Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:57765 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:327
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson
Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From: [email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: SIDEBARS - August 22, 1995
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 06:56:44 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 440
Sender: [email protected]

Sidebars from August 22, 1995

             (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD AT THE BENCH:)

     THE COURT:  OFF THE RECORD.

           (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

     THE COURT:  WHAT HAVE YOU GOT, CHRIS?
     MR. DARDEN:  JUST WHAT I GAVE HIM.  WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?
     MR. COCHRAN:  THE QUESTION HE IS TALKING ABOUT -- YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY BEING UPSET. THE POINT YOU ASKED I DON'T
FIND IN HERE.
     MR. DARDEN:  HERE IT IS RIGHT DOWN HERE, (INDICATING).
               "AFTER THAT NICOLE'S ATTITUDE CHANGED, THAT O.J.
WAS AWARE OF THE CHANGE AND SEEMED UPSET AND DEPRESSED."
     MR. COCHRAN:  I WAS READING FROM THE STATEMENT AND I WAS
JUST SAYING THAT THIS CERTAINLY OPENS THE DOOR TO SOME OTHER
STUFF BECAUSE I'VE TRIED TO LIMIT IT.
     THE COURT:  IT WILL CREATE A 356 ISSUE.
     MR. COCHRAN:  YES.
     MR. DARDEN:  SURE.
     MR. COCHRAN:  THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
     MR. DARDEN:  ABSOLUTELY.  I HAVE MORE, SO --
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET'S GO.
           ALL RIGHT.  LET'S GO.
           SO THE POINT IS COUNSEL IS AWARE OF WHERE THE
STATEMENT IS COMING FROM.
     MR. COCHRAN:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

****

             (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD AT THE BENCH:)

     THE COURT:  MR. DARDEN.
     MR. COCHRAN:  MAY I SAY SOMETHING?
     THE COURT:  WHERE ARE WE GOING -- I AM INTERESTED -- MR.
DARDEN, YOU ARE THE ONE PURSUING THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING.
           WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS?
     MR. DARDEN:  MY BASIS IS A STATEMENT HE MADE TO CANDACE
GARVEY BACK IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JULY, 1995.
     THE COURT:  WHICH WAS?
     MR. DARDEN:  WHICH WAS THAT THEY DESERVED THAT THEY GOT.
QUOTE, "THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED."
     MR. COCHRAN:  THAT IS HEARSAY.  YOUR HONOR, THAT IS --
     MR. DARDEN:  THE QUESTION IS DID HE SAY THAT AND IF HE SAYS
HE DIDN'T SAY THAT, THEN I WILL BRING SOMEBODY IN WHO WILL SAY
THAT HE DID SAY THAT.
     MR. COCHRAN:  JUST WATCH THE JURY.
           I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS.

           (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
            BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
            ATTORNEYS.)

     MR. DARDEN:  AND I MEAN I MENTIONED EARLIER THIS MORNING
THAT I WOULD PURSUE HIS ATTITUDE,  QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS
ATTITUDE TOWARD THESE PROCEEDINGS.
           THESE AREN'T QUESTIONS I'M MAKING UP. THIS IS THE
EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.
     MR. COCHRAN:  MAY I RESPOND, YOUR HONOR?

           (BRIEF PAUSE.)

