I am a professor of clinical justice and Chair of the Criminal Justice
Department at California State University at Hayward. Prior to that I was a
criminalist in the Alameda County Crime Laboratory for almost 12 years, from
1970 to 1982. I specialized in forensic serology. I developed the Lab’s basic
testing procedures. I had experience with the ABO antigens system, and also
enzymes systems. (BMHR 471).
I have a BS in criminalistics; Masters in forensic science; Masters degree in
public administration, and a Doctorate in public administration. I currently teach
courses in physical evidence to students who include law enforcement officers and
forensic science students. This teaching requires me to keep up with literature in
criminalistics, including forensic serology.
I have qualified on the subject of forensic serology several hundred times.
Over my career I testified mostly for the Government. I have published in the field
of biological fluid analysis. (BMHR 474).
I reviewed the testimony of Kermit Channell and Michael Deguglielmo as
well as the portions of the closing arguments that dealt with scientific evidence. I
ABSTRACT 86
also reviewed lab notes referenced by Kermit Channell in his testimony. I also
reviewed the available lab notes from Mr. Channell. (BMHR 475).
I reviewed a number of protocols including the Arkansas Crime Lab
serology protocol, FBI serology protocols, and the protocol from QuantiBlot.
In 1993, there were forensic serologists available to testify for the defense. I
had been involved in cases in which I was asked by counsel to review serology
issues. If I had been contacted at that time, I would have advised counsel to get the
bench notes, testing protocols, and any other materials that pertain to the case. The
bench notes are useful to see whether the tests described in any report were
actually performed and whether the tests supported the results stated in the report.
(BMHR 476-478).
I reviewed Mr. Channell’s lab notes, concerning samples Q6 and Q10, with
the exception of the actual gels for the P30 test. The notes he produced did not
describe how the tests were conducted, and where the controls were. I would
characterize Mr. Channell’s notes as having an average amount of detail in them.
Based on the results that he reported in his notes, I would not have described
the results on the acid phosphatase test as ‘positive’. (BMHR 480-481). A slight or
‘weak’ reaction is not positive for seminal fluid because there is acid phosphatase
in a number of biological materials. Moreover, he should have used a substrate
ABSTRACT 87
control for this test, just as he did with the P30 test. One would have done that
under the circumstances because the very weak acid phosphatase reaction should
have spurred the retesting of substrate to see if there was acid phosphatase in the
mud. Moreover, the DNA Lab that the State used didn’t use a substrate control
either. (BMHR 483-484).
Had the defense consulted with a forensic serologist, it could have then
explained that the weak test results on screening tests as essentially irrelevant in
identifying semen. An experienced serologist would have pointed out that a
reaction for semen would have been a very strong reaction, had there been semen
present. Also, the analyst could have explained that you don’t visualize semen
using a laser light. A defense serologist could have explained that.
Based on the some total of the results in this case there would have been no
basis for concluding that there was any semen. (BMHR 486).
In my opinion, Mr. Channell’s acid phosphatase test was not run with the
proper controls. (BMHR 489). It is also my opinion that the statements in the FBI
laboratory manual concerning acid phosphatase being used a presumptive means of
detecting semen would be the same in 1993 as it was in the 2002 FBI formulation.
In order to identify semen you either need a positive P30 or identification of
spermatozoa. In this case there was neither.
ABSTRACT 88
I feel that a number of aspects of Mr. Channell’s testimony had been
accurate, however, I feel that he should have explained to the jurors that the mixed
results he had obtained with some of the presumptive tests were attributable to the
mud, and also he should not have indicated that the submission of material to a
DNA laboratory would have been a way to obtain more sensitive testing, as DNA
tests are not additional tests for semen.
Had I been approached on the case by a lawyer who had received some of
the typewritten reports in this matter, I would have recommended that the lawyer
make every effort to obtain the bench notes and the documentation that she had
been using to review the evidence in the case post-conviction. (BMHR 504-505).
