BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU WANTED TO RAISE AN ISSUE REGARDING PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING?
YES, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT THE COURT HAD RULED THAT PHENOLPHTHALEIN WAS NOT GOING TO BE ADMISSIBLE AND THEN IT BECAME MY UNDERSTANDING, PERHAPS THE COURT HAD RULED, THAT POSITIVE TESTS WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE BUT NEGATIVE TESTS WERE.
THE DEFENSE HAS NOW CLEARLY INTRODUCED A POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WITHOUT ANY PRIOR APPROACHING OF YOUR HONOR AND TRYING TO GET A MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S RULING, AND IT SEEMS TO BE CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF WHAT THE COURT'S RULING WAS.
A SIDE FROM THAT, WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE COURT HAVING SAID THAT IN TERMS OF YOUR PHENOLPHTHALEIN RULING, THAT YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY TO PLACE BEFORE THE JURY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE MISLEADING IN TERMS OF NEGATIVE RESULTS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS, CREATING THE INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE DEFENSE PUT IN EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A NEGATIVE REACTION IN THE SINK DRAIN OR SINK TRAP, AND OF COURSE WE HAVE A POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST IN THE -- IN THE DRAIN PART OF IT.
THIS CLEARLY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, CREATES AN ENTIRELY ERRONEOUS PICTURE BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST AS IF YOU ARE TELLING THE JURY THAT THIS LITTLE SPOT OVER HERE WAS TESTED FOR PHENOLPHTHALEIN AND IT CAME BACK NEGATIVE, WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE LITTLE SPOT NEXT TO IT CAME BACK POSITIVE, AND THEN ARGUING TO THE JURY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD THERE. AND WHAT THE DEFENSE HAS DONE IS THEY HAVE TRIED TO CREATE A -- A CHANGE IN WHAT EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 IS REALLY INTENDED TO DO.
WELL, ISN'T YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT'S RULING WAS THAT NO POSITIVE RESULTS OF PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING WOULD BE ADMITTED UNLESS THERE WAS SOME BACK-UP OR SUBSEQUENT TESTING TO CONFIRM THAT SINCE PHENOLPHTHALEIN IS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ONLY; HOWEVER, THAT THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE IS THAT A NEGATIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN WAS PRETTY MUCH CONCLUSIVE IN AND OF ITSELF THAT BLOOD WAS NOT EXISTENT, SO THAT WAS THE STATE OF THE COURT'S RULING? THEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FUNG THIS MORNING I NOTED THAT THE DEFENSE THEN OFFERED, THROUGH MR. FUNG, POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING THAT HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY ANY OTHER TESTING METHOD, SO HAVING MADE THE INITIAL OBJECTION AND THEN SOUGHT THEMSELVES TO INTRODUCE IT, THEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS PROBABLY THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO DO LIKEWISE, CORRECT?
YES, YOUR HONOR. OUR PURPOSE IN ASKING OF THAT QUESTION OF MR. FUNG, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THAT NEVER HAPPENED, THAT THAT TEST NEVER HAPPENED. HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE HAD BEEN SENT BACK SPECIFICALLY TO DO TESTING ON JULY 6, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND THAT HE CLAIMED THAT HE WENT BACK AND DID THAT BUT DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT, DIDN'T RECORD IT ANYWHERE, DIDN'T WRITE A REPORT UNTIL OCTOBER SOMETIME WHERE HE THEN INCLUDES WHAT HE MAINTAINS WAS THE TEST RESULTS. WE DID NOT ASK THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE PHENOL TEST. WE USED IT FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES TO SHOW THAT THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
IT WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO OPEN UP ALL OTHER PHENOL TESTING POSITIVE RESULTS FOR ADMISSION AS POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF BLOOD.
WELL, HAVEN'T -- ISN'T THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR PREVIOUS POSITION THAT I DID GRANT YOUR MOTION TO RESTRICT -- THAT YOU -- THE USE OF POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING WITHOUT ANY BACK-UP, AND THEN TO BROACH THAT WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING WITH REGARDS TO THAT OR COUCHING IT IN SOME OTHER WAY, PRESUMPTIVE TESTS WITHOUT MENTIONING PHENOLPHTHALEIN OR ANYTHING ELSE, HAVEN'T YOU CREATED A CONFLICT AND IT IS NOW FAIR FOR THE PROSECUTION TO BRING THIS EVIDENCE IN?
I KNOW THERE WAS NO OBJECTION. THEY WERE PROBABLY HOPING. I SAW WIDE EYES OVER ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE IS WHAT I SAW.
AGAIN, THIS WAS FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT OF MR. FUNG. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS TEST WAS EVER DONE. IT WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS PURPORTING TO HAVE CREATED FOR PURPOSES OF DEMONSTRATING THAT HE DID SOMETHING ON THE 6TH WHICH WE DON'T THINK IT DID.
COULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN COUCHED IN TERMS OF AN UNNAMED TEST, PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD, OR IN OTHER WAY, AND SHOULDN'T YOU HAVE GIVEN NOTICE TO THE PROSECUTION YOU WERE ABOUT TO DO THAT BY ASKING TO APPROACH?
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT -- AT A BENCH CONFERENCE ABOUT ASKING THE QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE OTHER -- THE TEST OF THE SINK TRAP, AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AND HAD OKAYED THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION. WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS WITH IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL WITH MR. FUNG. WE ARE VERY HESITANT TO REVEAL OUR IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL BEFORE WE USE IT ON THE WITNESS. THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL. AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT AND WE DIDN'T DO THAT.
IT WASN'T REALLY TRUE IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS UNKNOWN AND THAT THERE WAS SOME SURPRISE ADVANTAGE SINCE YOU ALREADY HAD THE TRANSCRIPTS AND HIS TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY.
WELL, I DON'T THINK THERE HAD BEEN ANY TESTIMONY BEFORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT WRITE A REPORT UNTIL OCTOBER 6TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS. AND IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THAT DELAY OF MANY MONTHS WAS A COVER-UP TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT -- TO COVER HIS TESTIMONY IN OCTOBER BECAUSE HE HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING IN JULY AND THAT NOTHING WAS DONE, NO TESTING WAS DONE. IT HAS BEEN OUR POSITION ALL ALONG, WITH RESPECT TO MR. FUNG, THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENED AND I THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL ALONG THOSE LINES. IF THEY WANT TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT IT ON REDIRECT, I AM CERTAIN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO ALL OTHER PHENOL TESTING IN OTHER SITUATIONS WITH OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE.
YOU SEE, YOU DIDN'T ASK ME TO LIMIT THE PURPOSE. THAT WAS JUST GENERAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURY.
YOU DIDN'T GIVE THE COURT NOTICE. YOU DIDN'T NOTIFY THE OTHER SIDE, BECAUSE I HAD RULED IN YOUR FAVOR, AND THEN YOU GO IN AND BRING IN SOMETHING YOU ASKED ME TO KEEP OUT, SO NOW IT IS OUT THERE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE. THERE HAS BEEN NO ADVISE TO THE COURT THAT I SHOULD GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY, SO ISN'T THE DOOR WIDE OPEN AT THIS POINT?
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A LIMITING INSTRUCTION. I THINK ONE WAS GIVEN BEFORE ON THIS VERY ISSUE. I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, BUT WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR ADVISING THE JURY EXACTLY WHAT THE NATURE OF THE TEST IS AND THAT IT IS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST AND THIS WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT ONLY.
YOUR HONOR, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP MORE TIME WITH THIS THAN THE COURT FEELS IS NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO RULE IN OUR FAVOR. UMM --
LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DO YOU HAVE -- DO YOU HAVE ANY CASE LAW, BECAUSE THE CASE LAW SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OTHER PRESUMPTIVE TESTS INDICATE PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE COURT'S RULING HAS BEEN, UNLESS THERE IS A 352 ISSUE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COURTS THAT HAVE KEPT IT OUT ON THAT BASIS. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER REPORTED CASE THAT DEALS WITH A SITUATION SIMILAR TO OURS?
NO, I HAVEN'T, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE DO KNOW OF THE RULE OF CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY OR COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS OPENING THE DOOR, WHERE YOU -- WHERE ONE SIDE PUTS INTO EVIDENCE, THE OTHER SIDE IS ENTITLED TO REBUT IT. AND LET ME POINT OUT THE FALLACY OF COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE WAS NO REASON WHATSOEVER THAT THEY HAD TO ASK WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WERE. THERE WAS NO REASON AT THAT POINT THAT THEY HAD TO ASK WHAT THE NATURE OF THE TEST WAS SPECIFICALLY. THEIR ALLEGED REASON FOR DOING IT WAS SIMPLY TO SHOW THAT HE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE DONE A TEST, BUT THE RESULT HAS NO IMPEACHMENT VALUE WHATSOEVER IF THEY ARE TRYING TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS IMPEACHMENT OR ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS, SO THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE MAKING SIMPLY FALLS SHORT.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT I FEEL ARE ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. NO. 1, THE COURT I THINK WAS RULING UNDER 352 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE AT THE TIME THAT YOUR HONOR MADE ITS INITIAL RULING, AND WHAT THE COURT SAID IS YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE TO BE PUT BEFORE THIS JURY IN SUCH A WAY SO THAT IT WERE MISLEADING. WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE THE DEFENSE HAS VERY EXTENSIVELY ASKED QUESTIONS AS TO HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS IN THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, AS TO WHERE IT WAS, AND VERY SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER THE SINK TRAP WAS TESTED AND WHAT THE RESULT WAS AND THAT IT CAME BACK NEGATIVE. NOW, WHAT EARTHLY REASON IS THERE FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION OTHER THAN TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE TO THIS JURY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE SINK AND THAT HE DID NOT WASH UP IN THE SINK?
THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE FOR DOING THAT, SO HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY ALLOW A SITUATION UNDER 352 WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A NEGATIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN IN THE SINK TRAP WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE TEST IN THE SINK DRAIN ITSELF? THAT IS MISLEADING. I THINK WHAT THE DEFENSE IS DOING IS THEY ARE TRYING TO HAVE THE COURT CONVERT 352 FROM A SHIELD THAT IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT YOU FROM OVERLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE INTO A SWORD THAT IS DESIGNED TO CREATE AN INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THESE LOCATIONS WHEN IN FACT WE HAVE A SCIENTIFIC TEST THAT SAYS THAT THERE IS. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD SAY ON THIS SCORE THAT IF THE COURT THINKS THAT WE NEED FURTHER FOUNDATION IN TERMS OF A SEROLOGIST, WE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE MR. FUNG SIMPLY TESTIFY TO WHAT HE DID AND THE COLOR CHANGE AND HIS OBSERVATIONS AND HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TESTIFY TO THE INTERPRETATION, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY.
SO THERE IS MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR ALLOWING THIS IN. OPENING THE DOOR IS ONE, BUT FAIRNESS IS ANOTHER, AND A PROPER USAGE OF 352 IS ANOTHER. AND THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE POSTURE THAT THERE IS NO BLOOD AND NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD WHEN WE KNOW IN FACT THAT THERE IS, AND THERE IS A RELIABLE TEST THAT IS USED IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SUGGESTS THAT. ALSO, I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WE DID FIND OUT FROM TECHNICAL EXPERTS THAT BLEACH DOES NOT CAUSE A FALSE POSITIVE WITH THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WHEN YOU USE THE TWO-STAGE METHOD, WHICH I SPECULATED WAS THE CASE, BUT NOW HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TO BE THE CASE BY EXPERTS THAT WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH. MAY I HAVE JUST ONE MOMENT?
AS TO THE FIRST ARGUMENT, IT IS ALSO TOO LATE FOR A LIMITING INSTRUCTION AT THIS POINT. IT CAME IN FOR ALL PURPOSES. THE JURY IS NOT GOING TO BE BACK UNTIL TOMORROW. AND FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING: IN REHABILITATING THIS ISSUE OR READDRESSING THIS ISSUE WITH MR. FUNG, WE NEED TO SHOW WHAT HIS PRACTICE IS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HE DOES WHEN HE GETS A POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST OR WHEN HE DOES A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST IN GENERAL, BECAUSE WE CAN SHOW THAT HE DOES NOT WRITE REPORTS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY, AN ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THAT TESTING.
HE DIDN'T DO IT WHEN HE TESTED THE BENTLEY, SO WE NEED TO GET THAT IN. HE DIDN'T DO IT WHEN HE TESTED CERTAIN OTHER ITEMS AT ROCKINGHAM, INCLUDING THE SINK, AND THE SHOWER, HE DID NOT WRITE AN ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT, SO WE NEED TO SHOW WHAT THIS MAN'S PRACTICE IS AND THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. AND THAT IS OF VITAL CONCERN TO THE PEOPLE IN ADDRESSING THE SUPPOSEDLY LIMITED ISSUE THAT COUNSEL SAYS THAT THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WAS INTRODUCED ON.
YOUR HONOR, THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT HE BE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PHENOL TEST BEING POSITIVE AS OPPOSED TO BEING NEGATIVE. WE WERE NOT ASKING THAT QUESTION FOR PURPOSES OF ELICITING THE TRUTH OF WHAT THE PHENOL TEST WAS, BUT THE FACT THAT HE SAID IT WAS POSITIVE MAKES IT A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT EVENT, ONE WHICH I WOULD RECORD, TELL MY BOSS, TELL MISS CLARK, TELL SOMEBODY, THAN IF IT HAD BEEN A NEGATIVE TEST, SO THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF INFORMATION WAS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER STATED.
FAR FROM IT. IT WAS OFFERED FOR JUST THE OPPOSITE, TO SHOW THAT BY HIS TESTIMONY THAT WOULD BE THE IMPORTANT TYPE OF EVENT THAT HE WOULD RECORD. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASE AUTHORITY ON OPENING UP THE DOOR WITH THIS KIND OF A QUESTION THAT OPENS UP A WHOLE SCIENTIFIC AREA AS FAR AS TESTING IN OTHER REALMS. AND IF THE COURT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, IF THE PROSECUTION HAS ANY CASES THEY WANT TO CITE, WE WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THOSE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON MY OWN WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, BECAUSE I THINK THE LANDSCAPE OF THE ISSUE HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY SINCE THIS MORNING. I FELT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE INITIAL COURT RULING, BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SITUATION, I'M NOT SO COMFORTABLE WITH IT ANY MORE, SO I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT OVER THE EVENING HOURS.
YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT WANT ANY TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE AS TO THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST?
NO, I DON'T NEED THAT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT, HAVING RULED ONE WAY AT THE REQUEST OF ONE PARTY AND THEN THAT PARTY HAVING DECIDED TO BRING IN THAT VERY THING, WHETHER OR NOT IN FAIRNESS YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DO THE SAME THING. THAT IS THE ISSUE.
AND WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF 352, SO I WILL TAKE A LOOK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER LEGAL CONUNDRUMS YOU WANT TO PRESENT TO ME?
THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE AS TO THE VIDEOTAPE, YOUR HONOR. APPARENTLY WE DID NOT GET THE EXACT COPY OF THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS SHOWN TO THE JURY, THE ONE WITH THE COUNTER IN IT, AND THE ONE THAT WE HAVE, ACCORDING TO MR. FAIRTLOUGH, AND I CAN'T REPRESENT THIS ON MY OWN, IS NOT SHOT FROM THE SAME CAMERA. MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT?
WELL, APPARENTLY THEY ARE THE SAME EXCEPT THAT ONE HAS A COUNTER ON IT AND THE OTHER DOESN'T, SO APPARENTLY ONE IS EDITED AND THE OTHER IS NOT, AND WE WOULD LIKE THE EXACT SAME VERSION BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY OR CLARITY WHICH WOULD RESOLVE THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED AS TO EXACTLY WHAT ITEM WAS BEING HANDED.
ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM SEARCHING YOUR VIDEOTAPE FILE MAKING AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION THE SAME EXACT FOOTAGE WITH THE COUNTER IN IT RATHER THAN THE COUNTER REMOVED?
THEY ALREADY HAVE IT, YOUR HONOR. MR. FAIRTLOUGH COULD NOT FIND THE CLIP WITH THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE ON THE BLANKET. HE SAID HE WENT OVER THE TAPE IN GREAT LENGTH. I SHOWED HIM WHERE IT WAS ON THE TAPE AND I THINK HE IS SATISFIED THAT A LEAST THOSE CLIPS ARE ON THERE. THE CLIPS WITH THE COUNTER ARE ON THERE SOMEPLACE AS WELL. WE HAVE GIVEN HIM THAT TAPE. I THINK IT IS ALSO ON THE FIRST TAPE THAT WE INTRODUCED WHICH IS COURT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2, I THINK THAT IS THE SAME TAPE, BUT WE HAVE GIVEN THEM THAT TAPE AT LEAST TWICE AND IT IS ON THERE.
I THINK THAT IS THE KCBS TAPE THAT WE INTRODUCED VERY EARLY ON. WHETHER THAT HAS THE ONE WITH THE COUNTER ON IT, I'M NOT SURE. THERE IS PROBABLY SEVEN HOURS OF TAPES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THEM THAT IS A COMPILATION OF SEVEN TAPES WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEM AND THERE ARE A LOT OF REPEATS, A LOT OF REPEAT CLIPS, AND WE MADE THOSE EXCERPTS FROM THAT THREE-VOLUME SET AND WE DIDN'T DO ANY EDITING OURSELVES OTHER THAN TO TAKE THE CLIPS OUT.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME IF IT IS THE SAME FOOTAGE, THEN THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL NEED. I KNOW THAT MISS HAYSLETT IS STILL SEARCHING FOR THE ORIGINAL FORMAT OF THAT PARTICULAR, TAPE SO WE CAN SEE IF IT IS AVAILABLE FOR ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES, AND IF WE LOCATE THAT FROM THE NEWS MEDIA, I WILL LET BOTH PARTIES KNOW AS SOON AS WE DO. ALL RIGHT. I SEE IT AS A NON-ISSUE AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO OUR FOUR O'CLOCK MATTERS?
WHAT THE DEFENSE HAS DONE IS THEY HAVE TRIED TO CREATE A -- A CHANGE IN WHAT EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 IS REALLY INTENDED TO DO.
I SAW WIDE EYES OVER ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE IS WHAT I SAW.
DON'T ASSUME THAT.
BLEACH DOES NOT CAUSE A FALSE POSITIVE WITH THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WHEN YOU USE THE TWO-STAGE METHOD, WHICH I SPECULATED WAS THE CASE, BUT NOW HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TO BE THE CASE BY EXPERTS.
THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF INFORMATION WAS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER STATED. FAR FROM IT. IT WAS OFFERED FOR JUST THE OPPOSITE, TO SHOW THAT BY HIS TESTIMONY THAT WOULD BE THE IMPORTANT TYPE OF EVENT THAT HE WOULD RECORD.