Q. You’re a chemist. You’re a scientist,
10 right?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you’re a very senior scientist for the
13 United States Secret Service, correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. How many times have you testified in court?
16 A. Probably in excess of 40 times.
17 Q. Okay. And how many times have you been
18 called to testify in court before a jury?
19 A. About that many times.
20 Q. About that many times. How many times have
21 you been called by the prosecution, U.S. Attorney,
22 or the District Attorney, or whatever the
23 prosecution --
24 A. Most of those times.
25 Q. Would it be all of those times?
26 A. I’d have to look at my records. I don’t
27 have that. I believe it’s most of those times.
28 Q. All right. You’re pretty sure it’s most of 3327
1 those times, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. So you’re trying to think, was
4 there a time or two that you may have been called by
5 a defense lawyer?
6 A. Yes, that’s what I think.
7 Q. Can’t think of one right at the moment?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. And basically what you’ve come to
10 tell us is that there’s a ninhydrin process which
11 makes it possible to visualize or see latent prints,
12 that is, prints that you can’t really see on paper.
13 You use this ninhydrin, and they turn purple and you
14 can see them, right?
15 A. That’s one of the processes.
16 Q. And that’s been around since the ‘50s,
17 right?
18 A. That particular one has.
19 Q. And you developed actually a newer version
20 of that ninhydrin process, haven’t you?
21 A. Several.
22 Q. Do you know what version of the process was
23 used here in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, with regard
24 to Mr. Jackson’s case?
25 A. Well, as far as the amino acid
26 visualization, it was ninhydrin.
27 Q. So you’re aware of that?
28 A. Yes. 3328
1 Q. All right. And then you’ve come to tell us
2 that the super glue fuming process is one that’s
3 existed, I think you said, since the ‘80s; is that
4 correct?
5 A. I believe ‘70s, but --
6 Q. ‘70s or ‘80s?
7 A. It’s been quite some time.
8 Q. Quite some time. And that’s been around.
9 And that basically is another way of visualizing
10 these things, so you can actually see the ridge
11 marks, right?
12 A. Depends on the surface, of course. But yes,
13 in this particular case that’s what was used.
14 Q. And you’ve been told that; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, I saw the evidence.
16 Q. Okay. Now, I think you said yesterday that
17 you had not evaluated any of the evidence in this
18 case?
19 A. No. I mean, I did say I had not evaluated
20 any of the evidence --
21 Q. All right.
22 A. -- as far as the comparison of fingerprints.
23 Q. So what you did is you looked to see what
24 technology they used to bring forth the fingerprints
25 so they were visual?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. Okay. And then you talked about the
28 Scenescope, which is a device that uses the 3329
1 ultraviolet light to make it easier to see
2 fingerprints; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. All right. Now, there are a couple issues
5 that you’re aware of -- let me see if this is true
6 or not. Let’s talk about a couple. One, with
7 regard to the fuming technique, the fuming technique
8 can be done to excess; is that correct? If you
9 overfume the paper, you can lose some of the detail;
10 is that correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. And when you have a Scenescope, you can, in
13 fact, minimize the fuming, because the Scenescope is
14 going to be more sensitive in picking up the ridges
15 or the imprints of the ridges; is that correct?
16 A. There’s some truth to that, yes.
17 Q. Okay. You also -- well, let me ask this:
18 Generally the Scenescope company, the company,
19 whatever its name was over a period of time that has
20 manufactured this Scenescope, recommends that film
21 be used rather than digital when taking the pictures
22 through the Scenescope; is that correct?
23 A. That’s a recommendation, sir.
24 Q. Okay. And you’re aware that using a digital
25 camera can actually filter out some of the detail;
26 is that correct?
27 A. No, that’s not quite correct. It all
28 depends on the digital camera, its resolution, and 3330
1 that’s something that has to be taken into account.
2 And the people at Spex are fully aware that a good
3 digital camera will bring out the details that are
4 in a fingerprint.
5 Q. Their recommendation, however, is that you
6 use a 35-millimeter-film camera, correct?
7 A. Like you said, a recommendation.
8 Q. All right. And you’re aware of studies
9 showing that -- that some of the detail,
10 particularly in between ridges or nonridge detail of
11 fingerprints, can be lost when using a digital
12 camera, correct?
