qualified as an expert witness it is very clear that the only reason that the government did not want to qualify this not as an expert was simply because they did not want any cross these six of the joint appendix she was as we were completing when you completed your analysis where did you send those results to and she replied once we issued our report i believe at a later date the data was sent to a private an expert witness but merely a fact witness the mr interesting also admit that he did not hear the testimony he did not know what ms miss mills testifying to when he said that if she was testifying regarding say a  courtroom at the time and at the end of all of the direct and cross examination judge walton asked him whether her testimony whether her testimony to the extent that there was testimony from a smell about comparison or analyzing or or looking at the next year that counsel should have been able to cross examine her about the dysfunction of the law exactly and that cause was not so permitted is there any other claim of prejudice apart from the lack of an opportunity to cross examine it was it's completely the lack of cross examination which was a huge you know they had a huge impact on the defense so much as i understand what the government is sending they intended to put knows on to describe her what they termed benchwork and as a factual sort of chain of process or change you know to to be able to say we had this sample i received a swab i your position as i understand it is that she actually did a little more than that and it was she when she was testifying she was sort of saying more than she was needed  think they really comprehend the difference between a judge saying ok we find you qualify now in terms of what she when she characterizes her having done some initial interpretation the  but at another point it sounded like she says that she sent the report that was that she did sometime later that testimony wasn't really clear what was said again the government's trying to say it was only one day that that was she that was sent but it's not really clear if that was the case but you have said that the claim prejudice is a claim about not being able to cross examine exactly exactly it's not that there is in fact was very very intense very careful about a wanting to restrict miss mills testimony to fact testimony and if it was so restricted he was quite clear in saying that there was no reason to annul to cross examine about the difficulties of the lab yes he did say that but at the same time i believe when  walton was making that determination that was when he had listened to mr anderson you know say what he had to say and the testimony of the witness and you know the question i guess the question for you to put it in you know in the light that i think of the prosecution is is pressing here is if everybody was on the same page that the witness could testify as a fact witness and if her testimony was only as a fact witness that there was no room for the cross examination that the this lab that had had these troubles with interpretation wasn't doing the interpretation and that what what happened then is that there are a few things that his mill sat that sound more like oh and there's also some interpretation going on here mean it's your position that those suggestions open the door for cross examination and sort of allow the cross examine exactly and even though there is no evidence that after time the lab was actually in this period of extra scrutiny and this from this unit at the time that ms mills was doing this bench work right there this wasn't the time that the lab was in collapse it was it was it was in collapse because of the problems with mixture interpretation and this mills said that her testimony to the jury involved to make sure interview taishan so that's why it was  i don't know if it has been known to the outside when it wouldn't in order for there to be any prejudice will because if what she did was incorrect or improper and that material and i because again it isn't clear from her testimony if her report was sent out or just the raw data and then there's some question about the electorate there grant and according to ms mills testimony stems from in this reading were misunderstanding of the record by appellant what ms mills testified to was her benchmark was what she participated in in terms of the physical handling and processing of the a evidence the swabs collected from this exit and from the victim and the last step in that benchmark process as both hope parker the d n a expert from cody and  raw data which that is visualized by opening it with the software program that misnomer first you as a software interpretation or software and now listen this program that's gene his testimony where she uses the words are turned analyzer analysis or interpret and what would she is testifying to is the work that is done by the computer by a machine by the software program misfits i think you say that you know any confusion stems from misunderstanding the worse he did but didn't want to who was you know there and very alert to what the issues were i think accurately you know being quite careful on behalf of both sides to walk the line he said you know this doesn't feel like lays stuff to me you know why aren't you qualifying her as an expert and i guess you know she did discuss mixture interpretations and mixture analysis and so the question is why did you just simplify her lives and qualify her as an expert limited to you know identification of this as an example for sending on to the lab and you know you it seems to me that it would still have been feasible for you to draw the line you wanted to draw about you know she's not going to but if you were relying on someone else's and then there would be a clean record about her not having on cross examination and were in the flood here and it was conducted outside of the presence of the jury and so that was not the purpose for which she was called as a fact witness in this case and there was a good reason aside from you know not wanting to open the door to issues about cross examination about what's the issue identify that the d c department forensic science is wise and that's because up to the point of the end of her benchmark where she gets the raw know basically a chain of custody foundational fast work mr parker's expert testimony what shane and holmes did after that was you know relevant to the issues in the trial because what she did in the lab after that was she looked at the letter of graham and made a determination about whether there was a major contributor for the purpose of uploading a major male contributor  suspects profile into the coldest database and the government was not seeking to have her testify to the fact that she uploaded a profile and code as and that there was a code a smash because that would have been highly prejudicial to helen and was irrelevant to the issue as it was presented to the jury at trial which was the boney had done that and had come done that you know comparison and so any confusion here is because during during cross examination what's being a listed from mrs mills is testimony that she wasn't called to testify to understand and that is you know this separate question of whether she looked at the letter fairground and need judgments about being able to determine whether there was indeed a male contributor so first i would say that it's not an error that judge denied the motion to straight her testimony because a sort of chain of process witness where that process is as rationalized as this one would not have been wise to qualify her as an expert simply for the purpose of