Sidebar: transcript exhibits

📄 Sidebar: transcript exhibits — Wednesday, November 20, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\20\SIDEBAR-TRANSCRIPT-EXHIBITS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 19 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Allan Park (part 1) Cross-examination of Allan Park (part 2) ▶

Date: Wednesday, November 20, 1996 • Utterances: 61

Attorneys debated at the bench whether a marked-up exhibit shown on the TV monitor (Exhibit 1456 from the civil trial) corresponded to the correct page in the criminal trial transcript. Petrocelli argued Baker was referencing the wrong exhibit or the wrong transcript page, while Baker maintained his question made sense regardless. Judge Fujisaki ultimately resolved the dispute by allowing the examination to proceed and letting the jury decide which exhibit was being referenced.

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

# 2 MR. PETROCELLI:

I don't have any objection to Mr. Baker reading what he wants to read, but I think this particular exhibit that he's got on the television was not created at the reference that Mr. Baker was citing (referring to exhibit 1456). But I believe if you read here, it was created here. And you can tell by the reference to the circle. And the circle being this circle right here, Your Honor (indicating).

# 3 MR. BAKER:

I can't tell what you're pointing to. What were you pointing to?

# 4 MR. PETROCELLI:

Right there.

You see, he's trying to direct him away from that circle.

I think that's where he marks that particular exhibit up in the record. And the reference that Mr. Baker would like to cite -- I'll turn the page when you're finished reading.

# 5 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 6 (Court reads transcript.)

# 7 THE COURT:

I don't understand your point.

# 8 MR. PETROCELLI:

My point is that Mr. Baker is indicating that this mark was placed on here at this point in the testimony, and I believe it was placed on here at this point in the testimony (indicating).

I'm suggesting to Mr. Baker that this may be a different exhibit that he marked up, not the one --

# 9 THE COURT:

That's what, 139?

# 10 MR. PETROCELLI:

Can we check that out? We need a little time to see if this corresponds to 139.

# 11 MR. BAKER:

Well, Your Honor, there's only one person that -- he said it's clear that from this page -- just let me finish, please -- that he is talking about putting a mark as to where he first saw the person, between 10:54 and 10:55, walk into the house.

# 12 THE COURT:

The question is, does it refer to 139?

# 13 MR. BAKER:

I don't know that they are referring to that exhibit in relationship to this. I don't know that they are --

# 14 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your question, though, is directed to this exhibit that's on the TV monitor.

# 15 MR. BAKER:

Sure it is.

# 16 MR. PETROCELLI:

I think there's a problem --

# 17 MR. BAKER:

I don't think there's a problem. He's asking him -- there's only one person he testified to that went into the house between 10:54 and 10:55.

# 18 THE COURT:

Can I see the previous page?

# 19 MR. BAKER:

Sure.

# 20 (Court reads page 20807.)

# 21 MR. BAKER:

I couldn't tell from there. That's all I can tell you.

I can't tell if 139 refers to this report.

# 22 THE REPORTER:

Mr. Baker, what page is this?

# 23 MR. BAKER:

20808.

# 24 MR. PETROCELLI:

Can he ask the question with regard -- without regard to that particular exhibit?

# 25 MR. BAKER:

No; it makes no sense.

# 26 MR. PETROCELLI:

This center mark, I can't tell what that is. It looks like it's this document and not that document.

The page I was referring to was at 20571, and the page Mr. Baker is referring to is 20808.

Did you find the exhibit number?

# 27 MS. MOLINARO:

Yes.

# 28 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's this one.

(Counsel displays an exhibit.).

# 29 MS. MOLINARO:

If you read to line 23 -- and he marked it.

MR. PETROCELLI. They marked it right down there.

# 30 (Referring to page 20808.)

# 31 MR. BAKER:

That makes no sense. That's --

# 32 MR. PETROCELLI:

That's what's quoted.

# 33 MR. BAKER:

Well, and the reason this makes no sense, sir, is, as you will see, in each one of these, Allan Park is up here. I don't know who BK is. I assume that's Brian Kaelin; that's where he came out the path, referring to an exhibit entitled 139-A.

