Sara Zapata — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Voir Dire
831 linesJUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. Your next witness.
MS. GOUDE: The State calls Sara Zapata.
The witness, SARA ZAPATA, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Take a seat in the witness stand. You can adjust the mic so we can hear you clearly. Ma'am, state your name again for the record, and spell your last name.
SARA ZAPATA: Sara Zapata, Z-a-p-a-t-a.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MS. GOUDE:
MS. GOUDE: Agent Zapata, I think you have a, I guess -- what would you call that? A container of -- is that your notes up there?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. My case file and other relevant documents.
MS. GOUDE: To aid you in your testimony if necessary.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Could you tell the jurors where you work?
SARA ZAPATA: I work for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, commonly known as SLED.
MS. GOUDE: And how long have you worked for SLED?
SARA ZAPATA: For about seven and a half years.
MS. GOUDE: What is your job title there?
SARA ZAPATA: I am a forensic scientist in the DNA Casework Department.
MS. GOUDE: What are some of your duties as a forensic scientist in DNA?
SARA ZAPATA: As a DNA analyst, I will look at the requests for different items of evidence. I can perform serology testing if necessary or refer to the serologist results. I will take the items of evidence as well as any known standards through our standard laboratory procedures to develop a DNA profile. The steps of that analysis are extraction, which is where we are trying to isolate any DNA present on that evidence item from the evidence item itself, as well as --
MS. GOUDE: Agent, if you could pull the microphone and speak up a little bit.
SARA ZAPATA: Sure, sorry. As well as from any other cellular material present. The second step is quantitation where we're trying to approximate how much DNA is present on that sample so that we can target the appropriate amount of DNA for the next step, which is amplification. Amplification works kind of like a chemical copy machine. We're targeting specific areas of the DNA that have been shown through scientific studies to vary from person to person. We're trying to make copies of that so that they can be detected by our final instrument, which is what actually separates the DNA into a profile. And then I will interpret that profile, and calculate any statistics, and prepare a report. I can also perform technical and administrative reviews of other analysts' work, as well as testify in court when necessary.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and can you tell us a little about your educational background and training that qualified you for this position?
SARA ZAPATA: I have a Bachelor of Science in forensic science from the Pennsylvania State University. Upon employment at SLED, I underwent a training program for approximately a year and a half under a qualified DNA analyst, and that training included an observation period as well as a practical period of the different steps in our DNA analysis process, as well as a serology procedures. Once I had received all of my training, I went through a testing period where I had to demonstrate my competency in using all of those different instruments and procedures and interpretation. I had to successfully complete several written exams, an oral exam, complete several mock cases, and a mock court. And then was competency tested with another case before finally being able to do a mock case, before finally being able to do analysis on real casework.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, and you will need to speak into the mic and increase your volume in order for us to hear you better.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may proceed.
MS. GOUDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. GOUDE: Agent Zapata, how many cases have you -- do you think you've participated in?
SARA ZAPATA: Approximately 500.
MS. GOUDE: And have you testified in trial before?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I have.
MS. GOUDE: How many times?
SARA ZAPATA: Nineteen.
MS. GOUDE: And in those trials, were you qualified as an expert witness?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I was.
MS. GOUDE: And what were you qualified as an expert witness in?
SARA ZAPATA: In DNA analysis.
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, at this time the State would move to qualify Agent Zapata as an expert in DNA analysis.
MR. BARBER: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: She is so qualified.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. GOUDE:
MS. GOUDE: All right, you had mentioned in some of the duties of your job kind of what you do. I guess if we could kind of scale it back a little bit more basic, but briefly, just what is DNA?
SARA ZAPATA: DNA is a chemical that is found throughout your body with the exception of red blood cells. You can get half of your DNA from your mom and half from your dad, and it's unique to individuals, with the exception of identical twins.
MS. GOUDE: And so if you had a case where there are family members involved, what does that mean as far as DNA analysis?
SARA ZAPATA: Based upon the evidence DNA profile, sometimes it might not be possible to make comparisons to some family members because there may not be enough DNA present there to distinguish between the family members. Because the family members will share DNA, that will affect what the DNA profile looks like.
MS. GOUDE: Can you tell us about some different sources of DNA from a person's body?
SARA ZAPATA: Some sources from your body would be your hair, blood, semen, saliva, bones, as well as DNA from your skin cells, which is what we call touch DNA.
MS. GOUDE: And what are some variables that can affect touch DNA?
SARA ZAPATA: So, some people just naturally shed more skin cells throughout the day than other people, and so you would expect to recover more DNA from an object that a person who sheds a lot of DNA has handled than a person who sheds less. There are also factors such as the surface that is being touched. If the surface is rough, then you would leave more skin cells behind. If you are holding the item for a longer period of time or with a lot of pressure, then you would expect to leave more skin cells behind. Environmental factors such as rain, moisture, UV light, that can all lessen the amount of DNA that's recovered. And also personal hygiene habits can affect how much DNA you leave behind. So, if you just washed your hands, there may not be as much skin cells left behind.
MS. GOUDE: So, do you leave touch DNA behind kind of like you would leave fingerprints behind? Is that a fair comparison?
SARA ZAPATA: Kind of. If you touch it -- you touch an object, you may leave some behind.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Now, you mentioned different sources such as body fluids. Are you able to confirm, like, 100 percent which body fluid a DNA profile comes from?
SARA ZAPATA: So, the test that we perform to try to identify a body fluid is different from the DNA testing that is being performed. Especially in cases where the evidence profile is a mixture, there is no way for us to tell did all of this DNA come from blood. Did it come from saliva and blood mixed together. There's no way for us to identify 100 percent the source of the DNA profile. We can indicate that a body fluid may be present, but we cannot say the blood on this item is from this individual.
MS. GOUDE: So, if I had a drop of blood on my shirt up here, could you ever say this was my blood?
SARA ZAPATA: I could test it for the indication of a body fluid. I could see if your DNA profile is recovered from that stain, if the evidentiary DNA profile, if you're included as a contributor to that profile. But I can never 100 percent say that is your blood.
MS. GOUDE: So, you could say my DNA is here but not my blood.
SARA ZAPATA: I could say that you're included as a contributor to the DNA profile.
MS. GOUDE: All right, and I think you've kind of already explained your process of DNA analysis when you explained your duties. Can you tell us about some of the, you know, standard lab procedures and protocol?
SARA ZAPATA: How specifically do you mean?
MS. GOUDE: I mean, I guess just basically how you analyze a DNA sample.
SARA ZAPATA: So, I will take the DNA sample. If it has been previously cut by a serologist or an evidence processor, I will add the agents to the tube and proceed with my analysis that way. If it has not previously been cut, then I can prepare the sample for DNA and then take it through those steps that I explained earlier. So, extraction, quantitation, amplification, and separation into a profile, and then I will interpret the DNA profile that was developed. So, I will determine if there's enough DNA present there for the profile to be used for comparison. I will determine the number of contributors to that profile. So, a profile can be single source, which is DNA from just one individual; or a mixture, DNA from multiple individuals are present in the profile. I will determine, if it's a mixture, how many people are in that mixture, or how many I'm interpreting that mixture as. And then I can calculate statistics to compare --
MS. GOUDE: So first of all, let's take for a minute --
SARA ZAPATA: Sorry.
MS. GOUDE: -- with these determinations, how are you making the determinations?
SARA ZAPATA: So, I'm looking at the DNA profile and using our protocol, our procedures, my training and experience as a DNA analyst to determine the number of contributors to the profile.
MS. GOUDE: And are you -- how are you looking at it? Are you visually looking at it, or is a computer program looking at it, or what's going on?
SARA ZAPATA: So, I visually examine the profile myself as the analyst. I determine the number of contributors to the profile. And then we also use a software program called STRmix to help in our interpretation, and what STRmix does is look at the evidence profile and attempt to break it down into the potential contributors to that profile. So, if you think about the evidence profile as like grandma's chocolate chip cookies, you know exactly what that cookie is supposed to taste like. You know what the final product is supposed to be, and you're trying to recreate that recipe and get it as close to grandma's cookie as what you know it's supposed to be. So, you're testing different ingredients at different proportions to see what can make up that cookie, and that is a kind of what STRmix does when it's looking at the profile. And then I will evaluate the STRmix output, make sure that what STRmix is telling me makes sense based upon what the profile looks like, and then if everything worked properly I can use STRmix also to calculate our statistics.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and how do you calculate that statistic?
SARA ZAPATA: So, the statistic that STRmix calculates is called likelihood ratio. It's a comparison of two possible scenarios to see which is a better explanation of the DNA profile that was developed. It works kind of like a seesaw. So, if you have one scenario on one side and another scenario on the other side, and STRmix is going to put more weight on the scenario that is a better explanation of the DNA profile. You do these kinds of comparisons subconsciously in your mind all day long. If the DNA profile, for example, is the fact that someone ran a marathon, that's your result. The two scenarios that could explain that result are, one, the person trained every day for months leading up to the marathon. They ran many, many miles. The second scenario is that they sat on the couch and watched TV and never ran at all. Which one is a more likely explanation of the fact that they finished the marathon? It would be the first one, that they trained really hard. And so that was the kind of comparison that STRmix is making.
MS. GOUDE: And where do these scenarios come from, I guess?
SARA ZAPATA: So, based upon what the DNA profile looks like, we will set up the two opposing scenarios to make the comparison. And the first scenario is always you're going to include the person whose standard is being compared to that profile, so the person's whose statistic you are calculating. And the second scenario is always going to include an unidentified, unrelated individual because you need something that opposes that comparison. So, for a single source profile, your two scenarios will be the person being compared is contributing to the mixture versus an unidentified, unrelated individual is contributing to the mixture. If it -- or sorry, to the profile for single source. If it is a mixture, then you need to account for the other potential individuals present in that profile. So for a two person mixture, for example, the first scenario will be the person being compared and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributing to the mixture versus two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And so we'll make that same comparison for each person based upon what the DNA profile looks like.