being able to locate for the jury i know what this says what the sample is i know what this machine does and when i got a report i could verify that the machine you know had done the  thing that it wasn't printing out someone's christmas list it was you know so i mean could you please an expert perhaps but i think there's a good reason not to which is that when someone is presenting to the jury as an expert witness you know their testimony and comes with original that they are no there were three other witnesses in this case as an example curb mr curtis is your faith or from d c department of forensic science says in his cool air from both laboratories who also testified in this trial as fa witnesses about their benchwork about the walls that they played in the preparation of the samples leading up to that and of the benchwork process which is putting it into the genetic analyzer machine and getting  they part of this multi layered analysis in other words i thought i remembered that the government was worried not worried but dog well we'll do a double check just to make sure that before we even send it to bode is that correct is that why you have the three witnesses no i think i mean this is a completely contained within the record here but it is very typical and forensic d n a case that you would have multiple different technicians very end alas handle things for example here i think the record makes clear that one of the reasons was that when you do that branch work of processing a known sample  not until after the cliff and other things that we develop that suspects and so it is one of the point is that to the extent that there were issues that were identified that d c to get asked by a panel of experts in a review was conducted those issues were limited to one unfortunately i think in this record is also referred to as next your interpretation but this is where the words become important in a technical field they weren't limited analysis which for a mixture interpretation would be to combine probability of inclusion statistic for that link it's more observation than interpreted well so the issue that was there was really with the statistical which miss mills could never have been doing because she testified repeatedly that at the time do you see this was handling the d n a evidence in this case they did not have a suspect profile anderson and i think i have misremembered if you agree with those in council that this was during a time when there were issues in the in the d c lab in terms of doing this testimony is occurring the united states attorney's office have been routinely meeting disclosure is about the subset what was subsequently identified as an issue with the mixture interpretations statistical analysis and s mr davis had it wasn't clear to her whether any interpretations that mel's might have done were sent to booty and it's my understanding of the record that as mr danvers suno was explaining any report that was wrong word to the lab would have been scrubbed of any our interpretation or comparison information this that and when she was handling these exhibits and trying to match them up the sole purpose was a chain of custody a foundational witness who was saying that we generated data at the scene d f s and that and the way that bodhi had taken that was just to write it in a t v format and all your table format and saying you know these appear to be the same it was not that she was making any expert  significant it was of a match it was which was all done by miss parker who is qualified as an expert and has you know much cross on these points either to the extent that there was any error which the government meeting if they're not it was harmless in this case because you know all of the real expert work was testified to on the subject of cross overs parker and had you know of how to try to open the door should that issue questioned but it was either extremely fortuitous or he told his lawyer ahead of time that he was going to the police station because his lawyer called and the detective we just to have his side of the conversation but she currently said to him i want you to stop questioning him and the detective said i'll let him decide that now i'll get to my question in a minute but the lawyer then did what any lawyer would do short of going down there called back and said to our client i want you to leave the station now my question to you is what is your advice to police if and when the police were to come to a prosecutor a lawyer i think at that point there are ethical constraints that apply only to the lawyers here about contacts with represented parties and so  saying you know there is no standard that a lawyer can invoke on behalf of their client right to remain silent or otherwise that that is a right for the client to in not to talk to represent a part of our counsel present and not to ask someone on our behalf to do so accurately where you're saying that the investigators have no such obligation even when they know someone's represented and the counsel for that person believes it's not in his or her client's interest to speak that it still is the independence action of the client whether to do that that is yes and no one has certainly not stated any case to the contrary and i'm not aware of any  and you know from reading of the video in the phone conversation i think what was happening there is the lawyer was trying to advise her to leave her declined to answer questions but that that is again a decision to be made by her client mr kelsey of coming here and that you know watching this video it certainly didn't cross the line into a situation where it was not voluntary and that investigator made clear repeatedly that he was free to leave and if you wish to he certainly displays no interest in leaving at one time or any earlier phone call references you know i'm here to help she wants me to leave but i'm here i know what i'm doing and less very are there questions  to your question judge henderson regarding the statement i believe it was very clear to the officer the investigator that mr kelsey was in fact represented by counsel and counsel advised the investigator that she did not want mr kelsey answering any more questions and may well be that mr kelsey thought he was going to get himself out of a hole or whatever but the point is that number one  investigator knew from counsel that mr pelz was represented and number two that she did not want to be questioned any further and in addition mr kelsey is not i don't have to say th mr kelsey is not a highly intelligent person i think he's perhaps borderline intellectually disabled and so i think again this isn't something that was really part of the record at that one time but i don't think that there can be a argument regarding the d n a at the very end the judge asked this in front of the jury just one question when you say you got a mixture and you made a determination as to whether it's coming from two different sources is a machine or are you making that determination and this mills testified in front of the jury i'm doing that interpretation and that i think that was so important here is that the government said it's not a problem we can qualify her we're going to qualify her and then assume this judge won't says ok i'm going to allow this cross examination then there's this whole two hour hiatus where this thing ever seen and comes and there's argument back and forth it is clear the only reason that this person was not qualify as an expert was because the government wanted to foreclose the cross examination but at the same time this mills testified as to certain facts and that were in that expert testimony and