See also: Julie Glade Criminal Trial Deposition 

JULIE GLADE
HOSPITAL TECHNICIAN
CRIMINALTRIAL


(Page 177)

25 MR. WADDING: The state would call Julie

178

 

1 Glade, Your Honor.

 

2 JULIE LYNN GLADE,

3 called as a witness on behalf of the state, being first

4 duly sworn by the court, was examined and testified as

5 follows:

 

6 COURT: If you would, please state your full

7 name.

 

8 WITNESS: Julie Lynn Glade.

 

9 COURT: How do you spell your last name?

 

10 WITNESS: G-L-A-D-E.

 

11 COURT: Mr. Wadding.

 

12 MR. WADDING: Thank you.

 

13 DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

14 BY MR. WADDING:

 

15 Q. What is your occupation?

 

16 A. I'm a medical technologist.

 

17 Q. Who are you a medical technologist for?

 

18 A. At Sartori Hospital in Cedar Falls.

 

19 Q. How long have you been a medical

20 technologist?

 

21 A. Almost 17 years.

 

22 Q. How long have you worked for Sartori

23 Hospital?

 

24 A. The same amount of time, 17 years.

 

25 Q. Can you describe your training and education?

 

179

 

1 A. I graduated from Clarion High School, went --

2 Clarion High School in Clarion, Iowa. I went to UNI. I

3 got a biology degree, was a student at UNI four and a

4 half years and took my internship for medical technology

5 at Schoitz Hospital.

 

6 Q. And how long was your internship?

 

7 A. A year.

 

8 Q. And after your internship, is that when you

9 became employed with Sartori Hospital?

 

10 A. Yes, uh-huh, that's right.

 

11 Q. Could you just briefly describe what a

12 medical technologist does?

 

13 A. We're mainly involved in running the blood

14 tests in the laboratory. We do a little blood drawing.

15 We calibrate instruments. We run a quality control

16 programs, quality assurance programs. We run blood

17 tests, report them to the physicians, to the floors.

 

18 Q. In what situations do you run blood tests?

 

19 A. We can run them in stat situations or routine

20 pre-op kind of lab work for surgeries.

 

21 Q. When you talk about stat situations, does

22 that mean emergency situations?

 

23 A. Uh-huh.

 

24 Q. Do you ever run blood samples for -- that

25 were drawn for legal purposes?

 

180

 

1 A. Occasionally we run legal alcohols.

 

2 Q. Okay. And when you run a legal alcohol,

3 could you describe what you would do in running a legal

4 blood-alcohol?

 

5 A. We run them like any other patient sample

6 except we follow the chain of custody. The blood is

7 drawn and placed -- sealed in a legal alcohol kit. When

8 we run those alcohols, we note the time that we open it,

9 we run the alcohol and seal the tube back up and put it

10 back in the kit and also seal -- sign the kit that we've

11 opened it. We sign it when we close it and store it then

12 and let -- until it's needed again.

 

13 Q. And could you describe what is contained in a

14 legal blood kit?

 

15 A. When we get it in the lab, there's usually

16 just two tubes -- two vials of blood. I used one to --

17 to test the -- for the legal alcohol at Sartori we only

18 need one vial.

 

19 Q. And what do you understand those -- about the

20 sanitary condition of the vials?

 

21 A. They're sterile.

 

22 Q. And are you familiar with those legal blood

23 kits?

 

24 A. Uh-huh.

 

25 Q. And are you -- do they contain the vials in

181

 

1 the kit itself?

 

2 A. Yes, uh-huh.

 

3 Q. So the hospital doesn't supply the vials?

 

4 A. No, we don't. They come right in the legal

5 kit.

 

6 Q. Do you know where you get the legal blood

7 kits at?

 

8 A. We order them from a medical supply company.

 

9 Q. Okay. And did you have occasion to, or did

10 you analyze a sample of a legal blood drawn from a Tracy

 

11 Rokes?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And do you recall what date you would have

14 ran that blood sample?

 

15 A. October 5th.

 

16 Q. And can you describe how you would have run

17 that blood sample?

 

18 A. I took it out of the refrigerator and broke

19 the seal on the kit. I spun the blood down and loaded

20 the specimen sample onto our chemistry analyzer along

21 with two controls, and when those were done, I verified

22 that the controls were in the range that they needed to

23 be, and there were no flags, no error messages on the

24 instrument, so I took those results and filled in the

25 paperwork that I needed to do for the -- for the legal

 

182

 

1 alcohol. I sealed the tube back up and put it back in

2 the kit.