MS. GOUDE: And so this unidentified, unrelated individual, where does that really come from?
SARA ZAPATA: That's just the way that the statistic is calculated. It's not saying that it's not possible for related individuals to be in the mixture, but because we are focusing only on the comparison to that one person, we need something to contrast that to, and we account for that by using that unidentified, unrelated individual wording.
MS. GOUDE: So, is that just kind of built into this formula in the STRmix program?
SARA ZAPATA: Correct.
MS. GOUDE: So, what are some results that you can obtain from your comparisons?
SARA ZAPATA: So, a result in support of the first scenario, which is that the person being compared to the profile is contributing to the profile, the seesaw will tilt in that direction, and we call that an inclusion. If it is tilted far enough in the other direction, we call that an exclusion, saying that the person being compared is not a contributor to the profile under those two scenarios that are being compared. It's possible for the seesaw to just tilt a little bit in either direction. If the DNA in the profile is very low level or very partial, there's just not that much information there to make the comparison, and so it's not tilting in one way or the other very strongly. It is also possible if it's very partial or very little information for the seesaw to just not move at all. It's saying that neither explanation is a better explanation for the DNA profile, and we'll call that uninformative.
MS. GOUDE: And do you set up propositions the same way for each comparison to an item?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. So, first we will say if the item is suitable for comparison, then we will say the number of contributors that we interpret in that profile as, and then we will set up those two scenarios each time. In the cases of items that are being taken off of someone's body, or swabs from their body, we'll call that an intimate item, and so we want to account for the presence of the individual whose body the item was taken off of in that profile. Because it's being removed from their body, we're expecting that profile to be there, and so we can do that in two ways. We'll look at the DNA profile. If their DNA is clearly present in the profile, we will assume them as a contributor. And what that does is put that person on both sides of the seesaw, and so we're only making comparisons now to the DNA that is not that person who we already know is there. It's like someone telling you I know there are two cups of flour in grandma's cookie recipe, so now you're just adjusting the other potential ingredients to see what else is making up that recipe. If their DNA profile is maybe more partial or low level, then we'll run the statistic for that individual first to make sure that it meets our threshold to put them on both sides of the seesaw, and we'll call that a conditioned contributor. It treats it the same way once we've run that standard comparison, and so the propositions will list any individual that has been assumed or conditioned on as a contributor, and then it will have the two opposing scenarios for the other individuals that are being compared to the profile, and then finally the result of that comparison.
MS. GOUDE: So if you had my shirt for testing, you would assume my DNA was on this shirt because you knew I was wearing this shirt.
SARA ZAPATA: Right. I would look at your profile first and visually compare that to the item of evidence. If you are clearly contributing to the mixture, then I will assume you. If maybe you are a lower level contributor but it looks like your DNA profile could be there, then in order to confirm that, I will run your statistic first and then continue on with you on both sides of the seesaw.
MS. GOUDE: All right, and now are there sometimes where you are unable to make comparisons to specific individuals?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. Like we mentioned earlier, if there are individuals that are related and maybe the DNA profile that we're comparing them to is lower level, or there's just not a lot of information there for a lower level contributor, we can't distinguish between them, and so we won't make comparisons in those cases to those individuals.
MS. GOUDE: And I guess before we get started, just kind of going back to DNA in general, what are alleles?
SARA ZAPATA: So, alleles are the results of our testing at a specific location. Like I explained earlier, the final step of the laboratory portion of our analysis is a separation of the DNA into a profile, and the separation is what generates those allele results.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and how many alleles are we dealing with when you're making an analysis with DNA, I guess, if there are more or less, what that can tell you, if that makes sense?
SARA ZAPATA: I'm not sure I know what you're asking.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Well, sometimes there are DNA samples. You mentioned lower or higher levels of DNA there.
SARA ZAPATA: Uh-huh.
MS. GOUDE: Would that affect the alleles that are there?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. So, the alleles are the actual result that we're looking at, the DNA profile that we're looking at. We are evaluating the profile based upon the heights of those alleles. So, the higher the allele, the potential greater contribution of that individual's DNA. The lower level the allele, the less DNA potentially from that individual in that profile.
MS. GOUDE: And if you only have a few alleles to look at, is that very informative in your analysis?
SARA ZAPATA: No. The fewer number of alleles that you have to make comparisons, the less informative the statistic is going to be. So, that's where we have it in that range where it's not tilting greatly in one direction over the other. It's kind of like trying to identify something based off of an eye witness description. If it's very vague, like it was a red sedan, there are many red sedans that could fit that description, so that would be an example of having few alleles. But if you have a more specific description, like it was a red sedan with five bumper stickers and a bedazzled license plate, that's very specific, and so you have more information to make a comparison to that vehicle.
MS. GOUDE: And can unrelated people share the same alleles?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: All right. So, before we get to the results, some of these statistical results are very large numbers. Is that right?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Do you think these two charts here, State's Exhibit 475 and 474, would help demonstrate to the jury what we're talking about?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: State's Exhibit 474 and 475 for demonstrative purposes.
MR. BARBER: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(CHART MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 474 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(CHART MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 475 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MS. GOUDE: All right, did you receive a number of buccal swabs to analyze in this case?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MS. GOUDE: Do you remember how many buccal swabs you may have received?
SARA ZAPATA: I believe there were twenty-four buccal swabs total for -- that I used for comparison.
MS. GOUDE: Maybe twenty-five?
SARA ZAPATA: I would have to count.
(Break in proceedings.)
SARA ZAPATA: There was one that I received but I did not perform analysis on. Maybe that's one that you're --
MS. GOUDE: I'll have you take a look at State's 463. Do you recognize that buccal swab?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: And who was that a buccal swab from?
SARA ZAPATA: It's labeled as buccal swabs from Melvin Tuten. There is our laboratory case number, and item number on the packaging.
MS. GOUDE: And you performed analysis on this buccal swab?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: The State would move 463 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(BUCCAL SWAB MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 463 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MS. GOUDE: Now, you compare standards from these buccal swabs to swabs from items of evidence, or how -- what do we do to analyze all of the stuff?
SARA ZAPATA: So, first we do our interpretation of the evidence. We look at the evidence like I described earlier, make sure that's suitable for comparison, determine the number of contributors to the items. And then if it's an intimate item, we'll make that visual comparison to the individual whose body that item came from first. Then we will use STRmix to calculate the statistics for other individuals for comparison, and then it will be a result in support of one proposition over the other.
MS. GOUDE: And the other individuals for comparison will be any number of the individuals whose buccal swabs were submitted in this case?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: All right. I'm going to have you take a look at State's Exhibit 459. What is -- is State's Exhibit 459 an item that you analyzed?
SARA ZAPATA: 459 are our laboratory Items 7.1 and 10.1.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and what -- can you tell us what that actually is?
SARA ZAPATA: 7.1 were -- was the end back collection from cartridge cases two through seven. And 10.1 were the swabs from the exterior of Items 9 and 10, which were shotgun shells.
MS. GOUDE: And you performed analysis on both of those items?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MS. GOUDE: Can you tell us the results of your analysis on the end back collection from the 300 Blackout cases, your Item 7.1? And I guess instead of just blanketly asking for the results, I'll ask. Based on the comparisons you made when analyzing that item, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. For Item 7.1, the DNA profile was interpreted as single source. And for the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the two scenarios were Margaret Murdaugh contributed the DNA profile versus an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the DNA profile. And the result of that comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 510 billion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh contributed the profile than if an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the profile.
MS. GOUDE: And what does that mean?
SARA ZAPATA: It means that the likelihood ratio is in support of that first scenario of Margaret Murdaugh contributed the profile versus an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the profile.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Let's move on to the next item in that exhibit, State's Exhibit 459, the swabs from the exterior of Items 9 and 10, which were these shotgun shells from the feed room.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay.
MS. GOUDE: Based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: This item was also interpreted as single source, and so the scenarios were set up the same way. The person being compared contributed the profile versus an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the profile.
MS. GOUDE: And that means there's one person contributing.
SARA ZAPATA: Correct. For Paul Murdaugh, the result of the comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 15 octillion times more likely if Paul Murdaugh contributed the profile than if an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the profile.
MS. GOUDE: And what does that mean?
SARA ZAPATA: Just like earlier, it's in support of that first proposition set. The DNA profile is approximately 15 octillion times more likely if Paul Murdaugh contributed the profile than if an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the profile.
MS. GOUDE: Let's move on to Exhibit 18, which are swabs from the feed room door. Did you analyze those items, State's Exhibit 18?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did. Item 17, you can see our laboratory number, and then my initials on the seal, and the date.
MS. GOUDE: And those are swabs from the feed room door.
SARA ZAPATA: It's labeled as swabs from exterior doorknob of storage room door.
MS. GOUDE: All right, and based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 17, the comparison with Paul Murdaugh. The DNA profile was again interpreted as single source, so we're setting up the propositions in that same way. The result is the DNA profile is approximately 15 octillion times more likely if Paul Murdaugh contributed the profile than if an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed the profile.
MS. GOUDE: Fifteen octillion times more likely. And octillion has twenty-seven zeros.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: So, that's a pretty high statistical number there.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Let's move on to Exhibit 256, which I cannot seem to locate.
MS. GOUDE: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: Did you analyze Item 256, which would be your Items 15 and 16, swabs of blood from the camo Benelli?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. Item 15 --
MR. BARBER: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The nature of the objection?
MR. BARBER: Foundation. She described in her question of swabs of the blood. That was never established.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Response?
MS. GOUDE: Your Honor, item -- Exhibit 256, Items 15 and 16, have been admitted into evidence, even though I can't put my hands on them at the moment, and they were described as two swabs of suspected blood from the receiver forward of the loading port from camo Benelli Super Black Eagle 3, 12 gauge shotgun.
