Sidebar: scope

📄 Sidebar: scope — Thursday, October 31, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\31\SIDEBAR-SCOPE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 6 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Thomas Lange (part 2) Morning session opening ▶

Date: Thursday, October 31, 1996 • Utterances: 14

Plaintiff attorney Medvene raised a sidebar objection arguing that defense cross-examination had strayed beyond the limited scope of their direct examination, which focused only on specific blood evidence. Judge Fujisaki rejected this, ruling that once plaintiffs opened the door to blood testimony, reasonable cross-examination latitude on related topics — including length of struggle — was permissible.

# 1 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please, could we address you for a minute?

# 2 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 3 MR. MEDVENE:

May we address you for a moment?

# 4 THE COURT:

About what?

# 5 (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

# 6 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please, we questioned the witness limitedly on that evidence that was being relied upon to show Mr. Simpson was liable, mainly specific bloody footprints, specific blood drops.

We didn't question him about generally a scene and what else he observed; we questioned him about only the items of evidence that we intend to rely on.

# 7 THE COURT:

Mr. Medvene, I understand your position. However, the Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs cannot artificially limit the scope of cross-examination when the plaintiff brings into -- brings before the jury testimony with regards to blood. I think a reasonable degree of cross-examination is allowed.

I've gone out of my way to sustain plaintiffs' position in limiting cross-examination as to other aspects of this witness's testimony, requiring the defense to call that witness as its own witness, if they wish to explore that area.

I'm trying to be reasonable. And I think reason dictates that I allow reasonable latitude in cross-examination about blood.

You offered this witness to testify to blood, what the blood looked like, what the reasonable interpretation of the blood was with regards to the tracking of the blood in a certain direction, blood drops going in a certain direction; so I have to allow some reasonable latitude, Mr. Medvene.

# 8 MR. MEDVENE:

We understand the purpose of the examination, Your Honor. For the last ten minutes was -- was length of struggle. We didn't put the witness on for length of struggle.

# 9 THE COURT:

Mr. Medvene, if the reasonable cross-examination has some ancillary effect in affecting that aspect of that case, that's the nature of the evidence.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. MEDVENE:

We just want to make sure if it was open or not, Your Honor. If it is, we'll go into it.

# 11 THE COURT:

I think I made my position clear. I think the defense understands what my position is. If they don't, make your objection, and I will rule.

# 12 MR. MEDVENE:

Thank you, Your Honor.

# 13 MR. PETROCELLI:

Thank you very much.

# 14 (At 4:35 p.m., proceedings were adjourned until 9:00 a.m., Friday, November 1, 1996.)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

plaintiffs cannot artificially limit the scope of cross-examination when the plaintiff brings into -- brings before the jury testimony with regards to blood. I think a reasonable degree of cross-examination is allowed.

Core ruling: the plaintiffs' strategic narrowing of direct examination does not constrain the defense's right to cross on related blood evidence.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

I've gone out of my way to sustain plaintiffs' position in limiting cross-examination as to other aspects of this witness's testimony, requiring the defense to call that witness as its own witness, if they wish to explore that area.

Fujisaki signals he has already been accommodating to plaintiffs and is not simply ruling against them across the board.

Edward Medvene

For the last ten minutes was -- was length of struggle. We didn't put the witness on for length of struggle.

Plaintiffs' specific complaint: defense used blood testimony as a vehicle to introduce struggle-duration evidence, which plaintiffs had deliberately avoided.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

if the reasonable cross-examination has some ancillary effect in affecting that aspect of that case, that's the nature of the evidence.

Fujisaki acknowledges the strategic spillover effect but rules it is a natural consequence of the plaintiffs' own evidentiary choices.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Bloody footprints and blood drops at the crime scene — specifically the tracking direction of blood drops

discussed as the scope of direct examination testimony

Notable Exchanges (1)

Edward Medvene•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Medvene argued the plaintiffs deliberately limited direct examination to specific blood evidence and that cross should be equally constrained. Fujisaki disagreed, ruling that offering blood testimony opens reasonable latitude for cross on related matters including struggle duration.

strategic

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8089 • 14 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103