     MR. COCHRAN:  I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, YOUR HONOR.
     THE COURT:  HAVE YOU SHOWN THIS TO MR. COCHRAN?
     MR. DARDEN:  I AM ABOUT TO.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           BEFORE YOU START ASKING QUESTIONS, I THOUGHT OUR
AGREEMENT WAS YOU WERE GOING TO SHOW HIM.
     MR. COCHRAN:  THAT WAS EXACTLY THE AGREEMENT, PLUS THIS IS
HEARSAY, I HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT.
           BUT HEARING THE QUESTION, IT IS TOTALLY IMPROPER AND
I WOULD ASK THE JURY TO TOTALLY DISREGARD.
     THE COURT:  WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?  THAT REICHARDT SAID THEY
GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED BECAUSE THEY WERE --
     MR. COCHRAN:  YOUR HONOR, THIS IS --
     MR. DARDEN:  UMM --
     THE COURT:  BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT DANCING ALL NIGHT ALL THE
TIME?
     MR. DARDEN:  YEAH.  I MEAN, REICHARDT BUYS INTO THE WHOLE
ISSUE THAT THEY SHOULD ALL BE HOME, I GUESS THAT INCLUDES FAYE
RESNICK AND CORA FISCHMAN, AND THEY ARE ALL DEJECTED, ALL THREE
OF THEM, THEY ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THEIR WOMEN, THEY CAN'T
CONTROL THEM, THEY -- THEIR WOMEN APPARENTLY HAVE NO LONGER ANY
INTEREST IN THEM, AND --
     MR. COCHRAN:  THIS IS SO PREPOSTEROUS, HEARSAY, TOTALLY
IMPROPER.  IT IS TOTALLY IMPROPER AND I WANT THE COURT TO
ADMONISH THE JURY REGARDING THIS.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           MR. DARDEN, OUR AGREEMENT WAS BEFORE YOU LAUNCHED
INTO SOMETHING THAT INVOLVED A REPORT YOU WOULD SHOW COUNSEL THE
REPORT BEFORE YOU LAUNCHED INTO THE QUESTION.
           ALL RIGHT.
           THIS IS A JULY 11TH PHONE INTERVIEW OF CANDACE GARVEY
REGARDING CHRISTIAN REICHARDT AND I'M REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO
PARAGRAPH 4, THE RELEVANT ITEM, WHICH SAYS AS FOLLOWS:
               "DURING A CONVERSATION WITH REICHARDT GARVEY
TALKED ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO NICOLE SIMPSON, CORA FISCHMAN
(HER AFFAIR WITH A GROCERY CLERK) AND RESNICK (BEING SUICIDAL AND
BELIEVING THAT SOMEONE WAS AFTER HER).  REICHARDT'S RESPONSE WAS,
QUOTE, 'THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED,' UNQUOTE.  HE STATED HE
SOUNDED VERY BITTER. REICHARDT ALSO ASKED GARVEY HOW SHE WOULD
FEEL BEING  ONE OF THEM, MEANING ONE OF THE HUSBANDS OR
BOYFRIENDS.  HE SAID THEY WERE, QUOTE, 'GOING OUT TO 4:00 IN THE
