Sidebar: blood evidence

📄 Sidebar: blood evidence — Thursday, October 24, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\24\SIDEBAR-BLOOD-EVIDENCE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 2 of 57

◀ Opening statement — Baker (part 3) Opening statement — Baker (part 4) ▶

Date: Thursday, October 24, 1996 • Utterances: 19

Petrocelli objected at the bench that defense testimony about officers not seeing blood on the Bronco was effectively a backdoor planting argument, violating the court's prior order. Fujisaki pushed back, distinguishing between an officer testifying to what he observed versus explicitly arguing the blood was planted. The judge ruled the officer could testify to what he saw, but Baker could not argue planting as a conclusion.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 2 MR. PETROCELLI:

This is -- this is the Bronco collected on the 13th and he's arguing that these spots outside are planted and that specifically --

# 3 MR. BAKER:

I'm not.

# 4 THE COURT:

I don't hear him saying they were planted You're the one that's saying they're planted.

# 5 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor the only purpose of this whole discussion was that the blood was planted. He said one officer saw the blood, the other officer didn't see the blood. What's the relevance of the statement that three officers didn't see any blood?

# 6 THE COURT:

If three officers get up and testify they didn't see any blood, that's what they're going to testify.

# 7 MR. PETROCELLI:

It was brought in.

# 8 THE COURT:

You make a motion to preclude reference to planting that order. Now, you bring those things up before the jury yourself. What are you doing? MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't bring it up. I said outside the scope of the court's order, Your Honor. I tried. My intention is not to bring it up. I think it has gone way out of bound.

# 9 THE COURT:

Excuse me, I don't think Mr. Baker has mentioned planting.

# 10 MR. PETROCELLI:

That's the only purpose of all this.

# 11 THE COURT:

How do you know what the purpose of it is other than the fact that the officer is going to testify that he didn't see any other spots.

# 12 MR. PETROCELLI:

But that's the purpose of that testimony, Your Honor.  That's my point. Okay. I believe --

# 13 THE COURT:

We can't change the facts, Mr. Petrocelli, if the officer testifies he didn't see the blood, he didn't see the blood.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 MR. PETROCELLI:

For what other purpose can it be offered for?

KEY QUOTE

# 15 THE COURT:

I don't know. He's entitled to testify to what he saw.

# 16 MR. PETROCELLI:

We can seek to exclude the testimony on the grounds it's not relevant to anything.

# 17 THE COURT:

Excuse me, I said he cannot argue that as a basis for planting.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 MR. PETROCELLI:

Understand.

# 19 THE COURT:

That's all.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

We can't change the facts, Mr. Petrocelli, if the officer testifies he didn't see the blood, he didn't see the blood.

Judge draws a firm line between factual testimony and argumentative inference — officer perception is fair game regardless of how Petrocelli characterizes its purpose.

Daniel Petrocelli

For what other purpose can it be offered for?

Petrocelli's core argument: testimony that officers didn't see blood has no legitimate relevance except to imply planting, which the court already excluded.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Excuse me, I said he cannot argue that as a basis for planting. That's all.

Judge's final ruling: the testimony is allowed, but Baker is prohibited from using it to argue the blood was planted.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Bronco collected June 13th — blood spots on exterior, with testimony that some officers did not observe them

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Daniel Petrocelli•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Petrocelli repeatedly argued Baker's line of questioning was a disguised planting argument; Fujisaki repeatedly refused to impute that motive to Baker, insisting an officer can testify to what he saw regardless of how Petrocelli interprets the purpose.

tense/strategic

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker denied planting was his argument; Fujisaki agreed, correcting Petrocelli — 'I don't hear him saying they were planted. You're the one that's saying they're planted.'

revealing

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8012 • 19 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103