Morning.

I understand counsel have worked out some stipulation with regards to the exhibits that we're going to be ruling on this morning.

If the Court please, we voluntarily eliminated -- of the 18 Ms. Nicole Brown photos, we eliminated all but five. And Mr. Baker has an objection to one of those five, which is number 2014.

With respect to Mr. Goldman, we've eliminated 16 photos voluntarily, and we're offering 10 of the original 26.

Of those ten, Mr. Baker is objecting to five. And those numbers are 1999, 2006, 2004, 2000 and 1986.

The number on the Ms. Brown photo that's being objected to is 2013.

The clerk has been kind enough to pull those photos for you, Your Honor.

I'll hear from defense.

352 -- I obviously don't have the photos in front of me because I think the Court has those photos.

I think in looking at those photos, obviously the ones that have probative value, we have not objected to.

The ones we feel the prejudicial effect far outweighs the probative value that are exceedingly gruesome, I've objected to. And I've tried to be relatively selective and only object to those that I feel that have -- for example, 2013 is a photo that is pretty gory, and there are other photos of that wound that we have not objected to.

20 -- 1986 also has exceedingly limited probative value, Your Honor.

And this is the one that I was just indicating to you, sir, 2013.

And again, if you look at 1999, there are other photos of that particular wound.

And this one, I would suggest, is quite gruesome.

I don't feel strongly, Your Honor, about 2000, although I don't think that it has very much probative value.

And again, I don't feel that strongly about 2004.

2006, I think, is very -- would certainly have on 2004 -- and if the Court -- and the others that they've wanted to get in that we haven't objected to, those will tell the story, I think, in great detail, without getting quite as gory as some of these that we've objected to, I'll submit, Your Honor.

Your Honor, we tried not to duplicate there's one I'd suggest that maybe we can eliminate I believe we need the others.

The 2013 is the neck wound to Ms. Brown. We've only offered two pictures of Ms. Brown with the serious wounds.

The importance of the neck wound is one important factor in the case that the next witness is going to testify to, is the nature of the injury where the assailant was standing, the fact that he was cutting from one direction to another, from left to right.

This shows the wound quite clearly and permits him to explain, where he's able to form an opinion, that the -- that the assailant had his left arm over the victim when he cut right to left and slashed the neck of the victim. And it shows -- because of the size increasing, it demonstrates the basis for his opinion.

That's really the main picture on Ms. Brown, and one of the only two neck pictures.

In terms of Mr. Goldman, we've eliminated most of the neck pictures.

1999 is the front of the neck.

2004 is the left side.

2000 is the right side.

We can do without 2006, if the Court pleases, in that it's covered in one of the other three. But the other three are necessary, because we want to show the struggle and the attempt to cut Mr. Goldman on the left and the attempt to cut him on the right and the front, in terms of similarity of modus operandi of the assailant to both victims. So we don't believe there's any duplication there.

The last photo, 1986, is -- is a picture of Mr. Goldman, basically for purpose of showing the left leg and the -- and the thigh, the result of the thigh wound, and where the limited bleeding that's there was -- the limited external bleeding was that most of the bleeding was internal, but this was basically the external bleeding.

We would submit, Your Honor --

The remainder of the objection is overruled.

Okay. You ready for testimony?

Yes, Your Honor.

We have to go cover up that one photograph.

Okay.