MORNING AND ACTING THE WAY THEY DID. THEY WERE ALL MOTHERS,'
UNQUOTE."
           ALL RIGHT.
           MR. COCHRAN.
     MR. COCHRAN:  I THINK THAT IS -- I MEAN, HOW HE GETS FROM
THAT TO THE FACT THAT SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED BY GETTING HER
THROAT CUT, THAT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER.
           IF HE WOULD COME UP HERE -- HE KNEW WE WOULD COME UP
HERE.  THAT IS AN IMPROPER QUESTION AND I THINK THE JURY SHOULD
BE ADMONISHED REGARDING THAT.
           THIS IS A HEARSAY STATEMENT ALLEGED AND HE DIDN'T
EVEN SAY THAT.
     THE COURT:  MR. COCHRAN, IS THAT A 352 OBJECTION?
     MR. COCHRAN:  YES, I'M SORRY.
     MR. DARDEN:  I ASKED THE WITNESS IF THAT WAS HIS OPINION,
THAT THEY DESERVED WHAT THEY GOT.  I DID NOT INTRODUCE ANY
HEARSAY.  I DID SO IN GOOD FAITH.
          AND YOU READ THE STATEMENT AND I DON'T SEE WHY I
SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO ASK THIS WITNESS ABOUT HIS ATTITUDE
TOWARD THIS ACTION.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           AT THIS POINT I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD  FAITH REASON
TO ASK THE QUESTION, GIVEN THIS REPORT, BUT I THINK IT IS SUBJECT
TO A 352 OBJECTION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS PROBATIVE OF
ANYTHING.
           I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
     MR. DARDEN:  BEFORE YOU GO, SO I'M NOT BEING PRECLUDED
ABOUT ASKING HIM ABOUT THE BOOK HE WAS GOING TO WRITE?
     THE COURT:  THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.  WHETHER OR NOT HE
HAS ANY FINANCIAL MOTIVE IN THIS CASE, THAT IS AN A DIFFERENT
ISSUE.
     MR. COCHRAN:  CAN WE HEAR THE QUESTION?
     MR. DARDEN:  NO.
     THE COURT:  NO.  I JUST TOLD THAT YOU THAT IS A DIFFERENT
ISSUE AND THAT IS PROPER, IF HE HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST,
OBVIOUSLY.
     MR. DARDEN:  YOU HAVE INDICATED TO THE JURY THAT THE
QUESTION WAS HIGHLY IMPROPER, OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.  I TAKE IT
YOU DON'T STILL FEEL THAT WAY?
     THE COURT:  I FEEL THAT YOU HAD A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO ASK
IT, BUT I'M SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION TO IT.
     MR. DARDEN:  OKAY.
           BUT WOULD YOU ADMONISH THE JURY?
     MR. COCHRAN:  NO.
     THE COURT:  NO, NO.
           LET'S GO.
     MR. DARDEN:  VERY UNFAIR.

