VOIR DIRE OF A PROSECUTION CHEMIST IN A DRUG CASE By James Shellow Editor's Note: A reading of Mr. Shellow' devastating examination of a prosecution chemist should convince defense attorneys that these experts are often extremely vulnerable when questioned by well-prepared lawyers. The expert in this case had testified several hundred times in court, apparently without ever having had his qualifications challenged. Yet he knew less about the scientific background of what he did than any competent attorney could learn in a few days of library study. Not many defense attorneys have the scientific knowledge of Mr. Shellow, but neither do many of the so-called experts they will meet in court. As long as such experts are not challenged, people will go to jail on the basis of evidence and testimony that is of dubious validity. It should be the duty of every defense attorney to make sure that such experts no longer flim-flam juries and judges with their pseudo-expertise. The following voir dire of a prosecution chemist in a drug case took place in Milwaukee County Court in the case of Wisconsin v. Peschong on July 13 and 14, 1977. Appearing for the defendant was James Shellow of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appearing for the State was Jeffrey Kremers, Assistant District Attorney. Judge John E. McCormick presided. Proceedings of July 13, 1977 THE COURT: All right. We do have the witness now. Has he been sworn yet, Madame Clerk? (JOHN LINSSEN, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:) THE CLERK: State your name, sir, and spell your last name. A. John Linssen, L-i-n-s-s-e-n. BY MR. KREMERS: q. Where are you employed, sir? A. I'm employed with the Wisconsin Department of Justice as supervisor of the Regional Crime Laboratory in New Berlin. Q. How long have you been employed there? A. For three years. Q. What are your duties as supervisor? A. I'm responsible for the technical and business operation of the Regional Crime Laboratory. Q. Prior to that assignment as supervisor, how were you employed? A. I was employed as head of the drug identification section at the state crime laboratory in Madison. Q. How long were you employed as such? A. Nine Years. Q. And what were your assignments and duties as head of the drug identification lab? A. I was responsible for the activities of the other analysts within the section, and I myself performed chemical examinations and identifications. Q. What types of substances did you analyze? A. Substances suspected to contain controlled substances. Q. All controlled substances or any specific one? A. All sorts of controlled substances. Q. What prior academic or work training had you had to qualify you for that position? A. I attended the University of Wisconsin and have pursued a court of study toward a degree in medical microbiology. This instruction included courses in general chemistry, qualitative and quantitative analysis, inorganic and organic chemistry, physical chemistry and physiological chemistry. I've attended various scientific seminars dealing with the analytical instrumentation utilized by a laboratory. And also I've had the opportunity to understudy several individuals. First Dr. Peter Moore, clinical biochemist at Madison General Hospital, and also Dr. Frank Veselka, professor of clinical pathology at the University of Wisconsin. Q. As of September, 1973, do you have any idea approximately how many suspected cocaine substances you have analyzed? A. Several hundred. Q. Prior to September, 1973, do you have any idea as to approximately how many suspected LSD substances you had analyzed? A. Approximately one hundred. Q. Other than the training that you've already mentioned, do you have any other training related to the identification of controlled substances specifically? A. I don't recall any. Q. Have you ever testified in court as an expert witness in the identification of controlled substances? A. I have. Q. How many times? A. Approximately six to seven hundred times. * * * VOIR DIRE BY MR. SHELLOW: Q. Your name is John Linssen? A. That's correct. Q. And you're a college graduate? A. No, sir I'm not. I have not received a degree. Q. You did not receive a degree? A. That's correct. Q. Dr. Peter Moore, the man you spoke of, he's an M.D. and a Ph.D.? A. He's a Ph.D. Q. Is he an M.D.? A. I don't believe so. Q. Or don't you know? A. I don't know. Q. When you said you didn't believe so, that was a guess? A. Yes. Q. Now, you said, I believe, that you took a course in physical chemistry; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. At the University of Wisconsin? A. Yes. Q. What was the title of that course? A. I don't recall. Q. Was it a course that was entitled Physical Chemistry? A. It had that as part of its title at least, yes. Q. In order to take a course in physical chemistry it is necessary, is it now, to have a thorough understanding of the discipline of differential equations. That's true, isn't it? A. Yes, it is. Q. You never had a course in differential equations, did you? A. Not specifically, no. Q. Not only not specifically, you did not have a course in differential equations, did you? A. That was covered as part of a calculus course. Q. You mean you had an introductory course in calculus? A. I did have an introductory course, yes. Q. Did you have any course in calculus beyond the introductory course? A. I had two semesters of calculus. Q. Two semesters of calculus. And you are saying that in your second semester of calculus you learned enough differential equations so you could understand a course in physical chemistry? Is that what you want us to believe? A. Yes. Q. And that would have been, perhaps you'd had, what, two hours of physical chemistry, is that right, total? A. It was more. Q. Can you give us your best estimate? A. It was a five semester - hour course. Q. You understand that it would appear that you may still be on the stand tomorrow. Would you give us permission to obtain your transcript from the University? A. Certainly. Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Linssen, have you written, in the field, at all, of chemistry? Have you published any papers? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you written any books in the field? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you performed any original research in the field of analytical chemistry? A. No I haven't. Q. Do you read any foreign language with sufficient fluency so that you can read in your specialty in that language? A. No, I don't. Q. You rely in your testimony today upon certain treatise and books; is that correct? A. As part of my background, yes. Q. Can you give us one treatise, the name of one treatise, one book, one specific paper, which you understand, which you believe you understand well enough so that I might ask you questions concerning its relationship to the testimony you will give? Just one book which you believe you understand in your field? A. I don't believe I rely on any one in particular. Q. That is, it's accurate to say, is it not, that as you sit on the stand today you are not prepared to give me the title and author of any book in the entire field of analytical chemistry which you feel sufficiently familiar with to be cross-examined on over your qualifications; is that right? A. With respect to individual content of that book, that's correct. Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Linssen, in the course of your employment with the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory you've analyzed many, many hundreds, if not thousands of suspected substances, substances suspected of being controlled substances. Is that an accurate statement? A. That's correct. Q. And as you sit on the stand today in 1977, you have no recollection of having performed any of the tests in this case; do you? A. That correct, I do not. Q. And you have looked at certain reports concerning these tests which you ran; isn't that right? A. That's correct. Q. And even after looking at the reports, that doesn't actually refresh your recollection of having run the tests, does it? A. That's correct, they do not. Q. Now, and so what you will be preparing to testify to is, you'll be preparing essentially read certain papers to us and interpret them, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, let us return to the matter of scientific papers and reports. You regularly read a bulletin that is put out by the Drug Enforcement Administration, do you not, entitled Microgram? A. Yes. Q. That comes into your laboratory on a regular basis? A. Yes, it does. Q. It is regularly distributed to the chemists in the laboratory? A. Yes, it is. Q. And you read it as well as the other persons in the laboratory; is that right? A. Not so much frequently as in the past. Q. In the past you've read it more frequently, but now you read the important articles in it, is that accurate? A. I have occasion to see it now, but I do not read it regularly. Q. You are aware, are you not, Mr. Linssen, that, for example, the United Nations bulletin, Narcotics, has had a number of scientific discussion of matters about which you're to testify? You know that, don't you? A. Yes. Q. Are you sufficiently familiar with any of those discussions so that you rely upon them? A. No, sir I'm not. Q. You are familiar, are you not, and have in your laboratory a treatise by a Mr. Sunshine, I believe, called Toxicology? Are you familiar with that book? A. Yes, I am. Q. And that also involves the matter about which you're going to testify; does it not? A. It does contain some information relevant to this, yes. Q. Yes. But you aren't sufficiently familiar with that treatise to rely upon it either, are you, sir? A. Not specifically, no. Q. You have in your laboratory, do you not, the two volumes of Stewart and Stallman on toxicology? Do you recall those? A. Yes. Q. Those are recognized treatises in the field; are they not? A. Yes, they are. Q. You are not sufficiently familiar with those treatises to rely upon them in the testimony you're about to give, are you? A. Not specifically or entirely upon that, no. Q. You are going to testify, are you not, concerning certain instrumental techniques? A. Yes. Q. And without going into any detail as to what the output of those instrumental techniques are, you are not an expert in the analysis of the output of an infrared spectrophotometer, are you? A. That's correct. Q. And that is one of the devices you are going to talk to us about; isn't that right? A. That's correct. Q. And another one of the devices you are going to talk to us about is called an ultraviolet spectrophotometer; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. And you're not an expert in the analysis of the output of an ultraviolet spectrophotometer, are you? A. No. Q. And another one of the devices that you're going to discuss with us, or techniques, perhaps more appropriately, is something called column chromatography? A. That's correct. Q. And you are not an expert in the analysis of column chromatography, are you? A. In the analysis by column chromatography or of? Q. Let me rephrase that. Do you know in column chromatography you've got stuff sort of squashed into a tube, right? A. Yes. Q. And the more you squash it in, the higher what's called the packing fraction; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And you don't consider yourself an expert in that, do you? A. No. Q. Mr. Linssen, when you told me and the jury one minute ago that the packing fraction had something to do with the amount that you squash to particles in a column, that was not true. That statement you gave was false, was it not? A. I don't know. Q. Now, was the statement that you just made to the jury under oath -- MR. KREMERS: Your Honor, at this point I will object. We appear to be trying to impeach the witness with tricky questions -- MR. SHELLOW: There's nothing tricky. He's an expert. MR. KREMERS: Mr. Shellow, let me finish. THE COURT: Gentlemen, Mr. Kremers has the floor. Go ahead Mr. Kremers. MR. KREMERS: It has nothing to do with voir diring this witness as to his qualifications. If he wants to impeach him with questions in cross-examination or try to, that's fine. That's another matter. MR. SHELLOW: This is your voir dire, Your Honor. I'm asking him what he knows about the instrument that he claims he used. That's all. THE COURT: Now, he has answered your question. He said that statement was not false. MR. SHELLOW: No, he didn't say that. THE COURT: You asked him if that statement was false. MR. SHELLOW: He hasn't answered it yet. THE COURT: Well, did he say -- let's hear it -- MR. SHELLOW: I'm going to ask him again. Q. Mr. Linssen, was that answer that you gave to the jury under oath true, was it false, or don't you know whether it was true or false? A. It's true. Q. Now, Mr. Linssen, you're going to talk also -- oh you are not, you do not claim to be an expert in the theory of the operation of this column chromatograph, do you? A. That's correct. Q. And that's another device about which you're going to testify, right? A. Yes. Q. And are you also going to testify about something called thin layer chromatography? A. Yes, I am. Q. And you're not an expert in the manner in which that works either, are you? MR. KREMERS: Your Honor, I would quarrel and object to the use of the word expert in this sense. It's not defined for the jury or for this witness. It's unclear what expert means regarding those tests and the use -- THE COURT: Mr. Kremers, rather than trying to aid the witness by your statement, you'll have ample opportunity when you get back on voir dire -- MR. KREMERS: Judge, that's not what I'm trying to do. What I'm trying to say is I think the question is vague. THE COURT: Who knows better, if he's a witness and an expert, than that witness? It's that self-evident. In no way is he being tricky by these questions. He can answer yes or no to a question of column chromatography and ultraviolet spectrophotometry and infrared. He's answered all three of those. Now we're down to thin layer. BY MR. SHELLOW: Q. And now we're on think layer. And on thin layer chromatography you are not and do not consider yourself an expert on the theory of a thin layer plate, do you? A. That's correct, I do not. Q. Now, you're also going to testify concerning some color reactions, aren't you? A. Yes. Q. And