Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:59486 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:347
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson
Path: world!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra
From:
[email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: SIDEBARS - August 28, 1995
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:31:34 GMT
Approved:
[email protected]
Lines: 134
Sender:
[email protected]
Sidebars from August 28, 1995
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
MR. SCHECK: AS THE JURY WAS FILING IN MISS MARTINEZ WALKED
OVER AND HANDED ME THIS RATHER THICK VOLUME AND SAID, "OH, WE ARE
ALSO GOING TO BE ASKING ABOUT THE CRAFTS CASE."
SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW -- HE MAY KNOW ALL ABOUT DR.
LEE'S CASES, BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T.
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T INTEND TO USE THIS FOR
IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES BECAUSE I THINK HE IS GOING TO TELL ME
EVERYTHING I WANT TO KNOW.
AND I'M GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT THIS CASE FOR ABOUT
THREE OR FOUR MINUTES VERY, VERY BRIEFLY.
THE COURT: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? USING DNA TO TELL
US WHO THIS WAS?
MR. GOLDBERG: AND CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, COULD HE TELL ME WITH SOME SPECIFICITY
SO I KNOW? I MAY NOT REGARD IT AS IMPEACHMENT, BUT I'M ENTITLED
NO KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO BE REFERRING TO.
MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS ACTUALLY.
THE BODY WAS CHOPPED UP, WAS SPREAD OUTDOORS, IT WAS
THERE FOR SOME TIME, THE POLICE COLLECTED IT, THINK --
THE COURT: BITS AND PIECES.
MR. GOLDBERG: YES. IT IS A VERY FAMOUS CASE.
THE COURT: YES, I AM FAMILIAR WITH IT.
MR. SCHECK: I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT ISN'T.
THE COURT: THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE GUY KILLS HIS WIFE,
CHOPS HER UP AND PUTS HER IN A WOOD CHIPPER.
MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE WOOD CHIPPER CASE?
THE COURT: THERE IS LITTLE BITS OF BONES AND THEY DO DNA
AND HE SAYS THE WIFE TOOK OFF. HE GIVES SOME ALIBI THAT SHE --
MS. CLARK: SHE SPLIT.
THE COURT: -- SHE SPLIT OR LEFT HIM OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT, BUT SHE IS ACTUALLY SPREAD OVER THE NORTH FORTY.
MS. CLARK: REMIND YOU OF TROTT'S CASE?
THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S PROCEED.
****
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
MR. SCHECK.
MR. SCHECK: YES.
MR. GOLDBERG NOW INDICATES TO ME THAT HE WANTS TO
SHOW THE JURORS THE VIDEO THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN INTRODUCED AND
I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR RECOLLECTION OF, AND NOT THE ONES THAT HE
PREVIEWED EARLIER, AND I JUST WANT TO SEE IT. I MAY HAVE A
POSSIBLE RELEVANCY OBJECTION.
THE COURT: WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT?
MR. GOLDBERG: HE HAD BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE, YOUR HONOR, I
BELIEVE. I'M NOT 100 PERCENT POSITIVE. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.
THE COURT: TOO LONG.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT WAS WORTH IT FOR US.
MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAY THAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: IT WAS.
THE COURT: WHAT VIDEO DO YOU WANT TO SHOW?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS THE VIDEO MISS CLARK
WAS REFERRING TO AND THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER THIS MORNING OF
SHOWING THE POLICE OFFICER GOING UP THE WALK. IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE
I INDICATED TO COUNSEL LET'S FORGET THE OTHER ONES, LET'S JUST
SAVE TIME. NOW HE WANTS ME TO SHOW ALL THREE.
MR. SCHECK: NO. NOT ALL THREE. I JUST DON'T RECALL WHICH
ONE THIS IS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE CAN --
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT DOES HE WANT ME TO DO? CHANGE MY MIND
AND SHOW ALL THREE OF THEM?
