Opinion ID: 2625875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cross-examination of Stephan Schliebe

Text: Defendant contends that two rulings during the cross-examination of Stephan Schliebe, the prosecution's paint comparison expert, deprived him of the rights of confrontation and effective assistance of counsel, his right to a reliable death verdict, and his right to present a defense. In the first instance, defense counsel Maple was questioning Schliebe about his analysis of paint samples from the metal pole. This exchange followed: Q: Okay. Now, can you tell me, sir, what the percentage of the zinc is? A: No. I didn't do a quantitative analysis. Q: If you were to do a quantitative analysis, how would you do that, sir? The Court: Counsel, that's irrelevant at this stage. He didn't do it. When Maple tried to explain the question's relevance, the court twice cut him off, saying, Your next question. According to defendant, the court's ruling prevented the jury from fully evaluating the witness's overall expertise and his familiarity with the particular testing equipment which he used. Schliebe, however, was extensively cross-examined on those topics both before and after the complained of ruling. Defendant was not constitutionally entitled to ask the expert how a test the expert did not do would have been done had he done it; even the expert's confession of ignorance as to how such a test is done would not have discredited his data and conclusions as to the analyses he did perform. (See People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 531-532, 262 Cal.Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129 [expert may be cross-examined on the reasons for his opinion, and on certain relevant material that the expert failed to consider in reaching his opinion, but not on matters irrelevant to the import or credibility of his opinion].) Second, defendant complains that the court interfered with counsel's effort to cross-examine Schliebe about his failure to account for the Bremstrahlung effect in certain of his analyses. These parts of the cross-examination are very difficult to understand, partly because counsel himself confused the exhibits with one another, partly because counsel and the witness both sometimes referred to exhibits as this or that rather than by number or by reference to the source of the paint samples analyzed, but mainly because counsel mixed inquiries about the Bremstrahlung effect with inquiries about apparent quantity differences in individual elements, such as zinc and iron, in the samples; as a consequence, the general subject of the examination became uncertain, and it was unclear which of counsel's technical questions were foundational and which called for conclusions. The court may or may not have helped matters by interrupting, with various requests for clarification and admonitions to avoid repetition, counsel's apparent attempt to ask the expert whether the Bremstrahlung effect could have masked minor differences between blue paint taken from the bubble shield and that taken from the metal pole. Nevertheless, when the brush had been cleared and counsel was finally in a position to ask that question directly, he unaccountably abandoned the effort and instead asked Schliebe to account for the difference in the iron or Fe & T. Counsel did, earlier on, get Schliebe to admit generally that the Bremstrahlung effect may have masked small amounts of elements in the various paint samples. His failure to elicit more specific testimony regarding comparison of the two blue paint samples was not the fault of the trial court.