Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Development of the EDTA Testing Protocol

Text: On April 2, 2004, the Court held a tutorial presented by the parties which addressed EDTA testing. Dr. Ballard participated in the tutorial for Petitioner and Dr. Eva Steinberger participated in the tutorial for Respondent. Both experts testified that the known concentration in one microliter of blood from a purple-topped tube [11] was 1300 nanograms. [12] ( See 4/2/04 HRT 54, ll. 22-25; 113, l. 9.) Based on the recommendations of the parties, the Court adopted a control method of testing in which the amount of EDTA detected in a stain would be compared to the amounts of EDTA found in various control swatches from other nonstained portions of the T-shirt. This method was proposed by Dr. Ballard and by Mr. Marc LeBeau, Chief of the Chemistry Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia. (04-CV-656, Doc. No. 51, Ballard Decl. ¶ 3; Doc. No. 23, Ex. 2, LeBeau Decl. ¶¶ 7-10.) Dr. Ballard agreed that while it is always helpful if it is possible to measure the amount of blood, [13] it is actually not necessary because there are ways to determine whether or not EDTA findings are meaningful, specifically through the appropriate use of unstained control specimens from the same evidence item. (04-CV-656, Doc. No. 51, Ballard Decl. ¶ 3.) Because blood does not naturally contain any EDTA, [14] the EDTA levels in the stain and the background material should be comparable. If the EDTA found in the stain greatly exceeded the amount of the EDTA found in the background material, Petitioner and Dr. Ballard advanced that it may support a theory of planting. In this case, there appeared to be an adequate area for control testing in the T-shirt, so that a control method of comparison of relative levels of EDTA could theoretically be done consistent with the Ninth Circuit order to conduct EDTA testing. The Court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the test results under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and ordered briefing and a hearing to address the admissibility of EDTA evidence. ( See 04-CV-656, Doc. Nos. 95 & 7.) Respondent vigorously maintained that any EDTA testing ran afoul of Daubert. After briefing was submitted by the parties, on June 17, 2004, the Court denied without prejudice Respondent's motion regarding inadmissibility of the EDTA evidence and reserved the right to later rule on the admissibility of the EDTA testing evidence under Daubert. (04-CV-656, Doc. No. 97.) The EDTA protocol was developed by the parties and the Court over a three-month period. By invitation of the Court, Petitioner filed the proposed protocol on June 4, 2004, [15] and Respondent filed its opposition on June 29, 2004. Respondent objected that Petitioner's proposed testing of any areas that appear to contain blood that have not previously been tested and, if possible, the remainder of any stains previously tested was vastly overbroad. (04-CV-656, Doc. No. 106 at 1.) The Court agreed that such expansive testing was not warranted under Petitioner's own theory. Because Petitioner's theory was that all stains containing his blood were planted, testing of any one of his known blood stains from the post-conviction DNA testing should confirm or disprove Petitioner's guilt. The Court ordered Petitioner to submit a more detailed revised proposed protocol for EDTA testing, which Petitioner filed on July 13, 2004. Respondent was then ordered to submit a response, which Respondent filed on July 27, 2004. Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent's response on August 4, 2004. At the hearing on August 13, 2004, the Court ordered that the parties meet and confer regarding the EDTA protocol and report back to the Court on August 24, 2004. The Court held additional status conferences to revise the EDTA testing protocol with the parties on August 25, 26, and 27, 2004 and September 3 and 7, 2004 to finalize the EDTA testing protocol and discuss EDTA testing procedures. Petitioner consulted with experts for the development of the protocol. For example, at a status conference on August 26, 2004, the Court provided the parties with a copy of its proposed testing order and offered that [w]e could just go through it right now and get your comments . . . [and] incorporate it. (8/26/04 HRT 209, ll. 17-18.) Petitioner declined and asked for an additional day to review the proposed order so that he could consult with Drs. De Forest and Ballard to make sure that they don't see any issues[.] (8/26/04 HRT 210, ll. 1-3.) At that time, an issue also arose as to the appropriate buffer solution to use in testing, methanol or phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Before any decision was made regarding the buffer solution, Petitioner's counsel requested and was granted permission to consult with Dr. Ballard. (8/26/04 HRT 207, ll. 13-15.) On August 27, 2004, in another telephonic conference in which the parties had the opportunity to comment on the proposed order, Petitioner's counsel explained that PBS rather than methanol was the appropriate buffer, based on his consultations with his experts: [Dr. De Forest] actually expressed concern about the methanol issue and the like, and he gave me a long discussion about it, and it was enough chemistry for me. (8/27/04 HRT 2, ll. 15-18.) Based on this recommendation, the Court adopted PBS as the appropriate buffer solution for the EDTA protocol. The record is replete with examples where Petitioner's counsel represented to the Court that he was consulting with his experts on the details of the EDTA protocol. ( See, e.g., 8/27/04 HRT 7, ll. 12-19 (I'd have to defer to . . . De Forest on that and . . . Dr. Ballard.); 5/12/04 HRT 45, l. 25; 8/26/04 HRT 202, ll. 7-11; 9/3/04 HRT at 8-9.) Following this extensive dialogue with the parties, on Aug. 27, 2004, the Court issued an EDTA testing order detailing the procedure for EDTA testing to be conducted on the T-shirt. [16] In the original EDTA testing order, Petitioner's criminalist, Dr. Peter De Forest, was designated to select the appropriate area of stain 6G for testing and to select the appropriate control areas around 6G and to perform the extraction. ( See 04-CV-656, EDTA Testing Order filed August 27, 2004.) The Court selected 6G because previous DNA testing had indicated that 6G contained Petitioner's blood as the sole, or major donor and further nuclear DNA testing could potentially be avoided. The Court recognized that any testing should resolve Petitioner's theory of tampering, which asserts that all blood from Petitioner found on the T-shirt is necessarily planted. After working with the parties for three months to develop the EDTA testing order, the Court scheduled the testing to begin on September 7, 2004. On the evening of September 3, 2004, the Friday before testing was to begin the following week, Dr. De Forest informed the Court via fax that he did not wish to continue working on this case based on the court-ordered protocol. Dr. De Forest stated that he would not agree do (sic) any sampling according to this protocol and that unless [he] ha[d] the freedom and flexibility to design the sampling protocol in conjunction with a criminalist representing the prosecution, [he] d[id] not wish to continue. (04-CV-656, Ltr. from Dr. Peter R. De Forest to Court dated Sept. 3, 2004 filed under seal on Nov. 9, 2004.) Therefore, on September 7, 2004, the Court held a status conference concerning the selection of another expert and laboratory to conduct the extraction part of the testing. During that conference, the Court permitted the parties to suggest alternative labs of their choosing but stated that [i]n the absence of an agreement, I will choose Selmark (sic), a reputable lab, to just do the prep. (9/7/04 HRT 6, ll. 12-14.) At that time, Respondent stated we have no objections to Selmark (sic). We consider it to be a well-qualified and respected lab. ( Id. at 7.) Petitioner also agreed that Cellmark is very highly qualified with a very high reputation. ( Id. at 13, l. 15.) Dr. Lewis Maddox of Cellmark was designated to conduct the extraction, with Dr. Ballard and Dr. Gary Suizdak, Associate Professor and Senior Director of the Mass Spectrometry Lab at the Scripps Research Institute, to do separate EDTA testing. ( Id. at 22.) On September 7, 2004, the Court issued an amended EDTA Testing Order addressing the change in experts replacing Dr. De Forest with Cellmark to conduct the extraction, and retaining Dr. Ballard as Petitioner's chosen expert for the EDTA testing.