13 A. No, I’m not aware of that.
14 Q. All right. Now, you told us that you
15 developed prints -- I mean, not oversimplify, you
16 told us that you’re familiar with the technology
17 used to develop prints and, in fact, you’ve been --
18 you participated in improving that technology,
19 right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Nevertheless, when you are dedicating
22 part of your career to this, you must understand
23 what it is that’s going to be done with the
24 developed prints, correct?
25 A. Right.
26 Q. All right. So you know that one of the
27 things you’re looking for, or a latent print
28 examiner, which you’re not, I understand, but one of 3331
1 the things that a latent print examiner is going to
2 be looking for are ridge details; is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. So when you talk about ridge details, you’re
5 talking about the parts of the skin that protrude
6 and form ridges?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. All right. The people who are doing this
9 examination have begun to call themselves
10 ridgeologists; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, I’ve heard that term.
12 Q. Okay. Now, I’d asked you before, when it
13 goes from your part of the science to raising the
14 prints so they can be seen to the next step, the
15 next step is not scientific, is it?
16 A. I wouldn’t say that.
17 Q. It’s subjective, is it not, sir?
18 A. I cannot say that.
19 Q. You cannot say whether it’s subjective or
20 not subjective?
21 A. It’s not my area of expertise.
22 Q. Okay. But basically, you have people who
23 are going to look at what has been raised as a part
24 of your technology, let us say, and they’re going to
25 compare it with a rolled print, you know that,
26 right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And they are going to come to a conclusion 3332
1 as to whether or not they believe it matches,
2 correct?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. All right. Now, in the course of doing
5 this, they’ll be looking for the identification of
6 certain points from the latent fingerprint to the
7 known fingerprint; is that correct?
8 A. That’s the way the comparison is done, yes.
9 Q. Okay. They’ll also -- besides looking for
10 comparisons of ridge detail, they may also be
11 looking for pores; is that correct?
12 A. If they are present.
13 Q. All right. So that’s one of the things that
14 you would like to bring out with your technology?
15 In other words, your effort to come up with the best
16 latent print that can be obtained, you would like to
17 have all the detail there that would be possible for
18 a print examiner to compare, correct?
19 A. That would be ideal, but it doesn’t happen
20 all the time.
21 Q. Okay. Well, we’ll get to what happens, but
22 your goal is to give them the best prints so that
23 you can -- you can compare it?
24 A. Well, I should add, even a rolled print that
25 you’ve been talking about, one that’s carefully
26 done, sometimes does not contain any pores.
27 Q. All right. We’re going back to pores, but
28 that’s where I was going back, so you’re right. 3333
1 Okay.
2 Sometimes a rolled print doesn’t even
3 contain all the ridges; is that correct? There can
4 be a fold in the paper, there can be some glitch in
5 rolling the print?
6 A. That’s correct.
7 Q. All right. Now, digital imaging tends not
8 to pick up the pores as well as film imaging or a
9 film camera, correct?
10 A. I cannot say that. First of all, for
11 reasons that it’s not part of my expertise.
12 Q. Now, let me just ask you about -- I know I’m
13 going to mispronounce it, but it looks like
14 1, 2-indanedione, known as IND, which would be my
15 preference, if we can call it that. Are you
16 familiar with that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is that an advancement in the
19 visualization or the ability to visualize latent
20 prints?
21 A. The amino acid portion, yes.
22 Q. Do you know if that was used at all in this
23 case?
24 A. No, it was not used.
25 Q. And that’s something that you helped develop
26 here in the last ten years or so; is that correct?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. All right. Now, let’s just talk briefly 3334
1 about prints in the demonstration that was given
2 here. You recall the demonstration that was given
3 yesterday?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you sort of stood back and you let Mr.
6 Sutcliffe do it, I think; is that safe to say?
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. You didn’t have anything to do with putting
9 the fingerprints on the paper that was put under the
10 Scenescope, did you?
11 A. No. I had nothing to do with it.
12 Q. Okay. So, you would agree that when
13 fingerprints are found in their natural state, for
14 lack of a better term, but at a crime scene or
15 wherever, you don’t have -- for the most part, you
16 don’t have people rolling their thumbprint on a
17 piece of paper, correct?
