If the Court please, this witness -- this witness's deposition was not taken pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, that his testimony would be frozen as the testimony he gave in the criminal trial. At the criminal trial, he testified about something he saw on the inside of the sock.
Mr. Baker appears to be leading him up, now, to blood-stain interpretation at the crime scene, and it wasn't the testimony at the criminal trial. He was frozen. We weren't allowed to take his deposition. And our understanding is, his testimony is to be limited. That's what it was with all the other witnesses.
First of all, they were totally allowed to take anybody's deposition they wanted to. That was never stipulated.
Second -- second of all, Your Honor they put on -- they put on Spitz to testify as to the time of the crime of a minute and 15 seconds. I have to be able to rebut that testimony, that both crimes took a minute and 15 seconds and that can be done in those small measures through the interpretation of blood stains. And I have to have leeway after they put on their evidence to rebut that evidence.
It's at the -- Your Honor, I will represent that it recites, and it's in the court file, that the parties stipulate that if they designate a particular person to be frozen, then that person's testimony at trial cannot go beyond anything given at the criminal trial, in return for the other side not taking that person's deposition.
And that's all set out in the stipulation.
And, for example, they asserted that against us in regard to Bruce Weir, we were not allowed to expand his testimony pursuant to that stipulation.
Mr. MacDonell is one of the enumerating deponents on the list of the defense witnesses whose testimony is frozen.
It would take me ten to 15 minutes for me to get it for you. I have to go back to the hotel across the street and get it. He's clearly on the list. That is clearly what's been said; there's never been a dispute about that.
This is really out of blue, Your Honor, totally, because everything up to now was going to be limited to his area.
All I can say, Your Honor, is that when they put on testimony, we have to be able to rebut that testimony. And all of the experts that we're calling are the experts that were called in the criminal trial. So I've got to be able to -- where Spitz was not -- did not testify in the criminal trial -- I've got to be able to rebut his testimony.
If the Court please, Dr. Spitz's testimony was taken. He offered the opinion. He offered it at trial. And they cross-examined him on that on the length of time his deposition was offered. They cannot do this. This is not what the agreement was.
All right. I'll sustain the objection pending production of the stipulation. If you don't show me the stipulation, I'll set it aside.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, he did testify on coagulation times during the trial, so I want to go into coagulation.
I'd like to see the page you're talking about.
No. Excuse me.
Look, I'm trying to play by the same rules that they're supposed to play by. If there's coagulation testimony, just show me what it is. I'm not arguing about it.
the parties stipulate that if they designate a particular person to be frozen, then that person's testimony at trial cannot go beyond anything given at the criminal trial, in return for the other side not taking that person's deposition.
they put on Spitz to testify as to the time of the crime of a minute and 15 seconds. I have to be able to rebut that testimony, that both crimes took a minute and 15 seconds and that can be done in those small measures through the interpretation of blood stains.
I'll sustain the objection pending production of the stipulation. If you don't show me the stipulation, I'll set it aside.
Look, I'm trying to play by the same rules that they're supposed to play by. If there's coagulation testimony, just show me what it is. I'm not arguing about it.