Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveNicholas Bradford — Direct
193 linesWhereupon, NICHOLAS BRADFORD having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified under oath as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. BRADFORD: Good afternoon.
MR. LALLY: Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the jury?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. It's Nicholas Bradford.
MR. LALLY: And, sir, that microphone before you is adjustable. You can place it anywhere that's comfortable for yourself. Okay? And what is it that you do for work, sir?
MR. BRADFORD: I'm a data analyst for Bode Technology in Lorton, Virginia.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. You're definitely going to have to keep your voice up, sir. Okay?
MR. BRADFORD: Sorry about that.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
BY MR. LALLY:
MR. LALLY: And, just for the record, Bode is just spelled B-O-D-E; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could just ask you some guestions about your educational background, starting with your undergraduate. Where did you go for your undergraduate and what, if any, degree did you receive from there?
MR. BRADFORD: I have a Bachelor of Science in Forensic Biology from Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pennsylvania.
MR. LALLY: And then following your graduation with that degree, where did you go from there?
MR. BRADFORD: I have a Master of Forensic Science in Forensic Molecular Biology from the George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
MR. LALLY: And when about was it that you received that master's?
MR. BRADFORD: It was around about 2011.
MR. LALLY: And, with relation to your graduate work and your work at Bode, when did your work at Bode begin with relation to your graduate work?
MR. BRADFORD: I started at Bode at about 2009.
MR. LALLY: So during the course of your graduate school?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, when you started with the Bode lab, what was the sort of position or what did you start doing when you began there?
MR. BRADFORD: I was a DNA technician. We assisted the analysts with their case files and we primarily operated the different robotics and the different processes in the lab.
MR. LALLY: And, at some point over the course of your work there, you then became an analyst; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And about how much time elapsed or how much time did you spend as a technician prior to becoming an analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: I was a technician for about a year, maybe two. And then I was in the data banking section as an analyst. And, since then, I've worked in the high throughput casework group and the customized casework group.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as your work within this particular field, have you had occasion to work at any other sort of labs or facilities?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. For about three years, I worked at the Pennsylvania State Police DNA Lab.
MR. LALLY: Now, Bode Technology, as far as that lab is concerned, can you describe for the jury sort of what kind of lab that is, and let me ask you first, about how many analysts work at Bode Technology?
MR. BRADFORD: Somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 100 analysts, give or take. We are a small private lab in Lorton, Virginia, and we do DNA work contracted through different police agencies throughout the country.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to police agencies, are there other types of entities that you would accept or that would send submissions for DNA casework?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. We do some international work with human identification and that sort of thing, as well.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the lab of Bode Technology, is that lab accredited?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. We are accredited through the National Standards Institute.
MR. LALLY: And can you speak a little bit about that sort of accreditation process and what it means to be an accredited lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So that, the National Standards Institute, has a set of criteria for DNA labs doing forensic work, and we are audited against those criteria every year, sometimes internal audits and sometimes external audits.
MR. LALLY: And is that accreditation at the lab, is that up to -- is the accreditation, is it current as of now?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to your work as a DNA analyst, can you describe just in general terms for the jury what it is that you do in reference -- what is it that you do in reference to your work as a DNA analyst?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we take in evidence that is submitted to us. We process it through the DNA processing. So there are four basic steps to DNA. There's extraction. So that's where we separate out the DNA. And then there is quantification. And that is just basically us determining how much DNA we have to work with. The next step is amplification. So depending on the case and the different processes that we're going to use, we are targeting a number of different locations in the genome, and we are going to make millions of copies of each of those locations. And, in each one of those copies, there is a fluorescent tag that we can then detect in the detection step. And that's the fourth step. And then from there, we have the DNA profile for that sample.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the lab as far as training is concerned, you mentioned that you spent at least a year or two as a technician prior to becoming an analyst. What is some of the specialized training in this area that you undergo as an employee at this lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the training program involves a lot of scientific literature reading. There is a practical aspect to it where we are given known samples that were to treat as if they were casework samples. So we process those as if they were casework. We have written and verbal exams and we have a moot court exam at the end.
MR. LALLY: And you successfully completed each of those training portions over your course of work with the lab?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And are you familiar with a term known as "proficiency test"?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that is and how it relates to your work as a DNA analyst at Bode Technology.
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So part of our accreditation is we have to do proficiency testing twice a year. And that is when an outside company sends us known samples and we process them, again, as if they were casework. And then those results are sent to that outside company, and then we get the results back to see if we are proficient in those technologies or not.