 

3 Q. Now, when you say you spun it down, what do

4 you do?

 

5 A. We put it in the centrifuge and spin the red

6 cells to the bottom of the tube because we test just the

7 plasma that's on the top.

 

8 Q. Okay. Is that -- is that an unusual way to

9 test blood?

 

10 A. No. We do that on all of our chemistries.

 

11 Q. Is it -- what type of testing is this? Is

12 there a particular name for it?

 

13 A. Ethyl alcohol.

 

14 Q. Okay. And when you -- after you spin down

15 the blood, do you take a -- you take the sample and --

16 I'm sorry. What did you do with it then?

 

17 A. I put it on the instrument, the chemistry,

18 the ACA instrument is what we run alcohols on.

 

19 Q. Can you describe what that is?

 

20 A. It's made by DuPont, where you run several

21 different tests on it, sugars, urines and cretonnes.

22 We load the plasma onto a little cup that's placed into a

23 little track that goes through the instrument.

 

24 Q. Now, you also mentioned something about

25 controls. What do you mean by that?

 

183

 

1 A. We run two levels of controls for alcohols, a

2 level two and a level three, and we have a range, an

3 assay range that those need to fall into before we can

4 take the specimen results.

 

5 Q. What do you mean by an assay range?

 

6 A. Well, they've been assayed before we receive

7 them. There's a range that -- that controls need to fall

8 into. The level two control is the range falls at about

9 a hundred. The range for that level two control is 86 to

10 129. That control that day was 90 -- 98, I believe.

 

11 Q. So it was falling within --

 

12 A. So it was falling within range.

 

13 Q. Would that be the same with the other

14 controls?

 

15 A. The other control is a higher control. That

16 was, I believe, 243 that day, in that range. And that

17 range was -- I'm trying to think. And I've got them.

 

18 Can I look at my -- I've got a note that I wrote down on.

19 The range is 214 to 321 for that control.

 

20 Q. And that fell within the range --

 

21 A. So that falls right within the range.

 

22 Q. And that -- what's the purpose of running the

23 controls and seeing if they run -- fall within those --

24 in that field?

 

25 A. The purpose of running controls is to make

 

184

 

1 sure that we don't need to do another calibration. We

2 just want to make sure the instrument is functioning

3 properly. We're required to run controls.

 

4 Q. What were the results of the controls then?

 

5 A. The control -- the level two control is 98.

 

6 Q. Okay. Let me ask that a different way.

7 Since your controls fell within the parameters that you

8 wanted to fall within, what's the result of whether the

9 machine has to be calibrated or not?

 

10 A. The result -- they were in range, so we knew

11 we did not have to do any calibration, we could take the

12 patient result.

 

13 MR. WADDING: And may I approach, Your Honor?

 

14 COURT: You may.

 

15 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as

16 State's Exhibit "C", marked for identification, ask you

17 if you recognize that?

 

18 A. Uh-huh.

 

19 Q. And what do you recognize that as?

 

20 A. That's the card that's in the legal blood-

21 alcohol kit that shows the chain of command, chain of

22 custody, shows it was delivered to the lab and results

23 here are down at the bottom, one-twenty.

 

24 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm

25 going to object to that. That was not responsive to the

 

185

 

1 question, and I ask that that last testimony go out so I

2 can make my objection when the time comes when it is

3 offered.

 

4 COURT: Sustained. The results are not -- I

5 will disregard the results, the testimony regarding the

6 results. Mr. Wadding?

 

7 MR. WADDING: Thank you.

 

8 Q. So State's Exhibit "C", marked for

9 identification, is a copy of the chain of custody as far

10 as the legal blood evidence in this case is concerned?

 

11 A. Uh-huh.

 

12 COURT: Is that yes or no?

 

13 WITNESS: Yes.

 

14 Q. And did you follow those procedures in

15 conducting -- as you described, did you follow those

16 procedures in conducting the legal blood test in this

17 case?

 

18 A. Yes.

 

19 Q. And did you come up with any errors in your

20 testing procedures?

 

21 A. No.

 

22 Q. Did you come up with any errors that would

23 indicate a false result in this instance?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. And at this time -- well, what -- and what

186

 

1 was the result of the legal blood analysis?