****

             (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD AT THE BENCH:)

     THE COURT:  WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
           WHO IS THE NEXT WITNESS?
     MR. COCHRAN:  HOWARD WEITZMAN.  HE IS HERE, TOO.
     MR. DARDEN:  WEITZMAN, OKAY.  I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE
BERRIS.
     MR. COCHRAN:  HOWARD IS HERE AND HE AS GOT TO GET OUT BY
LUNCHTIME.
     THE COURT:  HE'S BIG MAN.
     MR. COCHRAN:  MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND HE HAS
GOT TO GET OUT OF HERE.  DON'T PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
     MR. DARDEN:  IT IS IN THE RECORD.
     MR. COCHRAN:  DON'T PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
     MS. CLARK:  OKAY.
           I HAVE SEEN THE TRANSCRIPT, AND YES, THERE WAS
TESTIMONY TO IT.  I THINK -- I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS.
           THIS IS GOING TO EXTEND REBUTTAL, I CAN CERTAINLY
PROMISE THE COURT THAT.
           THE PEOPLE WILL LODGE AN OBJECTION UNDER 352.
           WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
IMPEACHMENT OF MR. WEITZMAN.
           I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
           COULD WE GO OFF THE RECORD FOR A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR?
     THE COURT:  OFF THE RECORD.

****

             (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD AT THE BENCH:)

     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
     MR. DOUGLAS:  YOUR HONOR, MR. AL'N IS HERE PURSUANT TO A
SUBPOENA FOR ITEMS IN HIS PRESENCE.
           HE HAD FIRST APPEARED ON THE 9TH.  HE WAS THEN PLACED
ON CALL AND ASKED TO RETURN.
           HE -- I AM INFORMED HE HAS POSSESSION OF A
TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW BETWEEN HE AND MR. KATO KAELIN.  I HAVE
NOT HEARD THE TAPE-RECORDING YET.
           I ASKED HIM ABOUT IT TODAY AND WHETHER OR NOT HE
STILL HAD IT IN HIS POSSESSION.  HE DID NOT BRING IT TO COURT
WITH HIM TODAY, NOR DID HE BRING IT WHEN HE WAS HERE EARLIER.
           HE SUGGESTS TO ME THAT IT IS OBTAINABLE, THAT IT IS
SECRETED IN A LOCATION OF SAFETY AND HE CHOSE NOT TO BRING IT
WITH HIM.
           I WOULD ASK THAT HE BE ORDERED TO BRING IT TOMORROW.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS IN THIS MANNER, WHAT I SUGGEST
YOU DO IS DRAFT A WRITTEN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO SERVE UPON HIM
DIRECTING HIM TO BRING THE MATTER HERE.
     MR. DOUGLAS:  VERY WELL.
     THE COURT:  BUT YOU CAN HAVE MR. BLASIER WHIP UP AND
PRINTOUT IN ALL OF ABOUT TWELVE SECONDS.
     MR. DOUGLAS:  OKAY.
     THE COURT:  SERVE HIM WITH IT AND I WILL SIGN IT.
     MR. DOUGLAS:  CAN I ASK HIM TO REMAIN HERE?
     THE COURT:  SURE.  I WILL STAY FOR TEN, FIFTEEN MINUTES.
     MS. CLARK:  COULD WE SEE A COPY OF THAT TAPE IF HE BRINGS
IT IN?
     MR. SHAPIRO:  ON SCHEDULING OFF THE RECORD?
     THE COURT:  OFF THE RECORD.

