Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:50841 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:255 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - July 25, 1995 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 02:49:24 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 65 Sender: myra@netcom12.netcom.com Sidebars from July 25, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. OFF THE RECORD. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) MS. CLARK: THE OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, IS ON THE GROUND OF RELEVANCE. I DO NOT SEE WHAT THE LETTER TO AGENT MARTZ HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING CONCERNING HIS TESTING RESULTS. I'M SURE THAT -- WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT WORDS IN MY BLASIER'S MOUTH. I'M SURE THAT HE CAN ARTICULATELY FRAME HIS REASON FOR WANTING TO GET IT IN, BUT I DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? MR. BLASIER: WELL, THIS EXPLAINS WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO DO. OBVIOUSLY IT IS RELEVANT AS TO WHAT HE DID, WHETHER IT SHOWS BIAS, IF DID HE WHAT HE ASKED TO DO, IF HE DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT FRAMES HIS WHOLE TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT HE DID AND WHY. MS. CLARK: HE WAS ASKED TO CONDUCT CERTAIN TESTS. IT WAS FRAMED IN THE MIND OF THE ATTORNEY THIS WAY. BUT I THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WHAT HE FELT. WHAT HE FELT HE HAD TO DO, NOT WHAT WORDS MR. HARMON USED. WHATEVER WORDS MR. HARMON USED, THE APPROPRIATE AND RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHAT DID HE THINK HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND HOW DID HE THINK HE WAS SUPPOSED TO GO ABOUT IT. THE COURT: UH-HUH. ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. BLASIER: IT'S NOT OUR BURDEN OF PROOF TO DEMONSTRATE WHETHER OR NOT HE DID EXPERIMENTS. HE CAN MAKE COMMENT ON WHAT TESTS HE DID OR DIDN'T DO. THAT'S COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. HE CAN CERTAINLY TESTIFY AS TO WHETHER HE THINKS THOSE KINDS OF TESTS ARE NECESSARY OR NOT, BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER HE COULD OR COULDN'T DO THEM. MS. CLARK: HE'S THE PROPONENT OF THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. HE'S QUESTIONED THE WITNESS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE CONDUCTED CERTAIN TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BEHAVIOR OF EDTA WOULD BE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. HE'S CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SUCH TESTS AND THE JURY SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IN QUESTIONING THE WITNESS -- THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN. MS. CLARK: -- ABOUT THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT SUCH TESTS, THAT HE'S CAPABLE OF DOING THEM AS WELL. AND I THINK IT'S A FAIR COMMENT GIVEN THE LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO THIS WITNESS WHOM THEY CALLED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AS TO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONING ALONG THIS LINE AS TO DR. BALLARD. I'LL OVERRULE IT AS TO DR. RIEDERS.