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Excuse me -- excuse me, Your

3 Honor. I'm going to object at this point in time because

4 I think the record as it stands at this point in time is

5 defective as far as meeting the statutory foundational

6 requirements on the procedures utilized by the technician

7 in drawing the blood, secondly, on the nature of the

8 collection kit and, finally, on the chain of custody. At

9 this time this record is defective on -- in those

10 regards.

 

11 COURT: Mr. Wadding, if you would clear up

12 the record on the chain of custody or establish a further

13 record on the chain of custody.

 

14 MR. CORRELL: While he's doing that, may I

 

15 see this "C"?

 

16 COURT: You may.

 

17 MR. CORRELL: (Complied.)

 

18 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

19 BY MR. WADDING:

 

20 Q. Who would you have received the blood sample

21 from?

 

22 A. Renee Whitlatch drew the blood on third shift

23 and placed it in the refrigerator sealed.

 

24 Q. And you would have taken the sample from the

25 refrigerator?

 

187

 

1 A. Uh-huh.

 

2 Q. And is that indicated on the blood -- chain

3 of custody documentation?

 

4 A. I don't know about that.

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

6 A. Are you asking if it was documented on here

7 that it was in the refrigerator?

 

8 Q. No, that you had received it from Renee

9 Whitlatch.

 

10 A. Yes, uh-huh.

 

11 Q. Is that customary practice?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. To indicate the drawer as well as the tester,

14 in other words, if I may be more colloquial?

 

15 A. I verified that she signed the chain of

16 custody and then it's sealed.

 

17 Q. And is there another signature affixed to

18 that chain of custody?

 

19 A. There's another signature that someone who

20 had witnessed the withdrawal of blood, a witness.

 

21 Q. And is that Rob Michael?

 

22 A. Rob Michael, yes.

 

23 Q. Are you familiar with him?

 

24 A. No, I'm not.

 

25 MR. WADDING: At this time, Your Honor, I

 

188

 

1 would offer State's Exhibit "C".

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, I'm going to make

3 the same objection. There is -- the foundational gap

4 certainly from the minimal time that the blood was

5 withdrawn by Ms. Whitlatch until this person purportedly

6 did the testing, there is no showing of a chain of

7 custody.

 

8 COURT: I don't know how much time the sample

9 was in the refrigerator, who else has access to the

10 refrigerator, what the -- what other items are stored in

11 the refrigerator. Perhaps if you would fill in answers

12 to those questions, Mr. Wadding.

 

13 MR. CORRELL: Your Honor, it -- I guess I

14 would respectfully ask for a ruling on my motion as this

15 record stands at this point in time. I don't -- I would

16 think -- I would object to the court basically directing

17 the questions in an effort to resolve this. I think it

18 is -- the record has to be made, and it's not -- by the

19 state, and I would think that it would be under the

20 status of this record at this point in time that I would

21 ask that the court rule on my objection.

 

22 COURT: The objection is sustained at this

23 point.

 

24 MR. WADDING: Your Honor -- well, in response

 

25 to that, Your Honor, I think that it is incumbent upon

 

189

 

1 defense counsel to be specific in where the foundation is

2 lacking upon the request of the state's counsel, and I

3 believe that I can make that same inquiry to the court,

4 and I would at this time, what I think that the court is

5 requesting and what I would like to respond to the

6 objection is a matter of not foundation but a matter of

7 credibility and reliability that is more subject to

8 cross-examination and the weight of the evidence and not

9 the foundational aspects of the -- of the admissibility

10 of the evidence.

 

11 COURT: Well, the foundational objection was

12 based in several parts, and let me make sure I understand

13 your objection, Mr. Correll. Are you objecting first to

14 the -- the qualifications of Ms. Whitlatch as a

15 laboratory technologist to withdraw the blood?

 

16 MR. CORRELL: That was my first objection.

17 There was no showing that she met the statutory

18 requirements of that individual.

 

19 COURT: First, Mr. Wadding, how do you

20 respond to that? 321J.11 specifies that it should be

21 taken by a medical technologist among others, and Ms.