MR. BARBER: Your Honor, there will be no objection if it -- the question is rephrased to say suspected blood.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. If you'll restate the question, please.
MS. GOUDE: Agent Zapata, I believe I misspoke, and this would be State's Exhibit 259.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And what is the question?
MS. GOUDE: And what is that item?
SARA ZAPATA: 259 contains SLED Items 15 and 16, which were swabs from the camo Benelli 12 gauge shotgun.
MS. GOUDE: Did you analyze those items?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MS. GOUDE: Based on your comparisons that you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: For which item?
MS. GOUDE: Let's start with Item 15.
SARA ZAPATA: Item 15 was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. So, for this comparison we have the person being compared to the DNA profile and an unidentified, unrelated individual as the first scenario. And then the second scenario is two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Maggie Murdaugh, the result is the DNA profile is approximately 670 octillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the result is -- I'm sorry -- the DNA profile is approximately 10 quintillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And so now because we have a mixture where more than one person has been included as a contributor, we ran the statistic for those individuals together to make sure that the DNA profile can be explained by a contribution of DNA from all of those individuals together. So, the comparisons would now be Margaret Murdaugh and Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed to the mixture versus two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And the result of that comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 48 quindecillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed to the profile than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the profile.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. So, we have three different, I guess, scenarios there?
SARA ZAPATA: Three different comparisons being made.
MS. GOUDE: And is any one of those comparisons more likely than the other?
SARA ZAPATA: How do you mean?
MS. GOUDE: Well, can you pick out one of those comparisons as being more likely than the other comparisons?
SARA ZAPATA: Each of those comparisons the individuals who were being compared were included as contributors to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Let's talk about Item 16, which is also a swab of suspected blood from the camo Benelli.
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 16, the partial DNA profile developed was insufficient for interpretation.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Let's move on to Exhibit 398. If you'll take a look at 398.
SARA ZAPATA: 398 contains our SLED lab numbers 22.4 and 22.5.
MS. GOUDE: So, Item 22.4 is a reddish/brown debris swabbed from the right side of the receiver belonging to Item 22?
SARA ZAPATA: Correct.
MS. GOUDE: This is State's 22. Based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included on that Item 22.4?
SARA ZAPATA: 22.4, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. For the comparison with Margaret Murdaugh, the result was the DNA profile is approximately 480 octillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And what does that mean?
SARA ZAPATA: The result is in support of that first scenario of Margaret Murdaugh being included as a contributor to the mixture. The likelihood ratio is 480 octillion times more -- the DNA profile is approximately 480 octillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And then the next item, 22.5, is also a swab from that same shotgun from the left side?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: Item 22.5, the DNA profile, was also entered as a mixture of two individuals. For the comparison with Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 570 octillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: 570 octillion times more likely that Margaret Murdaugh contributed to that mixture.
SARA ZAPATA: The DNA profile is approximately 570 octillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And now this unidentified, unrelated individual is popping up. And what does that mean again?
SARA ZAPATA: It's just the way that we make our calculation. We have to account for an opposing scenario to the person being compared. And then when there is a mixture, we need to account for the other individuals in that mixture when we're making our comparison, and so we use an unidentified, unrelated individual.
MS. GOUDE: Did you analyze some swabs from Paul Murdaugh's cell phone? I believe that would be your Item 25.1.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and what were the results of your analysis there?
SARA ZAPATA: A partial DNA profile was developed. Due to the limited information obtained and the inability to determine the number of contributors, no further interpretation will be offered.
MS. GOUDE: Then State's Exhibit 83 is some swabs from a Chevy Suburban. If you could focus on your Item 56, the two swabs of suspected blood collected from the steering wheel.
(Break in proceedings.)
SARA ZAPATA: You said 56?
MS. GOUDE: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay. I have 56.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and you analyzed Item 56?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MS. GOUDE: Swabs of blood collected from the steering wheel.
SARA ZAPATA: They were submitted as two swabs of suspected blood collected from the steering wheel of the Chevy Suburban.
MS. GOUDE: And based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 56, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the result is the DNA profile is approximately 35 times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the result is the DNA profile is approximately 100 quadrillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And then just like before, because we have two individuals who were included individually as contributors to the mixture, we have to run the comparison of them together to make sure that the DNA profile can be explained by a contribution of DNA from all of those individuals.
So for that comparison, the DNA profile is approximately 240 quintillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. There's also a statement that because that first comparison to Margaret Murdaugh had a likelihood ratio result that is on the lower end of our scale, we want to put more emphasis on that result when comparing her as a contributor to the mixture. So, the likelihood ratio for proposition set three, which was that comparison together, was calculated to confirm that the mixture could be explained by the contribution of DNA from all individuals listed under HP, which is that first scenario. Due to the disparity and the individual likelihood ratios between the contributors for this item, it is recommended to put more weight with on the results, or proposition set one, which was that comparison of Margaret Murdaugh individually, rather than the results, or proposition set three, which is the comparison of them together when considering Margaret Murdaugh as a possible contributor to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Agent Zapata, this stuff is kind of confusing already, but I think that just got worse. So, I guess if you could kind of simplify that a little bit for us.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. So, think about like two people singing the same song. If one person is singing really quietly and another person is singing loudly, when they're singing together it will sound really loud because that one person is already singing loudly by themselves, but that doesn't mean that the person who was singing quietly is suddenly singing very loudly, so we're trying to account for the difference in the weight of the result. And so it's just more accurate when considering that person who is a lower level, or has a lower likelihood ratio, to consider their individual likelihood ratio rather than combined ratio.
MS. GOUDE: So, what -- based on all of that, what is the most likely?
SARA ZAPATA: It's not really that it's like a more likely scenario over another. It's just the result of that comparison that's being made.
MS. GOUDE: So, just take into all of that interaction.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Let's move on to Exhibit 251, which was the left and right fingernails from Maggie Murdaugh. If you would, take a look at Exhibit 251. Did you analyze those items? I believe Item 70 is the left fingernail clippings from Maggie Murdaugh.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, and 71 is the right fingernail clippings from Margaret Murdaugh.
MS. GOUDE: Well, let's talk about the left fingernail clippings first. What were the results of your analysis?
SARA ZAPATA: Are you looking for all of the individuals who were -- who were compared?
MS. GOUDE: Yes, the results, the entire results.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay. For Item 70, a DNA profile suitable for comparison was developed. Several individuals were visually excluded from the profile first. Paul Murdaugh, Anthony Cook, Roger Davis, Rogan Gibson, Connor Cook, Phillip Beach, Renee Beach, Robin Beach, John Murdaugh, Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Jr., or Buster, Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Randy Murdaugh, Miley Altman, and Morgan Dowdy are excluded as contributors.
MS. GOUDE: Excluded.
SARA ZAPATA: Excluded as contributors. For the proposition set, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. Because these are Margaret Murdaugh's own fingernail clippings, she is assumed as a contributor. So, the two scenarios are Margaret Murdaugh, and in this case the comparison was made to Claude C.B. Rowe using the STRmix software. So, that first scenario is Margaret Murdaugh and Claude C.B. Rowe contributed to the mixture. And the second scenario is Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Now, why was Claude C.B. Rowe included in this comparison?
SARA ZAPATA: So, the other individuals I was able to visually exclude, which just means by looking at the DNA profile and comparing it to their standard, I could exclude them as a contributor. If an individual happens to have the alleles that -- or if an individual cannot be visually excluded -- so, I cannot say from looking at their DNA profile and comparing it to the evidence that they're excluded, then I will run the statistic to compare them to that profile, and so that's why that comparison was made. The result of the comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 11 times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to mixture than if Margaret Murdaugh and Claude C.B. Rowe contributed to the mixture. So, this is a result in support of that second scenario. It was not the first scenario like the others that we've been discussing.
MS. GOUDE: So, how much DNA were you looking at in this sample?
SARA ZAPATA: Are you asking, like, DNA that was not attributable to Margaret?
MS. GOUDE: Well, I guess -- was there a small amount of DNA or a large amount of DNA under those left fingernail clippings?
SARA ZAPATA: There was not a lot -- there were not many alleles that were not attributable to Margaret in the profile.
MS. GOUDE: So, let's talk a little bit and explain about those alleles there when you were doing your testing.
SARA ZAPATA: Yeah. Like I explained earlier, the alleles are the results of our test, and they will appear on -- in the profile that we're looking at, and they will be different at proportions based upon roughly how much DNA is present from the different possible contributors. So in this case, because they were Margaret Murdaugh's own fingernail clippings, her DNA is present in the profile at a higher level. And then we are looking at only a few alleles that were not her own alleles to make the comparison to the other individuals.
MS. GOUDE: So, was it three alleles?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, that were not Margaret Murdaugh's alleles.
MS. GOUDE: And those three alleles could be C.B. Rowe's alleles?
SARA ZAPATA: I could not visually exclude him, which just means when looking at his profile and comparing it to those other alleles, he did have those alleles but at a very low level of DNA that's being compared to, to him. And the result was in support of that second scenario, which was Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And this courtroom here is full of people. Could anybody in this courtroom have those same three alleles present in that testing?
SARA ZAPATA: It's possible.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Let's move on.
MS. GOUDE: Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: And let's put this other chart we have here on the screen. And the results concerning C.B. Rowe, was that moderate support for exclusion on his results?
SARA ZAPATA: So, what you're looking at is a scale. It's representative of a verbal scale that we have on our reports, and it's showing the different ranges for the likelihood ratio results we can obtain. So, on one side you have the likelihood ratios that are in support of that first proposition, or that first scenario. And you -- on the other side you have the scale for the results that are in support of that second proposition. So, here it -- the range is 2 to 99 for moderate support for that second proposition, and his result is an 11 --
MS. GOUDE: Okay.
SARA ZAPATA: -- which falls within that 2 to 99 range.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and then the other result with just Margaret Murdaugh?
SARA ZAPATA: For Margaret Murdaugh, because it's her own fingernail clippings, we're not calculating a statistic. We're assuming her as a contributor.
