Table Of Content·1
·2
·3· · · · SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---
·5
·6· ·THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE· · ·)
· · ·OF CALIFORNIA,· · · · · · · )
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· ·) No. STK-CR-FE-2016-0004780
·8· · · vs.· · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) Department Number 9B
·9· ·ALVIN LARRY DAVIS,· · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) TESTIMONY OF
10· · · · · · · · · Defendant.· ·) DR. JOHN BUCKLETON
· · ·____________________________)
11
12· · · · · · · · · · · · ·December 18, 2017
13
14· · · · The above-entitled matter came on regularly at the date
15· ·and time above set forth, before the HONORABLE GEORGE J.
16· ·ABDALLAH, JR., Judge of said Superior Court, for the purpose
17· ·of a Kelly Hearing.
18· ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
19· · · · · · · · · GINA DELLA MAGGIORE, Deputy District Attorney,
20· ·County of San Joaquin, 222 East Weber Avenue, Room 202,
21· ·Stockton, California· 95202, appeared as counsel for and on
22· ·behalf of the People.
23· · · · · · · · · ANNIE C. BELES, Attorney at Law, Beles & Beles
24· ·Law Offices, 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 2300, Oakland, California
25· ·94612, appeared as counsel for and on behalf of the
26· ·Defendant.
27
28· ·Reported by:· KELLIE A. GAFF, C.S.R. No. 7567
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF WITNESSES
·2
·3· · · · WITNESSES· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
·4
·5· ·DR. JOHN SIMON BUCKLETON
·6· ·Direct Examination by Ms. Della Maggiore· · · · · · · ·12
·7· ·Cross-Examination by Ms. Beles· · · · · · · · · · · · ·47
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
·1· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Calling the matter of People
·2· ·versus Alvin Davis.
·3· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Gina Della Maggiore on
·4· ·behalf of the People.· Sitting next to me is Eduardo
·5· ·Rodriguez, DA investigator.
·6· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Annie Beles with Mr. Davis who is
·7· ·present in custody and present.
·8· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· We are here today in Mr. Davis'
·9· ·matter to conduct what is known as first prong Kelly hearing,
10· ·that is the Court's understanding.
11· · · · I'm going to state the issue, what I believe is the
12· ·issue for the day, and hear from counsel if you believe it is
13· ·different from what has been raised by this -- the prior
14· ·motions in this matter.
15· · · · So today the issue is is the STRmix technique in DNA
16· ·analysis a test generally accepted in the forensic science
17· ·community upon consensus drawn from a typical cross-section
18· ·of the qualified forensic science community?
19· · · · Is that our issue?
20· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· I'm still reciting it.
21· · · · Yes, Your Honor, I believe that is an accurate -- an
22· ·accurate question with -- considering Kelly and other case
23· ·law I brought up in my motion.
24· · · · One other preliminary matter.
25· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Before we get there, yes,
26· ·I agree with the Court as long as the Court -- I believe it
27· ·would be the Court's understanding as well that it is not
28· ·simply based on the number of experts or the number of votes,
·1· ·if you will, that are out there in support of this, it is
·2· ·rather based on the general forensic scientific community and
·3· ·the quality of the testimony that you're going to hear
·4· ·today.
·5· · · · · · · · · MR. BELES:· Huh-uh (negative).· I think that
·6· ·is argument.· I'm not going to respond.
·7· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· So we make a record as to what
·8· ·occurred at the preliminary hearing with regard to this
·9· ·evidence.· As I understand, it was admitted subject to --
10· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· It was not admitted.
11· · · · What happened at the preliminary examination was that
12· ·the prosecutors and I had discussed the potential of
13· ·admitting it at the prelim and having the Kelly argument at a
14· ·later date.· The Court did not agree with that procedure and,
15· ·therefore, this item of evidence was not introduced and no
16· ·STRmix, the technology, was discussed at the prelim.· It was
17· ·simple randem match probability DNA testing.
18· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Thank you.
19· · · · Ready to proceed?
20· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· No.
21· · · · The preliminary matter is this:· In the courtroom, Dr.
22· ·Buckleton is one expert that will be testifying and
23· ·Mr. Halsing, H-a-l-s-i-n-g, from the Department of Justice,
24· ·will also be testifying.· I would ask that Mr. Halsing be
25· ·excused from the court and excluded from the court while Dr.