MR. LALLY: And, with respect to yourself as far as the proficiency testing that you've undergone, what, if any, issues have you had with proficiency testing that you've undertaken?
MR. BRADFORD: I've passed all my proficiency tests.
MR. LALLY: Now, what is DNA?
MR. BRADFORD: So DNA is essentially the blueprint for a living thing. It's in most of our cells, and it's unique to an individual with the exception of identical twins.
MR. LALLY: Now, at some point in January of 2024, did you receive a particular assignment in regard to DNA analysis from -- a number of items that you received from Massachusetts?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, specifically, can you describe the process as far as like when an item comes into the lab at Bode Technology how it's sort of processed or how -- from the time of receipt to the time that the item gets to you, can you explain a little bit about that process?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the item is generally sent via UPS or FedEx. It arrives in our secure evidence room. That room has limited access to only certain individuals. And, from that point on when it's received, a chain of custody is started for that shipment. And anytime anyone touches or uses that item, we need to check it out from the secure evidence room and then that's all logged on the chain of custody.
MR. LALLY: Now, when something comes in, is it assigned a sample name, a case number or an I.D. number in some way, shape or form?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Is it also identified by sort of corresponding numbers from the external vendor where it came from?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, in reference to Bode Case No. CCA2416- 0023, did you perform work in relation to that case?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And there was a corresponding agency case number of 22-02184; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that would have been from the outside vendor or at least one of them as far as the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: So there were a number of items that you received. If you could identify them for the jury, what you received and specifically sort of what you looked at?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we received an apparent hair. We received an extract from a taillight from a vehicle, and we received two reference samples from two troopers from the Massachusetts State Police.
MR. LALLY: And, in addition, was there a sample I.D. as far as a known standard?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So Bode gives it our own item number. So in this case, the two reference samples were CCA2416-0023 RO3 and the same number RO4 for the two reference samples.
MR. LALLY: Now, if I could just ask you to further expound upon as far as the CCA2416-0023, which is EO1, there was an agency sample I.D., is that correct, that was attached to that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was that, sir?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was 3-6.1.
MR. LALLY: And is there a description that comes from the external vendor as well as to sort of what that item is?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. In this case, the sample was a shaft end of hair from exterior passenger side rear panel.
MR. LALLY: And there is a specific Mass. registration plate that's associated with that hair, as well; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And that was 3GC684; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to the RO3 and RO4, those were buccal samples; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And RO3 specifically, as far as the agency description, what if anything was provided as far as that information?
MR. BRADFORD: For RO3, that was the buccal swab from Yuriy Bukhenik.
MR. LALLY: And as far as RO4?
MR. BRADFORD: That was the buccal swab from Michael Proctor.
MR. LALLY: Now, with reference to extract portion, that was EO2; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And, if you know, what -- when you say "extract," can you explain to the jury sort of what you understand that term to mean or what is an extract as far as what you looked at?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when I described the four-step process earlier, so the extraction was already done prior to us receiving the item. So essentially the extract comes to us in a tube, and it's a liquid. And provided with that would be the negative control that was associated with it. So from that point, we have the quantification information from the lab that did the extraction. So then we would amplify and then detect the profile from there.
MR. LALLY: And, just to be clear, as far as the EO2 that you were talking about as far as the extract that you had received, what was the agency description on that extract?
MR. BRADFORD: So that was the sample from passenger side taillight along with the same registration number. And that was labeled as an extract.
MR. LALLY: Now, in addition to that, there was a known blood standard which you indicated was Item or Agency Sample I.D. 8-1.1.1?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what was the agency description on the known blood standard?
MR. BRADFORD: That would be from -- excuse me. That was the sample from John O'Keefe, the profile, I should say.
MR. LALLY: And so when you say "the profile," what do you mean by that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the profile was generated by the Massachusetts State Police lab and then that profile was given to us to do a comparison.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the profile that was provided as far as your observations of that, what, if any, issues did you observe in your observations of the profile that was provided by the state police crime lab in Massachusetts?
MR. BRADFORD: It looked like a standard single-source profile.
MR. LALLY: Now, starting with as far as -- there was an STR processing that was conducted, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What does STR stand for?
