Opinion ID: 3064677
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: What the EDTA Test Results Tell Us When Combined

Text: with DNA Tests on the Same Samples After Dr. Ballard and Dr. Siuzdak submitted their reports to the district court, the Orchid Cellmark laboratory sent other pieces of the samples to the State of California’s DNA laboratory to determine how much DNA was on those samples. ER 4659, 4669. When Dr. Ballard and Dr. Siuzdak submitted their reports, they did not know the results of this DNA testing. The results of the EDTA testing (performed by Drs. Ballard and Siuzdak) and the DNA testing (performed by the State lab) can be put into a single table. In reading this table, recall that Sample 1 is the sample thought to contain Cooper’s blood. 5470 COOPER v. BROWN Table 1: EDTA and DNA Data (nanograms)4 We can draw two conclusions from the table. First, we can conclude that Dr. Siuzdak’s EDTA results are very likely valid based on a comparison of his results with those of Dr. Ballard. A comparison of the results for Samples 2-7 and 9-10 (that is, excluding Samples 1 and 8) shows that the results obtained by Dr. Siuzdak and Dr. Ballard are consistent. Dr. Siuzdak’s results are expressed in higher absolute numbers than Dr. Ballard’s, but the relative numbers of the two are remarkably consistent. This may be seen in the following graph: 4 The data are from Lee Report (Siuzdak EDTA); ER 5414 (Ballard EDTA); ER 4659, 4669 (DNA). The district court did not order DNA testing of control Samples 7 through 9. 5 Dr. Siuzdak reported his values as concentration of EDTA. Dr. Lee’s analysis of the EDTA results converted Dr. Siuzdak’s “values to the equivalent amount of EDTA in the original cloth cuttings.” Lee Report at