Morning, Your Honor. I have just one brief procedural matter. I spoke to brother counsel this morning, and I would like the opportunity to reserve cross-examination until Mr. Richards is returned tomorrow, pending the Court of Appeals' decision, if we get one today. We filed a writ this morning, and the tact that I take on cross-examination, strategy and so forth, will depend on whether or not he's allowed to testify as to the Flammer photographs. There's also another area that I think they want to get into which involves the analysis of a totally different photograph, the Bundy glove, and I would object to any testimony about that.
Morning, Your Honor. I don't think he has a right to reserve his cross-examination until tomorrow for tactical reasons. They insisted on bifurcating, so it was at their insistence that the Court ordered that Mr. Richards' examination be split up. We're doing the Groden rebuttal and they need to do the cross-examination on that. Tomorrow we're coming back to do the Flammer issue, and then they can do the cross-examination on that. For tactical reasons, they can't break it up -- they can't make us break up our direct, and yet they can do a single integrated cross-examination for purely tactical reasons, as he just said. I don't think there's any basis for that.
The other photo, Your Honor, this -- this photo -- Mr. Richards will testify that this is not a hole; this is debris lying on the top of the glove. We let him testify about this at his deposition after court yesterday, so they've examined him on this. I will point out that, in interrogatories, we asked for all facts and evidence that they had in support of a planting theory. They told us nothing about this Bundy glove being planted, in regard to a hole and debris. This is all brand new, Your Honor. We had no opportunity at all to prepare for this new claim, which to this day, I do not understand. But apparently, they want to make it, as you heard Mr. Leonard so boisterously argue earlier in the week. We asked Mr. Richards to take a look at these photos just the other day. He did and he testified about them yesterday. We would like him to testify about that as well, since this is a new claim that they have put into the case after -- after orders of preclusion, as well, that they weren't able to get into any matters outside of what was in the interrogatories. And they did. This is brand new. We had no time, opportunity or ability to prepare. They never made this claim. Despite a year of hotly contested discovery, we learned about it last week. So we would like an opportunity to address it so the jury is not in any way, shape or form misled.
Comes ill from the mouth of the plaintiffs to say that it was sprung on them, when they sprang 30 photos on us, and then have their experts fly to Buffalo, and we have no opportunity to review the photos at all; to come in here and say it was sprung on us, and now we should have an opportunity to have an expert testify to that. 2034, specifically, code sections (k) and (l), require them -- what they have to do if they want to amend and enlarge the designation of their expert. They have never done that on either the 30 photos, or this photo, or anything else. We think they ought to be precluded.
KEY QUOTEWell, they've had it as long as we've had it. Since June 14. It was taken on -- on, I think, June 14, 1994. So they've had it since the inception of the case.
The glove photos have been around. But we've asked them for every fact known to mankind on which they intend to assert planting of evidence, in voluminous discovery. We had to go to court three or four times to get orders. In fact, we got the last order from this court on what they could argue and not argue in opening statement. At no time did they tell us that they were going to contend that the Bundy glove was planted. At no time did they say that one glove had a hole in it and the other doesn't. They didn't say any of that, Your Honor. They talked about the Rockingham glove. This is brand new. We learned about this claim when Mr. Leonard stood up in court the other day and said now we have proof. That's what we're.
You can cross-examine on what he's said so far. (Jurors resume their respective seats.)
You may proceed. (Chart displayed on easel.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: (continued)
my cross-examination is going to be brief, 45 minutes.
That's brief?
Well, what's a three-hour examination?
At no time did they tell us that they were going to contend that the Bundy glove was planted. At no time did they say that one glove had a hole in it and the other doesn't.
Comes ill from the mouth of the plaintiffs to say that it was sprung on them, when they sprang 30 photos on us, and then have their experts fly to Buffalo, and we have no opportunity to review the photos at all.