Redirect examination of Richard Rubin (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of Richard Rubin (part 2) — Wednesday, November 6, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\6\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-RICHAR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 10 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Richard Rubin (part 1) Jury instruction and recess ▶

Witness: Richard Rubin
Examiner: John Kelly
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Wednesday, November 6, 1996 • Utterances: 42

Baker cross-examines glove expert Rubin about the physical condition of the Aris gloves (Exhibits 129 and 204), probing for cuts, wear marks, and absence of blood on the linings. Rubin repeatedly acknowledges he is not qualified to distinguish cuts from wear marks, but does confirm visible openings on the right-hand glove and no cuts on the left.

# 1 (Exhibit 641 is displayed.)

# 2 Q:

The glove you have in front of you are in the dark brown family, aren't they?

# 3 A:

These are in the brown family.

# 4 Q:

The dark brown family as contrasted to the gloves in 641, which is -- are not in the dark brown family?

# 5 A:

They are dark brown now.

# 6 Q:

All right. Tell me about the cuts that you know on those gloves. You've done an inspection on those gloves, have you not?

# 7 A:

I've seen them.

# 8 Q:

And have you seen -- you've inspected them in detail, have you not?

# 9 A:

Yes, I have.

# 10 Q:

Tell me if there are any cuts over the left middle finger on the left-hand glove which I believe is 129?

# 11 A:

On the left hand, I do not see any cuts.

# 12 Q:

Not a cut at all, correct?

# 13 A:

Not on the left-hand glove.

# 14 Q:

Okay.

I want you to inspect the palm. I want you to inspect every finger of the glove and tell the jury whether or not there's any cuts on that leather glove, Exhibit 129, whatsoever?

# 15 A:

I do not see any.

# 16 Q:

Okay.

Now, please look at Exhibit 204. That's the right-hand glove, sir. Thank you. And tell me if you find any indication of a cut as contrasted to a wear mark?

# 17 A:

I don't think I'm qualified to tell the difference between a wear mark and a cut.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 Q:

Well, then, we'll frame it a different way, if we can.

In terms of the indications on the palm of 204, the right-hand glove, is there any indication that that's wear to you; or if you're not qualified, just say so?

# 19 A:

It doesn't appear as wear because it would -- if it was wear, it would graduate like toward the weakness and tear a part, where it seems to be just torn a part.

KEY QUOTE

# 20 Q:

Now, on the back of the glove is there any indication that a knife may have been put in the glove up by the ribbons, those are petty, pretty sharp, delineated lines on that glove, are they not?

# 21 A:

I'm not qualified to answer that.

# 22 Q:

Anything on the right thumb?

# 23 MR. KELLY:

Objection. He's indicated he's not qualified to answer that question, Your Honor.

# 24 THE COURT:

I think he only asked anything on the right thumb.

# 25 MR. KELLY:

It was a follow-up to the previous question that he indicated.

# 26 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 27 MR. KELLY:

Okay.

# 28 RICHARD RUBIN:

There's an opened cut mark of some sort on the thumb, too.

KEY QUOTE

# 29 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Okay.

Now, did you -- when you inspected those gloves, did -- you looked at the linings, did you not Mr. Rubin?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

Did you know whether or not there was any appearance of anything that appeared to be blood on the interior of the linings at all?

# 32 A:

I wouldn't know it if I saw it.

# 33 Q:

Was there any dark stains on the interior of the linings, Mr. Rubin?

# 34 A:

I did not see any.

# 35 Q:

Did you see any stains at all on the lining?

# 36 A:

I did not.

# 37 Q:

Now, in the right-hand glove, there is an opening on the right thumb, the back of the glove and two openings on the palm of the glove, correct?

# 38 A:

That's correct.

# 39 Q:

Now, did you have any discussions with anyone from the LADA's office as to whether or not there had been any tests done to determine if there was any blood on the linings of either of those gloves?

# 40 MR. KELLY:

Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

# 41 THE COURT:

Sustained. Mr. Baker.

# 42 MR. BAKER:

Thank you, sir.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Witness

I don't think I'm qualified to tell the difference between a wear mark and a cut.

Limits the utility of Rubin's inspection testimony on the critical question of whether the gloves were damaged in a struggle

Witness

It doesn't appear as wear because it would -- if it was wear, it would graduate like toward the weakness and tear a part, where it seems to be just torn a part.

Rubin distinguishes the damage on the right-hand glove as a tear rather than gradual wear, implying forceful damage

Witness

There's an opened cut mark of some sort on the thumb, too.

Rubin confirms a third opening on the right-hand glove — palm, back by the ribbons area, and thumb — consistent with Baker's theory of damage

Witness

I did not see any.

No stains on the interior lining, potentially undermining claims the gloves were worn by a bleeding person

Evidence (3)

641

Gloves displayed for color comparison — not in the dark brown family (or now described as dark brown)

displayed, discussed

129

Left-hand glove — Aris leather glove, no cuts observed

inspected, discussed

204

Right-hand glove — has openings on thumb, back, and palm

inspected, discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker methodically walks Rubin through every part of both gloves confirming no cuts on the left and multiple openings on the right, building a picture of damage concentrated on the right glove

strategic

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker attempts to get Rubin to opine on whether a knife could have been inserted into the glove — Rubin declines as unqualified

probing

Robert Baker•John Kelly•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Kelly objects that Baker's thumb question is a follow-up to a question Rubin already declined; Fujisaki overrules, narrowly reading the question as standalone

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Rubin

qualification challenge

Baker repeatedly exposes the limits of Rubin's expertise — he cannot distinguish cuts from wear marks and cannot identify blood — narrowing his usefulness as an expert witness

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8181 • 42 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103