MS. GOUDE: And you also analyzed the fingernail clippings form her right hand.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: And those are there as well. What were the results of your analysis there?
SARA ZAPATA: The DNA profile developed is attributable to Margaret Murdaugh.
MS. GOUDE: And then State's Exhibit 252 is fingernail clippings from right and left hands of Paul Murdaugh. If you could, tell us any results from your analysis of Paul's fingernail clippings.
SARA ZAPATA: For both Items 72 and 73, the result was the DNA profile developed is attributable to Paul Murdaugh.
MS. GOUDE: Now, you also analyzed Alex Murdaugh's shirt, which is State's Exhibit 418, your Item 9. And did you analyze Paul Murdaugh -- or excuse me, the defendant, Alex Murdaugh's, pants as well?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. I received cuttings from both Item 19, which was the white shirt from Richard Murdaugh, and then Item 20, which was a pair of green shorts from the Richard Murdaugh.
MS. GOUDE: And are the cuttings from the shirt and the shorts in those two exhibits up there, State's 460 and 461?
SARA ZAPATA: This appears to be all of them. I can take them out and check if you would like for me to.
MS. GOUDE: I believe that should be all. And there were quite a few cuttings that you analyzed.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: So, unfortunately we're going to have to go through all of those -- the analysis of all of those cuttings. So, let's start with the shirt and Exhibit 460, Item 19.2, a cutting from the exterior front edge of Alex Murdaugh's shirt, the defendant. Based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: For 19.2, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. For the comparison with Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 460 octillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Item 19.3, the cutting from the exterior back bottom center of the defendant's shirt.
SARA ZAPATA: For 19.3, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. For this item, I was able to assume Richard Alexander Murdaugh as a contributor. So, the propositions, or the scenarios that we're comparing are Richard Alexander Murdaugh and the person being compared versus Richard Alexander and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 360 quadrillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Maggie Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Item 19.4?
SARA ZAPATA: For 19.4, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. And this was a situation where I had to first calculate the statistic for Richard Alexander Murdaugh to see if there was enough DNA to condition on him as the contributor. So, for that comparison, the DNA profile is approximately 120 quadrillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And then moving forward with the other comparisons, I can say that Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture, and just like before, we have Richard Alexander Murdaugh and the person being compared contributing to the mixture versus Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Paul Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 7 octillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And does that complete your analysis of that item?
SARA ZAPATA: On 19.4?
MS. GOUDE: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: I think that was the only one where there was inclusionary likelihood ratios, yes.
MS. GOUDE: Let's move on to the 19.5, the cutting from Stain B on the shirt. If you could, tell us about any inclusions.
SARA ZAPATA: This item was also interpreted. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals, and I was able to assume Richard Alexander Murdaugh as a contributor. For the comparison to Maggie Murdaugh, the result is the DNA profile is approximately 3,800 times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Margaret Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Moving on to item 19.6, Stain C on the shirt.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay.
MS. GOUDE: If you could, tell us about any individuals that were included there.
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 19.6, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. I was able to assume Richard Alexander Murdaugh as a contributor to the mixture. And so now we are comparing Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the individual being compared to the mixture, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture versus Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Maggie Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 570 octillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Maggie Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And does that include your -- the results of inclusion for that item?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. Item 19.7, cutting from Stain D. For Item 19.7, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from four individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture, so I was able to assume him. And so the comparison in this case will be Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the person being compared to the mixture, and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture versus Richard Alexander Murdaugh and three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Maggie Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 1.9 quadrillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Maggie Murdaugh, and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. I also made a comparison to Nolen Tuten. The DNA profile is approximately 480 septillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Nolen Tuten, and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And, again, why was Nolen Tuten included in the comparison?
SARA ZAPATA: When looking at the evidence DNA profile, I was not able to visually exclude Nolen Tuten as a potential contributor to the mixture, and so I ran his likelihood ratio for comparison to that item. And then similarly to the other items where if an individual is included when you run their likelihood ratio on their own, I also had to do the calculation for all of those individuals together to make sure that the DNA profile can be explained by a contribution of all of those individuals. So, for that comparison, the DNA profile is approximately 450 duodecillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, Nolen Tuten, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. Item 19.8, a cutting from another stain on the shirt, Stain E. And if you could, just give us any individuals that were included in your results, please.
SARA ZAPATA: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Maggie Murdaugh, the result is the DNA profile is approximately 590 million times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Maggie Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified related individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: 19.9, Stain F.
SARA ZAPATA: For item 19.9, a DNA profile was developed. Due to the inability to determine the number of contributors, no further interpretation will be offered.
MS. GOUDE: Item 19.10?
SARA ZAPATA: For item 19.10, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 430 octillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Item 19.11, which is the cutting from Stain H. If you could explain any individuals who were included in your analysis.
SARA ZAPATA: So for Item 19.11, the only individual who had an inclusionary likelihood ratio -- well, first the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Hipolito Torres, the DNA profile is approximately 10 times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Hipolito Torres contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: So with Mr. Torres, I guess if we could look back at this chart -- and tell us where he would fall along there.
SARA ZAPATA: The likelihood ratio for his comparison under those propositions was 10, which falls under our weak support for that first scenario.
MS. GOUDE: So, would that be trending towards exclusion?
SARA ZAPATA: It's on -- it's in support of that first scenario on this side, the green side of the scale. But it's 10, the -- so, that very first arrow indicates weak support for that scenario. The range is 2 to 99.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. So --
SARA ZAPATA: And his likelihood ratio when compared to the DNA profile. The DNA profile is approximately 10 times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Hipolito Torres contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And I don't want you to repeat -- to repeat that same thing again, but could you kind of, I guess, clarify what that means?
SARA ZAPATA: When making my comparison to the evidence DNA profile, I was not able to visually exclude Hipolito Torres as a possible contributor to the mixture, and so I ran the statistic for his comparison, and the result of that comparison is in support of the first scenario. The DNA profile is approximately 10 times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Hipolito Torres contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture. So, it's just tilting that seesaw 10 in that direction.
MS. GOUDE: Okay. We have two cuttings left from the shirt. Item 19.12 is a cutting from Stain I. Based on the comparisons you made, were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: 19.12, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 1.3 nonillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Margaret Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And then Item 19.13, a cutting from Stain J of the defendant's shirt.
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 19.13, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 1.5 sextillion times more likely if Maggie Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. So, this is one where I was not able to assume Richard Alexander Murdaugh as a contributor, so I am comparing each person individually. For the comparison to Paul Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 24 quintillion times more likely if Paul Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
For the comparison to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 29 times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And like before, because there are multiple individuals who were included as contributors when compared individually, I have to calculate the statistic for them together. For that comparison, the DNA profile is approximately 260 quindecillion times more likely if Maggie Murdaugh, Paul Murdaugh, and Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And similarly to that other item where there was an individual with a lower likelihood ratio, there is that statement about the recommendation to put more weight on the results of proposition set three, which was the comparison to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, rather than the results of proposition set four when considering Richard Alexander Murdaugh as a possible contributor to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: So in addition to this shirt being analyzed for DNA, Agent Nugyen told the jury a little bit about it being tested for blood. Can you explain what you did to test this shirt for the presence of blood?
SARA ZAPATA: I was asked to perform a hematrace test on the cuttings from the shirt. As Ms. Nugyen described, it's our confirmatory test for blood, it works similarly to a pregnancy test or a Covid test. One line in the control area is a negative result. A line in the control area and the test area would be a positive result.
MS. GOUDE: And that is testing with hematrace?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: And what were the results of the hematrace testing on all of the items that you just discussed to the jury?
SARA ZAPATA: For items 19.2 through 19.13, the result was no human blood identified.
MS. GOUDE: And what could -- what could -- could you explain that to us? We had presumptive testing for blood and then some other testing and then the hematrace, which says there was no blood. So, what does that mean?
SARA ZAPATA: So, presumptive tests are sensitive but not very specific. Like discussed earlier, there are possible false positives for presumptive tests. If we're requested to, we can perform a confirmatory test, which is more specific but is less sensitive.
MS. GOUDE: So in your opinion, if there was blood on that shirt, could testing such as with LCV have diluted any blood on the shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: I am aware of some studies that have been performed on hematrace testing after LCV that suggests that there is a possible interaction with the LCV and the hematrace test, and it is possible for there to be amounts of hemoglobin that would not be detected by the test that would give a negative result. But the results of my testing were negative.
MS. GOUDE: And as we've discussed, testing for blood and testing for DNA is different.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: All right. You also tested the defendant's pants.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Did you test those in a similar manner to the way you would test the cuttings from the shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: You mean for DNA?
MS. GOUDE: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: That was State's Exhibit 418, the defendant's pants, and the cuttings, items -- or excuse me, Exhibits 460 and 461. Your Item 20.2.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay.
MS. GOUDE: So, I guess as briefly as we can, let's discuss some of the results from the cuttings from those pants. Item 20.2 is a cutting from the front left interior pocket of the defendant's pants. Were any individuals included?
SARA ZAPATA: So for item 20.2, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. This was one where I calculated his likelihood ratio to see if I could condition on him as a contributor. So, the result of that comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 140 quadrillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And so then for the comparisons to the other individuals, Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. And the scenarios are Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the person being compared, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture versus Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
For the comparison to Maggie Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 5.1 sextillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Paul Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 25 quintillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Paul Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And for the comparison of all of those individuals together, the DNA profile is approximately 2 quindecillion times more likely in Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and Paul Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: The next cutting is Item 20.3, a cutting from Stain A on the defendant's pants.
SARA ZAPATA: For 20.3, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 94 septillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: All right. 20.4, cutting from Stain G from the defendant's pants, if you could tell us if any individuals were included in that analysis.
SARA ZAPATA: For 20.4, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 24 sextillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: Was that the only comparison for that item?
SARA ZAPATA: That was the only --
MS. GOUDE: Inclusion?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, for that item.
