Skip to content
Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey— Case Archive
Steven Averytrial-daytrial-dayNorman A. GahnJerome F. ButingSherry CulhaneNick StahlkecrossredirectrecrossdirectDay 11 - February 26, 2007Sherry Culhane was questioned about DNA findings, the bullet test’s contaminated control, and the handling of Avery’s buccal swabs. Nick Stahlke described vehicle bloodstains, while the court limited a proposed opinion about a photographed cut and required notice of further evidence of the kind raised in the swab questioning.
← Day 10Steven AveryDay 12 →

Day 11 - February 26, 2007

Culhane’s DNA Testing and Stahlke’s Bloodstain Testimony

Judge Patrick L. Willis
12Proceedings
6Pages
2Witnesses
2,610Lines
Day 11 of 27
Appearing:
Norman A. Gahn Jerome F. Buting Sherry Culhane Nick Stahlke

Sherry Culhane was questioned about DNA findings, the bullet test’s contaminated control, and the handling of Avery’s buccal swabs. Nick Stahlke described vehicle bloodstains, while the court limited a proposed opinion about a photographed cut and required notice of further evidence of the kind raised in the swab questioning.

Full day summary

Sherry Culhane testified that her DNA comparisons could not establish how DNA entered the RAV4 or detect contamination before evidence reached the laboratory. The defense questioned her about an investigator’s request to try to place Teresa Halbach in Avery’s house or garage and about the bullet test’s contaminated control. Culhane agreed that, without a protocol deviation, the bullet result would have been reported as inconclusive for a match. She maintained that her DNA was in the control, not the evidence sample, and described the bullet profile as consistent with Halbach. She said the deviation was approved, although the form lacked a supervisor’s signature and her final report did not disclose it. Questioning about Avery’s returned buccal swabs led to an examination of their packaging; Culhane said the inner envelope’s seals were unbroken. Nick Stahlke described bloodstain patterns inside the RAV4 and in a Grand Am. He qualified his interpretation of a driver’s-seat stain and testified that a cargo-area pattern indicated bloody hair. Outside the jury’s presence, the judge sustained an objection to his proposed opinion linking a photographed cut to an ignition-area stain. After Stahlke’s testimony, the judge required advance notice of further defense evidence of the kind raised in the buccal-swab questioning, with admissibility to be reviewed if the State objected.

1. Sherry Culhane — Cross/Redirect (Part 2)

Buting challenged the limits of Culhane’s DNA findings and the bullet test’s control result; on redirect, Culhane explained her deviation request and stood by the reported profile.

→
Procedural
Morning session opening and appearances
10 lines
Cross
Sherry Culhane — Cross Sherry Culhane Jerome F. Buting
1845 lines

Buting challenged the limits of Culhane's DNA conclusions and her bullet-fragment result, focusing on a contaminated control, a protocol deviation, and its omission from her final report.

Redirect
Sherry Culhane — Redirect Sherry Culhane Norman A. Gahn
159 lines

Culhane defended her bullet DNA conclusion despite contamination in the test control, explained her protocol deviation, and identified a buccal-swab envelope that the court kept closed pending recross.

Highlights

Sherry Culhane — CrossadmissionCulhane distinguished a DNA-profile comparison from proof of how DNA entered the RAV4, and agreed her laboratory controls could not detect contamination or tampering before evidence arrived.Sherry Culhane — Cross“I'm saying that his profile was consistent with what I found in the stains.”— Sherry CulhaneCulhane confined her RAV4-stain conclusion to the DNA comparison rather than how the material arrived there.Sherry Culhane — Crossevidence eventExhibit 341 showed that Culhane recorded Mr. Fassbender's request to try to place Teresa Halbach in Avery's house or garage. Culhane said she had the information but that it had no bearing on her analysis.Sherry Culhane — CrossadmissionCulhane agreed the ordinary protocol called for an inconclusive inclusion result after a contaminated manipulation control and that the bullet extraction could not be repeated. She used a deviation request to report the bullet result.Sherry Culhane — Redirecttestimony highlightDescribing the bullet extraction, Culhane said she placed the whole bullet in a tube while explaining the process to two newer analysts, and acknowledged that her talking may have affected the work. She distinguished her DNA in the control from DNA in the evidence sample, defended the deviation, and described the bullet profile as single-source and consistent with Teresa Halbach.Sherry Culhane — Redirect“It was a single source of DNA, meaning from one person, and it was consistent with Teresa Halbach.”— Sherry CulhaneThis states her conclusion about the bullet sample, distinct from the contaminated control.