22 Whitlatch described herself as a laboratory technologist.

23 How do you respond to that?

 

24 MR. WADDING: Your Honor, she's a licensed

25 medical laboratory technologist. I don't know -- seems

 

190

 

1 to me that -- I don't have any case law to support it,

2 but it seems to me that that meets the requirement of the

3 Code Section 321J.11.

 

4 COURT: Do you have any case authority, Mr.

5 Correll, contrary to that?

 

6 MR. CORRELL: Well, my -- not at this time

7 other than that, that is, all of these blood specimens

8 are construed very strictly, and the status of this

9 record is that she is not the type of designated

10 individual that is referred to in that statute, and

11 it's -- it's absolute -- her definition of herself, her

12 description of herself does not fall within that.

13 COURT: The next part of your objection was

14 to the instruments or the kit itself; is that correct?

 

15 MR. CORRELL: Yes, sir.

 

16 COURT: And where in that do you feel that

17 the foundation is lacking?

 

18 MR. CORRELL: There has been no evidence that

19 would -- that establishes the maker of the kit and the

20 procedures that the maker of the kit utilized to ensure

21 that the integrity of the kit is assured, the sterilness

22 of the kit is assured.

 

23 COURT: And the third part of your objection?

 

24 MR. CORRELL: The third part is the -- is the

25 chain of custody. There is no -- no showing the

 

191

 

1 circumstances under which this specimen was kept from the

2 time that it was withdrawn until the time it was

3 analyzed.

 

4 COURT: Mr. Wadding, do you feel you need

5 any -- to make any further inquiry regarding the

6 specifics of which the objection is based? I've

7 sustained the objection, and let me make my ruling clear.

8 I'm sustaining the objection as to the third point. The

9 chain of -- the chain of custody.

 

10 MR. WADDING: And is that the court's ruling

11 as it -- as it stands? Is that my interpretation of what

12 the court's saying, that points one and two are overruled

13 and my -- and the -- that the third basis for the

14 objection is sustained?

 

15 COURT: That's correct.

 

16 MR. WADDING: May I approach, Your Honor?

 

17 COURT: You may. Mr. Correll?

 

18 MR. WADDING: I'm not -- I mean, may I

19 approach the witness? I need to make further foundation.

20 I would like to tend to do so, Your Honor.

 

21 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

22 BY MR. WADDING:

 

23 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as State's

24 Exhibit "D", marked for identification, and ask if you

 

25 recognize that?

192

 

1 A. Yes, I do.

 

2 Q. What do you recognize that as?

 

3 A. This is a legal blood-alcohol kit that I took

4 the tube out of to run the alcohol on Tracy Rokes.

 

5 Q. And the -- can you describe to me what is on

6 the side of the blood kit?

 

7 A. Do you mean right here?

 

8 Q. Yes.

 

9 A. This is where I sealed it after I ran it.

 

10 Q. Okay. And do you -- would anyone -- would

11 you have been the only person who would have ran -- at

12 least after the blood was drawn, would you have been the

13 only person to run a legal blood sample on October 5th,

14 1996?

 

15 A. Yes, I was the only one.

 

16 Q. Would you have been the only person that came

17 into possession of it other than Renee Whitlatch?

 

18 A. Yes, I was.

 

19 Q. And how do you know that?

 

20 A. Because the kit was sealed.

 

21 Q. And how was it sealed?

 

22 A. It's sealed with red tape similar to this.

 

23 Q. And you have to break that seal in order to

24 access it?

 

25 A. Yes.

 

193

 

1 Q. And did you do so?

 

2 A. Yes. I broke the tape before I --

 

3 Q. You broke the tape?

 

4 A. I had to, uh-huh.

 

5 Q. And did you have -- did you -- was there any

6 evidence of any other person having access to it prior to

7 you accessing it?

 

8 A. No.

 

9 Q. And what was your belief as to the integrity

10 of the blood sample kit?

 

11 A. We have to store them in the refrigerator.

12 It keeps the alcohol more stable. The tubes are sealed.

13 They're sterile. There's no way anything can get into it

14 to contaminate anything like that. They're sealed.

 

15 Q. And did you find it in that condition when

16 you went to run the blood sample?

 

17 A. Yes.

 

18 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Glade.

 

19 MR. WADDING: At this time I would ask that

20 State's Exhibit "C" be entered into evidence, Your Honor,

21 and State's Exhibit "D".

 

22 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

23 MR. CORRELL: May I voir dire the witness

24 very briefly?

 

25 COURT: You may.

 

194

 

1 MR. CORRELL: I'm going to ask you about this

2 Exhibit "D". On that there is some tape, but there is no

3 tape or any initials that were placed there by Ms.

