Rachel Nguyen — Direct/Cross/Voir Dire
404 linesThe witness, RACHEL NGUYEN, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Take a seat in the witness stand. You can adjust the mic if you have to. State your name again, please, for the record, and spell your last name.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Rachel Nguyen, N-g-u-y-e-n.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MS. GOUDE:
MS. GOUDE: Good morning.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Good morning.
MS. GOUDE: Agent Nguyen, could you please tell the jurors who you work for?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I work for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, most commonly known as SLED.
MS. GOUDE: And how long have you worked at SLED?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I've worked at SLED for approximately eight and a half years.
MS. GOUDE: Could you pull the microphone a little closer so we can make sure to hear you, or speak up a little? Thank you. And what is your position at SLED?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I'm a forensic scientist within the DNA Casework Department at the SLED Forensics Laboratory.
MS. GOUDE: So, what does that mean? Tell us a little bit more about your job.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Like my job duties?
MS. GOUDE: Yes.
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, I am responsible for direct DNA analysis when requested by a DNA analyst. What that is, is the beginning portion of the laboratory section component of DNA analysis. That involves DNA extraction, as well as DNA quantitation. Extraction meaning to separate any possible DNA from the sample, such as a swab or a cutting, and quantitation would be to see how much, if any, is present in a sample. I'm also responsible for serology analysis, as well as evidence processing. Serology analysis is body fluid identification. At SLED we test for blood, semen, and saliva. Evidence processing would be to process items for possibly touch DNA, for ownership DNA. Touch DNA would be to retrieve any possible DNA on an item from handling it. Ownership DNA would be potentially retrieving any DNA from wearing an article of clothing. In addition to those types of analysis, I also issue reports on my findings when appropriate. I am able to technically and administratively review reports by other serologists, and then I provide courtroom testimony when required.
MS. GOUDE: Now, you must have some kind of special training and education to be able to do these things. Can you tell us about that?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, I have two Bachelor's of Science Degrees from the University New Haven, one in forensic science and one in biology. Upon being employed within the DNA Casework Department, I underwent approximately a year long training program under a court qualified forensic serologist. During this time I was able to observe, as well as practice the different types of serological analysis, as well as evidence processing. I was also taught how to issue reports based on any findings, as well as technically and administratively review any reports issued by other serologists. I also was able to observe courtroom testimony. At the end of my training program, I then underwent a competency testing phase. This phase is to test my knowledge and abilities to perform this these types of analysis independently. The competency testing phase was comprised of four elements: a written exam, an oral exam, a mock case to perform analysis on, as well as mock courtroom testimony. Once those four components were successfully completed, I was then deemed able to perform independent analysis on casework. In addition to my serology and evidence processing training, I also, as I mentioned, am trained in direct DNA analysis. That was also an approximately year long training program under a court qualified DNA analyst. During that time I was able to observe, as well as practice the different types of protocols that are involved. At the end of that training program, once again I went through a competency testing phase. It was comprised of the same four components, and I successfully completed all four components and, therefore, am also able to perform independent analysis in the area of direct DNA analysis.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Just a moment. Ma'am, I'm going to need you to speak into the mic a little --
RACHEL NGUYEN: Okay.
JUDGE NEWMAN: -- better or for my benefit, if not for the jury's benefit.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Okay.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. So, Agent Nugyen, have you testified in court before?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I have.
MS. GOUDE: And how many times have you tested in court --
RACHEL NGUYEN: This will be --
MS. GOUDE: -- in this state?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Oh, sorry. This will be my nineteenth time.
MS. GOUDE: And have you been qualified as an expert when you testified in prior proceedings?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I have been qualified as an expert.
MS. GOUDE: As an expert in forensic serology?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time the State would move to qualify Agent Nugyen as an expert in forensic serology.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: She is admitted as an expert in the field of forensic serology.
MS. GOUDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. GOUDE:
MS. GOUDE: Agent Nugyen, you were working in this serology department back in June of 2021?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I was.
MS. GOUDE: And did you examine some items of evidence in the investigation of the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did.