you don't consider yourself an expert on those, do you? A. No, I do not. Q. Have I omitted any type of test in this series that I've given you that you're going to talk to us about? A. I don't recall any. Q. Oh, I know. There's something called a gas chromatograph. Did you use one of those, too? A. Yes, I did. Q. But you don't consider yourself an expert in the theory of the operation of a gas chromatograph, do you? A. That's correct, I do not. Q. Now, starting back at the beginning, if you do not consider yourself a -- since you do not consider yourself an expert in the operation of an infrared spectrophotometer, what book have you read by someone whom you believe to be an expert in the operation of that equipment upon which you're prepared to rely in giving your testimony this afternoon, if you know of one? If you can't think of one, then just say you can't we we'll go on to something else. A. I can't really name one specific reference. Q. Can you give us one book in the field of infrared spectrophotometry which you believe to have been written by an expert in the field upon which you're prepared to rely in giving your testimony, since you claim you're not an expert in that? Just one book. A. I could not single out any one text. Q. Mr. Witness, you seem to suggest by your answer that while you can't give me one test, you'd be happy to give me perhaps three or four texts which you believe to have been written by experts in the field and upon which you rely. Would you give me -- is that the impression that you were trying to convey? A. I think many pieces of information have come together upon which I've relied. Q. Sir, were you trying to convey that there was more than one book upon which you rely that you can tell me about? A. Yes, there are several. Q. All right. Why don't you just give me one that you're prepared to be cross-examined over on this voir dire examination that you really understand. A. The text Isolation and Identification of Chemical Compounds. Q. Isolation and Identification of Chemical Compounds by E.C.G. Clark? A. Yes. Q. Does that book have anything in it on the theory of an infrared spectrophotometer, or don't you know? A. I don't recall any information on the theory, no. Q. Now, I'm going to ask you again. What I want from you is, since you aren't an expert, I want one book from somebody who is an expert upon which you rely. Just one book. A. A text which states theory? Q. Any book that you're willing to be examined over so that the jury can have some idea of how much you know about this field. A. I could not state any other. Q. Thank you. Let's take the next one. The next test we were talking about was ultraviolet spectrophotometry. Can you think of any book in that field that's written by someone you consider an expert about which you're willing to be examined? A. No. Q. Let's take the next test, column chromatography. Can you think of any book written in the field of column chromatography, including liquid chromatography -- that's kind of a form of column chromatography? A. Yes. Q. Including that, can you think of any book in that field written by someone you consider to be an expert upon which you are willing to be examined as to your qualifications? A. No, sir, I can't. Q. Let's talk about think layer chromatography next. The leading book on thin layer chromatography is written by somebody whose name you know, right? A. Right. Q. Written by Egon Stahl, S-t-a-h-l, right? A. Yes. Q. Are you prepared to be examined over Professor Stahl's treatise on thin layer chromatography? Do you really understand that book well enough to be examined over it? A. No. Q. Is it accurate to say that that's probably the leading treatise in the field? A. It is one of the leading treatises, yes. Q. How about gas chromatography? Can you think of any book that's been written that concerns that particular technique about which you're willing to be examined which you consider to have been written by an expert in that field about which you're willing to be examined concerning, you know, how much you know about it? A. No, sir, I could not. Q. Now, there is a field of chemistry, is there not, that's known as stereochemistry? A. There is. Q. And stereochemistry is going to have something to do with what we're going to be talking about later in this case; isn't that right? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in the field of stereochemistry? A. No. Q. That machine that you talked about, that infrared machine, there's a piece of paper that comes out of that machine that's got a lot of little things that look like wiggly lines, right? A. That's correct. THE COURT: Mr. Shellow, what is the name of the machine you're talking about? MR. SHELLOW: It's called an infrared spectrophotometer. Q. All right. And an expert would know what the meaning was of each one of these little wiggles, wouldn't he? A. Yes. Q. But you don't know the meaning of those little wiggles, do you? A. I do not, no. Q. And an expert would be able to take these little wiggles and mathematically analyze them, couldn't he? A. Yes, he could. Q. But you can't do that, can you? A. That is correct. Q. And as a matter of fact, there's a place in Philadelphia that puts out kind of an easy book on how to analyze these wiggly lines, or some wiggly lines; isn't that right? A. That's correct. Q. But you didn't use that book, did you? I'm talking about the index number book. Did you apply an index number to these wiggly lines? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. You didn't. Now, there is, is there not, a book that's put out by the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Government called an Analytical Manual? Are you familiar with that book? A. Yes. Q. Do you have that book in your library there? A. It's in the Madison laboratory. I don't recall if we have it within the New Berlin laboratory. Q. That book -- you're familiar with that book? A. Yes. Q. You've used that book when you ran tests in the Madison laboratory? A. That is correct, I have. Q. But you aren't prepared to testify that you're an expert on the curves in that book, are you, or their deviation? A. No. Proceedings of July 14, 1977 THE COURT: Will everyone please be seated. Thank you. Good morning to all of you. If you recall, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. John Linssen of the state crime laboratory is on the witness stand. He's presently being examined by Mr. James Shellow. BY MR. SHELLOW: Q. Mr. Linssen, I'm going to ask you to read quietly to yourself the bottom of page 252 and the top of page 253 of the treatise on spectrometry. I wonder if you'd just read that quietly to yourself to see if perhaps that would refresh your recollection. MR. KREMERS: Your Honor, I don't believe we have a question before him which requires his recollection being refreshed. MR. SHELLOW: I think the fair way of doing it, Your Honor, is to show him the treatise first and then ask him questions rather than trying to ask him questions about a book that he may have read a long time ago. THE COURT: Mr. Shellow, we'll give him time to read it, and I would ask that nobody talk at this time. MR. SHELLOW: Thank you, sir. THE WITNESS: I have read it over. BY MR. SHELLOW: Q. All right. In particular I've asked you to read the bottom of one page and top of another page. Did you read that? A. Yes, I did. Q. All right. MR. SHELLOW: The record may reflect, Your Honor, that I've tendered to the Plaintiff in this cause pages 252 and 253, the bottom of 252 and the top of 253 of a treatise on spectrometry by Robert W. Kiser published by Prentice Hall...in 1965, and apparently part of the series called International Series in Chemistry. Q. Now, Mr. Linssen, yesterday, under oath you testified before this jury that one of the tests which you performed in this case involved column chromatography. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And you testified in response to my questions that column chromatrography involved a column that had particles that were squashed in it. Do you remember that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And you testified further that the squashing of these columns or the extent to which the columns were squashed was the packing fraction. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. And that answer that you gave yesterday in court was false, not true; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. And all of your testimony yesterday concerning the packing fraction in the column which you used was false testimony; isn't that right? A. Yes, it was. Q. And when you said yesterday in response to my question, was the testimony true or false, and you said looking at the judge and the jury, my testimony was true, that answer was false also, wasn't it? MR. KREMERS: Object to the form of the question. THE COURT: You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yes, it was. BY MR. SHELLOW: Q. And that answer was false yesterday when you gave it, and it was false today when you read Kiser's book; isn't that right? MR. KREMERS: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: It's summary in nature. You can answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. SHELLOW: Q. Now, yesterday, sir, we discussed, if you will recall, your lack of expertise concerning the infrared spectrophotometer, the ultraviolet spectrophotometer, the gas chromatograph, think layer chromatography, column chromatography and color tests. do you recall those discussions that we had? A. Yes, I do. Q. Did you perform any tests other than tests which fall in those categories upon which you intend to rely in your testimony in this case. A. No, I did not. Q. Now, you said yesterday that you had taken a course in physical chemistry. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And the basic course in physical chemistry, the first year's course in physical chemistry, teaches the beginning student the three fundamental laws of physical chemistry; is that right? A. I don't recall the content of that course. Q. You do recall that you learned in that course what were called the three basic laws of thermodynamics, did you not? A. We studied thermodynamics. I don't recall three laws. Q. Do you recall that there are three laws of thermodynamics? A. I don't recall. Q. You recall that there was a concept that was central to that entire course that was known as entropy, don't you? A. I do recall that, yes. Q. That is the single most important concept in the field of thermodynamics, isn't it? A. I don't know. Q. Is it an important concept in thermodynamics? A. It is an important one, yes. Q. And you couldn't define it for us as you sit on the stand today, could you? A. No, I could not. Q. You couldn't even give us a layman's definition of it, could you? A. No. Q. And entropy is an important concept in thermodynamics, and in this course of physical chemistry which you took, another equally important concept is the concept of enthalpy. That's true, isn't it? A. Yes, it is. Q. And you heard about enthalpy as a student; didn't you? A. I did. Q. And you haven't got the foggiest idea what it means at this time, do you? A. I don't recall today, no. Q. Is it accurate to say, sir, that although you have taken in the past, and you told the district attorney on his examination of you that you had had a course in physical chemistry in college, as far as your qualifications to testify in this case, is it accurate to say, sir, that as you sit on the stand today you do not recall one single think you learned in physical chemistry about which you're prepared to have me examine you this morning? Is that accurate? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Now, cocaine is what is called an organic compound; isn't it? A. It is. Q. And you testified yesterday that you had a course in organic chemistry that helped to prepare you for the testimony which you were going to give today in court; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And organic compounds are divided into large categories, are they not? A. Yes. Q. And cocaine falls in that large category that is known as an alkaloid; isn't that right? A. It does. Q. And within the alkaloids there are eight categories, is that true, that you recall, seven or eight, something like that? A. I don't recall the number of categories. Q. But there are a number of them, right? A. Yes. Q. And cocaine's what's known as a phenanthrene alkaloid; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Now, you recall yesterday I asked you about the packing fraction. And when you gave your answer to the jury you were guessing, weren't you? A. It was based on my interpretation of that, yes. Q. It was a guess, wasn't it? A. Yes. Q. Today as you face the jury and me and tell me that cocaine is a phenanthrene alkaloid, that statement, sir, is what is known in the law as a false statement, not as a true statement; isn't that correct? A. I don't recall. Q. Sir, two minutes ago you told me that cocaine was a phenanthrene alkaloid. Is that statement true or false? A. That is my belief, yes. Q. Would it refresh your recollection any if I told you that the very substance about which you're going to testify in this case, cocaine, is not a phenanthrene alkaloid but is a tropane alkaloid. Is that a true statement? Cocaine is a tropane alkaloid, isn't it? A. I do recall the reference to tropane, yes. Q. Is cocaine a tropane alkaloid or a phenanthrene alkaloid, now that the opportunity has been given to you to refresh your recollection of organic chemistry, or don't you know? A. I don't know. Q. And so your testimony of three minutes ago that cocaine was a phenanthrene alkaloid, that was a guess also, wasn't it? A. Yes, it was. Q. Are you able, sir, to assess a probability value for the reliability of your guess that cocaine is a phenanthrene alkaloid? THE WITNESS: No, I could not. Q. That is, the probability that you are correct in your understanding of organic chemistry could be as low as zero; is that correct? MR. KREMERS: Object to that question. THE COURT: You may answer. It's up to the witness if he understands the question. THE WITNESS: That would not be my statement, no. MR. SHELLOW: Q. Now organic chemistry deals with organic compounds, and organic compounds contain carbon, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that's what you