4 Whit -- Renee Whitlatch, correct?

 

5 WITNESS: Inside on the tube.

 

6 MR. CORRELL: But --

 

7 WITNESS: There's -- her name is signed on

8 the tube inside the kit.

 

9 MR. CORRELL: But there is nothing on this

10 evidence, these markings that show that she sealed the

11 actual container box; is that correct?

 

12 WITNESS: The actual container box is inside

13 the cardboard. There is another plastic box inside that.

 

14 MR. CORRELL: But is this the box that these

15 items were put in the refrigerator in?

 

16 WITNESS: Yes, Uh-huh.

 

17 MR. CORRELL: And there is nothing here that

18 shows that this portion of the box was sealed by Renee

19 Whitlatch; am I correct in that?

 

20 WITNESS: The outside of the box?

 

21 MR. CORRELL: Yes.

 

22 WITNESS: No.

 

23 MR. CORRELL: There is no such sealing; is

24 that correct?

 

25 WITNESS: No. But we're not concerned about

 

195

 

1 the outside box.

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Okay. You would agree that

3 there is no way to know that this Exhibit "D" was

4 sealed -- this box, Exhibit "D", was sealed by Renee

5 Whitlatch; isn't that accurate?

 

6 WITNESS: Right now, no, but there was when I

7 opened it.

 

8 MR. CORRELL: And -- but there's nothing on

9 the exhibit itself, is there?

 

10 WITNESS: No.

 

11 MR. CORRELL: And when the exhibit was --

12 Exhibit "D", that whole box you're saying was put in a

13 refrigerator at Sartori; is that correct?

 

14 WITNESS: Uh-huh.

 

15 MR. CORRELL: And isn't that refrigerator

16 located in the laboratory?

 

17 WITNESS: Yes, it is.

 

18 MR. CORRELL: And it's true, is it not, that

19 the laboratory is not locked?

 

20 WITNESS: No, it's not locked.

 

21 MR. CORRELL: And so people can come into

22 that laboratory during the course of --

 

23 WITNESS: Uh-huh.

 

24 MR. CORRELL: -- of the time that they're in

25 the hospital; isn't that correct?

 

196

 

1 WITNESS: Uh-huh.

 

2 MR. CORRELL: And isn't it also correct that

3 the refrigerator that the item is kept in is not locked

4 as well?

 

5 WITNESS: No, it's not.

 

6 MR. CORRELL: Okay. Thank you. I would

7 renew my objection, Your Honor.

 

8 COURT: The objection is overruled, and "C"

9 and "D" are admitted. Mr. Wadding?

 

10 MR. WADDING: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

11 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

 

12 BY MR. WADDING:

 

13 Q. The -- with regard to the blood sample that

14 was drawn and then ran subsequently by you, what was the

15 result of that?

 

16 A. 120 milligrams per deciliter.

 

17 Q. Did you ever have any contact with the

18 defendant personally?

 

19 A. No.

 

20 Q. And the type of testing procedure that you

21 used in analyzing the legal blood evidence, is that a

22 standard scientific testing principle?

 

23 A. Yes. It's a very common one for alcohol

24 testing. It's an enzyme reaction.

 

25 Q. And do you know how long that's been in

 

197

 

1 existence?

 

2 A. I would probably say at least ten years.

 

3 MR. WADDING: That's all the questions I

4 have. Thank you.

 

5 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

6 CROSS-EXAMINATION

 

7 BY MR. CORRELL:

 

8 Q. Ms. Glade, is it not obvious or correct that

9 99.9 percent of the testing that you do as a technician

10 for Sartori Hospital is totally unrelated to so-called

11 legal blood testing?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And that 99.9 whatever percent it is, it's

14 testing that is done to get timely information to

15 treating physicians primarily; isn't that the case?

 

16 A. Yes.

 

17 Q. And frequently the -- the speed of -- of

18 getting that information to the treating physician is

19 very important, isn't it?

 

20 A. Oftentimes it is.

 

21 Q. And so, for instance, the -- to know a

22 determination, and maybe I'm just using cholesterol,

23 which is not perhaps a good example, but it's not so

24 critical to know that the person's cholesterol is 247 or

25 230, it's to know that it's above 200; would you not

 

198

 

1 agree with that?