MS. GOUDE: I'm going to show you State's Exhibits 63 through 66. I'll have you take a look at these items for us.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: Are those items that you examined?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes, they are. I can identify these items because on the small manila envelopes contained within, I have written the unique case number that was assigned to this case at SLED, as well as each of their item numbers, my initials, and the date I opened the packaging.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and each of those items is a 300 Blackout case?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Now, what did you do with those items?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So when cartridge casings are submitted for touch DNA, which is what these were submitted for, we process them with a soaking method. So, each cartridge case is placed within a tube, submerged within a solution, lightly shaken, and then has to -- it has to sit with for at least 30 minutes. Once that 30 minutes is up, each individual cartridge case will then be removed from its tube. The solution will be placed with -- poured into a filtration unit. The cartridge case will be dried, it will be labeled with the individual item number, and then placed on a rack to further dry thoroughly. The solution that is placed within this unit -- the filtration unit looks like an hour glass. So, there's a chamber on the top and a chamber on the bottom, and it's separated by a filter. So, it's a liquid that is being poured in the top chamber, will filter through the center which has a filter which we call an embed collection. The goal is that if there's any DNA present on these cartridge casings, it will be trapped within the filter, and then the water goes to the bottom. I'm sorry, the solution. And then the filter is sat out for -- to dry for at least 24 hours. Once the filter is dried, it is then cut -- prepared for analysis. So, it is cut in half, placed in a tube, labeled with the case number, the item number, and then it is forwarded for further analysis. The -- and that collection from these items was identified as SLED Item 7.1.
MS. GOUDE: Agent Nugyen, I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 459. If you could tell us, is that what you collected from those cases there?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, within here is, as I mentioned, SLED Item 7.1. Once again, I recognize this because it has the unique case number, the container number, my name and date on the outside, as well as my name and date on a seal at the top.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you say you did when you collected the, I guess, disc?
RACHEL NGUYEN: The -- so once in that collection -- or the filter is dry, I will cut it in half, and then half again. So, each quarter will be placed within a tube for DNA analysis. It's labeled with the unique case number, the item number, and it is forwarded for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: So, you forwarded that to DNA for more analysis?
RACHEL NGUYEN: That is correct.
MS. GOUDE: Okay.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time the State would move 459 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DNA ITEMS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 459 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: All right, I'm going to show you State's 33 and 34, which are fired shotshells. Did you perform any kind of testing on those two items?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, State's 33 and State's 34 are consistent with SLED Item Number 9 and 10, which were fired shotshells. These were all also submitted to the laboratory for touch processing. These shotshells were swabbed for the touch collection. So, basically I take two swabs, sterile swabs, and moisten one with the ionized water, and then I will rub it against the exterior of both of them, and then leave them out to dry. Once the swabs are dried, I will then prepare them for DNA analysis, which involves just cutting a small portion from each swab, placing it within a tube, labeling with a case number, the item number, and forward it for further analysis. For this I -- these swabs from the entire exterior of these two items were identified as Item 10.1.
MS. GOUDE: And I believe Item 10.1 is also in State's Exhibit 459 that's been admitted. And you can open that if you need to.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. This also contains Item 10.1.
MS. GOUDE: Which are the swabs from these shotshells here.
RACHEL NGUYEN: That is correct.
MS. GOUDE: And then what did you do with those swabs once they were collected?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, they were prepared for DNA analysis and forwarded to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 18, which I believe is your Item 17.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, I recognize this from the same process. It -- I have my -- the unique case number, the item number, my initials, and the date I opened. Item 17, which is State's Exhibit 18, I also have my initials and date from when I sealed this pouch.
MS. GOUDE: And now what is that item?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Item 17, SLED's Item 17 are swabs collected from exterior doorknob of storage room door.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you do with that item?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, I prepared these swabs for DNA analysis. Once again, I just cut a small portion from the swabs and forwarded for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: State's 259.
RACHEL NGUYEN: State's 259 I do recognize for the same reason. I have the -- written the case number, the item numbers, my initials, and date that I opened these items. Found within State's 259 are Items 15 and 16. Item 15 are swabs from camo Benelli 12 gauge shotgun receiver forward of the loading port. And swabs identified as Item 16 are swabs collected from barrel of camo Benelli 12 gauge shotgun.
MS. GOUDE: Now, did you do any testing of those swabs?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. Items 15 and 16 had blood requests on them, so these were tested with a presumptive blood test. A presumptive test only indicates the possible presence of a body fluid. And how I did that is because since these are swabs, I took a sterile swab, moistened it with deionized water, then rubbed it gently upon the swabs that are identified as those items. I then tested that test swab for the possible presence of blood.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And it appears that this is a personal conversation.
RACHEL NGUYEN: I'm sorry.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You know, the prosecutor is behind you, and you're looking at her, and the mic is in front of you. And so let's -- Attorney General, perhaps if you would move in a different direction, the witness will speak in a different direction --
MS. GOUDE: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: -- and I can understand what she's saying, or she can speak louder, or speak into the mic rather than speaking to you.
MS. GOUDE: So if you could, please continue explaining what the item is, please.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, I tested these presumptively for the presence of blood. So, Item 15, which were the swabs from the receiver forward of the loading port of the camo Benelli 12 gauge shotgun, tested positive for the possible presence of blood. Item 16, swabs collected from barrel of camo Benelli 12 gauge shotgun, tested negative for the possible presence of blood. Both sets of swabs were forwarded to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. So, at this point we don't know -- we just know there's blood.