           (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

****

             (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD AT THE BENCH:)

     MR. COCHRAN:  WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND WENT THROUGH IT.  I
MADE A 402 FRIDAY TO LIMIT THIS TO THE RULING, AND I'M GOING TO
DO THAT.
           THERE'S ONE OTHER AREA I WANTED TO ASK THE COURT
ABOUT.  I'M GOING TO MARK -- THOSE ARE THE PICTURES I'M GOING TO
MARK.  TO SAVE SOME TIME, I'VE GOT A COUPLE BLOW-UPS.
           THE OTHER AREA IS, THIS IS --
     THE COURT:  YOU'VE SHOWN CHRIS THE BLOW-UPS ALREADY?
     MR. COCHRAN:  YES.  SHAWN SHOWED CHRIS THE BLOW-UPS.
     MR. DARDEN:  YEAH.  THERE'S AN OBJECTION ACTUALLY TO THE
BLOW-UPS.
     MR. COCHRAN:  YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO IT NOW?
     MR. DARDEN:  YEAH.  I TRIED TO BEFORE, BUT WE WENT TO
SOMETHING ELSE.
           MY ONLY OBJECTION IS THIS.
           WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL PHOTOS --
     THE COURT:  WE'VE SEEN THESE.
     MR. DARDEN:  YEAH.
           I MEAN, THERE'S PHOTOS LIKE THIS ADMITTED INTO
EVIDENCE, AND I CAN SEE THAT.  BUT THESE SEEM LIKE THEY'VE BEEN
FILTERED SOMEHOW IN THE BLOW-UP. THE COLORS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO
ACCENTUATE I SUPPOSE  THE BLOOD.  MAYBE IT'S ME.
     MR. COCHRAN:  I JUST WANT TO SHOW THESE.  IT'S THE SAME
BLOW-UP OF THIS PICTURE AND OF THE BEDDING. THIS IS THE ONE I'M
INTERESTED IN (INDICATING).
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS --
     MR. COCHRAN:  THAT'S ALL I'M INTERESTED IN. THE COLOR --
     MR. DARDEN:  IT HAS BEEN IMPROVED.
     MR. COCHRAN:  IT'S NOT IMPROVED.  IT'S JUST BLOWN UP.
GRAPHICS BLEW IT UP AND BROUGHT IT DOWN HERE.  I DON'T WANT TO
PUT IT ON THE ELMO.
     MR. DARDEN:  HE WAS TALKING TO ME.
           BUT I HAVE A 352 OBJECTION TO THESE PICTURES, WHICH I
THINK HAVE BEEN SOMEHOW ENHANCED AND MODIFIED TO MAKE THE BLOOD
APPEAR MORE APPARENT.
     THE COURT:  SO THE RECORD IS -- WHAT IS THE NEXT DEFENSE
EXHIBIT?
     THE CLERK:  1331.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           COUNSEL, THE ONE THAT IS IN CONTROVERSY RIGHT NOW,
I'M GOING TO MARK THE SMALL PHOTOGRAPH --
     MR. COCHRAN:  1331?
     THE COURT:  DEFENDANT'S 1331, AND WE'LL MARK THE BLOW-UP OF
THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH AS 1331-A.
     MR. COCHRAN:  THANKS, JUDGE.
     THE COURT:  AND, MR. DARDEN, YOUR OBJECTION IS THAT THE
BLOW-UP SEEMS TO HAVE -- AND I AGREE THAT THE BLOW-UP HAS A GREEN
TINT TO IT IN THE BACKGROUND WHEREAS THE PHOTOGRAPH, THE SMALL
5-BY-7 PHOTOGRAPH HAS A GRAYISH TINT TO THE MARBLE AND THE
WASHCLOTH APPEARS TO BE WHITE WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE REDDISH
STAINING, AND IN THE BLOW-UP, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A GREENISH
RATHER THAN A GRAYISH TINT.
     MR. DARDEN:  OKAY.
           THAT'S CORRECT, WHICH I WOULD SUGGEST -- AND I AM --
THAT THE BLOW-UP -- BLOWING UP PROCESS SOMEHOW HAS BEEN USED TO
ENHANCE THE COLORS TO BRING OUT THE REDNESS OF THE BLOOD, IF
THAT'S WHAT IT IS ON THE WASHCLOTH, AND I WOULD POINT OUT, THERE
HAVE BEEN NO CONFIRMATORY TESTS WHAT IS OR IS NOT ON THAT
PARTICULAR WASHCLOTH, AND WE SHOULD USE THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY
THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FILTERED OR
ENHANCED OR OTHERWISE ALTERED.
     THE COURT:  MR. DARDEN, IS 1331 THE CHICAGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT PHOTO?
     MR. DARDEN:  YES.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
     MR. SHAPIRO:  YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I HAD THIS PHOTO
ENHANCED FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. BADEN WHEN MR. KELBERG
ON DIRECT EXAMINATION DID NOT SHOW THIS PHOTOGRAPH TO THE
WITNESS, AND WE TOOK IT OUT TO A LAB OVERNIGHT, THAT WE ASKED
THEM TO  REPRODUCE IT.  WE DID NOT HAVE IT ENHANCED, CHANGE