 

2 A. If it's higher than 200, you need to know how

3 high above 200 it is. I mean, it's --

 

4 Q. And you're -- and I understand that, but

5 would you not agree that you're after information that

6 can be immediately gotten to the physician so it can

7 assist the physician in treatment of the patient?

 

8 A. Uh-huh, yes.

 

9 Q. And with regard to the tests for blood-

10 alcohol, isn't it a fact that in any given year that you

11 run maybe less than six of those?

 

12 A. Yes.

 

13 Q. And are you able to tell us when the last

14 test, blood-alcohol test you ran prior to the one that

15 you ran on the early morning hours of October 5, 1996?

 

16 A. No, I couldn't tell you.

 

17 Q. Do you ever go, in fact, periods of time

18 where it might be six months where you don't do any

19 blood-alcohol test?

 

20 A. I do some medical blood-alcohols that aren't

21 legal. They're run just like any other test.

 

22 Q. But for a legal blood-alcohol, isn't it a

23 fact that you may go more than six months without doing

24 that?

 

25 A. It's possible.

 

199

 

1 Q. And you don't go through these types of

2 procedures like Exhibit "C" and "D" for the other 99.9

3 percent of your tests, do you?

 

4 A. No.

 

5 Q. With regard to the machine, does that machine

6 have a protocol for -- for it being calibrated?

 

7 A. Yes, it does.

 

8 Q. And have you read that protocol recently?

 

9 A. Uh-huh, yes.

 

10 Q. Does that protocol suggest that that machine

11 be recalibrated approximately every six months?

 

12 A. FDA requires that we recalibrate every

13 90 days. That's quarterly.

 

14 Q. And do you -- can you tell us when the

15 machine that you used was recalibrated?

 

16 A. Which?

 

17 Q. When it was --

 

18 A. Currently or before --

 

19 Q. Before October 4.

 

20 A. It was calibrated on September 5th.

 

21 Q. And how many specimens were run between

22 September 5th and October 4th on that machine?

 

23 A. Specimens for alcohols or other tests?

 

24 Q. Any other tests.

 

25 A. I -- I can't tell you how many specimens were

 

200

 

1 run.

 

2 Q. Would it be fair to say that there would be

3 hundreds?

 

4 A. Probably.

 

5 Q. Maybe as many as thousands?

 

6 A. No.

 

7 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that the

8 person who is responsible for doing the blood-alcohol

9 analysis at the BCI Criminalistics Laboratory for the

10 state of Iowa says that in his opinion it is necessary to

11 recalibrate the machine before every test?

 

12 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object, Your

13 Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

14 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

15 A. It depends on the method. Some methods

16 require more often calibrations. Our method does not.

17 FDA does not require it because results are stable.

18 That's why we run controls. If our controls are running

19 out, we will recalibrate it.

 

20 Q. Do you disagree that it would provide some

21 additional sense of -- or some additional protection too

22 if the machine was calibrated before and after every

23 test?

 

24 A. No.

 

25 Q. You disagree with that?

 

201

 

1 A. State the question again.

 

2 Q. Isn't it a fact that if there was time to

3 recalibrate the machine before and after every test that

4 that would assist in the reliability of the test results?

 

5 A. No.

 

6 Q. With regard to the test itself, you have a

7 different type of machine than what is utilized by the

8 BCI laboratory; is that correct?

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. And they have a gas chromatograph machine; is

11 that your understanding?

 

12 A. I understand that, yes.

 

13 Q. And is it basically your understanding that

14 there are very few of those types of machines in the

15 state of Iowa?

 

16 A. There are not many. It's an older method.

 

17 Q. And with regard to the machine you have, that

18 is a machine that you utilize to test a lot of different

19 types of samples; is that not correct?

 

20 A. Right.

 

21 Q. And with regard to the machine that you have,

22 you spin, I guess you'd call it, a -- a centrifuge force,

23 you'd spin the specimens; is that correct?

 

24 A. Yes.

 

25 Q. And when you spin the specimens, does it --

 

202

 

1 does it vary how much time you spin them, how long they

2 are spun in the machine?

 

3 A. Does it vary?

 

4 Q. Yes.

 

5 A. No.

 

6 Q. How long are they spun?

 

7 A. Seven minutes.

 

8 Q. And when that spins them, does that separate

9 the serum from the red blood cells?