RACHEL NGUYEN: There is the possible presence of blood on Item 15.
MR. BARBER: I'm objecting to the leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Pardon?
MR. BARBER: Objecting to the leading question, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Please do not lead the witness and restate the question.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you say was present, presumptively present on those items?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, Item 15 was positive for the possible presence of blood. Item 16 was negative for the possible presence of blood.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you do after you made those determinations?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, both of these sets of swabs were prepared for DNA analysis and forwarded to the DNA section for further testing.
MS. GOUDE: I'm going to hand you State's Exhibit 398. If you will, take a look at those two items and tell the jury what those are.
(Break in proceedings.)
RACHEL NGUYEN: State's Exhibit 398 are SLED Items 22.4 and 22.5, which corresponds to Item 22.5, is described as reddish/brown debris swabbed from the right side of Item 22 receiver. And 22.5 is described as reddish/brown debris, swabbed with -- from the left side of the Item 22 receiver above manufacturer information.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you do with those items?
RACHEL NGUYEN: These items also had a blood request, so the same process as the previous items I just mentioned. I took a sterile swab, moistened it with deionized water, swabbed these swabs, and then with that test swab is what I tested for the presumptive blood test.
MS. GOUDE: Will you please explain the results?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, both Items 22.4 and 22.5 tested positive for the possible presence of blood.
MS. GOUDE: And then what did you do with those items once you did the blood test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: These two sets of swabs were then prepared for DNA analysis and forwarded it the DNA section for further testing.
MS. GOUDE: Now, there was a number of guns in this case that were processed. Is that right?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I believe so.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Could you tell us about the testing you did on State's Exhibit 89, your Item 30, the Mossberg shotgun?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, when items of evidence are submitted to the SLED laboratory, sometimes they have multiple requests of different departments. In this case, Item 30, a Mossberg shotgun, had three requests: for the latent prints department, for the DNA department, as well as the firearms department. So, we try to organize it so that no department's analysis conflicts with another department. In this case, this item was forwarded -- or was sent to the latent prints department for processing. The latent prints examiners are trained in collection for touch DNA as well as swabbing of any stains that they may notice. So, Item 30 had the blood request on it. The latent prints examiner, which took this item into their custody, requested that I come down as a second pair of eyes to visually examine this item for any possible staining. We located one stain, which I tested for the possible presence of blood, and the result was negative.
MS. GOUDE: And after that, did you -- are you aware of any further processing on that Mossberg shotgun?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I am not. So, I was there with the examiner, and it remained within that examiner's custody the entire time.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Let's move on to the other shotguns. We have a Browning shotgun, a Benelli Black Eagle Two 12 gauge shotgun, and the rifle, in addition to the guns we've already talked about. Can you kind of sum up how you analyzed those three different guns?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, those three different guns that you just mentioned were Items 31, 32, and 33. They were done in the same manner as Item 30, as I just mentioned. So, they were within the custody of latent prints examiner. I went down to visualize it for any possible staining. The results for these three guns, however, was no apparent blood stains present.
MS. GOUDE: And did you do anything else to check for blood at that point?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did nothing further with these items.
MS. GOUDE: I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 83. If you could, take a look and tell us what items are contained in Exhibit 83.
RACHEL NGUYEN: May I put the gloves on?
MS. GOUDE: Yes.
RACHEL NGUYEN: State's Exhibit 83 contains SLED Items 51 --
MS. GOUDE: And, Agent Nugyen, you don't have to go through the SLED items, thank you.
RACHEL NGUYEN: -- through 60.
MS. GOUDE: Yeah. And those items are what, though?
RACHEL NGUYEN: They are all swabs that were taken from the Chevy Suburban.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and can you tell us what kind of testing was done on those swabs?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, it appears that these swabs were collected because they were Bluestar positive, which from my understanding is a presumptive test used by the Crime Scene Unit to indicate areas of possible blood staining. Since they were already presumptively tested, I used a confirmatory test to test these swabs for the presence of blood. So, SLED Items 51 through 55 and 57 through 60 were all negative with that testing, which means there is no human blood identified. Item 56, which was swabs collected from steering wheel, had a positive result, which means blood was identified on this item.
MS. GOUDE: And what kind of testing did you do to confirm that blood?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I used a confirmatory test called hematrace.
MS. GOUDE: And how does hematrace work?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, hematrace is a card test. It's similar to a pregnancy test or a -- or, more relevant, a Covid test. You take a sample from the item of evidence, place it in a solution, and it should sit there for awhile. And then once it has mixed in with the solution, the solution will then be placed on this card test, and then a result will be revealed. Results are read after 10 minutes.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and what are the potential results from that test just in general from hematrace testing?