learned back in that course that you took in organic chemistry, right? A. That's correct. Q. And I'm going to ask you now to think for a moment. And I'm going to ask you to tell me one thing that you learned in that course in organic chemistry that you know for absolutely certain and that you're prepared to have me cross-examine you on, just one thing that in any way is related to the organic structure of either cocaine, LSD or any other controlled substance; just one statement that you're prepared to stand or fall on in this field of organic chemistry that you studied and upon which you rely. MR. KREMERS: Object to the form of that question. I don't think that he's required -- THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. SHELLOW: I'll rephrase it. Q. Is there any statement, sir, that you are prepared to make as an expert in the field or organic chemistry about which you're willing to be cross-examined for a while? A. No one particular statement, no. Q. No statement, right? A. That's correct. Q. Let us now proceed. You took a course, did you not, before you took the course in organic chemistry, you took a course in inorganic chemistry; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And inorganic chemistry is a study of those compounds which do not have carbon, right? A. That is correct. Q. And among other things that you studied in organic chemistry is that there is such a thing as an element, right? A. Yes. Q. And that elements have valences; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And that the valences of these elements remain the same regardless of the compound in which they appear, right? A. They have variances, but they're always within those, those variances. Q. What do you mean by variances? Does the valence change? A. The valence can change, yes. Q. Under what circumstance? A. The gain or loss of an electron. Q. That is, sometimes something has one valence and sometimes it has another? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in particular applying that to cocaine, there is a process, is there not, known as the Robinson analyzation, of cocaine? Do you know that technique? A. I'm not familiar with that. Q. Do you know the name? A. No. Q. You are not an expert in defining terms in the field of chemistry, are you? A. No. Q. As a matter of fact, you would say you were particularly not expert in defining terms; is that right? You have no better than a layman's knowledge in that particular area; would that be accurate? A. No, that is not. Q. But you don't consider yourself an expert in it, do you? A. That's correct. Q. And so, sir, both LSD and cocaine are in that field that you previously have defined as organic chemistry, right? A. Yes, they are. Q. They are both organic compounds, right? A. That's correct. Q. So we don't really need to worry about how much you understand or don't understand the inorganic chemistry, do we? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you also took, I believe you said, a course in -- by the way, who taught your course in physical chemistry? A. I don't recall the man's name. Q. What year did you take the course in physical chemistry? A. It was the winter term of 1962 or '63, the fall of '62 and the spring of '63. Q. What school was that? A. St. Norbert College in DePere. Q. In where? A. St. Norbert College in DePere. Q. In DePere. Now, you had what, two credit hours in physical chemistry during that semester? A. Five. Q. Five. At St. Norbert College in DePere? A. Yes. Q. And a course entitled physical chemistry by a professor whose name you don't recall, right? A. That's correct. Q. And where did you take the course in organic chemistry? A. At the University of Wisconsin in Green Bay. Q. And what year would that have been? A. It would have been immediately prior to, the spring of, the fall of 1961 and the spring of 1962, I believe. Q. Did you take any courses in chemistry other than the courses you took in DePere and in Green Bay? A. Yes, I attended a course in physiological chemistry at the University in Madison. Q. All right. By the way, this particular case in which we're involved today has nothing whatsoever to do with your course in physiological chemistry, does it, nothing? A. That's correct. Q. But having a course in physiological chemistry, a course in physiological chemistry teaches one, among other things, the various neurological centers of the body. That's one of the things you learned; isn't it? About nerves and things? A. Yes. Q. And about the neurological centers that are in the head and down the spinal cord? MR. KREMERS: Your Honor, based on Mr. Shellow's statement and the witness' answer that it doesn't have anything to do with this testimony today, I would object -- MR. SHELLOW: They he shouldn't have brought it out on the direct. THE COURT: It does to qualification. You may continue. MR. SHELLOW: Q. It has something to do with the spinal cord and things up in the head, the chemistry of what's going on, right? A. That's correct. Q. One of the things that you had in your head as part of your central nervous system in which these chemical changes take place is known as a lateral geniculate; is that right? A. I don't recall. Q. Another thing you had in the head is called the basal ganglia; is that right? A. I don't recall. Q. Another thing that you had in the head is something called a cerebellum; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Are there chemical changes that go on in the cerebellum, or don't you know? A. I don't recall. Q. There's a gray covering over the top that's known as the cortex, isn't there, or don't you remember? A. I don't recall the cortex. Q. Do you as you sit on the stand today remember any single fact you learned in your course in physiological chemistry about which you're prepared to be cross-examined this morning, one fact? A. No. Q. Now, we have covered the courses you took in inorganic chemistry, which have nothing to do with this case, the course in organic chemistry about which you're willing to make no statement at all, the course in physical chemistry about which you're willing to make no statement, the course in physiological chemistry which has nothing to do with the lawsuit, but also about which you're willing to make no statement. Is there any other course in chemistry you took in college upon which you rely in giving your qualifications in this particular litigation? A. I referred to courses in qualitative and quantitative analysis. Q. Qualitative and quantitative analysis. Where did you take those and in what years? A. In the fall of 1961 and the spring of 1962 at the University of Green Bay. Q. Now, let us first discuss quantitative analysis. In this particular case quantitative analysis was not used, was it? A. No, it was not. Excuse me, quantitative? Q. Quantitative. A. No. Q. So although technically quantitative analysis has nothing whatsoever to do with what you're going to be testifying to, just so that we round out a discussion of all the courses that you've taken, you will recall that there are occasions when chemists like yourself might like to quantify, for example, how much heroin is present or how much suspected cocaine