1. More Photos Here

EPHRATA - Forensic scientists testified to finding no evidence of damage to Sage Munro's truck in the David Nickels trial.

Two Washington State Patrol forensic scientists testified to testing Munro's truck, a pair of handcuffs found on his lawn and a .45 caliber bullet casing during the ninth day of testimony in Nickels first-degree murder trial.

Nickels, 31, Helena, Mont., is accused of shooting Munro outside of his Ephrata home on Dec. 29, 2009.

Defense attorneys questioned the witnesses about keeping their notes, whether police got a palm print of Nickels and the method for swabbing for DNA.

Mitch Nessan and Donald Brennan, Washington State Patrol forensic scientists, testified to finding prints and no damage to Munro's truck.

Nessan testified the exterior of the truck was wet and muddy when he started his investigation on Jan. 5, 2010. He did not find any blood, bullet marks or damage on the exterior of the truck.

Defense attorneys previously argued Ian Libby was prowling around the truck prior to reportedly shooting Munro when he left the house to start his vehicle.

When Deputy Prosecutor Tyson Hill asked what Nessan found in the truck bed, the forensic scientist said he found two tool boxes, along with various items in the truck bed. He did find a red stain.

"We did test for the presence of blood, but it was negative," Nessan said. "That test was basically just take a swab and try to collect some of the sample. We have a chemical called phenolphthalein that we use to test for the presence of blood and it was negative."

He didn't know what the stain was, but said it appeared to be a paint stain.

Inside the truck, Nessan found a couple magazines, a tape measure, Tylenol, an external hard drive and ammunition including shotgun shells and .22 caliber ammunition.

"There was, I believe, some kind of rifle cartridge that was also found, but mainly I believe it was just shotgun ammunition and .22 (caliber ammunition.)" Nessan said.

The truck didn't contain any .45 caliber ammunition or handguns, he testified.

"There were no firearms found in the vehicle," Nessan said. "There was no blood observed in the truck ... There was one defect that was found on the driver's seat towards the door side ... We examined to determine whether or not it might be the result of the passage of a bullet. We did a chemical testing for lead and for copper, both those were negative and there was no real indication of a bullet that went through the seat cushion. It was more like a torn seat cushion."

Nessan also took cotton swabs and took samples of the door handles to conduct a later test for DNA.

Donald Brannan, a Washington State Patrol forensic scientist, testified to finding three prints on Munro's truck.

"The skin on the bottom side of the hands ... and also the bottom sides of the feet is ridged. It's different than the skin found on the rest of the body. These ridges don't just run in straight lines. They kind of curve around. Two ridges will join to form one or one ridge, sometimes, the ridge will split into two."

He explained when a person has a substance, such as body oil, on their hands or feet and touch a surface they have the possibility of transferring it to the material. Some materials, such as cloth or rough surfaces, aren't conducive to picking up a print.

Brannan tested the handcuffs and bullet casing found on Munro's lawn, he said. No prints were found on either item.

He checked for prints on the doors, side view mirror, rear corner panels and tailgate on the exterior of the truck. He checked various locations on the inside of the truck. In total he found one print on the tailgate, one on the passenger's side door frame and one on the passenger's side windshield. The two inside prints were useful, the one from the tailgate couldn't be used.

Brennan testified the fingerprint found on the door frame didn't come from either Munro or Nickels.

Defense attorney Jackie Walsh questioned whether Nessan kept the notes he made during his search of the truck.

Nessan replied he did.

Walsh asked if the notes referred to the focus of the examination of the truck.

"Yes," he said. "One of the things that I listed in my notes was the focus for the scene ... Some of the things were fingerprints, trace evidence (and) possible trajectory into the driver's seat."

Walsh checked with Nessan whether Brennan was responsible for checking for prints, asking if Nessan observed him checking the truck.

Nessan agreed Brennan did search the truck, but he didn't watch him the entire time because he was busy taking notes for his own search.

"I wasn't looking over his shoulder or anything like that," Nessan said.

Walsh also questioned where Nessan used tape to try and locate fibers, asking if he took samples from the front and back of the seat and the seat belt.

Nessan answered he took samples from the front of the seats and the back of the seats, but not the seat belt.

Walsh asked Nessan a series of questions about where he searched for DNA material, confirming his earlier testimony. She questioned whether he did any DNA testing using cotton swabs before the door handles were checked for prints.

"Typically when you're working with a latent print person, he'll go and look for latent prints on the door handle before we do any swabbing," he said.

Walsh questioned whether Brennan was the first person to process the bullet casing and handcuffs for prints.

"I believe there was an indication on the lab request that both items had been Super glued (to preserve prints) before being sent," he said. "So to me, that is a part of processing. So that would be the initial test, whoever did that."

Walsh repeated a question she had for Nessan to Brennan, asking if it was important to check for prints before testing for DNA evidence.

Brennan agreed.

Walsh also questioned Brennan about the surfaces where it was possible to leave prints on, asking if virtually any surface, except for cloth and rough surfaces, could accept a print.

"There are many surfaces, even on the fabrics and the rough surfaces, you can leave impressions. It's a matter of whether those impressions can be useful for further comparison because of the quality of the impression."

Brennan explained the print found on the windshield was a palm print.

"You testified earlier that the known comparisons that you made ... were to Mr. Sage Munro and Mr. David Nickels, is that correct?" she asked. "Sample B (found on the windshield), you could not make a comparison because you didn't have a palm exemplar from either person, is that correct?"

Brennan said Walsh was correct.

"Did Detective (Juan) Rodriguez or any other detective involved in the investigation of this case, did they ever bring you a palm exemplar for Mr. Nickels?"

Brennan testified they didn't.