Sidebar: tape admissibility

📄 Sidebar: tape admissibility — Monday, December 9, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\9\SIDEBAR-TAPE-ADMISSIBILITY.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 28 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Philip Vannatter (part 3) Redirect examination of Philip Vannatter (part 4) ▶

Date: Monday, December 9, 1996 • Utterances: 14

Petrocelli objected to Baker playing a full tape, arguing that only the portion introduced by the plaintiff (as a party admission) was admissible and that the rest was inadmissible hearsay. Baker invoked the completion doctrine, arguing that once plaintiff opened the door by introducing part of the tape, the defense was entitled to play the rest. Fujisaki quickly ruled for the defense after confirming plaintiff had introduced a portion first.

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

# 2 MR. PETROCELLI:

Under what legal theory is he entitled to play the tape? Self-serving, hearsay as to his client and what's the relevance of the -- playing the whole tape? It's an admission to what I introduced it against the parties.

# 3 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 4 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's an admission when we introduce his statement of the party. How can he put on a conversation of his client? That's inadmissible hearsay, Your Honor.

KEY QUOTE

# 5 MR. BAKER:

It is not inadmissible. They've cherry picked this document, and it's the completion doctrine, we're entitled once they open the door.

# 6 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 7 MR. BAKER:

Once they open the door --

# 8 THE COURT:

Wait. Let me ask him.

# 9 (Indicating to Mr. Petrocelli.)

# 10 THE COURT:

Did the plaintiff offer a portion of this?

# 11 MR. PETROCELLI:

Yes, Your Honor.

# 12 MR. BAKER:

Then overruled.

# 13 MR. PETROCELLI:

Is that the theory, completion doctrine?

# 14 (Nods.)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Daniel Petrocelli

It's an admission when we introduce his statement of the party. How can he put on a conversation of his client? That's inadmissible hearsay, Your Honor.

Petrocelli's core argument: a party admission only runs one way — plaintiff can use it against defendant, but defendant cannot introduce his own self-serving statements under the same rule.

Robert Baker

They've cherry picked this document, and it's the completion doctrine, we're entitled once they open the door.

Baker's counter: the completion doctrine (rule of completeness) entitles the defense to provide full context once plaintiff selectively introduced part of the recording.

Robert Baker

Then overruled.

Baker preemptively declared the ruling before the judge — unusually bold courtroom behavior.

Evidence (1)

Informal

An audio or video tape containing a statement by OJ Simpson, only a portion of which was introduced by plaintiff

disputed — defense seeks to play full tape under completion doctrine

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker announced 'Then overruled' before the judge ruled, effectively declaring the outcome himself after Fujisaki confirmed the predicate fact.

bold/strategic

Daniel Petrocelli•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Fujisaki twice said 'Excuse me?' before cutting off argument to ask the single dispositive factual question — whether plaintiff introduced a portion of the tape.

efficient/controlling

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8548 • 14 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103