Skip navigation
Prison Profiteers - Header

Cali Doc Adult Institutions Outcome Eval Report 2010

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFl IulIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT 12

BEFORE HONORABLE RICHARD M.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
JOHN IVAN KOCAK,
DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. SCDll 1465

REPORTER'S PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 17, 1995

APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S):

MICHAEL CAI.NTJ~
DEPUTY DIST ICT ATTORNEY
220 WEST DR ~WAY
SAN DIEGO, IA 92101·

FOR THE DEFENDANT(S):

RAYMOND ARA ioN
DEPUTY PtlBL Ie DEFENDER
233 A STREE ,
SUITE 400
'
SAN DIEGO, iA 92101

ROBIN SUNKEES, CS NO. 8824
COURT REPORTER, S fpElUOR COURT
SAN DIEGO, CALIFO iNIA

I-N-O-E-X

11-17-95, 2:25 P.M.

*

CHARLOTl'E WORD,

+
+

REDIRECT EXA1'IINATION
RECROSS-EXAMINATION

+.

CALLEO AS A WITNESS
BY MR. CARPENTER;
BY MR. ARAGON:

PG

LN

2

1

3
3

8
12

Ii

7

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAY, 1.1.-11-95, 2:

1.

P.M.

••

2

---00---

J
4

(WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS

5
6

K PLACE XN

OPEN COURT.)

7

THE COURT:

THE RECORD WILL REFLECT

8

AND DEFENDANT ARE PRESENT.

WE HAVE HAD A 30-MINUTE RECESS.

9

I

AM

~-

FEEL THAT

1.0

WE NEED TO FINISH WITH DR. WORD'S TESTIMONY TODAY

MATTER HOW

1.1.

LATE IT TAKES SO THAT SHE DOES NOT NEED TO COME BA

ON MONDAY

1.2

AND NOT GO ON VACATION TOMORROW, SO -- I MEAN, IF

1.3

IN A HALF AN HOUR, GREAT.

1.4

MR. CARPENTER:

1.5

THE COURT:

1.6

STAFF, FEEL FREE.

IF NOT, I'M STAYING.

GOOD.

SO I.F YOU WANT TO

MR. CARPENTER:

1.7

WELL, I WOULD INDICATE TO

1.8

COUNSEL THAT IN ANALYZING THE FILM IN PRESENTATIO

1.9

BREAK AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOTES THAT WERE

20

WORD HAS POUND AN ERROR, AND WE'D LIKE TO INDICAT

21.

COURT IN REGARD TO THIS.

22

THAT THE LANES. WERE MISLABELED BY THE STAFF MOLE

23

SO THAT THE LANE

24

DR. WORD:

25

MR. aRPENTER:

26

U CAN PINISH

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE
BIOLOGIST

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
WELL, THE REPORT THAT REFL

S THE

LANES

27

DR. WORD:

28

MR. CARPENTER:

THAT'S CORRECT.
SO I'LL JUST ASK DR. WORD

, YOU KNOW,

1

INOICATE WHAT SHE HAS FOUND IN REGARD TO THIS BAS

2

AND PRESENTING IT TO YOU BEFORE THE BREAK.

ON SEEING IT

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH OF OUR

3
4

COMING BAClC, BUT WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT

5

FOUND, NOW, IS ACCURATE SO THAT WE CAN REPORT

6

THERE WAS AN ERROR IN REPORT WRITING.

IN
T Q

HAVE

YOU, THAT

7

CHARLOTTE WORD,

8
9

10

+

CALLED AS A WITNESS HEREIN, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY

ULY SWORN,

WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

11

12
13

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CARPENTER:"

GO AHEAD.

14

Q.

15

THE COURT:

,
I

16

THIS REFERS TO THE REPORT WHICH ,Irs ATTACHED

,

TO THE DEFENSE MOTION AS ATTACHMENT ONE; IS THAT C

17

MR. CARPENTER:

18

THE COURT:

19

YES.

IT'S A TWO-PAGE REPORT.