THE COURT: HE'S JUST ASKING TO SEE IT. WE CAN SHOW IT TO
HIM ON THE MONITOR, JUST ON THE MONITOR ON COUNSEL TABLE. WE CAN
DO THAT.
MR. GOLDBERG: WE'LL HAVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH DO THAT.
****
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS ALL BEYOND THE
SCOPE, NO. 1. NO. 2, I DON'T THINK THE PASSAGE HE'S POINTING TO
IS IN ANY WAY INCONSISTENT WITH HIS TESTIMONY. IT CERTAINLY DOES
NOT SUPPORT THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, THAT HE TOLD THE JURY
THAT THESE WERE DEFINITELY THE JEANS.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, YOU WANT TO CITE ME TO THE
PERTINENT PORTION IN THE TRANSCRIPT?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S ON PAGE 397 WHERE THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY IS ASKING HIM ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL, IF IN FACT THE
ASSAILANT OF MISS HOEPLINGER WERE STANDING AT THE TIME WHEN SHE
WAS SITTING OR LYING ON THE COUCH AND IF THERE HAD BEEN AN
IMPACT, WOULD HE EXPECT THE JEANS OF THE PERPETRATOR TO BE
COVERED WITH BLOOD, AND THE ANSWER, DEPENDS ON WHAT OBJECT IN
BETWEEN THE PERPETRATOR AND THE BLOOD SOURCE, ALL DEPENDS ON HOW
FAR THE PERSON STANDS, THERE ARE A LOT OF VARIATIONS.
THE COURT: BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED
THOUGH, WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS -- WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE THE
JEANS.
MR. GOLDBERG: NO. HE ALREADY ADMITTED TO THAT. I'M NOT
IMPEACHING ON THAT. I'M IMPEACHING ON DID HE EXPECT TO FIND A
LOT OF BLOOD IN THIS TYPE OF A CASE. HE SEEMS TO HAVE WAFFLED ON
THAT.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD POINT OUT FROM THE
TRANSCRIPT HERE, POINTING TO 397, HE WAS ASKED A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT BLOOD SPOTS AND WOULD IT BE FAIR TO STATE
QUESTION ON 397, "ANSWER: I CAN NOT TELL."
IT GOES ON TO SAY DEPENDS ON A LOT OF VARIATIONS. HE
WAS ASKED A HYPOTHETICAL. I THINK IT'S VERY MISLEADING TO
QUESTION THE WITNESS ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL WHICH HE SAYS DOESN'T
CONTAIN ALL THE VARIABLES IN ANOTHER CASE THAT'S NOT THIS CASE.
I THINK IT'S WAY BEYOND THE PURPOSE OF THE EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE CRIME SCENE WAS
MUCH BLOODIER THAN OURS, MUCH MORE ACTIVITY. THEY WERE DRAGGING
THE BODIES ALL OVER, AND THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THIS MAN'S TESTIMONY
BEFORE A JURY, SUBSTANTIALLY ADMITTED, WAS THAT THE JEANS ONLY
HAD TWO LITTLE DROPS OF BLOOD ON THIS.
THE COURT: SINCE WE HAVE NO CLOTHING RECOVERED, IT DOESN'T
HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF RELEVANCE, DOES IT?
MR. GOLDBERG: THE DEFENSE -- IF THE DEFENSE WILL STIPULATE
THAT IT'S NOT RELEVANT HOW MUCH IF ANY BLOOD -- WELL, THAT'S WHAT
THEY'RE CLAIMING IS RELEVANT TO THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO AND THE
BLOOD ON ROCKINGHAM, THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD, BUT IF THEY'LL
STIPULATE THAT'S NOT A RELEVANT ISSUE --
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, YOU ALREADY GOT IN THE RECORD THE
DOCTOR SAYING, WELL, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU WOULD EXPECT
A LOT OF BLOOD GIVEN THE KIND OF ACTIVITY HERE, BUT IT ALL
DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CONTACT WAS, AND WE DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT
HE SAID.
SO I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
