Your Honor, we'd like to call our next witness, Richard Rubin.
Judge, well, he's on his way.
Could we approach?
Judge, this witness, Richard Rubin, was a former employee, the general manager, and VP of Aris, the manufacturer of this glove.
We're putting him on the stand to discuss the characteristics of this particular glove, to identify the glove, some of the photographs that were just put into evidence, and to discuss the manufacture and et cetera, the crime scene photos.
And I don't want to be put in the position where I -- where on cross, Mr. Baker may ask for a demonstration, or put up on the Elmo, photographs or video from the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson's deposition.
And I just don't want that put to the jury without any notice, because once that's done, there's no way to get away from that.
We certainly do not intend to approach that on our direct case, Your Honor.
Your Honor, they have listed this guy as an expert. And I don't think you can play hide the ball with every witness. They played it with about 15 others so far.
Whatever the number is, you can't play hide the ball with experts. I get to cross-examine on full breadth of his experience.
And he was called back in the criminal trial for the express purpose, after the gloves didn't fit, and testified relative to that. And he is an alleged expert on these gloves. And I think I am entitled to a full and complete cross-examination, including the video of Mr. Simpson, those gloves not fitting.
Judge, first of all, that's only one man's opinion of whether they fit or not.
But secondly, that was from the criminal trial, Mr. Simpson --
If you're offering this man as an expert, certainly that's within the cross-examination.
I'm not questioning the bounds of the cross-examination; it's the demonstration part, the videotape that might pop up on the screen.
First of all, Your Honor, there was -- at the criminal case, he was not subject to cross-examination. It was done under questionable controls. We don't know whether his weight has changed, whether his hand size has changed; we don't know any of those things. We have no control over it. It was not put on for purposes --
He's going to be identifying the photographs of Mr. Simpson, identifying the gloves he's wearing in there, and identifying the crime-scene gloves, also, in terms of the manufacture, make, model, style, size, whether they're a pair or not, things like that.
That's what we're here to find out.
He cannot put on in this case a videotape that's not in the official record. A camera -- videotape from Court TV or image of Mr. Simpson trying on gloves in the criminal case, it's hearsay as to this case.
This expert's not relying on that. He can -- he can ask --
He can cross-examine this expert about his observations in the courtroom, but he can't play the TV coverage of that event.
And I think under 352, as well as the hearsay rule, it's not proper.
Your Honor, there was a lot of controversy surrounding how he put the gloves on. He had latex gloves underneath those in the criminal case. We don't want to get into that in this case.
No, you can't, any more than I can bring in TV coverage of witnesses who testified.
In the criminal trial, Mr. Simpson was not subject to cross-examination.
There is no cross-examination; it's a visual depiction of him trying on gloves, period. There's no testimony.
He can testify as to what he saw. But, Your Honor, I think it's highly inappropriate to let him play television coverage from another trial. And also, Mr. Simpson --
We think it's highly prejudicial and hearsay to put this guy up in front of this jury to go through a dog and pony show of how other lawyers decided to make him try on gloves.
Why should he show a video of what happened in that court case be played in the trial?
I think it's highly improper to poison this jury when what happened in that case. It's hearsay, in addition, to have him get up in front of this jury --
It's appropriate cross-examination. You're putting on an expert for the purpose of connecting the defendant to this glove; and I think the defense has to have a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine everything, including this purported demonstration.
Because we had nothing to do with how those gloves were put on, nor did this expert here, either.
Oh, Your Honor, I disagree with that.
Very respectfully, I think this is highly prejudicial to our case.
Not what this these criminal lawyers did is not part of our case. You're going to turn us into -- I'm not going to mention anything on the record beyond what I've said.
All I'm saying is that the visual depiction of what Mr. Simpson did with the gloves is an appropriate part of the cross-examination, where you are offering a witness trying to connect up the glove to Simpson.
My ruling is if you offered this witness to testify as to the gloves, and in an effort to connect the defendant up with the gloves, by definition, the question of whether or not the glove fit him has to be part of the connection. And that's an area that the defense has a right to cross-examine about.
And the cross-examination may include any demonstration, physical depiction of Mr. Simpson allegedly trying on the gloves. And that's part of the cross-examination.
Can we have a ruling through our witness he can't put the gloves on his client during this phase?
I will make this ruling: If Mr. Simpson wants to try on the gloves, he's going to have to try it on without latex gloves.
We don't want to, either. We want a ruling if he is, are you going to permit him to put on gloves in this phase of the examination in our case?
I don't think it's a fair depiction, a fair cross-examination. To that extent, I agree with you. But nevertheless, that's part of the physical evidence on which the defense can cross-examine, and --
I would request that if you do decide to put the gloves on, in addition to no latex, that they be put on out of the presence of the jury, and that he can show the jury the gloves on his hand, but not struggling -- not struggling to get the gloves on, Your Honor.
We have no control over that. If he wants to do that in his case when he puts his client on, that's one thing; he doesn't have to do that in our case. He wants to cross-examine the witness, that's fine, but not going to have his client showing up in the middle of our case and put on the gloves under circumstances we don't control.
I can't make my argument any more clear.
Well, I can't make my ruling any clearer.
If Mr. Simpson wants to try on the gloves, he's going to have to try it on without latex gloves.
You want to connect the gloves up with the defendant. Fine. I think fit is part of it.
Go to your room.