7.Lisa Yelle — Direct/Cross
100 linesTHE COURT: Yeah, Commonwealth.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: The Commonwealth would call Lisa Yelle as its next witness.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
LISA YELLE: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Alright. Commonwealth.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you. Good afternoon, ma'am. Can you please tell the jurors your first and last name?
LISA YELLE: My name is Lisa Yelle, spelled Y-E-L-L-E.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And what do you do for work?
LISA YELLE: I currently work at a biotech pharmacy company.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Did you work for the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab at some point?
LISA YELLE: Yes, I did.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And how long did you work for the Crime Lab?
LISA YELLE: For 15 years.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And in January of 2023, what unit were you working with at the Crime Lab?
LISA YELLE: The Toxicology Unit.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Okay. And more specifically, I guess, February of 2023, were you still in that unit?
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Okay. Now I'm just gonna draw your attention right to this particular case. We're talking about laboratory number 23-01723. Did you do any batch work on this particular case?
LISA YELLE: Yes, I did.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And what testing did you do in relation to the samples of this lab number?
LISA YELLE: It was a test that was known as the general unknown screen.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Can you tell the jury what the general unknown screen does, what it tests for?
LISA YELLE: Sure. That's a screening test for drugs. It essentially would test for hundreds of different prescription medications or drugs of abuse.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And in this particular test, the general unknown screen, is there a portion of testing in the lab for general unknowns that would allow you to quantify when certain substances are detected?
LISA YELLE: The general unknown screen is not a quantifiable test. It's just an identification screen. So you wouldn't be able to attribute a specific level of the drug, but just the identification that it was present or not.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: So it would be a detected or non-detected situation?
LISA YELLE: Correct.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And in this particular case, items 10-101 involved a vial of blood that was submitted to the laboratory, correct?
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And you did the general unknown screen for the blood?
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And what were the substances that were detected in that sample of blood?
LISA YELLE: Would I be able to reference-
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Sure.
LISA YELLE: ... just to ensure that I'm attributing everything?
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Yep.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. REDDINGTON: No. Of course not. Sure.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: I could actually show you what's marked exhibit 183.
LISA YELLE: Okay.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Does that refresh your memory as to the substances?
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Okay. So fair to say it's ritazapine, lamotrigine…
LISA YELLE: Trazodone.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Trazodone.
LISA YELLE: And quetiapine.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Quetiapine, and the quetiapine metabolite, correct?
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And in that particular screen of the blood, all you're able to tell is whether they're detected or not?
LISA YELLE: Correct.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: In your work with testing for those items and running that general unknown screen, were there any issues with the controls in that test?
LISA YELLE: No, there weren't.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Were there any problems with the equipment in that test?
LISA YELLE: There was a syringe issue, which means essentially if you consider a needle that has a plunger on the top, it would've essentially gotten stuck at some point within the batch run, which could run for 24 to 48 hours. It's a very lengthy run. So once the error is notified, it's a very simple switch. You just pull the syringe out, place it back, place a new one back into that same spot, and then you would restart your run from that point forward, including a control just to ensure that the instrument is still functioning the way that it should.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And so would that type of error that you observed in the equipment affect the results of the test?
LISA YELLE: Not in any way.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And in addition to the testing or running this general unknown screen on the blood, you also ran a general unknown screen on urine, which was identified as item 10-201, correct?
LISA YELLE: That's correct.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And were those same substances detected in the urine?
LISA YELLE: Yes, they were.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And again, as far as those particular substances in the general unknown screen, or unknown screen test for urine, are you able to quantify it in any way?
LISA YELLE: No.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Is it fair to say that there are other laboratories across the country that potentially could quantify those substances?
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And so in this case, are you aware that the—there were samples of the blood in, and that were sent to another lab because of those positive tests for those substances?
LISA YELLE: I am not aware.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Okay. You weren't the reporting analyst in this case, correct?
LISA YELLE: Correct, I was not.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: So after you did those general unknown screens in the blood and the urine, what did you do with the information?
LISA YELLE: The testing, every independent sample receives its own summary sheet, where you document any possible drugs that were detected. All of the sheets are submitted to what's called a batch review, so a secondary person will independently review everything and ensure that they have the—drew the same conclusions that I did. Once both people have agreed, all of the paperwork that is generated is filed within the respective case files, and then that's later submitted to an analyst at random to author the report and review the entirety of the case.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And in this particular case, for lab number 23-101723, you're aware that Nicholas Roberts was the reporting analyst, correct?
LISA YELLE: Correct.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And any decisions on any further testing were likely made through him, in your experience?
LISA YELLE: Yes, it definitely would not have been part of the role for someone doing a portion of the testing within a case.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: And as far as the particular substances that were detected, when you are running these tests, it doesn't tell you that there were several different drugs that were necessarily consumed by the individual, correct?
LISA YELLE: I don't know if I understand your question.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Well, are there certain substances that come up in these screens that could be attributable to the same type of drug?
LISA YELLE: There are certain—we would call them parent drugs and metabolites. Once you ingest a medication, your body will begin to metabolize or break that drug down, so there could be metabolites that are related to the parent compound of the medication that was taken.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: So where there were five, there were five positive or detected substances, doesn't mean that there was five specific substances, especially where there was a metabolite detected, correct? I guess that—
LISA YELLE: I'm not sure I follow your question again.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: That's okay. As far as these particular items or these particular substances that were detected in these screens, you weren't able to provide any further information for final review other than they were detected?
LISA YELLE: Correct.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Okay. Thank you. Nothing further.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Reddington.
MR. REDDINGTON: So basically, as the court knows, we agree to this. We stipulate to all of this. As far as the blood, the chain of custody, the testing, you didn't have any problems with the quality of the testing, right? It was good test.
LISA YELLE: It was a good test, correct.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay. So, and the results that have been described numerous times, there's the reference to metabolite, and there's five drugs. Doesn't mean there's five drugs. It could be one drug with a metabolite. All a metabolite means is that it's a breakdown of the same drug at some point, right?
LISA YELLE: Correct.
MR. REDDINGTON: Like, if you're smoking marijuana or something, you have carboxy nine or whatever they call it. It can be some residue in your blood, right?
LISA YELLE: Yes, the way that—
MR. REDDINGTON: From the breakdown.
LISA YELLE: Yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: And the lab that counsel was referring to, again, would be the... Is it the NMS lab? You familiar with that, NMS?
LISA YELLE: I'm familiar that the lab, that lab does exist, yes.
MR. REDDINGTON: Yeah. And what does that mean? Do you know what NMS means? Is it, like, national something?
LISA YELLE: I'm not familiar with the acronym.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Thanks.
THE COURT: All right. Commonwealth?
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Nothing further, thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ma'am. You may step down. Thank you.