Objection was first of all overruled in the criminal court. Second of all, he asked this witness for exactly the same conclusions. He's asked him about now. He asked about rain drops. He asked this witness through the deposition, or the trial transcript, rather, to make the very same conclusions that we're asking this witness to make.
And hence, there's no basis that this witness doesn't have any foundation for -- plus when they offer the prior trial transcript, it's my understanding that they can't object when it hasn't been objected to. In this case, it's been overruled.
We can offer new objections. from anything. I don't know of anything at all that prevents us from doing that. It's evidentiary issues.
Secondly, we did not ask for this kind of conclusion about "the glove was bunched up."
Thirdly, they could have objected. Just because they didn't object, doesn't mean we can't object and the objection would be improper.
This is not deposition. This is prior testimony from the criminal case, Your Honor.
I wasn't, Your Honor. This is prior -- I thought I made it clear. This is the testimony. I said to the jury, this is testimony offered at the criminal trial.
Okay.
And 1291 says, subdivision B says the admissibility of former testimony under the section is subject to the same limitations and objections as though the declarant were testifying at the hearing, except that former testimony offered under this section is not subject to 1) objections, 2) the form of the question, which was not made at the time the former testimony was given. And objections with regards to competency.
"Photograph speaks for itself," and I think under the -- this is not an objection that can be well taken.
After looking at the rest of the testimony, what you're arguing about, I don't know.
I'm going to overrule. There's nothing of consequence that follows. Overruled.
KEY QUOTENot really. Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to read the question back. (Reading:)
Now, you notice in the picture that you've indicated is from the half time -- you can come down here and look at it a little more carefully, if you'd like to -- around the wrist area of the gloves, they appear to be bunched up like there's extra leather."
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me can you tell me what number that is, the board, for the record?
Nothing further.
MR. P. BAKER: 45044. (Reading:)
"Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Schott?
"A. Good afternoon.
"Q. How are you doing?
"A. Fine, thank you.
"Q. November of '93 is when these pictures were taken, correct?
"A. Correct.
"Q. In Buffalo?
"A. In Buffalo.
"Q. Do you live in Buffalo?
"A. I live in Orchard Park.
"Q. Is that near Buffalo?
"A. It's near Buffalo.
"Q. November in the Buffalo area generally isn't cool. It's generally very, very cold. Was this an unusually warm day or a cold day?
"A. I'm not a weatherman, but in Buffalo in November, we could have some days where they start out cool. For example, today I believe it's getting warmer, and the afternoons can warm up.
"Q. Okay. But November -- I mean, we're just in early September?
"A. Correct. But in November, you could have some nice days where it's cool in the morning and then it will warm up.
"Q. Okay. How many people were in the stadium roughly, if you know? Was it sold out?
"A. My best guess is yes, it was but I don't know that for a fact.
"Q. A lot of people wearing gloves?
"A. I don't believe so. I wasn't looking for that.
"Q. Okay. So you don't know?
"A. I really don't know.
"Q. Is there anything particularly unusual about wearing gloves on that day?
"A. No.
"Q. Do you have men's gloves?
"A. Yes, I do.
"Q. Now are these the only pictures that you took?
"A. No, they're not.
"Q. All right. And where are the other pictures? ... (sic) I meant that afternoon of Mr. Simpson?
"A. Of Mr. Simpson?
"Q. Yes.
"A. I believe the District Attorney has what I printed up."
MR. P. BAKER: And where are the other pictures? (Reading:)
"Q. Those are the ones you've identified here in court today and it's actually only two different pictures, is it? Am I correct in that?
"A. Correct.
"Q. Now, I think you indicated you had a lawyer?
"A. Yes, I do.
"Q. Dealing with these pictures?
"A. Yes, I do.
"Q. When did you send the pictures that you took of Mr. Simpson to the prosecution?"
Overruled.
MR. P. BAKER: Down at the bottom of the page (reading):
"A. I talked to my friend, who happens to be my lawyer, and I believe it was somewhere between June 23 and June 26.
"Q. Of this year?
"A. Of this year, 1995.
"Q. Did you try to sell them to Inside_Edition before you sent them to the prosecution?
"A. I did not try to sell them to Inside_Edition.
"Q. Did your attorney, on your behalf, try to sell them?
"A. I don't believe he did either. I'm not sure.
"Q. Was contact made with Inside_ Edition to try and negotiate the sale of these pictures?
"A. It may have been. I don't know.
"Q. Did you authorize him to do that?
"A. No, I did not.
"Q. Do you have any knowledge of your attorney trying to sell these pictures on your behalf?"
I'll sustain my own objection to that. It's getting irrelevant.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Page 45048, down in the middle of the page, "who is your lawyer?"
KEY QUOTEOkay. Objection sustained. Witness served within the jurisdiction. This is -- he is not unavailable under 240 of the evidence code.
KEY QUOTELet me read it. I can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
After looking at the rest of the testimony, what you're arguing about, I don't know. I'm going to overrule. There's nothing of consequence that follows. Overruled.
"around the wrist area of the gloves, they appear to be bunched up like there's extra leather."
I'll sustain my own objection to that. It's getting irrelevant.
Objection sustained. Witness served within the jurisdiction. This is -- he is not unavailable under 240 of the evidence code.