* * *
“Dr. Tillman, did you have a chance during the break to look at the results of the defendant’s HIV Western Blot test from these ten laboratories?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And what did you find?”
Tillman looks at the paper he used to score the tests. “First, as to be expected, there is a lot of discrepancy from lab to lab about which proteins reacted. Specifically, two labs found gp160, five labs found gp120, four labs found gp41, two labs found p53, six labs found p32, one lab found p55, three labs found p40, eight labs found p24, and six labs found p18.”
“Did any of the labs have no proteins react?”
“No, they didn’t. So the defendant could not be called HIV-Negative.”
“Dr. Tillman, I realize that your expertise does not include the various different criteria that are used to interpret these test results, so I’m not going to ask you to do that. But I will ask you this: in your expert opinion, have you ever seen any other antibody test perform this way – getting such different results from different laboratories?”
“Never, Mr. Campbell. Frankly, it’s a disgrace. I’m appalled that we would conclude that anyone was HIV-Positive with this kind of difference in the lab results.”
Campbell looks at his own notes. “Dr. Tillman, one last question. You said in the beginning that you worked at a ‘reference laboratory’…”
“Correct.”
“…which is staffed by only the best-trained and most proficient laboratory technicians.”
“Yes.”
“And still you got test results that were all over the place.”
“Yes, we did.”
“And you mentioned at least one other study that got the same divergent results, also at a reference lab.”
“Correct.”
Listen carefully, jury. “Dr. Tillman, are all HIV Western Blot tests processed at a reference laboratory?”
“Oh, no. Very few, as a matter of fact.”
“Where are most of the tests processed?”
“In regular, field laboratories.”
“And how are they staffed?”
“Well, certainly not with Ph.D.’s, I can assure you. Many lab techs are fresh out of college or only been on the job a year or two.”
“So they are not as highly trained or as competent as what you’d expect to find in a reference lab?”
“Not by a long shot.”
“Do they have the kind of quality control that you insisted on at your lab.”
“Highly doubtful.”
“Would you expect them to get better or worse results than a reference lab would get?”
“I would be very surprised if they even came close to the quality we tried to maintain.”
Campbell turns toward the jury box but doesn’t look at anyone in particular. “Then, Dr. Tillman, considering the results you got at your reference lab, what do you think might be happening in these field labs when they process an HIV Western Blot test to decide someone’s life or death?”
“I shudder to think about it, Mr. Campbell.”
As good an answer as any, I suppose. “I have no further questions, Your Honor. But I will email these tests results to Dr. Tanner and ask him tomorrow morning to tell us how each of the five different U.S. criteria would interpret them. So I repeat my offer to Mr. Armand to recall this witness for cross-examination tomorrow after I have finished with Dr. Tanner, if he wants.”
When Armand doesn’t respond immediately, the judge asks, “Mr. Armand?”
Armand is still looking at the ten envelopes he had spread all over his desk.
The judge is getting impatient. “Mr. Armand? Would you like to cross-examine this witness now, or wait until tomorrow?”
Without standing, and without taking his eyes off the envelopes in front of him, Armand mutters, “I’ll save my questions for tomorrow, Your Honor.”
The judge decides to overlook this display of disrespect for the court, considering the bombshell Armand had been handed. “Very well. This court is in recess until – what time are we on video link with your witness, Mr. Campbell?”
“Ten a.m., Your Honor.”
“Then we are recessed until ten a.m. tomorrow morning.”
Are You Positive? Page 28