January 22, 2007

 

Today’s proceedings began with the cross-examination of Mr. Conley by the defense.  It was surprisingly brief.  All of the defense’s questions focused around the shoe prints (e.g. “Are you sure the shoes were size 11 or 11.5; could they have been a size 12?”, “Why did you use this database to compare them to instead of this one?”, “How many other Adidas shoes have that sole pattern?”, Etc.).  As usual, it was mostly nit-picking, trying to raise some doubt.  After the defense was finished, ADA Gundy asked Conley some clarifying questions about some photos shown during the previous session.  There were a couple more questions asked by the defense, and then Mr. Conley was allowed to step down.

 

The next witness for the state was Mr. Nolte; a photographer working for the Anaheim Police Department (APD).  He documented the photos he took of Moloi, after Moloi was taken into custody.  The defense chose not to cross examine him, though they did raise an objection when the photographer called what looked like a bruise a “bruise”.  Kind of pointless to me, but anyway…

 

The next witness to be called was Ms. Powers-Ralston; a criminalist for the APD with 18 years of experience.  She described what she saw at the crime seen; the judge did cut her off, though, when she started to stray from the facts into the subjective (i.e. just how horrifying the seen was).  She was the criminalist who found & retrieved the cider bottle, collected the fragments of the broken bathroom door and collected Gary’s wallet.  She also swabbed these items for DNA evidence.

 

Another criminalist followed – Mr. Symon; he’s been with the APD for nine years.  He collected a cup from a trash can that had contained orange juice; as you may recall, there was a blood evidence found around the orange juice button of the juice dispenser [in the breakfast room].

 

With both of the criminalists, the cross examination was more of the nit-picking, trying to raise doubt.  Again, it was brief, but I don’t think the defense got anywhere.

 

Sergeant Kazakos was again called to the stand, but he did not testify.  Mr. Gundy wanted to show a security tape, from the next door mini-mart, but there were more technical problems, and Sergeant Kazakos was allowed to step down.

 

It was then that Dr. Akira (PhD) from the Orange County Crime Lab took the stand.  After explaining her credentials to the jury, she gave some explanation to the jury about what DNA is, and how it is analyzed.  She was the person who examined the DNA evidence taken from the bottle and the orange juice cup.  According to her, Moloi’s DNA was found on both the neck of the cider bottle, and on the rim of the cup.  The chance that the DNA on the bottle is not Moloi’s is one in a billion; the chance that the DNA on the cup is not Moloi’s is one in a trillion.  The defense raised questions about her analysis technique, is it possible that the DNA could have been left there much earlier, etc.  Over all, Dr. Akira held her own, and did well for the prosecution.

 

Another scientist, Ms. Thompson, testified next.  She examined the bathroom door fragments for DNA.  Most of the DNA found belonged to Gary.  However, on two of the fragments, right along the breakage points, Moloi’s DNA was found; the chances that these samples could not be his are one in 3,000,000.  The defense did score a couple minor points, though, when it was revealed the DNA samples belonging to four other people (besides Moloi and Gary) were also found on the door; it was also known that Moloi had used that bathroom within the days leading up to the murder.  Still, considering where the samples were found & the other DNA evidence, I believe Ms. Thompson’s testimony was helpful to the state’s case.

 

The last witness of the day to testify was Marlene Rodriguez.  She worked at the Dupre, and was the second person to see Gary’s remains (she was supposed to relieve Gary that morning).  Beyond testifying to what she saw, she also testified to how she new Moloi back in high school, and about their mutual acquaintances.

 

She was the prosecution’s last witness of the day.  Aside from some administrative housekeeping (concerning the numbering of evidence), nothing else happened.  The trial will resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning.