Sidebar: officer courtroom exclusion

📄 Sidebar: officer courtroom exclusion — Tuesday, October 29, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\29\SIDEBAR-OFFICER-COURTROOM-EXCL.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 5 of 57

◀ Morning session opening Jury seating ▶

Date: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 • Utterances: 10

Defense attorney Robert Baker requested that Officers Thompson and Phillips be excluded from the courtroom to prevent them from hearing other testimony and aligning their stories. Plaintiff's counsel Medvene noted a prior order allowing criminal trial witnesses to sit in, but did not object when the judge ruled to keep them outside.

# 1 THE CLERK:

Side bar?

# 2 MR. BAKER:

Yes.

# 3 THE COURT:

Morning.

# 4 MR. MEDVENE:

Morning, Your Honor.

# 5 MR. BAKER:

For obvious reasons, Judge, I want Officer Thompson and Officer Phillips excluded from the courtroom proceedings. I don't think there is any reason for them to be in here. We've had a lot of inconsistencies between the police officers. Those police officers were here yesterday; they were out in the hall. They now, in my view, want to get them in the courtroom so they can hear the other testimony, to minimize the inconsistencies. I'd like them excused, both Thompson and Phillips.

# 6 MR. MEDVENE:

There was a previous order by Your Honor, as I remember it, that if the witness was a witness at the criminal trial, he could sit in.

# 7 THE COURT:

Why do they need to be inside today?

KEY QUOTE

# 8 MR. MEDVENE:

They don't have to be inside.

# 9 THE COURT:

Let's keep them outside.

# 10 MR. MEDVENE:

That would be fine.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Robert Baker

Those police officers were here yesterday; they were out in the hall. They now, in my view, want to get them in the courtroom so they can hear the other testimony, to minimize the inconsistencies.

Baker explicitly accuses the plaintiff's side of orchestrating witness coordination to cover up inconsistencies between officers.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Why do they need to be inside today?

Fujisaki's skeptical question effectively decided the matter before Medvene could mount a defense of their presence.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert Baker•Edward Medvene•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker moved to exclude two officers; Medvene raised a prior order permitting criminal trial witnesses to remain, but quickly conceded when Fujisaki questioned the necessity of their presence.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Officer Thompson / Officer Phillips

bias / witness coordination

Baker argued the officers were attempting to sit in on testimony to align their accounts and reduce apparent inconsistencies with other officers' prior statements.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8071 • 10 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103