18 A. I’m sorry, could you repeat that question?
19 Q. Well, it’s just a basic question. In other
20 words, when we saw the demonstration, I believe that
21 Mr. Sutcliffe at one point took his -- it may have
22 been his thumb or his finger, and he kind of rolled
23 it, pushed it onto the paper so it could be seen.
24 That’s pretty much an ideal fingerprint, is it not?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And, in fact, I think he was wearing gloves
27 before he did that. He took the gloves off, and
28 made a good, clean, print; is that right? 3335
1 A. That’s correct.
2 Q. And you had a chance to see it up on the
3 screen, correct?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. And it looked like a pretty good, clean
6 print, right?
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. And were you to see that in actual -- in the
9 actual course of a case, you would say that is a
10 pretty good, clean print, right?
11 A. That’s correct.
12 Q. What happens is you have generally partial
13 prints that are sometimes smudged, that are
14 sometimes just the tip of a finger or the side, or
15 the -- whatever, correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And so you try to develop whatever is on the
18 paper so that it can be seen?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Sometimes that fingerprint may be over
21 another fingerprint or over some other imperfection
22 in the paper, or whatever the substance is, that
23 makes it impossible to see the rest of the print,
24 correct?
25 A. It may.
26 Q. So the challenge is to take whatever you
27 have, and get as clear a picture of whatever that is
28 so the latent print examiner can make a comparison; 3336
1 is that right?
2 A. Well, my role is to provide them with the
3 best possible tools to develop the print.
4 Q. Right. And actually, you don’t go out in
5 the field and do this latent print development
6 yourself, do you?
7 A. Not recently.
8 Q. Okay. You’ve done it on occasion?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right. Your job is really, as a
11 chemist, to -- for the United States Secret Service
12 to come up with the best technology you can to make
13 this work; is that right?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. And by “this” I mean the visualization of
16 these latent prints.
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And this has been something you’ve been
19 working on now for the last few years; is that
20 right?
21 A. I think I mentioned in excess of 20 years.
22 That’s one of the areas that I get involved in.
23 There are other ones, of course.
24 Q. Originally you were with the ATF --
25 A. That’s correct.
26 Q. -- Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, right?
27 And you’ve written a lot of papers; is that
28 correct? 3337
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You have written more papers, for instance,
3 on the subject of identifying ink or pencil lead,
4 those kind of markings on paper, than you have about
5 fingerprint development; is that correct?
6 A. I gave a number of -- when I was asked about
7 publications, and I think I said of 26 papers that
8 are, you know, published in peer-reviewed journals,
9 and nine of those are on fingerprints. And I’ve got
10 two that are in review right now. One is a chapter
11 in a book. And the other one is a publication on --
12 again, on fingerprints, that’s going to be in the
13 Journal of Forensic Sciences. So that would be like
14 a total of 11.
15 Q. I thought you said seven and two for nine,
16 yesterday?
17 A. Seven and two, okay.
18 Q. All right. Well, whichever one it is,
19 that’s a lot of papers. But you’ve written more
20 papers on ink, and documents, the identification of
21 ink and pencil lead and that sort of thing in
22 document review than you have on fingerprints,
23 right?
24 A. That is a fascinating area. Yes, I have
25 worked on the area of the analysis of items on
26 documents to be able to associate documents, date
27 documents, and this includes ink, paper, pencil,
28 erasure residue, and things like that. And 3338
1 fingerprints is just one of the items that you find
2 on documents as well.
3 Q. Okay. But -- thank you. But the subject
4 matter of the papers on ink had nothing to do with
5 fingerprints, did they?
6 A. No.
7 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. Okay.
8 I have no further questions. Thank you.
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Very briefly, Your Honor.
10
11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
13 Q. As far as the use of digital cameras in
14 capturing a fingerprint on a piece of paper, have
15 you ever used a digital camera to do that?
16 A. We have tested some digital cameras for
17 doing that.
18 Q. And have you found them to be satisfactory?
19 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object as lack of
20 foundation.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you used -- you
23 said you’ve used digital cameras to -- well, let me
24 back up.
25 Have you used digital cameras to photograph
26 fingerprints in the past?