26· ·Buckleton testifies.
27· · · · I'm also aware that Ms. Kyo, K-y-o, who testified at the
28· ·preliminary hearing regarding what I call the regular DNA
·1· ·testing is present in the courtroom.· I don't think --
·2· ·because she's not implicated in the STRmix analysis, I don't
·3· ·think Ms. Kyo is a problem.
·4· · · · I think Mr. Halsing should not be present during Dr.
·5· ·Buckleton's testimony.
·6· · · · I further request that Dr. Buckleton and Mr. Halsing be
·7· ·admonished, as we discussed in our motions in limine last
·8· ·week, they are not to discuss their testimony during the
·9· ·course of the 402 hearing -- during the course of the Kelly
10· ·hearing.
11· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Counsel.
12· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Your Honor, a couple
13· ·comments.
14· · · · I believe Evidence Code Section 777 covers this. I
15· ·believe there is case law out there, I'm not aware of that
16· ·exact citing, which the Court can exercise discretion in
17· ·allowing Eric Halsing to remain.
18· · · · Dr. Buckleton's testimony is regarding the general
19· ·scientific community.· He's one of the creators of STRmix.
20· ·Eric Halsing's testimony goes to not only some of what DOJ in
21· ·California has done with STRmix and how long it has been used
22· ·and that it's been validated, but he also talks about case
23· ·specific more along the lines of a third prong Kelly.· If the
24· ·Court would allow them to watch each other's testimony, that
25· ·is the People's request.
26· · · · I also feel it would be appropriate to make an order
27· ·that they not discuss their testimony.
28· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· I have concerns about Dr.
·1· ·Buckleton -- I understand their roles are different.· But I
·2· ·believe the safest route and to preserve the independent
·3· ·roles that each of them have is best preserved by them not
·4· ·observing each other's testimony.· Certainly as experts if
·5· ·they want to consult at a later time, long after this case,
·6· ·about using transcripts or how -- how things work that may be
·7· ·of scientific benefit, but not in tune with what I believe is
·8· ·my client's due process rights under the United States and
·9· ·California Constitutions.
10· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· What will Mr. Halsing's role be?
11· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· His role will be to
12· ·provide evidence that California Department of Justice has
13· ·basically adopted and gone live and utilizes STRmix in active
14· ·casework.· He'll explain his training.· He'll explain the
15· ·validation process and what California Department of Justice
16· ·is doing with STRmix.· He -- he would go into the various
17· ·steps that are utilized regarding deconvolution and
18· ·statistical analysis.
19· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Well, I certainly do not put on
20· ·any Clarence Deiro hat.
21· · · · I would say I think what might be of concern to me is if
22· ·I cross-examine Dr. Buckleton in one way and I want to
23· ·cross-examine Dr. Halsing as a clean slate, I can't do that
24· ·if Mr. Halsing remains in the courtroom during Dr.
25· ·Buckleton's testimony.· One hopes I could be that artful.
26· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· There appears to be some case law,
27· ·the rule under Evidence Code Section 777, in a different way
28· ·when experts are involved, so I'm going to look at that case.
·1· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Does the Court have a citation?
·2· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· People versus Valdez 177
·3· ·Cal.App.3rd and the pinpoint is 687.
·4· · · · I'm still getting accustomed to my new courtroom.· I'm
·5· ·afraid my Case Law access is not operating.
·6· · · · We'll take a break until 10:20 -- 10:25.
·7· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Thank you.
·9· · · · · · · · · (Recess)
10· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Returning to the matter of People
11· ·versus Alvin Davis.
12· · · · Did you have a chance to look?
13· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· I did, Your Honor, Valdez 177
14· ·Cal.App.3d 680.· I note the difference in the sense -- I
15· ·looked at a couple other cases as well.· In that situation in
16· ·the Valdez case, there were two experts, one on each side,
17· ·defense expert and a prosecutorial expert.· Those experts
18· ·wanted to be able to watch one another, to respond almost in
19· ·real time before the defense expert testified about the
20· ·forensic and serological issue.