MS. GOUDE: Let's move to the next one. I think that will be 20.5, the cutting from Stain C from the defendant's pants. If you would, please tell us if any individuals were included.
SARA ZAPATA: For 20.5, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparison to Paul Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 4.1 septillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: And I think we have three left. Item 20.6, cutting from Stain D in the defendant's pants.
SARA ZAPATA: The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. This was one where I was not able to assume Richard Alexander Murdaugh as a contributor, so I'm making the comparisons to each person individually.
MS. GOUDE: And you can't assume him why?
SARA ZAPATA: When making that comparison, it seems that his DNA may be present but at a low level, so I cannot assume him as a contributor. So, I would run his likelihood ratio to see if I could condition, but in this case it was not high enough to meet our threshold to condition. So, I'm just comparing him to the profile like every other individual. For the comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 930 quintillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual -- I'm sorry. The DNA profile is approximately 930 quintillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
For the comparison to Paul Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 38 quintillion times more likely if Paul Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 190 times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And then we're calculating the statistic for all of those individuals together. The DNA profile is approximately 8.7 quindecillion times more likely if Margaret Murdaugh, Paul Murdaugh, and Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And there is that same statement about putting more weight on the individual likelihood ratio for Richard Alexander Murdaugh when considering him as a contributor rather than the combined.
MS. GOUDE: Item 20.7. Hopefully that should be an easy one.
SARA ZAPATA: For 20.7, a DNA was developed. Due to the inability to determine the number of contributors, no further interpretation will be offered.
MS. GOUDE: And then lastly Item 20.8, a cutting from Stain F of defendant's pants.
SARA ZAPATA: For 20.8, the DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture originating from three individuals. I calculated the likelihood ratio for Richard Alexander Murdaugh to see if it met our threshold to condition on him as a contributor. The result for his comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 320 million times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture than if three unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And then we're making comparisons to the other individuals. I'm including him as a contributor. So, Richard Alexander Murdaugh is contributing to the mixture. For the comparisons -- comparison to Margaret Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 2.6 sextillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. For the comparison to Paul Murdaugh, the DNA profile is approximately 17 quintillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Paul Murdaugh, and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And then once again, we're calculating the likelihood of all of those individuals contributing to the mixture together. The DNA profile is approximately 93 quattuordecillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Margaret Murdaugh, and Paul Murdaugh contributed to the mixture than if Richard Alexander Murdaugh and two unidentified, unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture.
MS. GOUDE: All right. Now, as far as the shorts or the defendant's pants go, did you do any confirmatory testing on those with hematrace?
SARA ZAPATA: No, I did not.
MS. GOUDE: Exhibit 419 is the defendant's shoes, which is Item 21. And Exhibit 460, I believe, is up here in some of this -- it's Exhibit 460. Can you tell us what is contained -- if a cutting from the left shoe lace of the defendant's shoes is contained in that exhibit?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. 21.2 is part of this container.
MS. GOUDE: And did you analyze a cutting from that shoe lace?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and were any individuals included in your results there?
SARA ZAPATA: The DNA profile was interpreted as single source. For the comparison to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, the result is the DNA profile is approximately 410 septillion times more likely if Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed the profile than if an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the profile.
MS. GOUDE: And did you also get some swabs from a raincoat?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MS. GOUDE: That would be State's Exhibit 462, two swabs from a blue raincoat, your Items 173.2 and 173.3?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Did you analyze those items?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MS. GOUDE: Item 173.2 from the raincoat appears to be swabs from the interior cuffs, collar, hood, and interior zipper areas, and zipper pull of the blue raincoat. Could you tell us the results of your analysis of that item or swab?
SARA ZAPATA: No -- sorry. No DNA profile was developed.
MS. GOUDE: And then Item 173.3, swabs from the side opening zipper area in both interior portions of exterior pocket of blue raincoat.
SARA ZAPATA: A partial DNA profile was developed. Due to the limited information obtained and the inability to determine the number of contributors, no further interpretation will be offered.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, Agent Zapata, thank you so much for going through all of that with us. We have no further questions for you at this time.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we'll break for lunch now and resume at 2:30.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, ma'am, you may step down. Please do not discuss your testimony with anyone over lunch.
SARA ZAPATA: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And we're in recess until 2:30.
(A lunch break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Are we ready for the jury?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. Very quickly, one thing before we get started. I just wanted to alert the Court that after this witness, our next witness will be the pathologist. So, obviously I wanted to make the Court aware and the defense aware, which they are aware, and the gallery aware of the graphic and sensitive nature of that testimony. Additionally, obviously all of these exhibits will be under seal, and I would request they be under seal to protect those particular images because of their graphic nature.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And, Your Honor, it's -- I mean, they're extraordinarily graphic. So, both Mr. Waters and I are concerned that -- no display more than anything. We're going to cover our monitors, but we need to make sure no monitor is visible to the public, so we're concerned about it. It's the kind of thing you don't want to see replicated somewhere else.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: That will be it, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. Very good.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Very good, thank you. Cross-examination.
MR. BARBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBER:
MR. BARBER: Good afternoon, Agent Zapata.
SARA ZAPATA: Good afternoon.
MR. BARBER: We've gone through a pretty long list of things that you did analysis on. Did you do any analysis on any clothing or anything from the victims' bodies other than Maggie Murdaugh's fingernail clippings?
SARA ZAPATA: I analyzed Margaret Murdaugh's fingernail clippings, Paul Murdaugh's fingernail clippings, as well as their buccal swabs.
MR. BARBER: And when you say their buccal swabs, that was simply to collect their DNA for analysis. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: That was the known standard that I used to make comparisons, yes.
MR. BARBER: And under Maggie Murdaugh's left fingernail clippings, did you -- you found unidentified male DNA?
SARA ZAPATA: Foreign to Margaret Murdaugh. There were some alleles present, yes.
MR. BARBER: Well, when we say some alleles present, was there DNA from an unrelated male under her fingernails?
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 70, yes. One of the alleles indicates a male contributor.
MR. BARBER: And this was an unrelated male.
SARA ZAPATA: For -- do you mean unrelated as in unrelated like --
MR. BARBER: Well, let me strike that and rephrase. Were Paul and Alex Murdaugh excluded as contributors?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: So, male DNA under her fingernails, not from Paul, not from Alex Murdaugh.
SARA ZAPATA: The foreign DNA to her, yes, they were excluded as contributors.
MR. BARBER: Would it have been possible to perform any further analysis on this, a Y chromosome profile?
SARA ZAPATA: It is possible, but because there were so many male individuals who were related to each other as standards that were submitted, it was decided that that would not be the best course of action to continue analysis because the male -- the Y chromosome testing that you were discussing is inherited along the males of the familial line, and so there would be no way to distinguish between any related people, any related males.
MR. BARBER: I guess making this determination, were you all aware from previous testimony that Maggie Murdaugh had been to a nail salon late that afternoon?
SARA ZAPATA: I did not have any information about that, no.
MR. BARBER: So if her nails were quite clean coming to Moselle, she doesn't have a lot of opportunity to have contact with --
MS. GOUDE: Objection. Counsel is testifying.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Overrule the objection.
MR. BARBER: So if her nails were clean coming to Moselle, it doesn't appear she has much opportunity to have that kind contact with unrelated males, does it?
SARA ZAPATA: It could be DNA -- you know, DNA under fingernails, you're picking up DNA any time you touch an item potentially. If she did get her nails done, it's possible that somewhere at the nail salon there was DNA that she picked up under her fingernails. We can't really tell you how or when the DNA got there, but at any point in time between getting her nails done and arriving home, she could touch an object and potentially DNA from the object could be under her fingernails, or she can touch an individual and no DNA be under her fingernails in that way.
MR. BARBER: Are you familiar with something called CODIS?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And what is CODIS?
SARA ZAPATA: CODIS is a database that we use to enter unknown profiles from a crime to attempt to identify links between different cases, and also between individuals who may have been arrested or convicted of a crime.
MR. BARBER: So, it's a database that you can submit DNA samples to and see if you get a hit and you can identify whose DNA it is.
SARA ZAPATA: Correct.
MR. BARBER: Was this unidentified, unknown male DNA found under Maggie Murdaugh's fingernails submitted to CODIS?
SARA ZAPATA: It was not. Because like we explained earlier, there were only three alleles present that were foreign to her, and that does not meet the threshold of information necessary to enter a profile into CODIS.
MR. BARBER: And it was decided not to do this further Y chromosome analysis on it?
SARA ZAPATA: Correct.
MR. BARBER: Is it unusual in your experience to not test victim's clothing for DNA?
SARA ZAPATA: It depends on the situation of the case.
MR. BARBER: A situation where an unknown person has killed two people in close -- in close, pointblank shootings?
SARA ZAPATA: It would depend on the question that you're trying to answer when you are processing the clothing. Typically victims of gunshot wounds, their clothing will be saturated in their blood, or there will be lots of their blood present. And so the if you're looking for touch DNA from maybe an individual, you would need to know the specific area of interest to attempt to gather that touch DNA from because the potential blood from the victims would be on the clothing, so we need to be able to isolate a specific area. If that information is not known, then there is not very much that we can do with that clothing because there's just no specified area for us to test.
MR. BARBER: What about their hands? Wouldn't their hands always been an area of interest?
SARA ZAPATA: Again, it depends. If there is evidence of a struggle, then perhaps, which is why we would take the fingernail clippings. If you don't know, then sometimes you take the fingernail clippings just to see if we can get some DNA from the fingernail clippings. But --
MR. BARBER: And the one time in that -- the one time something was taken from them, it revealed unknown, unidentified -- or male DNA.
SARA ZAPATA: A very partial low level profile foreign to Margaret.
MR. BARBER: And you found Maggie Murdaugh's DNA on the 300 Blackout shell casings that were recovered. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Are you referring to Item 7.1?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: She was included as a contributor to that item, yes.