27 A. Our laboratory has.
28 Q. And have you reviewed those photographs? 3339
1 A. No, I have not had a chance to review them.
2 Q. All right. As far as the questions
3 regarding the protocol that was used in this case,
4 have you had an opportunity to talk to Detective Tim
5 Sutcliffe about the exact protocol that was used to
6 examine fingerprints in this case?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And are you aware of the fact that they
9 initially looked at the magazines to see if they
10 could see anything with the naked eye or with a
11 loop?
12 MR. SANGER: I’m going to object that that
13 calls for hearsay.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
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.
15
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.
24
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.
12
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
1 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
2 MR. NICOLA: Lisa Hemman, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Come to the front of the
4 courtroom, please. When you get to the witness
5 stand, please remain standing. Face the clerk here
6 and raise your right hand.
7
8 LISA SUSAN ROOTE HEMMAN
9 Having been sworn, testified as follows:
10
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and
13 spell your name for the record.
14 THE WITNESS: Lisa Susan Roote Hemman;
15 L-i-s-a, S-u-s-a-n, R-o-o-t-e, H-e-m-m-a-n.
16 THE CLERK: Thank you.
17
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. NICOLA:
20 Q. Good morning.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. How are you employed, ma’am?
23 A. I work for the Santa Barbara County
24 Sheriff’s Department.
25 Q. And what’s your current assignment?
26 A. I’m a senior identification technician in
27 the forensic unit.
28 Q. How long have you been with the sheriff’s 3361
1 office?
2 A. Eight years.
3 Q. How long have you been an identification
4 technician?
5 A. Eight years.
6 Q. Are you currently working a full assignment
7 with the sheriff’s office?
8 A. No. Right now I’m on maternity leave.
9 Q. Congratulations.
10 A. Thanks.
11 Q. Were you involved in handling any of the
12 evidence from the Michael Jackson case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. When did you begin your maternity leave?
15 A. December 17th, I believe, was my last day.
16 Q. Of ‘04?
17 A. Of ‘04.
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.
7 Q. Okay. I have a number of exhibits here for
8 you to look at.
9 A. Okay.
10 MR. NICOLA: May I show these to her? These
11 are 634 through 709.
12 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel
13 table.)
14 THE COURT: You can give her the documents,
15 but you have to come back to the stand to question
16 her. If you need to stand there for identification
17 of a particular exhibit or something, that’s all
18 right.
19 BY MR. NICOLA:
20 Q. Do you recognize this item? It’s 634.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How do you recognize it?
23 A. It’s my handwriting saying it’s 317-B, and
24 you can also see my handwriting on the bottom corner
25 piece of the paper, saying 317-B.
26 Q. And you took this picture?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Exhibit 635? 3365
1 A. Yes. It’s 317-D, with my handwriting also
2 on the piece of paper.
3 Q. Okay. Exhibit 636?
4 A. 317-E, it’s the same thing on the paper.
5 Q. Exhibit 637?
6 A. 317-G, and my handwriting would be on the
7 back side of the magazine.
8 Q. 632, a yellow sticky?
9 A. Yes, there’s a yellow sticky right next to
10 it.
11 Q. 638?
12 A. 317-H, and I see my handwriting on the
13 bottom corner of the piece of paper.
14 Q. Okay. Exhibit 639?
15 A. 317-I, and it’s another loose-leaf paper.
16 Q. Did you take this photograph as well?
17 A. Yes. 317-J, and it’s another piece of paper
18 I photographed.
19 Q. It’s Exhibit 640?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Exhibit 641?
22 A. 317-K, and it’s a magazine that I
23 photographed.
24 Q. Exhibit 642?
25 A. 317-O, and it’s the same.
26 Q. You photographed this as well?
27 A. I photographed it.
28 317-M, and I photographed that. 3366
1 Q. Okay. That’s Exhibit 643?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Exhibit 644 --
4 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I have two
5 objections. One, counsel is down there and it’s
6 hard to hear him. And secondly, I think this is
7 cumulative.
8 THE COURT: The exhibits are in evidence.
9 Is there some --
10 MR. NICOLA: There will be in a moment.
11 THE WITNESS: 317-O --
12 MR. NICOLA: Would you like me to examine
13 her from down there?
