Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:32745 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:79 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - GREG MATHESON - 11k Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 00:42:51 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 263 Sender: myra@netcom13.netcom.com Sidebars from May 1, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. BLASIER: MR. SIMPSON WANTS TO SEE THESE. AS THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THEM HE WANTS SOME WAY OF SEEING THEM. CAN YOU PUT THEM ON HIS MONITOR? I KNOW YOU ARE WATCHING IT ON COURT T.V. I THINK. I THINK HE HAS A RIGHT TO -- THE COURT: WELL, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT. LET'S DO THIS. LET'S PUT THEM WHERE WE NORMALLY PUT THEM AGAINST THE WALL THERE FOR THE JURY TO SEE. MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN STAY IN OUR SEATS, TOO. UNLESS HE CAN WALK OVER WITH ME AND STAY AWAKE. MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, MR. COCHRAN HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT THE HIGHLY EXCITING AND STIMULATING NATURE OF THIS PORTION OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION, BUT IF COUNSEL WISHES TO STIPULATE, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT. THE COURT: NO. LET'S PUT THE EASEL OVER -- (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: MR. FAIRTLOUGH, DO YOU WANT TO JOIN US, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE NEED TO ANGLE THE EASEL SO THAT MR. SIMPSON CAN SEE THE EXHIBIT. HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE THINGS. SO CAN YOU PUT IT BACK IN THE STANDARD POSITION AND LET'S SEE HOW MUCH WE CAN GET OUT OF THAT. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WHAT I CAN DO IS RAISE IT UP SO THAT IF I POSITION IT I CAN RAISE THE EASEL UP BUT HE MIGHT MISS THE BOTTOM PORTION FROM WHERE HE IS SITTING, BUT HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CATCH MOST OF IT FROM THE TOP. THE COURT: LET'S TRY THAT. **** Sidebars from May 2, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. BLASIER. MR. BLASIER: SINCE HE DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION, I WOULD ASK TO REINSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THIS WAS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE FOR PURPOSES OF INSPECTION. I ASSUMED HE WAS GOING TO ASK THAT RATHER THAN LEAVING THE IMPLICATION IT WENT TO ALBANY WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY IT WAS BACK THERE. MR. GOLDBERG: I THOUGHT THE ONLY THING I WAS ALLOWED TO ASK IS THAT IT WENT, BUT NOT ANYTHING ELSE. THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK, WAS IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE DEFENSE TO INSPECT THE ITEMS. MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T KNOW IF HE KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT THEY DID. THE COURT: THE PURPOSE OF RELEASING IT. ASK A LEADING QUESTION, THE PURPOSE WAS TO INSPECT. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. BLASIER. MR. BLASIER: YES. HE'S ATTEMPTING TO ANALOGIZE 42 WITH FINGERNAILS. THE ONLY TESTIMONY THAT'S BEEN ELICITED CONCERNS THE TACKINESS OF THE BLOOD ON THE GROUND. HE'S NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CONDITIONS OF COLLECTION, THE MANNER OF PRESERVATION, THE CONDITIONS OF THE FINGERNAILS ARE IN ANY WAY THE SAME AS THE BLOOD ON THE GROUND. THEREFORE, ANY TESTIMONY THAT YOU CAN SOMEHOW ANALOGIZE THESE TWO SAMPLES TOGETHER WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR LACK OF FOUNDATION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG. MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG. MR. GOLDBERG: I THOUGHT THE COURT ALREADY RULED ON THIS, AND WE ARGUED EXTENSIVELY ABOUT IT. BUT WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IS THE BARE HANDS ARE PUT IN PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE BLOOD, AND AS I ARGUED PREVIOUSLY, ARE CONTIGUOUS AND CONTINUOUS WITH THE BLOOD, AND THEN EXPLAINING WHY MR. MATHESON BELIEVES IT IS LEGITIMATE TO DRAW INFERENCES ABOUT 42 AND UNDER THE FINGERNAILS WILL DO THAT. SHOWING THE PICTURE WILL DO THAT. IT IS THE SIMPLEST WAY OF CONVEYING THAT TESTIMONY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. **** Sidebars from May 4, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. SCHECK: HE HAS GOT A LOT OF NERVE. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT WON'T EVEN STIPULATE TO LUNCH ON THE RECORD. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, BE QUIET. MR. SCHECK: THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN -- THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, BE QUIET. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT 1136-B, 1137 AND 1136-A. ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION? MR. GOLDBERG: WE WERE NOT PROVIDED THESE IN DISCOVERY. I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM IN -- IN FACT, COUNSEL DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO ME THIS MORNING, I DON'T BELIEVE. I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID. HE DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO ME UNTIL HE PUT THEM UP WITH THE WITNESS, SO THERE IS A DISCOVERY VIOLATION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER, WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THESE TO MR. -- MR. BLASIER: THESE WERE PROVIDED MONTHS AGO WHEN WE TURNED OVER I THINK ABOUT $1700 WORTH OF PHOTOGRAPHS. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE PART OF THE ONES THAT WE TOOK AT THE LAB THAT WE GAVE UP A WHOLE STACK IN ORDER NUMBERED. MR. GOLDBERG: LET ME SEE THE DATE ON THIS. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. BLASIER: AND THEY TOOK THE SAME PICTURES THAT WE DID. MR. GOLDBERG: I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE SAME LAB VISIT. WE DO HAVE SOME DEFENSE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THAT LAB VISIT, YOUR HONOR, BUT I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BLOOD VIAL FROM THE LAB VISIT. I DO RECALL SEEING OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF THE LAB. THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT -- MR. GOLDBERG: ON -- THE COURT: AT THIS POINT MR. MATHESON HAS TESTIFIED HE HAS NO DOUBT AS TO WHAT THIS IS AND HE RECOLLECTS THE VISIT, SO I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AT THIS TIME. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU CAN REVIEW YOUR PHOTOS. IF YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE THIS, YOU CAN BRING IT UP AGAIN. LET'S PROCEED. MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS DOCUMENT PRESENTS THE RESULTS ON MANY ITEMS OR LACK OF RESULTS ON MANY ITEMS. WE DID NOT GO INTO IT AT ALL, PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE. SOME OF THEM ARE JUST STRAIGHT INCONCLUSIVES. SO IT DOES GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECT UNDER 352. THE COURT: MR. BLASIER. MR. BLASIER: THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, HE DID NOT INTRODUCE THIS. IT WAS MISLEADING TO INTRODUCE JUST THE THIRD PAGE OF THIS REPORT. IN ANY EVENT, THE -- ONE OF HIS MAIN ARGUMENTS IS THAT BECAUSE THE B THAT HE FOUND MIGHT BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A B, BECAUSE ITEM 42, FOR INSTANCE, LOOKS LIKE A B, HE RATED IT AS INCONCLUSIVE, AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT HE'S FOUND INCONCLUSIVE CANNOT BE USED TO BOLSTER OR TO CHANGE THE RESULTS HE'S REPORTED DOWN HERE, A BA, ARE ALL RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT HE'S MAKING THAT A B IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A B AND INADMISSIBLE FOR THOSE PURPOSES. THIS IS THE SAME KIND OF CHART WE HAVE UP THERE. THAT'S WHERE THE INFORMATION CAME FROM. MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE SAME KIND OF CHART