RACHEL NGUYEN: There's a positive result or a negative result.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and in this case, what was the result on this steering wheel swab?
RACHEL NGUYEN: On the steering wheel swab it was positive, which is a result of blood identified.
MS. GOUDE: And then what did you do with that swab once you completed your testing?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, Item 56 was then prepared for DNA analysis and forwarded to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. I'm going to next show you items -- or State's Exhibits, excuse me, 251 and 252. Those are marked for identification only.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Can you tell us what are those items?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, State's Exhibit 251 corresponds to the left fingernail clippings and right fingernail clippings of Margaret Murdaugh. State's Exhibit 252 corresponds to the left fingernail clippings and right fingernail clippings of Paul Murdaugh.
MS. GOUDE: So on State's 251, the fingernail clippings from Margaret Murdaugh, what, if anything, did you do to those items?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So State's Exhibit 251, once received, is clipping from her fingernails. So, I will take a portion of the clippings that have been submitted, place it within a tube, and forward it to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. When you say portion of the clippings, does that mean you clipped some more and send to DNA, or what does that mean?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the literal fingernail clippings are what's being submitted within the envelope. So, say there's five clippings. I will forward approximately two to three of what's been submitted, place it within the tube, and that's what will be forwarded for analysis.
MS. GOUDE: And did you do the same process with State's Exhibit 252, the fingernail clippings from Paul Murdaugh?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. State's Exhibit 252 will receive the same preparation for DNA analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time the State will move Exhibits 251 and 252 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 251 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 252 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: All right, Agent Nugyen, next if you could tell us a little about State's Exhibit 418, which was Alex Murdaugh's shirt. Could you describe how you first processed the shirt when it was initially received by the lab?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the white shirt from Richard Murdaugh was submitted with a blood request. On June 9th of 2021, I processed this item for the possible presence of blood. So, that entails -- I first visually examined the shirt for any areas that are consistent with the staining of blood. Then I tested the these items that I have indicated with our Phenolphthalein presumptive test for blood. Two stains were indicated are -- were tested. Both stains were positive for the possible presence of blood. One stain located at the exterior front bottom edge of white shirt was forwarded to the DNA section for further analysis. Afterwards --
MS. GOUDE: I'll stop you for just a second, and I'm going to hand you State's 460. Now, you just said that that stain was processed and sent to DNA. How did you process that? Did you send the whole shirt, or how did that work?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So the stain that I had located, I cut that stain from the shirt and then prepared it for a DNA analysis, which means I cut a small portion of that stain, placed it within the tube, labeled that tube, and forwarded the cutting as well as the portion that I had prepared to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: And that cutting is contained in State's 460. Is that correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: That cutting is contained in State's 460.
MS. GOUDE: And what date did you perform that initial analysis?
RACHEL NGUYEN: On June 9th of 2021.
MS. GOUDE: And I think you mentioned there was another stain also located on the shirt at that time.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. Two stains were presumptively tested.
MS. GOUDE: Was that second stain cut on June the 8th?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It was not. It remained in the shirt and was identified with the presumptive test results.
MS. GOUDE: Now due to ongoing investigation, did you come back and examine that shirt again?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, afterwards a request was related to me to go back to the shirt and retrieve that stain and forward it for DNA analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Did you do any other testing this second time around?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So when I went to remove the second stain, I met with members of the Crime Scene Unit, Lieutenant Wallace as well as Special Agent Worley, and they processed the shirt with their LCV testing, which, to my understanding, is their presumptive test for blood.
MS. GOUDE: And what was discovered during the LCV testing?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So after removing the second stain from the June 9th date that I processed it, ten additional stains were identified from the LCV processing, which were cut from the shirt and prepared for DNA analysis and forwarded for further testing.
MS. GOUDE: And I will show you State's 461. Are those the additional cuttings from the shirt?
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: And there are quite a few cuttings there.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Uh-huh.
(Break in proceedings.)
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, all the cuttings from the shirt are here.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Now, as far as you're concerned, did you process the shirt any further?
RACHEL NGUYEN: No. Besides preparing these additional stains that were identified, nothing further was done.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you do with those cuttings?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I cut a small portion from each of the stains that was indicated as being positive and forwarded it to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: All right, and State's Exhibit 418 is the defendant's shorts. How were those shorts processed in comparison to the shirt?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the shorts also were submitted with a blood request. They were processed in a similar manner. Several stains were tested. However, two were positive for the possible presence of blood. A stain located at the front left interior pocket of the pair of green shorts was forwarded for further analysis. This was processed on the same June 9th date of 2021. The shorts were also additionally processed at the same time the shirt was additionally processed to retrieve a second stain that was indicated as a possible presence of blood. And then the same members of the Crime Scene Unit also processed the shirt with their LCV testing.