14 THE COURT: Well, except on specific exhibits
15 where you need to approach, I don’t --
16 MR. NICOLA: I just want to run down through
17 the list so we can move to the next part, Your
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I don’t want to
21 make a speaking objection, but I think I understand
22 the next part. And I don’t understand going through
23 every one of these pieces of paper for the next
24 part, which involves 19 pieces of paper.
25 THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.
26 MR. NICOLA: Okay.
27 THE COURT: But I would rather have you
28 question from here. The main reason is that the 3367
1 audience has a hard time hearing, and we’ve tried to
2 have everyone speak where there’s a microphone.
3 BY MR. NICOLA:
4 Q. If you could, please, just read the exhibit
5 number and then the item on the photograph, and let
6 us know whether or not you’re the one that took that
7 picture.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. What’s the next one in order?
10 A. Exhibit 644, and I photographed 317-O.
11 654, and I photographed 317-P.
12 646, 317-Q.
13 Exhibit 647, and I photographed 317-R.
14 648, and I photographed 317-S.
15 649, and it’s exhibit -- or Item No. 317-T.
16 650, and it’s 317-U.
17 651, 317-B.
18 652, 317-W.
19 653, 317-X.
20 And this is Exhibit 654. I’m unsure what
21 this photograph is as far as what number it was.
22 Q. May have I see the front of that, please?
23 A. (Indicating.)
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. 655, 317-Z.
26 656, 317-AA.
27 657, and I’m unsure of what number it was in
28 317, but I recognize it. 3368
1 658, 317-DD.
2 659, 317-FF.
3 660, 317-HH.
4 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m sorry, I’m
5 going to make a slightly different objection. I
6 think the witness is just reading from the exhibits,
7 and they speak for themselves.
8 THE COURT: She’s saying that she took those
9 photographs. That’s what I understood.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yeah.
11 THE COURT: When she’s saying, “I took this
12 photograph,” she’s just giving you a list. So
13 overruled.
14 MR. SANGER: All right.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 661, 317-II.
17 662, 317-JJ.
18 663, 317-KK.
19 664, 317-LL.
20 665, 317-MM.
21 666, 317-OO.
22 667, 317-PP.
23 668, 317-QQ.
24 669, 317-RR.
25 670, 317-SS.
26 671, 317-TT.
27 672, 317-UU.
28 673, 317-VV. 3369
1 674, 317-WW.
2 675, 317-XX.
3 676, 317-YY.
4 677, 317-ZZ.
5 678, 317-AAA.
6 679, 317-BBB.
7 680, 317-CCC.
8 681, 617-FFF.
9 And then we moved on to a new item number
10 that I -- another bag I opened up, and this is --
11 Q. Let me stop you right there.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. That’s as far as I wanted you to go for now.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. That long list of exhibits, which item did
16 they come from?
17 A. They came from 317.
18 Q. And do you recognize this item, which is
19 marked as Exhibit 470?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And can you tell us about that, please?
22 A. This is Item No. 317, and the way I can
23 recognize it is it has my initials on the evidence
24 tape that I sealed it up with after I examined it.
25 It’s -- when I first got it, it had evidence tape on
26 it. I broke the evidence tape, opened it up,
27 separated all the items. And when I was finished
28 with it, I placed the items that I did not separate 3370
1 out from this, put my evidence seal back on and
2 signed it.
3 Q. Okay. You mentioned something about
4 separating items out of 317.
5 Would you like me to get that out of the
6 way?
7 A. That’s fine there.
8 Yes.
9 Q. Could you explain that for us, please?
10 A. I was asked to do a visual inspection of the
11 contents, and I used an alternate light source which
12 goes into the UV wavelengths. And when you look --
13 search for body fluids, they will fluoresce under UV
14 light, and anything that seemed to fluoresce, it
15 could be body fluids, but it could also be other
16 things.
17 My job was to find items that weren’t on the
18 paper when they were published, they were placed
19 there later. It could be anything that fluoresced.
20 And I separated those items out for further testing.
21 And when I did that, I repackaged them into another
22 bag and I sent them to the Department of Justice Lab
23 to find out what those fluids or deposits were.
24 Q. How did you mark on a specific item where
25 you suspected there may be some kind of body fluid
26 or other substance that was foreign to that magazine
27 or picture?
28 A. I sent the entire item to be reinspected by 3371
Subject: March 24, 2005 
Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