21· · · · There were a couple other cases that I reviewed.· There
22· ·was the Maxi case, 1972 case, that does stand for the
23· ·premise -- 28 Cal.App.3d 190, that cross experts -- there is
24· ·some validity to that.· But I don't believe we are in that
25· ·situation because we have experts on the same side, meaning
26· ·the prosecution, that intertwines with one another
27· ·inextricably.· I'm not impugning bad intent on Dr. Buckleton
28· ·or Mr. Halsing, but I think to safeguard my client's right to
·1· ·having an untainted, uneven, implied, not a clean slate
·2· ·witness is compromised and I object to the two of them being
·3· ·in the courtroom at the same time.
·4· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Ms. Della Maggiore.
·5· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Your Honor, it's
·6· ·discretionary for the Court.· 777 states that the Court may
·7· ·exclude.
·8· · · · I will submit to the Court and respect the Court's
·9· ·decision.
10· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Also, if I may --
11· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Yes.
12· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· -- make one more comment.
13· · · · I don't think I'm -- I think my position is reasonable
14· ·to ensure my client's due process rights.
15· · · · Given my concession that Ms. Kyo is not involved in the
16· ·STRmix, I don't have a problem with Ms. Kyo being in the
17· ·courtroom.· But it is the two experts about the same issue
18· ·that is problematic for me and I object.
19· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· So Dr. Buckleton who will discuss
20· ·the STRmix technique in general and offer a basis for a
21· ·finding of reliability and the other gentleman will be
22· ·testifying again to what?
23· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· As to the same concept,
24· ·Your Honor, but specifically to its validation for the state
25· ·of California through DOJ.
26· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· But not as to this particular
27· ·case?
28· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· As to this particular
·1· ·case Eric Halsing will ultimately be coming in to testify as
·2· ·to that hopefully should we get to the third prong.
·3· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Why are we going to the third
·4· ·prong today?
·5· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· It's my understanding
·6· ·we're not.· I'm just stating that to the Court that he does
·7· ·have that information.
·8· · · · · · · · · MR. BELES:· So I would note, first of all,
·9· ·they are present in the courtroom during this whole argument.
10· · · · Secondarily, I think what I'm hearing Ms. Della Maggiore
11· ·say is Dr. Buckleton is going to testify to general STRmix's
12· ·alleged reliability and then Mr. Halsing is going to testify
13· ·what the California DOJ has done to support whatever Dr.
14· ·Buckleton says makes it reliability of the validation
15· ·studies.
16· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Not that he's just
17· ·testifying generally to STRmix.· He's in fact one of the
18· ·creators.· He will testify specifically to what STRmix is.
19· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Of course.
20· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Both will?
21· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Both will, yes.
22· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Why the duplication?
23· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Because the People feel
24· ·that there is import to be given to the fact that California
25· ·Department of Justice is utilizing STRmix and has been
26· ·trained on it in fact by Dr. Buckleton.
27· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· But that you wouldn't go
28· ·necessarily to the first prong.
·1· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· However, it could because
·2· ·there has been a validation study that has been performed by
·3· ·the California Department of Justice.
·4· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· One -- one of the comments makes
·5· ·me even more concerned.
·6· · · · If Dr. Buckleton is training Mr. Halsing in a scientific
·7· ·manner, I don't want Dr. Buckleton training Mr. Halsing in
·8· ·testifying either.
·9· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Well --
10· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Again, I'm not trying to be
11· ·derogatory, these are two people being offered as expert
12· ·witnesses on basically the same issue and they should be
13· ·independent of one another.· And no matter how much it may be
14· ·interesting how Dr. Buckleton testifies to Mr. Halsing for
15· ·future testimony, et cetera, I want Mr. Halsing to testify
16· ·from Mr. Halsing's perspective without knowledge and without
17· ·hearing what Dr. Buckleton testified to.
18· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· Let me ask you this.· Let's say I
19· ·excluded Mr. Halsing, is it?
20· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· Yes.
21· · · · · · · · · MS. DELLA MAGGIORE:· Yes.
22· · · · · · · · · THE COURT:· In preparation for trial, would he
23· ·not be allowed to read the doctor's transcript of his
24· ·testimony?
25· · · · · · · · · MS. BELES:· He probably would be, but that
26· ·would not affect his testimony in this 402 hearing.· We are
27· ·humans, we are not robots, where we are not somewhat swayed
28· ·by what someone said before the revered inventor of the
Description:20· ·County of San Joaquin, 222 East Weber Avenue, Room 202,. 21· ·Stockton, California· 95202, 16· ·correct? 17· ·A.· ·I --. 18· · · · · · · · · MS.