is present or something like that, right? A. Yes. Q. And you have such equipment in your laboratory don't you, for doing that? A. Yes, we do. Q. And that's an ultraviolet spectrophotometer, isn't it? A. That is one of them. Q. One of them. And what you do is you integrate under the curve, right? A. That's one technique. Q. Fine. Can you go to the blackboard and derive for me the equation for that integration? A. No, sir, I cannot. Q. In quantitative analysis one of the things you learned about was not only how to integrate under that curve, but you learned a theory that was known as the Fourier series; Fourier, a Frenchman. Remember the Fourier series? A. I heard of the name, but I'm not familiar with the basis of that. Q. You learned all about it in quantitative analysis, didn't you? A. I don't recall that, no. Q. Did you learn about it in physical chemistry? A. I don't recall. Q. Well, you had it in introductory calculus, didn't you? A. No, it was not covered there. Q. Do you know what the Fourier series is? A. No, I do not. Q. Do you know, can you as you sit on the stand today make any statement concerning the - well, can you make any absolute assertion that you're prepared to (state about your knowledge of) quantitative analysis and be cross-examined over by myself this morning? A. No. Q. Now I did address myself, sir, to the second of these courses, the course in qualitative analysis. Among other things, qualitative analysis involves mixing color reagents with compounds, isn't that right, and then watching colors? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And you remember how in high school we used to make formulas where you have hydrogen plus oxygen gives water? Remember how we used to do that in high school? A. Yes. Q. And these color reactions are much the same thing. You have a reagent, and you add an unknown compound, and you get a color, just like hydrogen and oxygen makes water, right? A. Yes. Q. Do you know the chemical reaction for just one of those color reactions - just one that you can go to the blackboard and tell us about? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Now, let us examine, if we will, the machine that's called the infrared spectrophotometer. That machine has an on-off switch on it, doesn't it? A. It does. Q. And it has an adjustment that's a calibration adjustment; isn't that right? A. I could not describe it as a calibration adjustment. Q. It has an adjustment, doesn't it. A. Yes. Q. Does that adjust bias voltage on the DC amplifiers, or don't you know? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know what a DC amplifier is? A. No. Q. Do you know what the bias adjustment on any amplifier is? A. No, I do not. Q. Do you know anything at all, whatsoever about how an amplifier -- this machine has a little pen that goes up and down and makes a wiggly line on a piece of paper like you looked at yesterday, right? A. Yes, it does. Q. Back of the pen there's a magnet, right? That's what moves the pen back and forth; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. That magnet that moves the pen back and forth is governed by what are known as Maxwell equations. That's what makes the magnet work, right? A. I don't know. Q. You've heard of Maxwell? A. No, sir, I haven't. Q. Refresh your recollection. Remember that course in physical chemistry you took and they talked about Maxwell's demon, and he had a little ping pong paddle and he used to wave it back and forth and knock the molecules into one box or another. Remember Maxwell's demon now? A. No, sir, I don't. Q. Do you remember anything at all about a man named Maxwell? A. No, I don't. Q. There are a number of distinguished persons who have made major contributions in the last two hundred years to the field of chemistry in particular physical chemistry; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Can you give me the name of one of them with whose work you're familiar? A. No, I cannot. Q. Now, remember, Mr. Linssen, that you said earlier today that you did not run a quantitative analysis in the matters in this case. Do you remember that? A. I did run a quantitative on one of the samples. Q. That is, you would like now to be heard to change that answer just slightly; is that right? You were two-thirds correct in that answer; is that right? A. Yes. Q. All right. You have, have you not, heard the expression that close only counts in horsehoes and hand grenades? MR. KREMERS: Object to the form of the question. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SHELLOW: Q. Mr. Linssen, we were talking about the pen that makes the wiggly line and the fact that there's a magnet, right? A. Yes. Q. And that magnet creates a magnetic field, right? A. Yes. Q. Do you know anything whatsoever about the magnetic field that moves that pen in the machine about which you are going to testify? Anything at all about that magnetic field about which you're prepared to let me examine you? A. No, I don't. Q. All right. Let's work back further in the machine. The next thing we come to working backwards from the magnet is some sort of amplifying device; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Do you know anything whatsoever about the operation of that amplifying device? A. No, I do not. Q. We go back from the amplifying device. We're still working our way toward the beginning of the machine. There is something known as a double beam, right? A. Yes. Q. And that double beam consists of a radio frequency beam or a magnetic beam, or don't you know? A. I don't know. Q. There is a difference between radio frequency beams and magnetic beams, isn't there? A. I don't know. Q. And that beam impinges upon a sample, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the modifications in the structure of the sample as a consequence of its being impacted by that energy? A. No, I do not. Q. Now, that particular energy that impinges upon that sample has an equivalent mass, doesn't it? A. I don't recall. Q. Well, there's an obscure equation that relates the impacted energy in an infrared spectrophotometer with the equivalent mass that uses as a constant, I think, three hundred million, something like that. Do you recall that? A. No, I don't. Q. Well, it is one of those obscure equations which scientists like yourself learned in the eighth grade, that is it's the equation that's known as E equals MC squared. It's the Einstein equation, isn't it? A. I don't recall. Q. Well, do you have even -- do you know even what the Einstein equation is? A. It's a measure of energy. Q. It's a conversion of energy into mass, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you learned it in eighth grade, didn't you? A. No. Q. Did you learn it in high school chemistry? A. I believe so. Q. But it momentarily slipped your mind that it had anything to do with the machine that you were using, right? A. I don't relate it, no. Q. That is you don't remember what it has to do with, right? A. Yes. Q. All right. Let's talk. Perhaps your recollection could be refreshed, sir. You said that you had some difficulty remembering perhaps the leading figures in the field in which you're an expert. We're going to talk