False Accusations by Jacobson, Alan (great novels of all time .txt) 📕

“Mr. Warwick?” Calvino asked.

“I withdraw my objection pending Mr. Denton’s qualification.”

Denton stepped forward. “Mr. Saperstein, what is your training on DNA analysis?”

“I attended several course offerings at University of California at Berkeley and received certification in DNA handling and analysis nearly ten years ago.”

“And in how many cases have you performed DNA analysis? Approximately.”

“Between three and four hundred, I would estimate.”

“Your Honor, I submit Mt. Saperstein to the court as an expert in DNA analysis.”

“Mr. Warwick, do you have any objections?”

Warwick frowned. “No, Your Honor.”

“Very well, then,” Denton said. “Mr. Saperstein, you were quoting us the probability that another person could have the same DNA as that of Brittany Harding.”

“Yes. There is a one-in-fifty-thousand chance that another person’s DNA would match Miss Harding’s DNA, according to the method of analysis we used.”

“One in fifty thousand. And we already know that the only other suspect who ever existed in this case—Phillip Madison—his DNA does not match that found on the cans. Is that correct?”

“Yes. We tested Dr. Madison’s DNA, and the pattern’s not even close.”

“Thank you, Mr. Saperstein,” Denton said as he walked back toward the prosecutor’s table; he nodded to Warwick. “Your witness.”

“Mr. Saperstein,” Warwick said as buttoned his sport coat, “did you perform all of the tests on the evidence gathered at the crime scene?”

“No, I did not. I was ill with ulcerative colitis and—”

“Yes, sir, a simple yes or no would be sufficient. Did you perform the testing that was carried out on the lip print analysis?”

“No.”

“I thought you said you did.” He looked down at the legal pad he was holding. “I believe when Mr. Denton asked, ‘What did you find around the opening on the cans,’ you answered, ‘We found lip prints.’ We, as in yourself and others.” He removed his reading glasses and looked at Saperstein.

“That’s not what I meant.”

“But it is what you said.”

“I meant it as the collective ‘we,’ like those of us in the lab. People, in general.”

“In general? Did you, in fact, have anything to do with the lip print comparisons? I’m speaking about you, personally. Not the collective you, he said with a smile.

“No, I did not.”

Warwick strolled away from Saperstein, and then stopped. “So this was just a generalization.”

“Yes.”

“But generalizations are often wrong, Mr. Saperstein. What else did you tell the jury that was inaccurate?”

“Objection.”

“Sustained,” Calvino said. “Move on, Mr. Warwick.”

The public defender nodded, then paused for a moment. “Is it standard procedure for one criminalist to collect the data and evidence and another to conduct the testing?”

“I guess it depends on the lab. But not at ours, not usually.”

“I’m curious, Mr. Saperstein, why haven’t I heard of lip print analysis before?”

“It’s not widely used.”

“And why is that?”

“We used to think that there aren’t as many occasions where lip prints are left at crime scenes, as opposed to fingerprints, which are quite common due to the handling of material objects. It’s kind of like the pinky finger. Prints of the pinky are not recorded in the national databases because they’re so seldom left behind by a perpetrator. But we’re finding that that’s simply not the case with lip prints—there are many instances where they’re left at crime scenes. A window, or door, for instance, where the criminal looks inside and holds his face right up to the glass. Not to mention cases where the suspect has left prints on a glass he drank from, on photographs, letters, envelopes—”

“Is it widely known, this lip print analysis?”

“It’s still not commonly practiced, but most criminalists I come into contact with know about it.”

“Sort of a trick of the trade?”

Saperstein grinned: “Yes, you might say that.”

Denton winced. He knew what was coming.

“So how many other tricks do you have in your bag, sir?”

“That’s not what I meant.”

“Again? I do wish you’d say what you mean. But allow me to rephrase. How many tricks were used in your analysis of the physical evidence?”

“You’re twisting my words,” Saperstein said calmly, though his face was shading red. “And if you truly want to—”

“I withdraw the question,” Warwick said. “I’ll ask you this instead: is this ‘trick’ one of your so-called scientific methods that we’re supposed to believe without questioning its validity?”

“You know as well as I do—”

“Just answer the question, please.”

“That’s what I’m trying to do, Mr. Warwick, if you’d let me speak—”

“A simple yes or no is all I want—”

“Objection, Your Honor,” shouted Denton. “He’s badgering the witness, and not permitting him the freedom to answer any of his questions.”

“Mr. Warwick. Make your point and move on. And please permit Mr. Saperstein proper time to answer your questions.”

Warwick nodded at the judge, and then turned back to Saperstein. “Yes or no, sir? Is this trick one of the so-called scientific methods that you and your collective colleagues used in evaluating this physical evidence?”

“I can’t answer your question within those narrow parameters.”

Denton smiled. Saperstein was not going to fall into another trap. He may have made a couple of mistakes, but he was one who learned from his errors and adapted.

“Your Honor,” pleaded Warwick with outstretched hands, “please direct the witness to answer.”

“Mr. Saperstein, please answer the question.”

Saperstein turned to Calvino. “I would like to comply, Your Honor, but I can’t answer it in the manner in which Mr. Warwick has phrased it. He’s twisting what I’m saying and attempting to force me into saying something that wouldn’t be accurate. Does the court wish me to answer incorrectly, or can I be given the proper opportunity to provide truthful information?”

“Answer the question to the best of your ability, sir,” Calvino said.

Denton fought back a smile. Saperstein had squelched a favorite tactic of adversarial attorneys who attempted to elicit certain testimony that appeared to be favorable to their case using the narrow parameters inherent in “yes” or “no” answers.

“There are no tricks or sleight of hand here,” Saperstein said. “Everything I do in the lab is based on scientific procedure. The tests I perform are widely accepted in the field of