2. Buccal-Swab Envelope Hearing on Chain of Custody and Planting Theory

Outside the jury's presence on Day 11, counsel disputed the condition of an outer buccal-swab envelope and how it should be shown to the jury.

→
Procedural
Buccal-swab envelope hearing: chain of custody and planting-theory dispute
42 lines

Counsel disputed the buccal-swab envelope's seal and the scope of the defense's planting theory; the judge set a procedure for showing and describing the envelope before opening it.

3. Sherry Culhane — Redirect/Recross (Part 3)

Culhane's Day 11 testimony moved from a sealed evidence package to questions about contamination in a bullet DNA-test control and her departure from lab protocol.

→
Redirect
Sherry Culhane — Redirect Continued Sherry Culhane Norman A. Gahn
88 lines

Culhane described the opened package's swab kit and testified that the inner envelope's seals appeared unbroken, while saying its markings did not show when she resealed it.

Recross
Sherry Culhane — Recross Sherry Culhane Jerome F. Buting
105 lines

Culhane agreed that without a protocol-permitted deviation, the bullet DNA result would have been reported as inconclusive; she maintained that her DNA contaminated the control, not the evidence extract.

Redirect
Sherry Culhane — Further Redirect Sherry Culhane Norman A. Gahn
12 lines

Culhane defended the bullet-test protocol deviation, saying her DNA was in the control, not the evidence sample.

Recross
Sherry Culhane — Further Recross Sherry Culhane Jerome F. Buting
19 lines

Culhane said the DNA in the bullet-test control was hers but could not say with complete certainty how the control became contaminated.

Procedural
Afternoon Break, Exhibit Admission, and Next-Witness Transition
12 lines

Highlights

Sherry Culhane — Redirect Continuedtestimony highlightAsked about possible access to a swab for planting evidence on a key, Culhane said none of the inner envelope's seals were broken. She could not determine the sealing date from its markings; she identified Exhibit 344 as a release form showing a September 25, 2003 return.Sherry Culhane — RecrossadmissionCulhane agrees that, without the deviation allowed by the protocol, her report would have called the bullet DNA result inconclusive.

4. Nick Stahlke — Direct (Part 1)

Nick Stahlke described stains inside the RAV4 and testified that he saw none on its exterior.

→
Direct
Nick Stahlke — Direct Nick Stahlke Norman A. Gahn
139 lines

Stahlke described photographed stains inside the RAV4; a proposed link between a hand cut and a dashboard stain drew foundation and disclosure objections.

5. Hearing on Scope and Disclosure of Stahlke’s Bloodstain Opinion

Strang objected to linking a photographed cut to blood near the vehicle's ignition, and the judge sustained the objection.

→
Procedural
Hearing on scope and disclosure of Stahlke’s bloodstain opinion
27 lines

The judge sustained the defense's objection to a proposed bloodstain opinion linking a photographed cut to a dashboard stain.

Highlights

Hearing on scope and disclosure of Stahlke’s bloodstain opinionrulingThe judge sustained the defense's objection, saying the jury could assess the photograph and the witness had little to add within his expertise.

6. Nick Stahlke — Direct (Part 2)

Nick Stahlke continued his testimony about vehicle bloodstains before the jury left and the judge addressed notice for further frame-up evidence.

→
Direct
Nick Stahlke — Direct Continued Nick Stahlke Norman A. Gahn
152 lines

Stahlke interpreted RAV4 cargo-area and rear-door bloodstains, described disconnected battery cables, and compared stains in two vehicles; the judge then required notice of further frame-up evidence.

Highlights

Nick Stahlke — Direct Continuedtestimony highlightStahlke identified cargo-area contact-transfer stains, including a pattern he said was indicative of bloody hair, and agreed that the combined stains were consistent with a body with bloody hair having been present.Nick Stahlke — Direct ContinuedrulingAfter the jury left, the State renewed its request for notice and an offer of proof before further frame-up evidence was presented. The defense said the buccal-swab questioning responded to the State's DNA testimony. The judge said he had allowed that evidence but would require advance notice of any further evidence of that kind so the court could evaluate admissibility if the State objected.Nick Stahlke — Direct Continued“But I think the State's point is well taken, they are entitled to notice if there's any other evidence like that that the defense will be seeking to introduce.”— Patrick L. WillisCaptures the judge's notice ruling without treating it as a blanket exclusion.
← Day 10Steven AveryDay 12 →