MR. BRADFORD: It stands for short tandem repeats. And essentially what we are doing with that is it's the DNA process that we use in forensic testing where the areas that we are amplifying are short repeats of a genetic sequence that repeat multiple times and we're just measuring the number of times that sequence repeats. And those numbers, together, are the profile.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the profile from the extract that you received as far as EO2 from the passenger side taillight of the vehicle, what, if anything, were you able to determine based on your analysis and STR processing of that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So we determined that it was consistent with a mixture of three individuals, including at least one male contributor.
MR. LALLY: And so if you could just walk the jury through as far as the process as far as the testing. What is it that you're actually doing in the lab? What are you looking at and how are you making a comparison?
MR. BRADFORD: So once we have the DNA profile, like I said, we are measuring the number of times the sequence repeats at a given location. So we have a series of those. And then we compare that to the reference profile that we were provided or that we generated for the two reference samples that we actually processed. And then we determine if it's possible that the individual whose reference profile it is could be a possible contributor to that mixture profile that we got from the evidence. And then we need to do a statistical calculation to determine the strength of that possibility of an inclusion.
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you a little bit about as far as that statical calculation. How is that done or where did that come from?
MR. BRADFORD: So in this case, we did what's called a likelihood ratio. Essentially, what we are doing is comparing two explanations for the day-to-day profiles that we observed. So if we have say, you know, Person "A." One explanation would be that the DNA profile is a mixture of Person "A" and two unknown individuals. And then the other explanation would be that it's simply three unknown individuals and it's not Person "A." So then we compare those two explanations of the profile and determine which one is more likely.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as the sort of reference samples that you had, you had the DNA profile of John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And I'm sorry. Before starting that, you had the extract with the DNA profile with multiple contributors from the taillight, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: So then you have the known blood standards or the DNA profile from John O'Keefe, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And then you have the buccal samples from Yuriy Bukhenik and Michael Proctor, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And so with reference to those specifically as far as the reference samples, is that what you're generating the DNA profiles from?
MR. BRADFORD: So we are comparing those references to the mixture that we obtained from the taillight.
MR. LALLY: Okay. And so in your comparison, let me start with the known one as far as John O'Keefe. What, if anything, did you find from your comparison of the John O'Keefe DNA profile to the DNA profile from the taillight?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So in this case when comparing the John O'Keefe profile, assuming a mixture of three individuals, it is at least 749 nonillion times more likely to be observed if it originated from John O'Keefe and two unknown, unrelated individuals than if from three unknown, unrelated individuals. And we provide a sort of verbal qualifier to that because most people don't have a lot of experience with nonillion. So in this case, that would be a very strong support for inclusion.
MR. LALLY: If you know, nonillion, how many zeros are we talking about?
MR. BRADFORD: So that would be the number with 30 zeros.
MR. LALLY: And so that would be a strong support for inclusion, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to your comparison, with regard to your work as a DNA analyst, is there any kind of software that you use in the course of your analysis with regard to a STR mix?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. When there is a mixture profile, we often use what we call STRmix. And it's essentially a computer program that we input the DNA profile and it allows us to use a series of mathematical equations to help us interpret that mixture.
MR. LALLY: And was that done in this case, as well?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. And then we use that same program to run the statistics.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to the sample, the buccal sample contributed from Yuriy Bukhenik, did you run that for a comparison, as well?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And what, if anything, were your findings in relation to your analysis of that?
MR. BRADFORD: So in that case, assuming a mixture of three individuals, the DNA profile obtained is at least 46 million times more likely to be observed if it originated from three unknown, unrelated individuals than if from Yuriy Bukhenik and two unknown, unrelated individuals. So that sounds confusing, given what I just said. So the verbal qualifier for that would be very strong support for exclusion.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry. Very strong support for an exclusion; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: And then similarly, as you were testifying, what, if anything, did you find from your analysis and comparison of the buccal sample or DNA profile from Michael Proctor?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So in that case, again assuming a mixture of three individuals, it is at least 76,000 times more likely to be observed from three unknown, unrelated individuals than if from Michael Proctor and two unknown, unrelated individuals. So that would be strong support for exclusion.
MR. LALLY: So correct me if I'm wrong, but your findings with regard to the three samples is strong inclusion or strong support for inclusion of John O'Keefe; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: It would be very strong support for inclusion.