IT SAY

21

THE COURT:

22

THE WITNESS:

THAT'S CORRECT.
THIS REPORT HAS AN ERROR IN IT;

~OT

,

THE FILM?

I THINK SO.

23

I'M A LITTLE HYSTERICAL

24

THE -- ACCORDING TO OUR EVIDENCE LOG SHEET. OUR S

25

BE THE :KNOWN SAMPLE FOR MR. KOCAK.

26

:KNOWN SAMPLE FROM MISS FRANK.

28

"CELLI'IARX

DIAGNOSTICS" AT THE TOP, "JUNE 20TH, 1995."
THE WITNESS:

27

CT?

THE -- OUR S

I THINX
LE 02 WOULD
LX 03 IS THE

AND IN EXPLAINING THE GEL EARLIER, IT-- I REALIZED
THAT THE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD BEEN -- WE HAD DONE, WHICH SHOWS

1

THAT THE SAMPLE 03 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPES

SAMPLE OlA,

2

l:S CORRECT, BUT WHAT WE INCORRECTLY REPORTED IS

03 WAS MR.

3

KOCAK'S SAMPLE.
ACCORDING TO MY NOTES -- AND I HOPE I

4

5

THEM RIGHT, BUT I CERTAINLY WILL, IN A CALMER STAT

6

THIS -- 03 IS MR. KOCAK -- I'M SORRY -- 03 IS MISS

7

IS MR. KOCAK.

8
9

10

READl:NG
RECONFIlUI
, AND 02

SO IF YOU GO TO OUR REPORT PAGE 2,
DETECTED RESULTS CHART, THE TYPES ARE ALL CORREcT,
NAMES SHOULD BE SWITCHED.

11

AND THEN THE CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE INC

12

THE DATA -- THE PRIMARY DATA THAT WE HAVE OBTAl:NED

13

CONSl:STENT Wl:TH THE TYPES FROM MISS FRANK, AND WE

14

CONCLUSION REGARDING THE FAINT BANDS, WHICH MAY OR

15

l:NCLUDE MR. ltOCAK.

16

PERSPECTIVE.

17

THE COURT:

18

THE WITNESS:

MAKE NO

~Y

NOT

I HAVE NOT REVIEWED IT FROM

OKAY.

19

OUR REPORT WOULD BE, IN TERMS !OF THl:S CASE,
,:
IF I'M ANALYZING THIS CORRECTLY, INCONCLUSIVE IN 'I'
S OF ANY

20

SPERM DONOR, AND I'M EXTREMELY SORRY AND APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT

21

FOR THl:S ERROR.

22
23

24

25
26

THE COURT:

WELL, I'M NOT -- I'M NOT SURE -

I'M NOT SURE

WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO MAKE OF THIS.
MR. CARPENTER, PERHAPS YOU CAN CLARIF

ARE WE

SUPPOSED TO NOW THROW OUT THE CELLMARK REPORT?
MR. CARPENTER:

WELL, WHAT -- WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS

27

NOT PRESENTING THE CELLMARK RESULTS, BECAUSE THEY'

28

NONCONCLUSIVE.

ALL THAT THEY SHOW IS THAT THE VIC 1M'S DNA WAS

1

PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE THAT THEY ANALYZED.

AND SO THE CELLMARK RESULTS WERE OBTA

2

sm

SYSTEM.

I

ED THROUGH

WOULD AT LEAST ASK THE COURT TO

ONSXDER WHAT

4

,DR. WORD HAS TESTIFIED REGARDING THE PCR SYSTEM, l'

USE WE WILL

5

BE PRESENTING THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY THE SAN DIEG

6

DEPARTMENT LAB.

3

THE

i

THE COURT:

7

OKAY.

SO YOU'RE -- AT THIS POI

POLICE

, YOU'RE

8

TELLING ME THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT INTEND TO OFFER Cl!'UUIAB:K'S

9

RESULTS?

10
11

MR. CARPENTER:

THE COURT:

OKAY.

AND THAT THE PEOPLE STI

OFFER THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT'S

14
15

STR SYSTEM

RESULTS OBTAINED BY CELLMARK; THAT IS CORRECT.

12

13

THE STR SYSTEM OBTAINED BY

MR. CARPENTER:

THE COURT:

-PH

RESULTS?

THAT IS CORRECT, AND WE !fA

O'DONNELL SCHEDULED '1'0 TESTIFY MONDAY WHEN WE RES

16

INTEND TO

OKAY.

•

AND SO DOES THIS MEAN '1'

17

END OF DR. WORD'S TESTIMONY, OR DO WE STILL WANT -

18

WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS?

19

MR. CARPENTER:

WELL, NO.

XS THE
DO YOU STILL

I WAS

20

REDIRECT.

21

REGARDING PCR. AS WELL AS DATA BASES, AND I THINK

22

EVIDENCE OBVIOUSLY IS -- OR THAT TESTIMONY

23

THE COURT TO CONSIDER ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE

RESULTS

24

OBTAINED BY THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

ASK THE

25

COURT TO CONSIDER IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

I THINK THAT I HAD TALKED -- OR ASKED

BUT IF I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE DEFEN ES CORRECTLY,

26
27

I THINK THAT THEY WERE MOST OBJECTION- -- OBJECTIO ,ABLE TO THE

;l8

sm

RESULTS, BECAUSE THEY WERE SO NEW AND HAD NOT

EEN

1
·2
3

DlTRODUCED INTO COURT PREVIOUSLY, AT LEAST IN THIS
THE COURT:
DO YOU WISH

To

DEPENSE:

SO LET ME ASK, THEN, OF

RD?

ASK ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF DR.

D; ARAGON:

5

OKAY.

ATE.

THE COURT:

YES.·
OKAY.

6

8

9
10
11

12

13

Q.

DR. WORD, YOU CAME TO THIS

DAY OR

YESTERDAY?

A.

I WAS

RIGHT NOW IN THIS COURTROOM -- OR

LOOKING AT THE FILM, IT OCCURRED TO ME, YES.

Q.

AND IS THIS ESSENTIALLY, THEN, THE FI

YOU'VE HAD A CIllUlCE TO LOOK AT THIS AREA AND DECID

15

WHETHER SUCH AN ERROR WAS POSSIBLE?

17

+

I

BY MR. ARAGON:

14

16

,I

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

7

A.

TIME THAT
FOR YOURSELF

'es.

I HAD REVIEWED THE CASE FOLDER AND N

I HAD

NOT REVIEWED THE LABELING OF THE SAMPLES, SO IF YO 'RE ASKING ME
I

18

ABOUT THE ERROR I JUST RECOGNIZED, THIS IS THE PIR T 'rHAT I

19

RECOGNIZED IT AND HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT

20

REVIEW IT.

I HAD REVIEWED ALL THE DATA, THE FILM

I HADN'T
I

21

REVIEWED THE ACTUAL LABELING OF THE SAMPLES, AND 1: IWAS IN ERROR

22

. FOR 'rHAT.

23

Q.

I
00 YOU HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO WHERE

24

OCCURRED, AT WHAT PART OF THE PROCESSING OF THE ON

25

MOST LIKELY OCCURRED?

26
27
28

A.

ERROR
THIS ERROR

IT CERTAINLY LOOKS THAT THE ERROR WAS SIMPLY IN THE

LABELING OF THE SAMPLES ON THE FINAL REPORT.
THE DOCUMENTATION THROUGH THE CASE I

HOW WE DO IT

1

IN EVERY CASE.

SIMPLY WHAT OCCURRED IS THAT IN
ER AND· THE

THE SAMPLES ON TH:E: FINAL REPORT, THE DEFENDANT'S

3

VICTIH'S mJMBER GOT EXCHANGED, SUPERIMPOSED AND, T

4

REPORT:E:D BACKWARDS.

5
6
7

Q.

SO THAT ERROR OCCURRED IN PREPARATION

OR THIS JUNE

20TH REPORT AT CELLMAR1C? .

A.

THAT'S CORRECT.

I

8

THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE DATA OR THE SCIENC.