MR. BARBER: And your report doesn't separate between individual shell casings, does it?
SARA ZAPATA: No.
MR. BARBER: Is your report consistent with one of those shell casings being found in physical contact with her body?
SARA ZAPATA: I believe there was information from the crime scene that one of the shell casings was recovered from underneath her body.
MR. BARBER: And is your report consistent with that, that DNA could be transferred by physical contact?
SARA ZAPATA: That's possible, yes.
MR. BARBER: And for the shotshells found in the feed room that had a presumptive blood test positive, you found Paul's DNA on those. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Paul was included as a contributor to that item, yes, 10.1.
MR. BARBER: And is that consistent with those being found in a room soaked with his blood?
SARA ZAPATA: It would not be unexpected.
MR. BARBER: And for the steering wheel of the Chevy Suburban, there was a positive human blood test, and I believe you found Maggie and Alex Murdaugh's DNA on the steering wheel.
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 56?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 56, which was a mixture, was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals. Both Margaret and Richard Alexander Murdaugh were included as contributors.
MR. BARBER: So, yes.
SARA ZAPATA: They were included as contributors.
MR. BARBER: And is that consistent with someone who has handled Margaret Murdaugh's deceased body, which is unfortunately covered in blood, and then driving the vehicle?
SARA ZAPATA: I can't ever tell you exactly how the DNA was deposited onto an item. I can just tell you what the DNA profile is --
MR. BARBER: And I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking is it consistent. Is there anything in your report that would exclude that explanation?
SARA ZAPATA: It's a possibility.
MR. BARBER: And for the two shotguns, neither one of those had Paul's DNA. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Can you give me an item number, please?
MR. BARBER: I can. Sorry, just a second.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: The first one is Item 15.
SARA ZAPATA: Item 15 were swabs from the camo Benelli 12 Gauge Shotgun from receiver forward of the loading port, and Paul Murdaugh was excluded as a contributor to that item.
MR. BARBER: And the other shotgun was Item 22?
SARA ZAPATA: For 22.4, which was interpreted as a mixture originating from two individuals, Paul Murdaugh was excluded as a contributor. For Item 22.5, due to the relatedness of the contributors, I was not able to offer a conclusion regarding Paul Murdaugh. So, that's a situation that we talked about earlier where sometimes if there's a small amount of DNA present, we cannot distinguish between related individuals, and so I was not able to make any comparisons to Paul to that item.
MR. BARBER: So, you were not able to say for either one of those shotguns that Paul's DNA was detected.
SARA ZAPATA: He was excluded as a contributor for 22.4. For 22.5 I couldn't make any comparisons to him either way.
MR. BARBER: And again, is there anything in your test results that would be inconsistent with somebody who -- with Alex Murdaugh having Maggie Murdaugh's bloods on his hands having just visited the crime scene and handling those two weapons?
SARA ZAPATA: Again, I can't really say how the DNA was deposited onto an item.
MR. BARBER: And then later you did some DNA testing on the white t-shirt he was wearing, correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Did anyone ever tell you why you were being asked to perform those tests?
SARA ZAPATA: Which tests do you mean?
MR. BARBER: On his white t-shirt.
SARA ZAPATA: The DNA analysis on the t-shirt?
MR. BARBER: The DNA. The DNA.
SARA ZAPATA: It was submitted with a request to -- for DNA for blood, and so when items come in with a request for DNA blood, we will test it. If it is presumptive positive, then we'll move forward with DNA analysis on that item.
MR. BARBER: So, did anyone say we believe he's wearing the shirt that night? Is that why you're testing it for blood is to see if that -- right? Someone is asking you to do this work. Did anyone say we think he was wearing this shirt that night during these murders, let's test it for DNA and for blood?
SARA ZAPATA: I know that the shirt was removed from his body when it was collected. As far as when he was wearing the shirt, I don't have any information about that.
MR. BARBER: Pull up what's been previously admitted as Defense Exhibit 32.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: Okay. You recognize this, correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And this shows -- this shows where the cuttings were made from the shirt, like the A, B, C, D, E.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Okay, and just kind of going through very quickly, cutting A down here on the bottom, did you find Maggie or Paul's DNA on cutting A?
SARA ZAPATA: Cutting A. Is that Item 19.4?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: For 19.4, Margaret Murdaugh was excluded as a contributor and Paul Murdaugh -- Paul Murdaugh was included as a contributor.
MR. BARBER: So we have Paul in A. In B, did you find Maggie or Paul?
SARA ZAPATA: For item 19.5, Paul was excluded as a contributor, and Margaret Murdaugh was included as a contributor.
MR. BARBER: And for C, which is going up a bit -- so, now we're off of the bottom of the shirt. Did you find Maggie or Paul?
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 19.6, again, I was not able to make any comparisons to Paul due to the relatedness of the contributors. But Margaret was included as a contributor to that mixture.
MR. BARBER: Okay. For cutting D, now we're up at the right shoulder, did you find Maggie or Paul there?
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 19.7, I could not make any comparisons to Paul due to the relatedness of the contributors. And Margaret was included as a contributor to the mixture.
MR. BARBER: And did you also find Nolen Tuten in D?
SARA ZAPATA: He was also included as a contributor to the mixture.
MR. BARBER: Going over to the other shoulder, did you find Maggie or Paul in E?
SARA ZAPATA: For 19.8, Paul Murdaugh was excluded as a contributor, and Margaret Murdaugh was included as a contributor to the mixture.
MR. BARBER: Okay. So, no Paul but Maggie there. Now, coming down all of the way to the bottom, G, did you find Maggie or Paul there?
SARA ZAPATA: Paul was excluded as a contributor to the mixture.
MR. BARBER: Now, finally for both F and H up here, did you get any results for either one of those?
SARA ZAPATA: For 19.10, Margaret was also included as a contributor -- sorry -- just to finish that result.
MR. BARBER: Sorry. Sorry.
SARA ZAPATA: You were asking about --
MR. BARBER: F and H. Did you get any results for either one of those?
SARA ZAPATA: For F, which was our Item 19.9, a DNA profile was developed, but due to the inability to determine the number of contributors, no further interpretation will be offered. For H, which is our Item 19.11, Paul was excluded as a contributor. And for Margaret, the comparison to Margaret, an uninformative statistical result was obtained. No conclusion can be made regarding Margaret Murdaugh as a possible contributor to the mixture under the list of propositions, which in this case the propositions were Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Margaret Murdaugh contributed to the mixture versus Richard Alexander Murdaugh and an unidentified, unrelated individual contributed to the mixture. And that's a situation I described earlier where the seesaw is balanced so it can't tell me in either direction which scenario is a better explanation of the DNA profile.
MR. BARBER: So, the only part of the mixture that we see right here, the front, where you can say that you did find Paul's DNA is down here at A, the bottom right part of the shirt, correct?
(Break in proceedings.)
SARA ZAPATA: For Item A, I did have an inclusionary likelihood ratio for Paul. For several of the other stains, I could not distinguish between him and other related individuals, so I could not make comparisons to him.
MR. BARBER: But the only place you definitely did find Paul was A, is that correct, on the front of the shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: That was the only item where there was an inclusionary likelihood ratio for Paul.
MR. BARBER: Do you remember when you did these -- when you reported these DNA results? Do you know the date?
SARA ZAPATA: Are you asking specifically for the --
MR. BARBER: Yeah. The date that you reported the results for the shirt for DNA.
SARA ZAPATA: For the shirt? There were two reports that had the shirt because there were two times that it was processed originally. The first report, which had the results for item 19.2, was June 25, 2021. And then the second report was originally issued July 25, 2021.
MR. BARBER: July 25, 2021. On July 26th, the day after, did you attend a meeting with -- present was Major Huey -- I apologize if I'm not saying their names correctly -- Captain Riley, Captain Reinhart, Lieutenant Wallace, Lieutenant Schenk, Lieutenant Hash, yourself, and Mindy Worley? Did you attend that meeting?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MR. BARBER: And was the purpose of that meeting to discuss the DNA report?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. It was to explain the results of my report.
MR. BARBER: Were you at that meeting asked to perform hematrace tests?
SARA ZAPATA: Not at that meeting, no.
MR. BARBER: Okay. When were you asked to perform hematrace tests on the shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: On August 10, 2021.
MR. BARBER: And is that the day that you performed them?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And I think you previously testified your test results were negative.
SARA ZAPATA: Correct.
MR. BARBER: Could you tell us a little more how you did -- well, let me ask it this way. To perform the test, did you make smaller cuttings from the larger shirt cuttings?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. So, I took the cuttings, opened them, and then cut small portions of the larger cuttings to test for hematrace, and then placed those cuttings into a solution, and then that solution is added to each individual card for that individual cutting. So, there's a test performed for each item.
MR. BARBER: I'm going to show you a series of photos, if I may, and I'm going to ask if you can identify them. This is what's been previously marked, and the marks are on the back -- it can be confusing -- as Defense Exhibit 96. Do you recognize that?
MS. GOUDE: Objection, Your Honor. Can the State see the pictures?
MR. BARBER: I apologize.
(Break in proceedings.)
MS. GOUDE: No objection.
MR. BARBER: I'm sorry, do you recognize the photograph?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And that's one of the cuttings after you made the small cuttings?
SARA ZAPATA: Can I see the other -- it's hard to tell which was before and which was after without the other cuttings. Because there's cuttings for DNA, and then I cut along the cuttings for DNA or the hematrace test.
MR. BARBER: And I don't have the before and afters to show you. Would it perhaps be helpful to look at some of the other ones? Would that help you?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: I'm going to show you what's been marked -- I'm going to read these off and -- so I can give them all to you at one time, if that's okay. That might help you.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: They're marked as Defendant's Exhibits 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, I believe, is the last one. And I'll go get the other one. It's over there. This is the second copy. So, now that you have them all, do you recognize them?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Okay, and these are the larger cuttings with the smaller cuttings made for the hematrace test?
