Sidebar: shoe print evidence

📄 Sidebar: shoe print evidence — Monday, December 16, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\16\SIDEBAR-SHOE-PRINT-EVIDENCE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 32 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Dr. Michael Baden (part 2) Jury instruction ▶

Date: Monday, December 16, 1996 • Utterances: 26

A bench sidebar erupted over whether Dr. Henry Lee's prior testimony included identification of more than one set of bloody shoe prints. Defense attorney Blasier contended Lee's testimony was broader than plaintiffs claimed; Medvene insisted Lee identified only one set of shoe prints. Judge Fujisaki demanded the actual transcript rather than counsels' representations, refusing to accept memory or assurances as a substitute.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)

# 2 THE COURT:

Okay, what about it?

# 3 MR. MEDVENE:

What about what?

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

Dr. Lee hasn't changed his testimony.

# 5 MR. MEDVENE:

Dr. Lee's testimony is that there was one set of bloody shoe prints. He did not identify -- he did not identify one other thing as a shoe print and --

# 6 MR. BAKER:

That's not true.

# 7 THE COURT:

There's the transcript.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

There's evidence consistent --

# 9 THE COURT:

Just a minute. Show me in the transcript.

# 10 MR. BAKER:

Judge --

# 11 THE COURT:

Just a minute. I want to see the transcript.

# 12 MR. PETROCELLI:

Would you like me to find it?

# 13 THE COURT:

I'm waiting.

# 14 MR. MEDVENE:

We'll have to find it, Your Honor, but my memory is he said --

# 15 THE COURT:

Excuse me. There's an objection and there's a contention by the objecting party that that was not the evidence.

# 16 MR. MEDVENE:

I understand, sir.

# 17 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's going to take too long, Your Honor. It's 4:30.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 THE COURT:

There is no too long.

KEY QUOTE

# 19 MR. MEDVENE:

We do know there --

# 20 (Counsel reads transcript.)

# 21 MR. PETROCELLI:

There's one reference, Your Honor. I think there are other references in there.

# 22 (Court reviews transcript.)

# 23 THE COURT:

Okay. Page 26 is not very conclusive.

# 24 MR. MEDVENE:

Well, we will look in at the evening break, Your Honor, but I'll represent to you --

# 25 THE COURT:

I don't need a representation. I want to see it. This is a crucial point, and this is a crucial objection. I'm not going to go on representations.

KEY QUOTE

# 26 MR. MEDVENE:

We'll find it for you late this afternoon.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

I don't need a representation. I want to see it. This is a crucial point, and this is a crucial objection. I'm not going to go on representations.

Fujisaki's firm insistence on textual evidence over attorney memory captures his no-nonsense approach and signals how seriously he viewed the shoe print testimony dispute.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

There is no too long.

Blunt rejection of Petrocelli's attempt to defer review until the next day due to the hour — shows Fujisaki's impatience with delay tactics.

Daniel Petrocelli

It's going to take too long, Your Honor. It's 4:30.

Petrocelli attempts to table the issue on procedural grounds, but Fujisaki refuses to let the clock end the inquiry.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee's prior testimony regarding shoe prints at the crime scene

reviewed at bench to resolve dispute over what Lee actually testified to

Notable Exchanges (2)

Edward Medvene•Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Medvene asserts Lee testified to only one set of bloody shoe prints; Baker flatly contradicts him; Fujisaki cuts both off and demands the transcript be produced immediately.

tense

Daniel Petrocelli•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Petrocelli tries to postpone transcript review because it's 4:30 pm; Fujisaki shuts him down with 'There is no too long.'

firm/admonishing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Dr. Henry Lee

prior inconsistent statement (disputed)

Plaintiffs contend Lee's civil testimony characterizing shoe prints is inconsistent with or narrower than his prior statements; defense disputes this characterization, claiming his testimony included evidence consistent with additional shoe prints.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8660 • 26 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103