Opinion ID: 1210687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to Allow Cooper's Experts to Assist in Choosing Portions of the T-shirt to Be Tested

Text: One of Cooper's experts, Dr. Peter De-Forest, repeatedly sought to participate in the process of examining the tan t-shirt and determining which parts of the t-shirt might be suitable for sampling. On August 4, 2004, Dr. DeForest filed a declaration noting that new cuttings of the t-shirt would be needed to perform the testing. He wrote, [I]t is essential that the T-shirt be inspected in person to select the areas to be sampled by cutting as well as those to serve as suitable control areas. ER 4021. On September 4, he wrote a letter to the district court, stating that he was concerned about the testing protocol that had been developed. He wrote: This protocol was generated without significant input from me. I feel this protocol is flawed. I will not agree [to] do any sampling according to this protocol. It will not be possible to obtain any meaningful quantitative results using it. ... ... Once I have examined the shirt, I am willing to design an approach for review by another scientist or develop one in conjunction with a criminalist representing the prosecution. As I have been trying to explain for some time now, there needs to be a careful assessment of the shirt followed by a scientific consensus on the pre-extraction sampling.... The samples need to be taken in such a way that it is possible to relate any quantitative findings[of EDTA levels] to a specific amount of bloodstain. This is not possible with the protocol specified in the order. In addition, there is the possibility that a scientific consensus might be that sampling that would allow a meaningful result is simply not possible. In such a case, samples should not be taken. ER 4128-29. The response of the district court was to exclude Dr. DeForest. On September 7, three days after the date of Dr. DeForest's letter, the district court ordered that the t-shirt be sent to Dr. Lewis Maddox of the Orchid Cellmark laboratory. Dr. Maddox's laboratory is not associated with either Cooper or the State. The court directed Dr. Maddox and Gary Sims (or Sims' designee) to prepare Area 6G of the t-shirt for testing, and to select other portions of the t-shirt for use as controls. ER 4151. Mr. Sims is Director of the California Department of Justice Laboratory. The court's order did not allow a representative of Cooper to be present during the selection process. Dr. DeForest was prescient. Area 6G of the t-shirt (the area specified in the court's order) was the area that had been originally tested for DNA. That earlier testing had confirmed Cooper's blood was present in Area 6G. Upon close inspection by Dr. Maddox, Area 6G turned out to be unsuitable for further testing because there was no blood remaining in that area. The State notified the district court of this fact on September 13. That same day, Cooper's lawyer wrote to the district court, [M]ost importantly, Petitioner vigorously requests that an expert of his be allowed to inspect the T-shirt and be part of the selection and preparation process for the anti-coagulant [EDTA] testing. ER 4205. At 5:30 p.m. that same day, the district court denied Cooper's request to have a representative present during the selection and preparation process. The court wrote, The court denies petitioner's request to have his own observer present at the preparation of the T-shirt for the EDTA testing. The court acknowledges that the 6-G stain is not suitable for testing. The court orders Dr. Maddox, in consultation with Dr. Myers [Mr. Sims' designee, the State's representative], to select an appropriate stain area and prepare it for EDTA testing[.] ER 4207. As a matter of due process, a court is required to allow both sides to participate when important decisions are made. Where, as here, serious objections were made to the manner of choosing and processing samples to be tested, the district court failed in its duty to provide a fundamentally fair process.