 

10 A. Yes, it does.

 

11 Q. And when the serum is separated from the red

12 blood cells, you actually then perform your test on the

13 serum and not the whole blood; isn't that --

 

14 A. That's right.

 

15 Q. And so the test that was performed on the

16 blood that has been attributed to Mr. Rokes, that was on

17 his serum alone, was it not?

 

18 A. That's right.

 

19 Q. And isn't it a fact that if the test would

20 have been on his whole blood that the test result would

21 have been lower?

 

22 A. I'm not aware of that.

 

23 Q. And are you -- have you ever been made aware

24 of the fact that -- let me ask, if you are ever aware

25 that the analysis of serum produces a higher or lower or

 

 

203

1 any way affects the result?

 

2 A. Can you state that again?

 

3 Q. When you're analyzing serum, which you did

4 for Mr. Rokes, as opposed to whole blood, does that

5 affect the result?

 

6 A. Not that I'm aware of.

 

7 Q. And you did not make any adjustment to your

8 results because of you were only analyzing the serum and

9 not the whole blood?

 

10 A. No.

 

11 Q. And you were aware that, when I took your

12 deposition on March 26th, I discussed that with you?

 

13 A. Right.

 

14 Q. And at that point in time you indicated that

15 you were not aware of any difference between testing just

16 the serum and the whole blood; isn't that a fact?

 

17 A. Right, uh-huh.

 

18 Q. And you said that you did not make any

19 adjustments to your calculation because you didn't see

20 the need to; is that basically correct?

 

21 A. We can't run that on whole blood with the

22 method that we use.

 

23 Q. And so at this point in time, are you aware

24 that the result, if the test would have been done on Mr.

25 Rokes' whole blood, it would have reduced a lower number

204

 

1 than the test that was just done on his serum?

 

2 A. I don't believe it would be that much. I'm

3 not aware of any numbers, but it -- I don't believe it

4 would be much.

 

5 Q. Are you aware that it would be less?

 

6 A. No, I'm not aware of that.

 

7 Q. Are you aware that it is -- or you're not

8 aware that it is a generally accepted recognized fact in

9 blood analyses that there is a reduction when you use the

10 enzymatic assay analysis?

 

11 A. No.

 

12 Q. And when I took your deposition, did you tell

13 me that you calibrated the machine for alcohol

14 approximately every six months?

 

15 A. I said I thought it was every six months.

16 Since then I've looked it up.

 

17 Q. Okay. Would you agree that during the course

18 of this spinning, that, in fact, that the red cells are

19 separated from the serum?

 

20 A. Can you say that again? I'm sorry.

 

21 Q. During the -- during the spinning process,

22 the red blood cells, are they separated?

 

23 A. Yes, they are.

 

24 Q. And the red blood cells are then not tested,

25 are they?

 

205

 

1 A. No.

 

2 Q. Am I correct?

 

3 A. That's right, you're correct.

 

4 Q. And only the serum is tested?

 

5 A. Right.

 

6 Q. So when the test result is made, you're

7 testing a smaller portion of the person's whole blood;

8 isn't that a fact?

 

9 A. It's all calculated in together. I mean, our

10 milligrams, milligrams per deciliter is of whole blood.

 

11 Q. But isn't it a fact that you are testing a

12 lower amount?

 

13 A. I don't --

 

14 Q. You're testing a smaller substance --

15 quantity; isn't that correct?

 

16 A. No. We're testing the same amount.

 

17 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the analysis

18 of the BCI shows that their laboratory test shows a .087

19 test?

 

20 A. That's what I heard.

 

21 Q. And between the two -- between Sartori

22 Hospital and the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, who

23 do you believe has more experience in testing blood-

24 alcohol?

 

25 A. They do.

206

 

1 Q. And it would be not by a small amount, it

2 would be like by a hundred-fold amount, wouldn't it?

 

3 A. I'm not aware of how many they do.

 

4 Q. You would do approximately six a year; is

5 that correct?

 

6 A. Probably.

 

7 Q. Is the portion of blood that you use for the

8 actual analysis, was it -- it was serum; is that --

 

9 A. Yes.

 

10 Q. So I am absolutely correct in that?

 

11 A. Yes.

 

12 Q. And you do not know, as you sit here today,

13 whether the blood-alcohol concentration determined from

14 serum is higher from the blood-alcohol concentration from

15 whole blood?

 

16 A. No.

 

17 Q. You don't know that?

 

18 A. I don't.

 

19 Q. Do you acknowledge that that could, in fact,

20 be the case?