# 34 MR. BAKER:

There are no potted plants.

# 35 MS. MOLINARO:

Potted plants?

# 36 MR. BAKER:

I know. But it says by the arrow.

# 37 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's clear to this testimony if you're referring to this circle here, (referring to Exhibit 1456 of civil transcript) he's trying to direct -- this is where it's being marked 20571 of the criminal trial transcript and --

# 38 THE COURT:

Well --

# 39 MR. PETROCELLI:

Why don't you read this.

# 40 MR. BAKER:

I like this.

# 41 MR. PETROCELLI:

If you don't read this, I'm going to --

# 42 THE COURT:

Why don't we do this: Inasmuch as the record is ambiguous, I'm going to let him examine, and you can examine on that part of it.

# 43 MR. PETROCELLI:

Okay.

# 44 THE COURT:

Let the jury decide which one you're referring to. There's no other way to decide.

# 45 MR. PETROCELLI:

Well, they should have done a better job at the criminal trial.

KEY QUOTE

# 46 THE COURT:

That may be so.

# 47 MR. PETROCELLI:

139-B is Allan Park.

# 48 MR. BAKER:

Where's the arrow?

# 49 MS. MOLINARO:

It's a white arrow, Mr. Baker, and I think you can't see it because of the flash.

# 50 MR. PETROCELLI:

They're clearly not referring to this. This is what the witness is talking about in Mr. Baker's page reference.

# 51 MS. MOLINARO:

Read to page 20809; you'll see the 139-B.

# 52 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 53 MS. MOLINARO:

If you read to page 20809, you will see at line 11 -- 10 and 11, they marked it 139-B, as in "boy." Flip the page.

# 54 MR. BAKER:

Sure.

# 55 MS. MOLINARO:

Sorry.

# 56 MR. BAKER:

No, it's all right.

# 57 (Counsel turns page.)

# 58 THE COURT:

Oh yeah, there it is.

# 59 MS. MOLINARO:

Yes.

# 60 THE COURT:

That's what it looks like.

# 61 MR. PETROCELLI:

Okay. Thank you:

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Inasmuch as the record is ambiguous, I'm going to let him examine, and you can examine on that part of it. Let the jury decide which one you're referring to. There's no other way to decide.

Fujisaki's pragmatic resolution — the underlying criminal trial record was unclear enough that no definitive ruling was possible.

Daniel Petrocelli

Well, they should have done a better job at the criminal trial.

A rare editorial jab at the original prosecution's record-keeping, which Fujisaki tacitly acknowledged.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

That may be so.

Understated judicial agreement that the criminal trial transcript was poorly documented.

Evidence (3)

Exhibit 1456

Civil trial exhibit — a marked-up diagram or document shown on the TV monitor, apparently depicting positions of Allan Park and Brian Kaelin

disputed — parties disagreed about which transcript page it was marked at

139-A / 139-B

Criminal trial exhibits referenced in transcript pages 20571 and 20808–20809; 139-B identified as Allan Park's position

discussed, cross-referenced to resolve ambiguity

Informal

Criminal trial transcript pages 20807, 20808, 20809 and 20571

read by court and counsel to resolve exhibit identification dispute

Notable Exchanges (2)

Daniel Petrocelli•Robert Baker

Petrocelli argued that the mark on the exhibit was placed at transcript page 20571 (not 20808 as Baker claimed), leading to a back-and-forth about which exhibit and page corresponded to which circle or arrow on the diagram.

strategic

Ms. Molinaro•Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Molinaro directed everyone to page 20809, lines 10-11, where 139-B was explicitly marked, resolving the dispute and prompting Fujisaki's 'Oh yeah, there it is.'

collaborative

Light Moments (2)

Robert Baker

Baker notes 'There are no potted plants,' Molinaro responds 'Potted plants?' in apparent bewilderment, and Baker acknowledges 'I know. But it says by the arrow.'

Robert Baker

Baker says 'I like this' in the middle of Petrocelli's argument, suggesting mild amusement at the unfolding confusion.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8355 • 61 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103