today, perhaps, about stereochemistry, isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. And you are not an expert in the field of stereochemistry, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now I'm gong to ask you another question. Is there anything at all you know in the field of stereochemistry that you're prepared to let me cross-examine you about today? Anything at all that you're willing to (say about) the field of stereochemistry? A. No. Q. Let's perhaps refresh your recollection. There's a phenomenon which you'd like to discuss with us if you're given the opportunity, known as optical rotation; is that right? A. Yes. Q. The man who founded the basic formulation of optical rotation, the basic law is called Biot's law, right? A. I don't recall. Q. Without recalling Mr. Biot's name, do you remember anything at all about the equation for optical rotation, anything at all? A. No, I do not. Q. All right. But you have seen the equation, haven't you? A. I don't recall having seen it. Q. Perhaps if I showed it to you it might refresh your recollection. MR. SHELLOW: May I go into chambers for a moment, Your Honor, and get my briefcase? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. SHELLOW: Q. All right. Here's a whole book on optical rotation called Optical Rotary Power by T. Martin Long. You're familiar with that treatise, aren't you? A. No, I'm not. Q. All right. Why don't you just look at it, just kind of scan it, and tell me if there's anything in there you know anything at all about. MR. KREMERS: I object to this procedure. MR. SHELLOW: He's going to talk about a rotation and ought to be able to examine him on something in it. I'm letting him refresh his recollection on what he might know. THE COURT: All right. MR. SHELLOW: I think it's more fair, Your Honor, than cross- examining him over a book he hasn't read. THE COURT: Let him read it. MR. SHELLOW: Just scan it. MR. KREMERS: Your Honor, I think it's unrealistic to expect a witness to read a book in the presence of ______ while the attorney's waiting to ask a question. MR. SHELLOW: I'll withdraw the question and we'll go about it differently. THE COURT: All right. MR. KREMERS: Your Honor, I further object to the use of the treatise in that it was not given to the State 40 days before the start of the trial. MR. SHELLOW: I'm not asking it be accepted as a learned treatise, just to refresh his recollection, Judge. MR. KREMERS: There's no showing that the recollection needs to be refreshed. MR. SHELLOW: That's true. THE COURT: Proceed. MR. SHELLOW: Q. Have you heard of a man by the name of Louis Pasteur? A. Yes. Q. All right. But his significant contribution in the field about which you're going to be testifying is called Pasteur's law of optical polarization. That's what he's know for, isn't he? A. I don't recall. Q. Perhaps a book that discussed Pasteur's law would refresh your recollection as to his contribution in this field? A. It may. Q. Now we're not asking you to learn this on the stand, we're just asking you if this will refresh your recollection. We'll look in the index here. Page 52, application of Pasteur's principle. Page 42, and the -- that's nonmetals, and we're dealing with nonmetals today -- and applications of Pasteur's principles, as well as chapter 4, and application of Pasteur's principles is chapter 6. so Pasteur encompasses those whole three chapters. And what you might do is just scan them and see if you now remember that Louis Pasteur had something to do with the field about which you're going to testify as an expert. Does that help any? A. It frequently refers to Pasteur's principle. Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to what Pasteur's principle is? A. I still don't recall that as being Louis Pasteur. Q. Now as we previously discussed, you're familiar with the equipment known as an infrared spectrophotometer. Let us know address ourself to your familiarity with the second of the instruments about which you're going to testify. It's called an ultraviolet spectrophotometer. Do you recall we mentioned that yesterday? A. Yes, we did. Q. All right. The output of the ultraviolet spectrophotometer is also a kind of wiggly line, but not quite with as many wiggles as the other one, right? A. That's correct. Q. And we said earlier this morning that in order to calculate percentages you integrate under that particular curve, right? A. That's one particular technique, yes. Q. One technique. And you don't know those integrations, do you? A. That's correct, I don't. Q. Now, that device also has a magnet that drives the pen around, right? A. Yes. Q. And you don't know anything about the magnet, and you don't know anything about the magnetic field that drives the magnet, and you don't know anything about the amplifier in back of the magnet in that machine either, right? A. That's correct. Q. But one thing we do know is there's a source of ultraviolet light that impinges on the sample, right? A. Yes. Q. But we have no idea what structural changes take place in the sample as a consequence of being irradiated by ultraviolet light, right? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now, a leading question -- THE COURT: You'll have to slow down on that last one. MR. SHELLOW: Q. That is, we have no knowledge whatsoever of the effect on the sample of its being irradiated with ultraviolet light in your ultraviolet spectrophotometer, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, is it accurate to say then that your knowledge of the operation of that equipment and your knowledge of the operation of the infrared spectrophotometer is limited to the fact that you squash up a pellet and you put it in the machine and you turn on the switch, calibrate it and run the tape, run the paper through? Is that accurate? A. That's correct, yes. Q. All right. Now, let's come to the next machine. There's another, remember we're now talking about the machine -- we talked about a column chromatograph, remember? A. Yes. Q. And we can picture a column chromatograph as a big glass tube, although sometimes it's all curled up, but schematically it's a big glass tube, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you squirt stuff in one end, and there's a carrier gas, and it carries it through and it comes out the other end, right? A. In this particular case I use the solvent that passes through the column. Q. All right. You use a solvent. So you don't use the gas at all? A. That's correct. Q. You use a solvent. And the solvent goes down through the column, and it picks up parts of your unknown substance as it goes through, and then you measure when it comes out, right? A. The sample is collected and then carried to further analysis, yes. Q. Now there are standards for column chromatography, are there not? There are published standards. And let me give you examples. There is a standard particle size that appears in literature of the particles that fit into this column, right, or don't you know? A. I believe you're referring to liquid chromatography. Q. You have a column in which you're -- we're talking about gas chromatography, you used it in this case? A. Yes. Q. With particles in a column? A. Yes. Q. Those particles have a standard particle size? A. Yes. Q. You made no attempt to measure the particle size in this case to match up to the literature, did you? A. No, I did not. Q. that is, there are standard particle sizes that appear in United States Government publications; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. There are standard particle sizes that appear in scientific literature, in particular the Journal of the American Chemical Society. That's true, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. There are standard particle size that appear in scientific literature throughout the world; is that right? A. I believe they do, yes. Q. Yes. And you didn't use any standard particle sizes in this case, did you? A. That's correct, I did not. Q. Now, there are reasons, are there not, why some substances some out of this column before other substances -- Let me back up. The whole reason for this machine, if it's working right, is that some things come out of the machine before other things, right? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, there's a reason why -- that's why you use the machine, right, because some things come out before others, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, there's a reason why some things come out before others, isn't there? A. Yes, there is. Q. But you don't know that reason, do you? A. No, I do not. Q. Now, let's talk for a moment about liquid chromatography. That's also a pipe-like thing? A. Yes, it is. Q. And in that you use a solvent to go through it? A. Yes. Q. And again the whole purpose of that machine is that somethings come out with that solvent before other things, right? A. That's correct. Q. And there's a reason why things come out before other things come out, right? A. Yes. Q. And you don't know what those reasons are either, do you? A. No. Q. And lastly, the last kind of chromatography that you used is a thin layer plate, right? A. That's correct. Q. And a thin layer plate is kind of a flat piece of glass, about, oh, a little smaller than this notebook, isn't it? A. It's approximately eight inches square, yes. Q. About eight inches square? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Well, let's pretend this is eight inches square. It's about eight inches here, but it should be a little wider, right? A. Yes. Q. All right. And then the spots sort of migrate up the plate, right, they sort of move up the plate? A. Yes. Q. And there's a reason why some spots go up further and some spots go up less far, right? A. Yes. Q. And you don't know the reason why those spots go up the plate, do you? A. No, I do not. Q. And you don't know why some spots go up further than other spots, do you? A. That's correct. Q. And it would be accurate to say as far as all of this equipment is concerned, you don't know why any of it works; is that right? A. That's correct, I do not. Q. Now, Mr. Linssen, to summarize, going back over everything you've learned about infrared spectrophotometry, everything you've learned about ultraviolet spectrophotometry, everything you've learned about gas chromatography...organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, physiological chemistry, everything you've learned about calculus, everything you've learned about differential equations, everything you may have learned about functions of a complex variable, everything you may or may not know about stereochemistry: Can you tell me anything you know in any of those fields with sufficient certainty so that I can cross-examine you over it meaningfully? MR. KREMERS: Object to the form of the question and also as to the answer. THE COURT: In summary he may answer. THE WITNESS: No. MR. SHELLOW: Nothing further. (After a short break Mr. Kremers attempted to rehabilitate the witness:) MR. KREMERS: Q. Mr. Linssen, where did you learn how to operate the equipment that you used in your analysis of the substances in this case? A. At the crime laboratory in Madison. Q. And who did you learn the operation of those machines from? A. From various staff members at the laboratory. Q. Would that include Dr. Smith? A. Yes, it does. Q. Do you know what degree Dr. Smith holds? MR. SHELLOW: I object. You can't qualify this witness by showing -- Marty Smith is an enormously well qualified human being. But you can't qualify him by saying he knows people who are qualified. MR. KREMERS: That's not what I'm attempting to do, Mr. Shellow. THE COURT: You may proceed. Your objection is overruled, Mr. Shellow. THE WITNESS: He has a doctor's degree in chemistry, but I'm not certain which branch of chemistry. MR. KREMERS: Q. One of these people that you learned from is also Dr. Fretchkow or Mr. Fretchkow? A. No, I did not know Dr. Fretchkow at that time. Q. When you obtain a result from an unknown substance in any one of these test (you) compare it to another result; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Where do you get the other result from that you compare it to? A. Those results are published in various collections of spectra. Q. And you also have known samples of some of these drugs in the lab? A. We do. Q. Have you in the past run tests on those known samples? A. I have. Q. And you then use those results in your comparison when you're analyzing substances? A. On some occasions, yes. Q. You didn't do that in this case; is that right? A. That's correct, I did not. Q. Do you know who publishes these results that you use for comparison? A. The results do occur in various records. Q. How many times have you operated the equipment that you used in this -- prior to the time that you ran these tests, how many times did you operate that equipment? A. Several thousand times. Q. Do you consider yourself more able to operate that equipment than someone who hasn't had any training at all in the operation of that equipment? A. Yes. Q. And do you consider yourself more able to define chemical terms than someone who's never had any chemistry courses or never examined or done any analysis of any chemical substances? A. Yes, I do. Q. And how many times have you testified as an expert in court? A. Somewhere in excess of six hundred times. Q. In what courts, Wisconsin or other states? A. In Wisconsin in nearly every county. MR. KREMERS: I have no further questions. MR. SHELLOW: I have a few. Q. You left the Madison laboratory about three years ago? A. That's correct. Q. How long had Marty Smith been there when you left? A. For several years. Q. Did Marty Smith tell you one thing about physical chemistry that you care to repeat, that you can repeat to us now, one thing he said was true of physical chemistry? A. I can't recall any. Q. Did Marty smith tell you one thing that he claimed was true about organic chemistry? A. Nothing I can recall at this time. Q. Did Marty Smith tell you one thing that was true about an infrared spectrophotometer that you can repeat at this time? A. Nothing I can recall. Q. As you sit on the stand today can you recall any one single thing that Dr. Martin Smith taught you about anything in the field of chemistry that you're prepared to be cross-examined on today? A. No, I can't. MR. SHELLOW: That's all.