MR. LALLY: And strong support of exclusion for both Yuriy Bukhenik and Michael Proctor, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, Sir, in addition to that, you had mentioned that there was an EO1 sample that was the shaft end of a hair from the exterior passenger side rear panel of that same vehicle with the same Massachusetts license plate, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, with regard to DNA as it pertains to hair samples, can you describe for the jury sort of that process and -- so what is it that you're -- when you receive a hair sample as far as an extraction is concerned, how does that process work or what are you getting that extraction from?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when we have a hair, generally we'll take a look at it and a forensic biologist will give their opinion on if it's likely that we'll obtain a profile from that hair because hairs can be a little tricky. So in this case, the forensic biologist determined that the hair would likely not provide a great profile from STR testing. But we went ahead with it anyway just because sometimes it does work. But, in this case, we extracted, and that involves dissolving the hair, and forming an extract like the other samples. And then we quantified the hair in this case. And the quantification that I used targets what is called autosomal DNA or nuclear DNA. And, in that case, the results were below the limit of detection. So we did not process that sample for STRs because we would not have obtained a useful DNA profile from it.
MR. LALLY: Now, sir, if I could just take you back a little bit in that. Earlier in your statement right there, you just indicated that hair samples or DNA from hair can be a little tricky. Can you expound upon that and explain to the jury sort of what you mean by that?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. A lot of times hairs, unless they have a root attached, they are not a great sample for nuclear STR testing. They can be but it's sometimes hit or miss.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as what's actually being tested as far as STR when it comes to a hair, it's not the actual hair; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: I'm not sure I follow. Can you --
MR. LALLY: Let me ask you this: Are you familiar with the term follicular tissue?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: And can you explain to the jury what that means in relation to a hair sample in DNA testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So when there's a follicle attached, that is generally where you will get the nuclear DNA from, not the hair, itself.
MR. LALLY: And follicle would necessarily be attached to the root end and not to the shaft end, correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as autosomal DNA, can you explain what is autosomal DNA and sort of where does that come from within DNA testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So you can think about that more as nuclear DNA. So that would be DNA that's in the nucleus of the cell. So that's what most people think of when they think of DNA. But there are other forms of DNA. So for example, mitochondrial DNA. That exists outside the nucleus.
MR. LALLY: And, as far as the testing that you performed in regard to this hair sample, that was STR testing; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: What were the findings, again, with relation to the STR testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So like I said, we quantified the hair and it was below the limit of detection. So we did not process that hair for STR.
MR. LALLY: Now, as far as that terminology "below the limit of detection," can you explain a little bit to the jury sort of what that means as it applies to the testing that you conducted?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So the instrumentation has a limit of detection. So there could be potentially small amounts of DNA there but it's below the limit that we are confident to say that there is DNA present. So we would normally not process those samples forward.
MR. LALLY: Now, that hair sample as far as the one that you tested, you mentioned that it was not initially advisable, I guess, for STR testing and you just went ahead and did it anyway because sometimes it works; is that correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. It's usually worth a try.
MR. LALLY: And then beyond that, that hair sample within your lab, as far as Bode Technology, was that given to a different analyst for a different type of testing?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. We decided it was worth a try to do mitochondrial testing on the hair.
MR. LALLY: And is that a type of testing that you, yourself, perform?
MR. BRADFORD: No. That would not be me.
MR. LALLY: And why would it not be you?
MR. BRADFORD: I was not trained in mitochondrial testing.
MR. LALLY: So that's sort of a specialized subset as far as different training and different type of testing that occurs?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. LALLY: Just in general terms, if you know, could you explain to the jury sort of the difference between what you've termed as nuclear or autosomal DNA versus mitochondrial DNA?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. So very basically, the nuclear DNA is the DNA that exists in the nucleus. The mitochondrial DNA is the DNA that exists outside the nucleus in the mitochondria. And the mitochondrial DNA is inherited directly from the mother. So if you were to test maternally related individuals, they would have the same mitochondrial profile.
MR. LALLY: And that other analyst that conducted the mitochondrial DNA, are you familiar with who that person is?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes. That was Tess Chart.
MR. LALLY: May I have one moment, Your Honor?
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure.
MR. LALLY: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
MR. YANNETTI: We have no questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you are all set, Mr. Bradford. Thank you very much.
MR. BRADFORD: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness is excused.)
JUDGE CANNONE: So, jurors, we will take our luncheon break. We will have more witnesses this afternoon. So let's take a 40-minute lunch.
(Whereupon, the jury is escorted from the courtroom for the luncheon recess.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, could we approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Can I see counsel, please?