MS. GOUDE: And I believe we still have item -- or, excuse me, Exhibit 460 up there. Does that contain the first cutting from the pair of pants on June 8th?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. State's Exhibit 460 contains the first cutting from the pair of shorts from June 8th -- 9th, I'm sorry.
MS. GOUDE: And then State's Exhibit 461, what cutting -- that contains the cutting from the pants on July 21st. Is that right?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, State's Exhibit 461 does contain the additional cuttings. So, the second stain that had tested positive on the June 9th processing date, as well as six additional stains, were indicated from the Crime Scene Unit when they processed the pair of shorts with their LCV testing.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and then what did you do with those cuttings once you took them?
RACHEL NGUYEN: The cuttings for the shorts were prepared for DNA analysis, once again cutting a small portion of the stain and forwarding it for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: And I'm going to show you State's 473. If you would, take a look at that. Do you recognize that as -- what do you recognize that as?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, this appears to be a photo of Item 2 -- or 20.2, which is the cutting from front left interior pocket of pair of green shorts from Richard Murdaugh.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time I would move State's Exhibit 473 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 473 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: Permission to publish?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and, Agent Nugyen, if you could describe to the jurors what they're looking at in the picture.
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, this is a stain that was tested and as you can see, I have labeled it with a SLED item number both on the physical item as well as it's contained with a manila envelope which has the unique case number, item number, that it -- the request was for blood, the location it was taken from, as well as that it's a cutting. In addition, you can see my initials and date from when I prepared this for DNA analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and, again, I'm sorry, what were the presumptive results of the testing for blood?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the presumptive results for this stain are that it was positive for the possible presence of blood.
MS. GOUDE: And we talked a little bit about the cuttings of the shirt and the shorts. Just to kind of aid the jury in seeing what you actually did, I'm going to show you State's 471 and 472. Do you recognize those pictures?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I do recognize these pictures. They're from the additional processing that occurred on the shirt.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time the State would move 471 and 472 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 471 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 472 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: On State's 472, could you just kind of describe to the jurors what they're looking at here, and point their attention to the areas in the shirt that you cut. If you can see.
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, if you look in the square labeled E7, there is a stain that's circled that has the Item Number 19.3, as well as a plus sign. That was the second stain that I had tested on the original processing date that was to be retrieved during this time of processing. Then you can see there are additional stains circled in blue with letter identifiers. Those were areas of staining that was identified from the Crime Scene Unit when they processed with their LCV test. Each stain has the subitem twice. That is to -- one is to stay with the stain once I've cut it, and then one is to stay within the shirt so in the event that you needed to know where that stain had originated, you could locate it.
MS. GOUDE: And then State's Exhibit 471?
RACHEL NGUYEN: State's Exhibit 471 is the front of the shirt. It has several areas of staining that were circled as a result of the LCV processing by the Crime Scene Unit.
MS. GOUDE: And those are also areas that you cut from the shirt.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, once again, I have written the subitem numbers that they were assigned, and then removed each of the stainings along the line that I've outlined, and prepared those stains for further analysis for DNA.
MS. GOUDE: And you said you followed the same process regarding --
RACHEL NGUYEN: That is correct.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Let's move on to State's Exhibit 419, which was the shoes of the defendant. Can you tell us what you did with those shoes?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So those shoes, which are described as a pair of red, yellow, and white tennis shoes from Richard Murdaugh, they have the same blood request. So, I visually examined the shoes for any areas of possible blood staining and then tested those stainings. Two were indicated as being possibly positive for the possible presence of blood. One was -- one stain was forwarded for DNA analysis, and it was located on the left shoelace of the pair of red, yellow, and white tennis shoes.
MS. GOUDE: And are those cuttings in State's Exhibit 460 that you already have up there with you?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. The cutting from the shoes is contained within the State's Exhibit 460.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time the State would move State's 460 and 461 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(CUTTINGS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 460 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(CUTTINGS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 461 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: All right, Agent Nugyen, we're making some good process here. State's Exhibit 226 was a blue raincoat. Can you explain to the jurors what you did to process that item?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the blue raincoat also had two types of processing. During the first time of processing, which occurred on October 7th of 2021, the raincoat was processed for the possible presence of blood. This was done by myself as well as members of the Crime Scene Unit, Lieutenant Wallace, as well as Special Agent Moore. I first performed presumptive testing with our blood tests, and then the Crime Scene Unit went behind and then processed with the raincoat with their LCV testing. I tested 71 stains. All 71 stains were negative for the possible presence of blood. After that, the LCV processing took place. No areas of interest were indicated as interpreted by the Crime Scene Unit as being positive, and, therefore, on October 7th of 2021, nothing was forwarded for DNA analysis.
MS. GOUDE: And why was nothing forwarded for analysis?
RACHEL NGUYEN: There were no stains that indicated the possible presence of blood.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Then did you go back and reexamine the raincoat?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. An additional request came in for the raincoat for ownership. Once again, ownership is a collection method for DNA to identify the primary wearer of an item.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and how did you process that for ownership?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Two sets of swabs were taken off the raincoat. The first set of swabs was identified as Item 173.2, which were swabs from interior cuffs, collar, and hood, interior and exterior zipper area, zipper and zipper pull of the blue raincoat. The second set of swabs that were taken from the raincoat were identified as Item 173.3, swabs from side openings, zipper area, and both interior portions of exterior pocket of the blue raincoat. In addition --
MS. GOUDE: I'll -- excuse me. I'll hand you State's 462.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: And what are those? Are those the swabs you were just telling us about?
RACHEL NGUYEN: State's Exhibit 462 are both sets of swabs that I just recently spoke about from collecting from the raincoat.
MS. GOUDE: And what did you do with those swabs?
RACHEL NGUYEN: These swabs were prepared for DNA analysis and forwarded to the DNA section for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: At this time, the State would move to admit State's Exhibit 462.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(RAINCOAT SWABS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 462 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: And, Agent Nugyen, when you were examining the raincoat for ownership, did you find anything on that raincoat to help with that analysis such as hair or anything like that?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, part of the ownership processing is to look for hair. The raincoat -- there was no hair found.
MS. GOUDE: Did you also notice anything about the condition of the raincoat?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So on my evidence worksheet, which is where we document the items that we perform processing on as well as the respective results, I also document any describing factors. So, on this worksheet in regards to the blue raincoat, I do have that the plastic seam liner was coming off throughout the item.
MS. GOUDE: That the -- what did you say?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I called it a plastic seam liner.
MS. GOUDE: Was coming off? I can't hear you.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Coming off throughout the item.
MS. GOUDE: Thank you. All right. Also in this case, did you receive a number of buccal swabs?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and that is -- what did you do with those buccal swabs when you received them?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, buccal swabs don't require any testing on my part. I just prepare those buccal swabs for DNA analysis, once again cutting a small portion off of each swab, placing it within a tube, and forwarding it for further analysis.
MS. GOUDE: All right, Agent Nugyen, the State has no further questions at this time. If you will, please answer any questions from the defense.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Barber.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBER:
MR. BARBER: Good morning -- excuse me. Good morning, Agent Nugyen.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Good morning.
MR. BARBER: Is it Agent? Am I right? Just very briefly. At the outset you discussed collecting for DNA -- DNA testing for the Blackout cartridges. Is that correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Collecting for the possible presence of touch DNA, yes.
MR. BARBER: Yes, and did you only test two of those cartridges?
RACHEL NGUYEN: All seven were processed using the soaking method.
MR. BARBER: Okay. With that processing method, any results that you were -- received, would they be specific to any one cartridge, or would it just be for the collection of all seven?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I'm sorry, can you repeat?
MR. BARBER: Would you have results for DNA from the way that you collected the sample for a specific shell case, or would it be for all seven as a set?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Okay, I just want to clarify. I did say there were seven cartridges. There were only six. So, although they are being individually soaked, they are being combined within that filtration unit, so the results would be from all of the cartridges together.
MR. BARBER: Okay, and you did -- you had positive presumptive tests for two shotguns, correct? Portions of two shotguns?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Do you have an item number that corresponds?
MR. BARBER: I can get those in a second. Do you remember there were two shotguns you just testified had positive presumptive blood tests? One was SLED Item Number 15.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. So, the swabs from the Benelli shotgun, Item 15, was positive for the possible presence of blood. However, I believe you mean the second set of swabs, Item 16. That was negative.
MR. BARBER: And then there was later a item -- SLED Item 22?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Oh, yes. The two sets of swabs from SLED Item 22 were both positive for the possible presence of blood.
MR. BARBER: So, I guess what exactly is a presumptive test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, a presumptive test is indicating the possible presence of a body fluid, in this case blood. It's not confirming the presence. It's just an indication so that we can further test that stain.
MR. BARBER: And how does it indicate the possible presence of blood?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the Phenolphthalein test interacts with the hemoglobin found within blood, and that's what is basically giving a positive result with.
MR. BARBER: Is it fair to say that it changes color? It's like a dye that changes color?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, it's a color change test based on the presence of the hemoglobin. A swab that's being tested will turn a bright pink color.
MR. BARBER: And are -- is that presumptive test specific to human blood?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It is not specifically human blood. It can be human blood or animal blood.