SARA ZAPATA: I know that we took photos before the cutting was taken for hematrace and after. It's hard to tell from these pictures if it was before or after, but they were taken during the hematrace processing of the shirt.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: Your Honor, at this time I would offer Defendant's Exhibits 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 as evidence.
JUDGE NEWMAN: What says the State?
MS. GOUDE: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted without objection.
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 96 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 97 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 98 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 99 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 100 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 101 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 102 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 103 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 104 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 105 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. BARBER: Permission to publish? May I publish it?
JUDGE NEWMAN: You don't need my permission to publish anything that's in evidence.
MR. BARBER: Can we bring up the first one? And go get the white board, please.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: This will be quick. So, in this one it looks like you made five cuttings. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: So, some of these cuttings were originally taken for DNA. I tried, when I cut for hematrace, to also cut along where the cuttings were taken for DNA.
MR. BARBER: Okay. So, there's five there, right?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
MR. BARBER: The next one.
MR. BARBER: And let's see if we can count how many are here. Are you able to count how many are here?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: Were you able to county how many?
SARA ZAPATA: It looks like fourteen. It's a little hard to see the very small ones, and it's hard to tell on the small screen.
MR. BARBER: Okay. Well, be conservative. If you're not sure, don't count it. So, fourteen?
MR. BARBER: No, don't do that.
SARA ZAPATA: It looks like fourteen.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Next exhibit.
MR. BARBER: And here?
SARA ZAPATA: Eight.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Next one.
SARA ZAPATA: Seven.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Next.
SARA ZAPATA: Nine.
MR. BARBER: Next one.
SARA ZAPATA: Seven.
MR. BARBER: Seven?
SARA ZAPATA: Uh-huh.
MR. BARBER: Next exhibit.
SARA ZAPATA: Looks like nine. Again, it's a little hard to see.
MR. BARBER: Again, be conservative. Don't count one if you're not sure.
MR. BARBER: And the next exhibit.
SARA ZAPATA: Four.
MR. BARBER: Next one.
SARA ZAPATA: Nine.
MR. BARBER: Next one.
SARA ZAPATA: Two.
MR. BARBER: That's it.
MR. BARBER: Those are all of them. So, now we'll just add these numbers up. I have a calculator which might help. So, we have five, plus fourteen, plus eight, plus two, plus seven, plus nine, plus seven, and plus nine, plus four, plus nine. So, what's the total?
SARA ZAPATA: Seventy-four.
MR. BARBER: Seventy-four. And your tests, in none of these did you detect human blood with hematrace. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: For all of those cuttings for the different items, they were all put together into that tube for that item, and for all of those tests the result was negative.
MR. BARBER: So we're zero for seventy-four in detecting human blood here.
SARA ZAPATA: The result was negative.
MR. BARBER: Moving on then. On August 16th, did you attend a meeting to discuss DNA results, or outstanding DNA reports?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Were these results discussed at that meeting?
SARA ZAPATA: For that meeting, we were discussing the items that were -- that still had pending DNA assignments so -- that they had submitted for DNA analysis, and we were waiting to see if that analysis was still required. There's nothing in the discussion about those results being discussed. I don't remember anything else about that meeting.
MR. BARBER: Let me ask you this. Who asked you to perform the hematrace test on August 10th?
SARA ZAPATA: There was -- the request for the hematrace result was relayed to me by my supervisor.
MR. BARBER: And who is your supervisor?
SARA ZAPATA: Lieutenant Laura Hash.
MR. BARBER: And on August 10th,did you relay to Lieutenant Hash the results of your tests?
SARA ZAPATA: She was actually the reviewer of my hematrace test. So, when we perform card tests, there needs to be a second analyst to review the card test and sign off on the review of the test. So, she was present when the test was performed.
MR. BARBER: In 2021, were you ever informed that SLED was seeking a blood spatter analysis of the shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: I was told after the shirt had been sent that it was going to be sent for blood spatter analysis, but I don't know anything about how that came about or where it was being sent to. That was -- I was done with my analysis.
MR. BARBER: When you said after the shirt was sent, what do you mean by that?
SARA ZAPATA: Or however they did the blood spatter analysis. I know that there is documentation that the shirt was being taken for that in the narrative, but I don't know how that came about.
MR. BARBER: And at that time -- I guess I'm a little confused, were you aware at that time that it was being sent for blood spatter analysis?
SARA ZAPATA: Not until it was already sent.
MR. BARBER: And by sent you mean that somebody had asked for the report to be made, or the shirt had physically been sent somewhere?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't know anything about how it -- how the blood spatter analysis came to be. I don't know what they required for that analysis.
MR. BARBER: Can you just tell me a date the first time you learned that there was going to be a blood spatter analysis? Even a month if you don't know the exact date.
SARA ZAPATA: I really don't know because I didn't have anything to do with any online analysis.
MR. BARBER: When was the first time your hematrace tests appeared on a report that you issued?
SARA ZAPATA: The report with the hematrace results was issued on November 10, 2021.
MR. BARBER: Were the results for the blue raincoat also on that report?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, they were.
MR. BARBER: Okay. Did you discuss the hematrace test results with anyone working on this case?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't think that I discussed it with anybody else. I don't think so. I would have discussed it with the person who reviewed the results.
MR. BARBER: Did you discuss the blue raincoat results with anyone investigating the case agents on the investigative side?
SARA ZAPATA: I know for the raincoat I was asked to give an update on when the results would be issued. Once I developed the DNA profiles for those items, the DNA profiles were technically reviewed, and then I was able to make a phone call to relay those results, and I was able to speak to Agent Ghent and just give him the preliminary results for the items from the raincoat.
MR. BARBER: But you did not discuss the hematrace results that were on the same report?
SARA ZAPATA: According to my notes, I only updated him on the findings from the raincoat.
MR. BARBER: Let's move ahead then to March 22nd of 2022. You just said that you were aware at some point that a blood spatter report had been requested. Were you aware in March that one had been received claiming that there was high velocity impact blood spatter on the shirt? Were you aware of that report?
SARA ZAPATA: I didn't really know anything about the report or the results of the report.
MR. BARBER: So, you weren't aware of it in March of '22. Is that correct?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't know when -- I really do not remember when I was told or what -- I know that I didn't really get much information about the report or when.
MR. BARBER: Okay. Well, moving then -- a little further then, on April 11, 2022, the Attorney General requested a meeting that occurred on April 20th, nine days later, to discuss reports.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And in preparing for that meeting on the 20th, did you access your November 10th report on April 18th and April 19th, a couple of days before that meeting?
SARA ZAPATA: You mean did I look at the report in preparation for the meeting?
MR. BARBER: Yes.
SARA ZAPATA: I would have reviewed the reports in preparation for the meeting, yes.
MR. BARBER: At that meeting, was any -- there any discussion of blood spatter?
SARA ZAPATA: I do not remember.
MR. BARBER: Okay. This is the first meeting with the AG's office after the report is received saying that there's blood spatter. Was it discussed?
SARA ZAPATA: But that had nothing to do with my testing, so I don't really know.
MR. BARBER: Did you notice that six days after that meeting there were media reports that high velocity impact spatter had been found on Mr. Murdaugh's t-shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: I tried very hard to not look at any media reports involving this case at all, so I tried to avoid that information.
MR. BARBER: Well, at some point, did someone come to you and ask about the hematrace test results that you performed that said no human blood over seventy-four, in relation to this report, saying that there was blood spatter that had to come from a gunshot on the t-shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: At some point, I know that we discussed the hematrace results on the shirt.
MR. BARBER: And when was that?
SARA ZAPATA: It probably would have been in the meeting where we went over all of the results of my reports. I know that we had several meetings to discuss the results of my reports.
MR. BARBER: Any idea when that was?
SARA ZAPATA: It does appear that that April was the first meeting after that report was issued where we had a discussion about the reports.
MR. BARBER: So, it would have been that meeting that it had been discussed. Were your hematrace test results and the blood spatter report discussed in the same meeting?
SARA ZAPATA: Possibly, but I don't know that. I also wasn't present for all of the meetings all of the time. I know there were some times when there were meetings with specific individuals first and then I would come later, so I don't remember if there was specific discussion of blood spatter there when I was present.
MR. BARBER: I'm handing you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 95. Do you recognize that?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And what is it?
SARA ZAPATA: It is a memorandum to the file for this case.
MR. BARBER: And you're the author of this memorandum?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: And it concerns hematrace and it relates to this case?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. I was asked to do some research into the scientific literature to see if there was information about hematrace and potential affects of other kinds of testing prior to hematrace, as well as list some reasons for possible negative hematrace results.
MR. BARBER: Your Honor, I would offer Defendant's Exhibit 95 into evidence.
SARA ZAPATA: What says the State?
MS. GOUDE: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted without objection.
(REPORT MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 95 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. BARBER: Were you asked to write this memo?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Who asked you to do this?
SARA ZAPATA: Creighton Waters asked for me to do this research and then summarize my findings in the form of memos.
MR. BARBER: Did he tell you why he was asking you to do this?
SARA ZAPATA: Because there were negative hematrace results in this case from the shirt. He wanted just some more information on negative hematrace results.
MR. BARBER: Was it specifically because of the report saying high velocity impact spatter?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't know that.
MR. BARBER: Was that discussed when he asked you to do this?
SARA ZAPATA: We discussed the negative hematrace results on the shirt.
MR. BARBER: Did you discuss a report by a man named Tom Bevel?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't think we specifically discussed the results of that report because I don't know -- I'm not a blood spatter expert. I don't know anything about what that report would say or what the findings in that report would mean. I just know that there was a report, and then I was asked to give some more information on hematrace.
MR. BARBER: Were you aware of a report by Tom Bevel specifically regarding use of hematrace on things that had been previously tested with LCV?
SARA ZAPATA: I was made aware of a report like that after I had already -- obviously was after my analysis had been complete. I don't remember specifically if it was before or after I was asked to write this memo.
