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: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - August 28, 1995 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:31:34 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 134 Sender: myra@netcom9.netcom.com 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.