Date: Wednesday, November 20, 1996 •
Utterances: 5
Defense attorney P. Baker objected at the bench to FBI shoe print expert Bodziak testifying about a possible sole impression in the Bronco carpet, arguing it was prejudicial because Bodziak previously stated at the criminal trial he could not confirm a shoe print was present. Judge Fujisaki denied the objection, telling Baker he could impeach the witness on cross-examination.
#1(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MR. P. BAKER: Mr. Bodziak testified at the criminal trial that he couldn't say whether or not there was a sole impression in that Bronco carpet. I think it's highly prejudicial for him to get up on the stand and to imply that there is a shoe print on that carpet when he can't do it.
Mr. Bodziak testified at the criminal trial that he couldn't say whether or not there was a sole impression in that Bronco carpet. I think it's highly prejudicial for him to get up on the stand and to imply that there is a shoe print on that carpet when he can't do it.
Baker invokes Bodziak's prior criminal trial testimony as a prior inconsistent statement to block the testimony entirely, rather than wait for cross.
Hiroshi Fujisaki
You can impeach him.
Fujisaki's terse denial signals his standard approach: let evidence in and let the jury weigh credibility.
Evidence (1)
Informal
Bronco carpet allegedly containing a sole impression
discussed
Notable Exchanges (1)
P. Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki
Baker sought to exclude Bodziak's testimony as prejudicial given his criminal trial statements; Fujisaki denied the motion with a single sentence.
strategic
Credibility Attacks (1)
⚔ Bodziak
prior inconsistent statement
Baker argued Bodziak's criminal trial testimony — that he could not confirm a sole impression — contradicted what he was about to imply on the civil trial stand.