MR. BARBER: And you attached some articles to this memo, correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes. I attached the articles that I found regarding hematrace so all of that information would be present in the memo.
MR. BARBER: And this first article from the Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, am I characterizing it correctly to say that it reports that hematrace tests are generally effective after treatment with LCV?
(Break in proceedings.)
SARA ZAPATA: For that article, there were many tests performed comparing testing hematrace after the use of several other kinds of tests beforehand. Their results were positive following LCV for seventeen out of seventeen tests, with a blood dilution of one to ten, and for sixteen out of eighteen tests with a blood dilution of 1 to 100.
MR. BARBER: So it usually works, hematrace, if you're testing something that had a presumptive test of LCV, correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Right. It shows that it does -- it did work the majority of the time that they tested it, but they did obtain two negative results as well.
MR. BARBER: Out of how many total?
SARA ZAPATA: Out of seventeen plus eighteen.
MR. BARBER: Okay. So, it didn't work two out of eighteen times?
SARA ZAPATA: Of the thirty-five times they tested it, they obtained a positive result 38 percent of the time according to the article.
MR. BARBER: I'm sorry?
SARA ZAPATA: Thirty-three times, sorry, according to the article.
MR. BARBER: Since you have a calculator, what's the percentage of that?
SARA ZAPATA: It looks like 94 percent.
MR. BARBER: 94 percent.
SARA ZAPATA: Uh-huh.
MR. BARBER: And here we're at zero for seventy-four.
SARA ZAPATA: Uh-huh.
MR. BARBER: In the next article, on page 4 of the next article there's a little chart. Do you see what I'm talking about?
SARA ZAPATA: Which article?
MR. BARBER: In the exhibit, the second article, page 4.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Next one, next page.
SARA ZAPATA: The next one.
MR. BARBER: Yeah.
SARA ZAPATA: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Am I reading this chart correctly to understand it to mean that hematrace detects blood at dilution levels at which LCV would not detect blood?
SARA ZAPATA: According to this study, which was performed by the Michigan State Police, they were able to obtain positive hematrace results for some samples that were negative LCV.
MR. BARBER: So, the hematrace test is more sensitive than LCV, at least according to this study, correct?
SARA ZAPATA: It appears to be. According to this study -- LCV is not a chemical that I use in DNA Casework Department. It is a test that's performed by the Crime Scene Unit, so they would be the best people to answer questions about sensitivity of that test.
MR. BARBER: But according to this, you would get a positive result even if you couldn't see anything with LCV, according to the previous study, after LCV 94 percent, and here we're over seventy-four. Is it fair to say that there's no human blood on the t-shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: Like I said earlier, the test that I performed was negative for the presence of human blood.
MR. BARBER: Could we pull up 32?
MR. BARBER: This will be very quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: Zoom in on the pocket.
MR. BARBER: I'm sorry, I don't have an image of the back of it. I believe this is the name of a fishing boat, and there's a fishing boat on the back of the t-shirt. Were you aware when doing this that this is a fishing t-shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: No.
MR. BARBER: Have you ever gashed a fish?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't know even know what that word means, no.
MR. BARBER: Well, let me ask it this way then. If someone were doing something while wearing this t-shirt that would cause non-human blood to spray on to the shirt, could that be a reason why something would have a misting pattern with LCV and test negative for hematrace zero for seventy-four?
SARA ZAPATA: I can't really answer anything about the misting pattern because that is not my area of expertise. But one possibility for a negative hematrace test is that the blood present on the item is not human blood because hematrace is a confirmatory test for the presence of human blood, but also reacts to ferret blood and higher primate blood.
MR. BARBER: It doesn't react to fish blood, does it?
SARA ZAPATA: No.
MR. BARBER: Did you attend an evidence viewing meeting on January 5th of this year?
(Break in proceedings.)
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I did.
MR. BARBER: Was blood spatter discussed at that meeting?
SARA ZAPATA: I know that we talked about the results of the shirt as far as blood spatter. Again, I'm not a blood spatter analyst, so I cannot give any information about blood spatter on an item of clothing or on anything.
MR. BARBER: Specifically were reports by Tom Bevel -- excuse me, Bevel, discussed at that meeting?
SARA ZAPATA: I do not recall.
MR. BARBER: Even though it was just this month -- well, last month. Time is flying.
SARA ZAPATA: Yeah. It's hard to remember specifics.
MR. BARBER: Were reports by a Deputy Kinsey discussed regarding blood spatter?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't recall that name at all.
MR. BARBER: Was the t-shirt discussed?
SARA ZAPATA: I don't remember the exact items that were discussed specifically.
MR. BARBER: Has anyone -- I don't believe I asked this. It looks like there's been a lot of work done on this t-shirt.
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: I mean, that's fair, right?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MR. BARBER: Put a lot into this t-shirt. There were the little cuttings in the beginning, the small ones in the hem, right? And then those are tested with pheno --
SARA ZAPATA: Phenolphthalein.
MR. BARBER: Right, and then DNA tested all of these large cuttings. We haven't even gone over -- there were a couple in the back of the shirt as well, the small cuttings. Then you went back and made more small cuttings for the hematrace, right? Lots of work. And then you're doing this big memo about hematrace because of the shirt, right?
SARA ZAPATA: Uh-huh.
MR. BARBER: A lot of work. And this is going on for a period of June '21, the month of the murders, it looks like, all the way up until a month before trial. Is that fair?
SARA ZAPATA: My --
MR. BARBER: Work on the shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: My analysis was completed before that, but --
MR. BARBER: But, I mean, you're doing this memo to file because of the shirt results, correct?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, correct.
MR. BARBER: Yeah. So, I mean, it's -- so for all of this -- all this work on this shirt, it appears that the theory was that he was wearing that shirt that night.
MS. GOUDE: Objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained.
MR. BARBER: Let me just ask maybe this. The meetings that you've attended where the shirt was discussed and blood spatter was perhaps discussed, was there ever any discussion of a blue button down shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: Not that I recall.
MR. BARBER: Never discussed? Okay.
MR. BARBER: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: I know you said it's not your area, but are you familiar with the term high velocity impact spatter?
SARA ZAPATA: Not really.
MR. BARBER: Do you even know what that is?
SARA ZAPATA: No. I'm not a blood spatter expert.
MR. BARBER: Would you think you could have blood spatter without blood?
MS. GOUDE: Objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Sustained.
MR. BARBER: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. GOUDE:
MS. GOUDE: Agent Zapata, when you analyze something, do you try to be thorough in your analysis?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes, I do.
MS. GOUDE: And are you aware that before you analyzed this shirt that there were presumptive positives for blood?
SARA ZAPATA: Yes.
MS. GOUDE: Okay, and then from when you analyzed the shirt with the hematrace, what were your findings?
SARA ZAPATA: The hematrace results were negative.
MS. GOUDE: All right. The defense also asked you about touch DNA. When you analyze those cases and shotshells that were found at the scene, what were you analyzing those items for?
SARA ZAPATA: For Item 7.1, the request was for touch DNA analysis. For Items 9 and 10, the request was also for touch DNA analysis, but because the -- there was staining on the swabs when Rachel Nugyen did her processing, she presumptively tested those swabs, and they were presumptively positive for blood, and so they were forwarded for DNA analysis.
MS. GOUDE: For touch DNA on items like that, would you be looking for possibly whoever loaded those items into a gun?
MR. BARBER: Objection. Leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You cannot lead the witness.
MS. GOUDE: Whose other DNA could you be looking for when you were analyzing those cases for DNA?
SARA ZAPATA: Typically when cartridge cases or shotgun shells are submitted for touch DNA, we are looking for DNA of an individual who may have handled those cartridge cases or shotgun shells.
MS. GOUDE: And is it common to find touch DNA on fired cases or shotshells?
SARA ZAPATA: In my experience, there has not been a very good yield of DNA on those items. From my understanding, when a bullet is fired, it is being put through a lot of intense heat as it's moving through the firearm. At least that's how the firearms analysts seem to explain the process, and so the heat can affect the recovery of DNA from that item.
MS. GOUDE: And also with touch DNA, do you know when touch DNA gets somewhere?
SARA ZAPATA: No. I can never say how or when DNA was deposited on an item.
MS. GOUDE: So if I shook somebody's hand at some point in the day, could I have their DNA on my hand?
SARA ZAPATA: It's possible, yes.
MS. GOUDE: And you wouldn't know when that got there.
SARA ZAPATA: No.
MS. GOUDE: Now, do you determine what evidence is analyzed in a case? Do you look at all of the evidence and pick and choose what you're going to analyze?
SARA ZAPATA: No. We are requested to analyze items of evidence.
MS. GOUDE: So, someone requests for to you analyze evidence.
SARA ZAPATA: Correct.
MS. GOUDE: Whoever requested for you to analyze the clothes of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh?
SARA ZAPATA: I was never requested to analyze those items.
MS. GOUDE: And do you analyze items that you've not been requested to analyze?
SARA ZAPATA: No.
MS. GOUDE: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. BARBER: Very briefly, Your Honor.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBER:
MR. BARBER: You were asked about touch DNA. Is it common to find touch DNA on an object when an object is discovered touching a person?
SARA ZAPATA: Can you repeat that question?
MR. BARBER: If an object is found actually touching a deceased person, would it be uncommon to find that deceased person's touch DNA on that object?
SARA ZAPATA: No.
MR. BARBER: And would it be uncommon to find a wife's touch DNA on a husband's shirt?
SARA ZAPATA: It would not be uncommon, no.
MR. BARBER: No further questions.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may step down.
SARA ZAPATA: Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, you can go to the jury room for a break. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: We'll be in recess.
(A break was taken.)
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, we would like to run a brief check and make sure that whatever we put on the ELMO or put on the screen won't appear somewhere.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: The State is ready to proceed, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.