COLORS, DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN HAVE IT ENLARGED.
           THIS IS THE WAY IT CAME BACK TO OUR RECOLLECTION, AND
SO WE DID NOT USE IT BECAUSE ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, MR. KELBERG
CAME BACK AND BROUGHT THAT UP AS -- YOU KNOW, IN HIS LAST
QUESTION BECAUSE HE PUT IN ALL THE PHOTOS.
     THE COURT:  MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU OBJECTING TO THE OTHER TWO
PHOTOS AS WELL, THE OTHER TWO BLOW-UPS?
           I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS.
     MR. COCHRAN:  NO.  THAT'S NOT WHY WE ARE UP HERE.  I HAVE
ONE REQUEST, SIMPLE REQUEST.
     MR. DARDEN:  I THINK WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE
OTHER TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO THE OTHER
TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SINCE THE BLOOD IS SO MINIMAL AND DISTORTION I
THINK IS SO MINIMAL.
           AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING BY MY OBJECTION THAT SOMEONE
IS GUILTY OF SOME IMPROPRIETY.  I'M JUST SAYING SOMEHOW THROUGH
THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE DIFFERENT.
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           I HAVE BEFORE ME TWO ISSUES.  THE ISSUE AS I SEE IT
IS THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE OR WHAT APPEARS TO
BE BLOOD, WHICH IS RELATIVE TO THE NATURE OF THE INJURY THAT MR.
SIMPSON SUFFERED AND WAS BLEEDING IN CHICAGO BECAUSE THESE ARE
PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE CHICAGO HOTEL ROOM.
           AND EXAMINING 1331, I SEE A STREAK OF BLOOD OR WHAT
APPEARS TO BE BLOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FOLDED WASHCLOTH.  THERE
APPEARS TO BE THEN AN AREA THAT SHOWS SOMETHING REDDISH, BUT NOT
DISTINCT, AND THEN A MORE DISTINCT REDDISH PORTION TO THE TOP OF
THAT.
           AND I'M INDICATING THAT THERE'S A SMALL PIECE OF
GLASS TO THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THE WASHCLOTH JUST SO
THAT ANYBODY READING THIS RECORD CAN TELL HOW THE COURT HAS
ORIENTED THE PHOTOGRAPH. I'M HOLDING IT.  I SEE THE SAME MARKINGS
ALTHOUGH PERHAPS LESS DISTINCT IN THE BLOW-UP.
           I DON'T THINK IT'S A MISREPRESENTATION. THE JURORS
WILL HAVE BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS AND CAN COMPARE ONE WITH THE OTHER.  I
THINK THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
           OBJECTION OVERRULED.
     MR. COCHRAN:  THE REASON I ASKED TO COME UP, JUST BRIEFLY,
IN TALKING TO MR. BERRIS --
     THE COURT:  COUNSEL, I'VE RULED.
     MR. COCHRAN:  NO.  AS I TOLD YOU, THIS IS WHY I'M UP HERE.
HE BROUGHT THIS UP.
           MR. BERRIS, IN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IN TALKING TO
HIM, HE SAYS THAT THE -- WHEN THEY GOT THERE, THE LAUNDRY BAGS
WERE MISSING IN THE ROOM; AND I'LL BRING THAT OUT, BUT ANY
TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT THE MAID SAID ABOUT PUTTING THEM IN OR
WHATEVER WOULD BE HEARSAY.
     THE COURT:  HEARSAY.
     MR. COCHRAN:  I'M JUST TRYING TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR THE
RECORD AND GO FORWARD.
     MR. DARDEN:  I'M GOING TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM. SO YOU'LL HAVE
TO MAKE YOUR OBJECTION WHEN THE TIME COMES.
           WHY ARE WE HAVING THESE PREVIEWS OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION?
     MR. COCHRAN:  BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO AVOID LAWYERS GETTING
DRESSED DOWN IN FRONT OF THE JURY FOR IMPROPER STUFF.
     MR. DARDEN:  WOULD YOU RECONSIDER ADVISING THE JURY THAT MY
QUESTION THIS MORNING WAS NOT COMPLETELY IMPROPER GIVEN THE
FINDING OF FACTUAL BASIS FOR IT --
     THE COURT:  NO.
     MR. DARDEN:  -- AS BEING INHERENTLY UNFAIR?
     THE COURT:  THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED ME ABOUT.
I'VE DECLINED TO DO THAT AND WON'T ENTERTAIN IT AGAIN.
           THANK YOU.
     MR. COCHRAN:  THANKS, JUDGE.