MR. BARBER: Could chemicals other than blood cause a positive test result?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the Phenolphthalein test has what we call false positives, which can give a positive result, but it is not blood. It also can give a positive result for pus and sometimes in the presence of bacteria. Those include copper salts, salts, nickel salts, rust, as well as some plant and peroxide peroxidases, which include broccoli, cauliflower, horseradish.
MR. BARBER: Okay. So, there are a number of things that can give a positive result. Is that why you also have the confirmatory test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: If we test something for the possible presence of blood, we don't typically do a confirmatory test unless it's requested. We just store that sample for DNA analysis.
MR. BARBER: Okay. Who had requested a confirmatory test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It -- usually an investigator of an agency may request it. Sometimes solicitors or defense attorneys may request an additional test.
MR. BARBER: And the confirmatory test, I think you testified, is just basically like a Covid test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It works similar to a Covid test.
MR. BARBER: Two lines means human blood?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It will have a line to indicate that the test is working properly, which is a control line, and then if it is positive it will have an additional second line. If that second line does show up, that means that the test is negative.
MR. BARBER: Is it an accurate test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I would say that it's an accurate test as long as the control line is present.
MR. BARBER: It's more accurate than the presumptive test. That's why you use it, correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, the confirmatory test is saying that, yes, blood is identified on the item that's being tested.
MR. BARBER: Human blood.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Human blood, as well as higher primate blood and ferret blood.
MR. BARBER: And you did not do any confirmatory tests on the shotguns?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did not do any confirmatory tests on the shotgun swabs.
MR. BARBER: And that was simply because nobody asked you to, correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: The -- in effort to not consume any of the sample on the swabs, as a swab is a small area, we just forward it for DNA analysis.
MR. BARBER: But in the Chevy Suburban, you did perform a hematrace test.
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes, because that -- these swabs for the Chevy Suburban were already previously processed with another presumptive test by the Crime Scene Unit, we could not presumptive test behind because our two tests work in a similar manner.
MR. BARBER: Whose decision was it to do the hematrace test on the Chevy Suburban?
RACHEL NGUYEN: That is typically how we process items of evidence that we receive from the Crime Scene Unit in the form of swabs based on any of their presumptive testing.
MR. BARBER: But, like, who made the decision to do the hematrace test on that steering wheel? The name of the person.
RACHEL NGUYEN: I performed the hematrace test.
MR. BARBER: On your own initiative.
RACHEL NGUYEN: No. That is a common way we do testing on swabs that have already been collected based on a presumptive test.
MR. BARBER: Did someone instruct you to perform a hematrace test upon the steering wheel?
RACHEL NGUYEN: No. It is part of our general operating procedures.
MR. BARBER: But you did not perform hematrace tests on the weapons?
RACHEL NGUYEN: The, the swabs that were collected off of the weapons, no, because they were not presumptively testing prior. So, I could use our presumptive test on those items.
MR. BARBER: Did you perform or prepare any samples on the victims' clothing or bodies other than the fingernail clippings that you discussed?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I do not believe so.
MR. BARBER: Okay. So, the only thing from the body of Maggie Murdaugh or Paul Murdaugh that you tested were the fingernail clippings for Maggie Murdaugh?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So, I prepared the fingernail clippings for DNA analysis, as well as the buccal swabs from those individuals.
MR. BARBER: But nothing else from their bodies, correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: No. I did not test their clothing.
MR. BARBER: Or their clothing. Or their clothing.
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did not test their clothing.
MR. BARBER: When looking at the t-shirt that you just testified about, in those cuttings I think you have in the -- you open the bag and the cuttings were there and you prepared them. Did you perform any serology tests on those cuttings?
RACHEL NGUYEN: No. I just removed those cuttings from the shirt as the result of the crime scene testing.
MR. BARBER: Are you aware of any serology tests being performed on those cuttings?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Of the shirt?
MR. BARBER: Yes, of those big shirt cuttings.
RACHEL NGUYEN: I believe there was further analysis performed on those cuttings.
MR. BARBER: Did somebody other than you later perform serology tests on those cuttings, to your knowledge?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It is my understanding that there was additional testing on those cuttings.
MR. BARBER: Serology testing?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Serology testing.
MR. BARBER: Specifically hematrace?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I believe there was hematrace performed on the cuttings from the shirt.
MR. BARBER: But that -- just to be clear, that wasn't performed by you.
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did not perform hematrace on any of the cuttings on the shirt.
MR. BARBER: Did you perform any hematrace tests on the shorts or tennis shoes?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did not perform any hematrace testing on the shirts or the shoes.
MR. BARBER: Just, I guess, maybe a little bit of background and understand maybe who does what, when you were working on this case, do you have like a direct supervisor?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I do have a direct supervisor.
