The Court is excusing a juror for the reason that she is unable to conduct herself properly as a juror, and has twice made efforts to make some contact with participants in the trial, attorneys in one instance, an employee of the attorneys in the second instance, and the Court feels that in the interest of justice and fairness, that it's important that the jurors be kept separate and apart from the participants of the trial. And for this reason, the Court excused the juror.
Tomorrow morning, we will draw by lot, a juror to fill that spot. Okay.
Thank you.
Your Honor, just one more matter that -- I assume that part of the record is sealed.
That's sealed, except for the excusing part, that last part of excusing her for her conduct. The court released that portion of the record where I excused the juror and the reasons for her excusal, that's part of the record; that will be part of the minute order. Okay.
Your Honor, we had a side bar, wherein Mr. Baker had voiced an objection concerning other counsel questioning Mr. Simpson.
On cross, under 776 -- and I just want to bring to the Court's attention the case McCarthy versus Mobile Cranes Inc. 199 Cal.App.2d 500 that deals with independent actions that have been consolidated for trial when you have an adverse party testifying and the right of each party's attorneys' right to cross-examine that witness.
I would also request that the Court allow us the opportunity to review my notes this evening because there may be other areas that I would like to explore assuming they haven't already been covered by Mr. Petrocelli or the order that you made confining the areas of inquiry, at least with respect to my examination. I would like to not be prejudiced tomorrow if I come in, after reviewing today's testimony, find other areas that I had opportunity to be heard relative to those areas in.
Quite opposite. We set the ground rules. The ground rule was, you agreed to it, that you would be -- wouldn't be going over the same material that each attorney examines on.
And I do agree with that, Judge.
The only points I made in side bar are, there are areas that are not necessarily the same areas, but may have information that wasn't fully developed that I would like to develop.
So I agree. It's not my intention nor my desire to go over the same testimony that was elicited quite effectively by Mr. Petrocelli; simply, there are areas that I feel I wanted to develop in a different way and in a different manner, I think need further development. And that was the point that I was making and the reason why I wanted to revisit a couple areas.
I'm going to stand by them. If there's any particular area that you can point to, you certainly have the opportunity to do that.
One other thing: If I put Mr. Simpson on, if I go into half the subjects, bring you back -- bring him back for the other half, is that appropriate?
KEY QUOTEShe is unable to conduct herself properly as a juror, and has twice made efforts to make some contact with participants in the trial, attorneys in one instance, an employee of the attorneys in the second instance.
I'm not in the habit of going back on my rulings. I'm going to stand by them.
You made an agreement; I'm going to stick you right with your word, okay?
If I put Mr. Simpson on, if I go into half the subjects, bring you back -- bring him back for the other half, is that appropriate?