****

     THE COURT:  TWO THINGS.
           MR. GOLDBERG, THE COURT REPORTERS ALWAYS HATE LAWYERS
WHO STAND THERE AND JINGLE CHANGE IN YOUR POCKET, SO IF THERE IS
CHANGE IN YOUR POCKET IT WILL BE CONFISCATED BY THE COURT
TOMORROW.
           SECONDLY, CAN I HAVE A COPY OF DR. LEE'S REPORT, JULY
REPORT?  AND I NEED IT TONIGHT BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE
THIS STUFF HOME WITH ME.
     MR. COCHRAN:  I'M SURE HE CAN.
     MR. SCHECK:  YES.
     THE COURT:  MAKE SURE I HAVE IT BEFORE YOU LEAVE.
     MR. SCHECK:  YES.
     MR. COCHRAN:  CAN I SAY SOMETHING.
     THE COURT:  OKAY.
     MR. COCHRAN:  I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU ABOUT THE MENZIONE
THING, AND THE REASON I WAS TRYING TO BRING IT UP I WAS TRYING TO
SAY IT AND YOU TOLD ME TO BUTT OUT AND IT WAS TOO LATE TODAY
BECAUSE IT IS LOGISTICS, SO JUST TELL ME WHEN BECAUSE I WILL HAVE
SHAWN BACK DOWN HERE AGAIN.
           I KNOW YOU GOT OTHER THINGS AND THE PLATE IS FULL SO
JUST GIVE ME A GENERAL IDEA.
     THE COURT:  WELL, I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO FINISH LEE
TODAY OR FRIDAY.  I MEAN TOMORROW OR  FRIDAY.
     MR. COCHRAN:  NO, NO.  THE POINT, YOUR HONOR, IS THIS --
     THE COURT:  I WAS TRYING TO THINK.
     MR. COCHRAN:  YEAH.
     THE COURT:  MARCIA, WHEN DO YOU -- WERE YOU GOING TO ARGUE
THAT?
     MS. CLARK:  UH-HUH.
     THE COURT:  WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE READY TO DO THAT?
     MS. CLARK:  WHENEVER YOU WANT.
     THE COURT:  HOW ABOUT NEVER?
     MS. CLARK:  I AGREE, BUT --
     MR. COCHRAN:  I DON'T AGREE.
     MR. SCHECK:  THESE PICTURES ARE THE PICTURES FROM THE --
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT MR. GOLDBERG HAS JUST HANDED THE COURT
A COPY OF DR. LEE'S REPORT, AND I JUST NOTE THAT IT IS A XEROX
AND ON THE BACK OF THE XEROX THERE ARE WHAT SEEM TO BE -- XEROXES
OF PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT THEY ARE ILLEGIBLE, HOWEVER THEY ARE --
REFLECT THE DRYING EXPERIMENT AND I THINK YOU HAVE THE BOARDS.
     THE COURT:  WELL, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DISCOVERY
ISSUE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO RESOLVE.
     MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, COULD WE JUST -- FOR THE RECORD
I SHOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU THE PAGE NUMBERS THAT I JUST HANDED
YOU.
           IT IS -- I CAN'T READ THEM.
     THE COURT:  DEF 00942 AND THIS IS DR. LEE'S REPORT THAT IS
DATED JULY 15TH WHICH I UNDERSTAND WAS GIVEN TO THE PROSECUTION
ON JULY 17TH.
           ALL RIGHT.  BECAUSE I WILL NEED TO LOOK AT THIS TO
DETERMINE WHAT IS WHAT.
           OKAY.
           THE PROBLEM I HAVE ON THIS, MR. COCHRAN, IS I NEED TO
RESOLVE THIS.
     MR. COCHRAN:  LET ME KNOW.  JUST I WILL -- I WILL REMIND
YOU AGAIN IF YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT IT.
     THE COURT:  REMIND ME TOMORROW.
     MR. SCHECK:  I THINK IT IS MINOR ISSUE, BUT MY RECOLLECTION
IS THAT THERE WAS A COVER LETTER WITH THIS, HANK, THAT INDICATED
THAT DR. LEE HAD MISSTATED A DATE HERE.
     MR. COCHRAN:  DO YOU HAVE A COPY?
     MR. SCHECK:  BUT IT IS NOT RELEVANT.
     MR. COCHRAN:  DO WE HAVE A COPY OF IT?
     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
           SEE YOU TOMORROW.
     MS. CLARK:  OKAY.
           WE HAVE PAPER FILED ON THE MENZIONE ISSUE.  YOU KNOW
ABOUT THAT.  WE HAD FILED A MOTION AWHILE BACK ON THAT WITH THE
COURT.
     THE COURT:  THE MENZIONE ISSUE, IS THERE A PMA?
     MS. CLARK:  BY THE PEOPLE.
     THE COURT:  THANK YOU.

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.