Motion: Willie Ford video exclusion

📄 Motion: Willie Ford video exclusion — Wednesday, December 11, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\11\MOTION-WILLIE-FORD-VIDEO-EXCLU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 30 of 57

◀ Motion: deposition admissibility Motion: Kato Kaelin recall ▶

Date: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 • Utterances: 10

Plaintiffs moved to exclude a video taken by criminalist Willie Ford of the Rockingham bedroom, arguing it was irrelevant under Evidence Code 352 because it didn't show the specific area where the socks were collected. Defense countered that the video bolsters Ford's testimony that he was in the bedroom around 4:15 and did not see the socks before Fung collected them between 4:30-4:40. Judge Fujisaki denied the motion.

# 1 THE COURT:

Okay. The Willie Ford video.

I'll hear from the moving party on this.

# 2 MR. GELBLUM:

On the Willie Ford video, Your Honor, as we said in the papers, there's two reasons why it's really -- it's irrelevant, under --

# 3 THE COURT:

I read your moving papers.

Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

# 4 MR. GELBLUM:

Just that I don't think I mentioned the legal basis relevance under 352, because it doesn't show -- it's meaningless; it doesn't show the area where the socks would be. He has --

# 5 THE COURT:

It shows the bedroom, doesn't it?

# 6 MR. GELBLUM:

But not the area where the socks were collected.

# 7 THE COURT:

That's your contention.

# 8 MR. GELBLUM:

There's another undisputed evidence. If they have evidence to the contrary, fine. The only evidence from Mr. Ford himself is that he -- his testimony -- if they have other evidence, fine.

MR. P. BAKER: There's two issues.

The video shows the room; it bolsters Mr. Ford's testimony that he did not see socks there, or we -- he would have videotaped the socks there on the rug, number one.

Number two, the issue on the counter is completely disingenuous that Rockingham sock log shows him being there from 3:10 to 4:30.

Mr. Fung sat there and said he collected blood.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat that.

MR. P. BAKER: He collected item 12 in the foyer at 4:30. He collected item 14 in the master bathroom at 4:40. I believe he collected item 13, the socks, between 4:30 and 4:40.

Mr. Ford will testify he was in the bedroom at approximately 4:15. He was there before Mr. Fung collected the socks, and didn't see the socks.

This video goes to his credibility. That's what cross-examination is for. This is directly contradictory to what they argued at side bar.

# 9 MR. GELBLUM:

I have no problem with Mr. Ford coming and testifying about the crime scene log, but the video, it's a 352 problem. It does not show he did; it doesn't contradict; it doesn't show the place where the socks were. And the counter on the video is admittedly off. And he admits he has no idea how far off it is.

That's the evidence, Your Honor. I have no problem with him coming in and saying he didn't see the socks; that's fine. But the video is the problem. I'm not trying to preclude the evidence, just the video.

MR. P. BAKER: Submit, Judge.

# 10 THE COURT:

Motion denied.

Okay. Anything else?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Peter Gelblum

it doesn't show the area where the socks would be. He has --

Core of plaintiff's 352 argument — the video's probative value is limited because it doesn't capture the precise location where evidence was collected

P. Baker

The video shows the room; it bolsters Mr. Ford's testimony that he did not see socks there, or we -- he would have videotaped the socks there on the rug, number one.

Defense's affirmative use of the video — absence of socks in the video supports the planted-evidence theory

P. Baker

Mr. Ford will testify he was in the bedroom at approximately 4:15. He was there before Mr. Fung collected the socks, and didn't see the socks.

Establishes the timeline argument that Ford's presence predates Fung's collection, central to defense's sock-planting theory

Peter Gelblum

I'm not trying to preclude the evidence, just the video.

Clarifies plaintiff's limited position — they accept Ford's testimony but challenge the video specifically

Evidence (5)

Informal

Willie Ford bedroom video of Rockingham crime scene

challenged by plaintiff, admitted by court (motion denied)

Informal

Rockingham sock log showing Ford present from 3:10 to 4:30

cited by defense to establish timeline

Item 12

Blood collected in foyer at 4:30 by Fung

referenced to establish collection timeline

Item 13

Socks collected between 4:30 and 4:40 by Fung

referenced as core evidence in dispute

Item 14

Blood collected in master bathroom at 4:40 by Fung

referenced to establish collection sequence

Notable Exchanges (2)

Hiroshi Fujisaki•Peter Gelblum

Judge pushes back on Gelblum's framing — 'It shows the bedroom, doesn't it?' — forcing Gelblum to narrow his argument to the specific area where socks were found

strategic

P. Baker•Peter Gelblum

Baker accuses Gelblum of being 'completely disingenuous' about the counter timestamp issue, arguing the sock log independently establishes Ford's timeline

heated

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Willie Ford

prior inconsistent statement / video impeachment

Defense seeks to use Ford's own video to show he was in the bedroom before Fung collected the socks and saw no socks, contradicting the prosecution's implicit timeline

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8582 • 10 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103