WE HAVE UP THERE. THE WITNESS DID TESTIFY ON HIS CHART, ALL OF THESE WERE REPORTED AS INCONCLUSIVE AND AT SOME LENGTH DESCRIBED THE DIFFERENCE AND DISTINCTION WHY THEY'RE INCONCLUSIVE ON HIS REPORT AND WHY HE CALLS THEM THAT ON THE SEROLOGY WORK SHEETS, AND THAT'S THE POINT. YOU KNOW, HE WENT INTO IT AT SOME LENGTH, THAT'S TRUE. THE COURT: HOW MANY OF THESE ARE YOU GOING INTO, MR. BLASIER? MR. BLASIER: PRIMARILY 42. MR. GOLDBERG: BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT IN ORDER TO GET INTO IT, HE DOESN'T NEED THIS REPORT. THE COURT: UH-HUH. MR. GOLDBERG: AND IT CONTAINS MANY RESULTS HERE THAT THE JURORS ARE NEVER GOING TO HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN USE THE RESULTS AS TO 42 AND 84, BUT THE REST OF IT, THERE'S JUST -- I MEAN, WE'VE GOT 20 OTHER RESULTS THERE THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO. MR. BLASIER: CAN I SHOW THE DOCUMENT AND JUST TALK ABOUT THOSE TWO? THE COURT: NO. MR. BLASIER: NOT SHOW THE DOCUMENT? THE COURT: NOT SHOW THE DOCUMENT, BUT YOU CAN GO INTO 42 AND 84. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. GOLDBERG, NOT AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION. MR. BLASIER, NOT AN APPROPRIATE OBJECTION. AND YOU GUYS CREATED THAT PROBLEM BY DOING THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE ANYWAY. SO KNOCK IT OFF. **** Sidebars from May 5, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR -- THE GOOD FAITH OFFER THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR HYPOTHETICAL WAS THE TESTIMONY FROM THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. WHAT IS YOUR GOOD FAITH OFFER OF PROOF THAT YOU HAVE A 6.5 OR 7? MR. GOLDBERG: MY GOOD FAITH OFFER OF PROOF IS TWO-FOLD. NO. 1, THAT AS I PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE IN DISCOVERY, AND AS I STATED ON THE RECORD, MR. PERATIS HAS SINCE SAID THAT AFTER TESTIFYING AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING HE WENT THROUGH AND TRIED TO RECONSTRUCT WHAT HE DID AND HE DID NOT TAKE PRECISE MEASUREMENTS AT THE TIME THAT HE DID THIS. HE DID MEASURE IT AT ALL, WHICH THE DEFENSE AND THAT HE NOW ESTIMATES THAT IT WAS BETWEEN 6.5 AND 7 MILLILITERS OF BLOOD FROM THE DEFENDANT THAT HE DREW AND I'M TAKING THE UPPER NUMBER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU PROVIDE THAT REPORT TO THE DEFENSE? MR. GOLDBERG: I PROVIDED THEM WITH MY -- MY OWN NOTATION TO THAT EFFECT SOME TIME AGO. THE COURT: IS THERE A REPORT THAT IT IS TO THIS -- MR. GOLDBERG: MY REPORT THAT I GAVE TO THEM. THAT IS ABOUT A SENTENCE OR TWO LONG, BUT YES. MR. BLASIER: WELL, I WOULD OBJECT -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. BLASIER: IT IS CONTRARY TO HIS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH AND THEY COULD HAVE CALLED THEM. THEY HAD HIM ON THEIR WITNESS LIST. THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO SEE THEM BECAUSE ALL OF THIS IS SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO STRIKE AS FAR AS THE BLOOD IS CONCERNED. MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU THINK IF THE PROSECUTION MINDS IF THERE IS A MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO THE AMOUNTS IN THE VIAL? IT WAS OUR POSITION THAT THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE OF THE ERRORS AND INACCURACIES IN ALL OF THESE FIGURES, AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS. MR. BLASIER: WELL, THE WAY HE TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING HE WAS POSITIVE IT WAS BETWEEN 7.9 AND 8.1. HE WAS EXTREMELY PRECISE AT THAT. THAT IS WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING. MR. GOLDBERG: HE HAS NEVER MEASURED IT IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. THE COURT: I WANT TO KNOW IF HE HAS A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO FORM THIS HYPOTHETICAL. THAT IS ALL I'M INTERESTED IN AT THIS POINTS. MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.