MR. BARBER: And who is that person?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Her name a Laura Hash.
MR. BARBER: And is she the person who directs your activities as regard to this case?
MS. GOUDE: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
RACHEL NGUYEN: I'm sorry, what was the question?
MR. BARBER: Is Lieutenant Laura Hash the person who directs your activities with regard to this case?
RACHEL NGUYEN: So based on our operating manual, as well as my training and experience, based on the request of certain items that are submitted, I will decide how those are tested. However, if additional processing is requested, those usually are communicated to me through my direct supervisor.
MR. BARBER: And just for clarity, we've talked a bit about DNA, but you're just preparing samples and they go to someone else who does the analysis and reports. That's not you, correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: That's correct. I am just preparing the samples for further analysis.
MR. BARBER: Is the only hematrace test that you did for this case the steering wheel? Well, strike that. The Chevy Suburban, I believe there may have been some negative tests for the Suburban, but were those the only hematrace tests you did for this case?
RACHEL NGUYEN: No. I did hematrace these swabs from the Chevy Suburban. I also hematrace tested swabs collected from a Ford F250.
MR. BARBER: And what were the results from the Ford F250?
RACHEL NGUYEN: There were four swabs submitted from the Ford F250, and the results for all four of those sets of swabs were negative for human blood.
MR. BARBER: So, the steering wheel was the only positive test that you did for hematrace?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. The steering wheel from the Chevy Suburban is the only positive hematrace result that I have.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: One final question, or a little set of questions. It seems like sometimes the crime scene people or the department -- I shouldn't just say people; I guess they're a department -- do presumptive blood tests. Is that correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes. It's my understanding that the Crime Scene Unit does perform presumptive blood tests.
MR. BARBER: And the words -- the initials LCV have been used. I think you might have mentioned it. What does that mean?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It stands for Leucocrystal Violet.
MR. BARBER: And can you describe that test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I don't know much about the test. I just know that it is a test that the Crime Scene Unit uses for -- as their presumptive blood test.
MR. BARBER: Do you know what color it turns when there's a positive result?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It'll turn a purple color.
MR. BARBER: So with -- I think the -- let me ask this. Why -- we saw a picture of the shirt gritted out. Do you remember that exhibit?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I do.
MR. BARBER: Why was the presumptive test done? Was that the SLED laboratory? Was that the location that was --
RACHEL NGUYEN: Are you asking about the LCV processing?
MR. BARBER: Yes. Where was that testing done?
RACHEL NGUYEN: That was done at the SLED laboratory.
MR. BARBER: Why was that done by the Crime Scene Unit and not the serology unit?
RACHEL NGUYEN: We do not use LCV testing, and I am unsure as to why that particular test was chosen to be used by the Crime Scene Unit.
MR. BARBER: Because earlier you did testing on the hem, right, the pheno tests on the front and back hem of the shirt. Is that correct?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I did.
MR. BARBER: But then the Crime Scene Unit later came back and in the lab did a different kind of test.
RACHEL NGUYEN: That's correct.
MR. BARBER: And you don't know why?
RACHEL NGUYEN: I was not part of that decision. I was just notified that they would be performing that test while I was retrieving the additional stain that I had tested earlier.
MR. BARBER: And finally it seems like if something is tested presumptive in the field and comes to you, you do a confirmatory test. Is that what happened with the Chevy Suburban?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BARBER: But if something comes to you and there's not been a presumptive test like with the shotguns, then you don't perform a confirmatory test.
RACHEL NGUYEN: No, I do the presumptive test.
MR. BARBER: Do you know why that's the policy?
RACHEL NGUYEN: It's an effort to not consume as much sample on a swab. A swab is a very -- it's like a sterile Q-tip, so essentially the surface area is very small. So, in efforts to not consume the sample and to give more for DNA analysis, that's what's done.
MR. BARBER: If something goes to DNA analysis and there's some result, does it ever come back for a blood test to see if the source of the DNA test was blood?
RACHEL NGUYEN: To be pheno tested?
MR. BARBER: No, for hematrace tests.
RACHEL NGUYEN: As I mentioned, hematrace testing can be requested on the back end, as any of our card tests can be.
MR. BARBER: In your experience -- I think we had some testimony about your experience. If DNA is found on something, is there ever then a time that you go back and say, hey, there's the source of this DNA blood, and do a hematrace test?
RACHEL NGUYEN: Hematrace specifically? To my knowledge, no. But in my experience, there have been times that solicitors or defense attorneys will request a card test be done on a sample after the DNA analysis has been performed.
MR. BARBER: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any redirect?
MS. GOUDE: None from the State, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. You may step down.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: We'll be in recess for about 10 minutes or so. Do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
(A break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.