Ashley Vallier

“If it looked like it did, then I brought them together and looked at them to confirm if there was a physical match.”

Vallier described the final confirmation step in her physical-match analysis.

“Piece 1 was a physical match with Item 3-1, the taillight.”

Vallier gave her stated physical-match conclusion for the assembled piece and the taillight housing.

“If it still looks like they are, they could be consistent, then I'll bring them together to see if there is an actual mechanical fit and then I'll document that and look at it under the stereo zoom.”

Describes the witness's method for confirming a physical match.

“That Item 3-1 and the pieces that make up Item -- or the pieces that make up Piece 1 were at one time together as a larger unit.”

States her conclusion from the comparison of Piece 1 and the taillight housing.

“I don't know. I didn't examine the shirt.”

Vallier distinguished the debris she examined from the clothing itself, limiting her personal knowledge of the fragments' original placement.

“Okay. So Submission 7, which is everything that's Item 7- in this case was submitted by Trooper Michael Proctor, I believe.”

After consulting her notes, Vallier identified the person who submitted the laboratory evidence grouping at issue.

Vallier checked her notes and testified that Submission 7 was submitted by Trooper Michael Proctor and delivered to the laboratory on March 14, 2022.

“So usually I take overall pictures of the debris and then I'll look through the stereo zoom to see if there is anything that looks different.”

Vallier described how she examined the debris for material that appeared distinct.

“So physical match analysis is piecing broken things together to see if they were at once a single item.”

Defines the core methodology for the jury in plain terms.

“The questioned items were items labeled as coming from a road and the known item was labeled as coming from a tail light from a vehicle.”

Frames the two categories of evidence being compared — road debris versus the defendant's tail light.

“Mechanical fit and a physical match are the same thing. It's when the broken edges align together to show that they were once a single item.”

Establishes the scientific standard for concluding fragments originated from the same object.

“So two pieces from item 7-5, four pieces from item 7-8, one piece from item 7-10, four pieces from item 7-11, two pieces from item 7-12, two pieces from item 7-13, four pieces from item 7-15, and four pieces from item 7-16 were found to fit mechanically with item 3-1.”

Vallier's aggregate response identifying pieces she testified fit mechanically with item 3-1; her later testimony about the pictured reconstruction creates an unresolved inconsistency concerning item 7-8.

“Those pieces were once together as part of a larger unit.”

Vallier's conclusion that all matched fragments and the tail light were originally one piece.

“The piece of apparent clear plastic was approximately 1/8 inch by 1/16th inch.”

Vallier's measurement of a piece of apparent clear plastic in debris labeled as coming from clothing; she did no further examination herself.

“Two pieces from item 7-15, F and H, fit mechanically with two pieces from item 7-16, F and G.”

Demonstrates cross-item matching between separately collected evidence bags.

“There was an empty spot on the overall reconstruction. Yes.”

Vallier confirmed an empty spot in the reconstruction and said she had not been provided pieces that filled it; she did not testify that no such pieces were ever recovered.

“Okay. Um, so submission seven — all the items that are seven dash, um — was submitted by Trooper Michael Proctor.”

Vallier identified Proctor as the person who submitted the submission-7 items to the lab; this does not establish sole pre-lab custody or control.

“March 14th, 2022.”

Pins the six-week gap between the incident and lab submission — the core of the chain of custody challenge.

“I cannot.”

Vallier's final concession that she cannot vouch for evidence handling before lab intake, the culmination of the cross-examination.

“As far as all those items beginning with seven that you went through or elucidated on in your direct examination, each of those were a mechanical fit to each other and then to the tail light housing in 3-1.”

Vallier qualifies the proposed ten-item count and affirms only the pieces previously stated on direct as mechanically fitting each other and the tail light housing.