9

SIMPLY IN OUR FINAL REPORT, WE ERRED.

10
11

12

MR. ARAGON:

THE COURT:

MR. ARAGON:

15

THE COURT:

18

19
20

21

SURE.

(WHEREUPON, AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSS

14

17

N WAS HAD.)

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO MORE QUE
ALL RIGHT.

IONS.

I JUST HAVE A COUP

OF

QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, MR. CARPENTER, DOES THI

MEAN THAT

CELLMARX STILL GETS THEIR $1200 A DAY?
MR. CARPENTER:

I BELIEVE SO.

I MEAN, SHE'

PU'l' A

YEOMAN'S PERSON'S EFFORT INTO IT, AND
THE COURT:

WHAT

I DON'T -- I DON'T MEAN TO BEAT A DEAD

22

HORSE, BUT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND, ON PAGE 2 OF THE

23

REPORT, HOW THIS WOULD BE CHANGED TO REFLECT WHAT

24

BE THE ACCURATE DATA.

25

RD CATCH HER

YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I LET MRS.

PLANE, COULD I TALK TO MR. TAYLOR FOR JUST ONE M~IrrE·?

13

16

IT'S

THE WITNESS:

E 23
oU BELIEVE TO

WHAT WOULD YOU MARK OUT AND CHANGE?
ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE UNDER

TYPES
I

26

DETECTED," UNDER "SAMPLE," WHERE IT SAYS "A. FRANK '" THAT SHOULD

27

BE SCRATCHED OUT AND LABELED JOHN KOCAK, AND UNDER. "SAMPLE:

28

JOHN KOCAK," THAT SHOULD BE SCRATCHED OUT AND LAB

ED A. F.R.iUIX.

1

THE COURT:

2

THE WITNESS:

3

7

THE COURT:

THAT'S CORRECT.
AND WHERE IT SAYS "KOCAK," IT S

THE WITNESS:

AND THEN, CERTAINLY, THE CONCLUSION S

"A.

ALL -- ALL THE NAMES SHOULD ALSO BE CHANGED.

12

FRANK IS EXCLUDED AS THE SOURCE," THAT SHOULD SAY

13

EXCLUDED AS THE SOURCE.

14

EXCLUDED." IT SHOULD BE -- IT SHOULD SAY A. FRANK

15

EXCLUDED.

16

0'1' BB

AND THEN THE FREQUENCY CALCULATIONS W
FOR A. FRANlt, NOT FOR MR. KOCAK, AND THEN THE

18

CALCULATIONS-THE COURT:

SO DOWN THERE ON -- IN THAT LAS

20

THAT STARTS "USING LOCI," INSTEAD OF JOHN KOCAK, I

21

A. FRANK?
THE WITNESS:

AND THEN THE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY

SENTENCE
SHOULD SAY

CALlrur~TIONS

I DID EARLIER ARE JiAt,F RIGHT AND HALF WRONG.

25

POLICE DEPARTMENT TYPES WOULD BE CORRECT FOR THE

26

ROCAll:. AND THOSE FREQUENCIES WOULD STILL BE CORRE

27

THE STR DATA WOULD BE INCORRECT FOR HIS TYPES.
THE COURT:

ALL BE

THAT' 5 CORRECT.

24

28

KOCAK IS

WHERE IT SAYS, "JOHN KO

17

23

ULD SAY

THAT'S CORRECT.

11

22

I MA. FRANlC"

FRANK?

10

19

AGE UNDER

SHOULD READ KOCAK?
THE WITNESS:

9

AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE

SO THE -- LINE ONE WHERE IT SAY

THE COURT:

6

8

AND

"GENOTYPES," THE NAMES WOULD ALSO BE CHANGED.

4

5

OKAY.

THE

THAT

AN DIEGO
ENcE IN MR.
, BUT ALL OF

AND MY QUESTION IS WHY DOES THI. NOT

1

EXONERATE MR. KOCAK?
OBTAINED

2

THE WITNESS:

BASICALLY, THE ONLY

3

MATCHES THE VICTIM.

WE -- WE HAVE FAINT

4.

CERTAINLY NOT BE WILLING TO INTERPRET.

5

ARTIFACT, AND WE HAVE NO GENETIC INFORMATION FOR.

6

THAT WE CAN INTERPRET OTHER THAN

7

IT'S AN INCONCLUSIVE RESULT IN TERMS OF WHO A POSS

8

SPERM DONOR. WAS IN THIS SAMPLE.

9

REGARDING THAT.

10

THEY ARE P

S CASE,

WE HAVE NO DATA

or

IF WE HAD A SECOND SET OF DATA, INFO

11

ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT DID NOT MATCH THE VICTIM

12

NOT MATCH MR. J:OCAK, THEN THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE

13

PERSON BEING THERE, AND HE WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS

14

DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE.

15

INDIVIDUAL, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH

16

SO I GUESS I

THE COURT:

SIBLY DUE TO

so

INTElU'RET

TION FROM
THAT DID

DONOR.

WE

WE

DON'T UNDERSTAND

17

FRACTION, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS -- YOU BELIEV

18

FRANX.

Y, ON SPERM
IS FROM MISS

,

19

THE WITNESS:

THAT'S CORRECT.

IT'S SIMPLY

:ZO

THAT DNA FROM THE FIRST FRACTION TO THE -- TO THE

21

FRACTION.

THAT CAN OCCUR.

Y OVER OF
ERM

THE --.

2:Z

AS I SAID YESTERDAY, THE DEFINITION 0

23

SPERM ARE WORKING DEFINITIONS OF THE ABILITY OF TH SE CELLS TO

24

BREAK OPEN.

25

THOSE TWO CELL TYPES, SO BY SAYING SPERM FRACTION,

:Z6

MEAN THAT IS DNA FROM SPERM AND ONLY SPERM.

27

EXPECT TO SEE DNA FROM SPERM WHERE SPERM ARE PRES

:Z8

THEY ARE NOT 100 PERCENT DISCREET SEl'

THE COURT:

OKAY.

IT'S

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

NONSPERM AND

TIONS OP

1.

MR. CARPENTER;

2

MR. ARAGON;

3
4

I HAVE NONE.

THANK YOU.

NO, YOUR HONOR.

(WHEREUPON, THIS CONCLUDES THIS PARTI

OF PROCEEDINGS.)

TRANSCRIPT

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

)
)
)

S8:

3

4

I, ROBIN K. 8UNKEES, C8R, CERTIFICATE

5

PRO TEM REPORTER OF THE: SUPERIOR COURT

6

CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, II

7

THAT I REPORTED IN SHORTHAND THE.PROCEEDINGS HAD

B

AND THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, CONSISTING OF

9

FROM 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, CONTAINS A FULL,

10

TRANSCRIPTION OF MY STENOGRAPHIC NOTES OF SAID

11

DATED DECEMBER 5, 1995, AT sAN

8824, A

Y CERTIFY

DIEGO,I~~.PORNIA.

12
13

14
15

ROBIN K. SUNKEES, CSR NO. 8824

eEL

ZENECA
November 20, 1995

I
I
I

I

Ms'. Aiko Lawson, Criminalist
San Diego Polic8 Department
Forensic Science Section
1401 Broadway, M.S. 725
San Diego, CA 92101
Re:

Your Case No. 95-007092
Cellmark Case No. F951078

EXHIBITS:
Items of evidence were received'for analysis on February
Polymerase chain react:ion (PCR) testing was performed on
listed below:

2, 1995.

he items

PESCRIPTION
2-A

White material in envelope labelled •

1te1l\

2 sample

White material in envelope labelled • ... Item

2 sample

A .. .

2-B

n

B •.• "

One of two blood swatches in envelope labelle
Kocak ..• n
One of two swabs in envelope labelled •

• ... John
,

AM ••. •

RESULTS:
DNA was isolated from the items listed above.
items was amplified using the PCR and typed for the sh
repeat (STR) loci HUMCSFIPO, HlJI'lTPOX, and HOMTHOl using
SIR Systems. The types detected for each sample are lis

A b\Jt;"n, of
A bl..,,~j.'less V

h of the
tandem
nePrint'DI
d below:
t

~

Spee"'I(;n.

ot2.~.I~.

RepOrt for Cellmark Case No. F951078
November 20, 1995
Page Two
.
TYPES pETECTED

Sample

CSF1PO

combined material cuttings
(non-sperm fraction)

11*

8,1.2*

6,7

combined material cuttings
<sperm fraction)

1.1.

8,12

6,7

Jolm Kocak

10

8,10

7

A•

11

8,1.2

G.7

.. In addition to the types listed above, results were obt
These results may be due to the presence 0
more than one individual or to technical artifacts.

that
frOlll

were faint.

GENOTYPES
Samples

CSF1PO

.1olm J(ocak

10,10

8,10

,7

A.

11,1.1.

8,12

,7

CONCLUSIONS:

camaot be excluded a. the source of the mrA ob
the cOlibiDed JUterial cutting••

A.

John Kocak i . not the dODOr of the DNA obuined fr_ th
...terial cuttings. Ilowever • •ince the ODly typ_ obtain
ClomhiDed _terial cutting. are cODtlistent with the type
frOlll the swab labelled A.
, no further conclu.ion c
CQDClerniDg the cOilbiDed _terial cutting••

Robin W. Cotton, Ph.D.
Director of Laboratories

*.

The bold type indicate. cbaDge. . .de in the A_d
Laboratory ZX_ination.
The accClIIIIpanying letter
change. _de.

edf~

ca.bined
fraa the
obtained
be _de

•D.

Ileport of
ain. the

Report for Case No. F951078
November 20, 1995
Page Three
cc,

Mr. Michael G. Carpenter

Deputy District Attorney
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Mr. Raymond George Aragon

Office of the Public Defendsr .
County of San Diego
233 A Street

Suite 400
San Diego, CA

92101

ZENECA

CE
DIAGN

STIes

November 20, 1995
C.llmark !f/....,,mn

Mr. Michael G. Carpenter
Deputy District Attorney
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
RE:

20271 Gold rod LIne
Ge,manlow MD 20876
Telephone I 1) 428·4980
USA·LABS
4877

FIx (301)

People of California v. John Kocak
Your Case No. P56538!SCD110465
Cellmark Case No. F951078

Dear Mr. Carpenter:
Please find attached an Amended R-'por~ of Laho~.tory ~tmination
dated November 20, 1995 which is provided as a replaceme
for the
Report of Laboratory axaminatiOD dated June 20, 1995
evious1y
provided in the above-referenced case. As you will re all, Dr.
Word discovered in court on Friday, November 17, 1995 that the
names of the two known individuals tested in this ease, . Franke
and John Kocak, had been reversed in the Repor~ of
oratory
Exiull1nati011 dated June 20, 1995. As a result of this
ror, the
stated conclusions were also not correct. These errors
ve been
corrected in the Amended aepor~ of Laboratory Bxamina OD dated
November 20, 1995.
Please note that there is no indication of any erro
scientific procedures used or the data obtained in this
error was simply at the level of reporting where a transp
the names occurred. We have requested that the two kno
be resubmitted for analysis to confirm the typing resul

in the
ase; the
ition of
samples

Please accept our sincerest apologies for this error.
any inconvenience that this error may have caused.
Respectfully yours,
I

Robin W. Cotton, Ph.D.
Director of Laboratories

Charlotte J. Wo d, Ph.D.
Molecular Genet cist

cc:

Ms. Aiko Lawson
criminalist
'
San Diego Polic Dept.
Forensic Scienc, Section
1401 Broadway, .S. 725
San Diego, CA
2101

Mr. Raymond George Aragon
Office of the Public Defender
County of San Diego
233 A Street
Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101

Ene.
.0.

l)usine,s

A, bUI'flt*$ U

Accredfted by the American Society 01 Crime l.IIboretory Directorlll.abondory Accredftation

 

 

Prison Phone Justice Campaign
Advertise here
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side