 

21 A. I don't understand the question. I don't

22 know.

 

23 Q. That's -- and I guess the point is, is --

24 your purpose is not to do -- you're not hired by Sartori

 

25 Hospital to analyze blood for its alcohol content, that

 

207

 

1 is virtually an insignificant portion of your work, isn't

2 it?

 

3 A. I'm hired to do the blood tests that come in.

4 If it's a legal alcohol, I'll run it just like anything

5 else.

 

6 Q. How many tests do you run a year?

 

7 A. I can't tell you that. What kind of tests

8 are you talking about? Anything?

 

9 Q. Yes.

 

10 A. We run very many different ones.

 

11 Q. Yes.

 

12 A. I ran probably 40, 50 today.

 

13 Q. Okay. Would that be a typical day?

 

14 A. Uh-huh.

 

15 Q. So if you do 50 a day, you do 250 a week?

 

16 A. I'm part-time. I work four days a week.

 

17 Q. Okay. Do over 10,000 a year?

 

18 A. Okay.

 

19 Q. I'm not trying to trick you.

 

20 A. Uh-huh.

 

21 Q. If you do 200 a week times 50 weeks a year.

 

22 A. Right.

 

23 Q. And out of those 200 -- or, excuse me, 10,000

24 ball park that you did in a year, last year, only six of

25 those would have been blood-alcohol; isn't that a fair

 

208

 

1 statement?

 

2 A. That's fair. I don't know the exact number.

 

3 Q. Isn't it six what you told me?

 

4 A. I believe so.

 

5 Q. Is it your testimony that the BCI laboratory

6 is wrong?

 

7 A. No. I can't make a judgment on the BCI

8 laboratory. I know --

 

9 Q. Do you understand that both of these tests --

 

10 MR. WADDING: Well, I'm going to ask that the

11 witness be allowed to answer the question, Your Honor.

 

12 COURT: You can finish your answer.

 

13 A. I understand that their methodology is an old

14 methodology. There are newer methodologies out now, and

15 that is why there are not many of those instruments run

16 in the state of Iowa. It's a very labor intensive

17 procedure that has more room for error than the ones that

18 we do to be honest with you.

 

19 Q. Is it your testimony that you're right -- is

20 that what you're telling us is that you're right and the

21 BCI laboratory is wrong?

 

22 MR. WADDING: I'm going to object to that,

 

23 Your Honor. I think it's asked and answered and

24 argumentative as well.

 

25 COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

 

209

 

1 WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Can you read it to her, please.

 

3 (At which time the requested portion of the

4 testimony was read back by the court reporter.)

 

5 A. I can't testify as to the BCI laboratory.

 

6 Q. If you did not have a full understanding

7 about the reduction that is supposed to take place when

8 you're testing only serum and not whole blood, would you

9 stand corrected in your testimony?

 

10 A. No. I don't -- I don't know what you mean.

11 I'm sorry.

 

12 Q. If you were -- if it was proven to your

13 satisfaction that you're supposed to reduce your result

14 when you use the enzymatic assay method as opposed to the

15 gas chromatograph where you use whole blood, would you

16 then agree that your -- that you haven't done that?

 

17 A. That hasn't been proved to me. I don't -- I

18 can't say yes or no.

 

19 Q. If it has -- if it does become proved or

20 established, would you agree then that your testimony

21 would be in error?

 

22 A. I'm still not sure if I understand --

 

23 MR. WADDING: I guess I'm going to object to

24 that, Your Honor. It calls for speculation. Assumes

25 facts not in evidence. It's argumentative as well.

 

 

210

 

1 COURT: I have your point, Mr. Correll.

 

2 MR. CORRELL: Thank you. That's all.

 

3 COURT: Mr. Wadding?

 

4 MR. WADDING: Thank you.

 

5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

 

6 BY MR. WADDING:

 

7 Q. When you ran the sample of Mr. Rokes' blood,

8 how many other people's blood samples did you run?

 

9 A. It was just his and the two controls.

 

10 MR. WADDING: I don't have any other

11 questions.

 

12 COURT: Mr. Correll?

 

13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

 

14 BY MR. CORRELL:

 

15 Q. How many controls do you have?

 

16 A. For alcohols?

 

17 Q. Yes.

 

18 A. Two.

 

19 MR. CORRELL: That's all.

 

20 MR. WADDING: Nothing further.

updated 01/21/17