Sidebar: examination timing

📄 Sidebar: examination timing — Wednesday, April 12, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\12\SIDEBAR-EXAMINATION-TIMING.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 167

◀ Back on record Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (morning, part 3) ▶

Date: Wednesday, April 12, 1995 • Utterances: 9

Defense attorney Barry Scheck approached the bench to notify the court that he intends to question criminalist Dennis Fung about Lab Report 16, for which an original handwritten note has apparently surfaced. Scheck flagged that prosecutor Goldberg claims no knowledge of the original document despite a prior request for its production, and asked the court to handle the matter away from the jury. Judge Ito directed Goldberg to contact John Matheson during the lunch break to locate and produce the document.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

YOUR HONOR --

# 3 THE COURT:

HOLD ON.

# 4 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 5 THE COURT:

WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

I JUST CONSULTED WITH MR. GOLDBERG AT THE SIDE. I DO INTEND ON QUESTIONING MR. FUNG ABOUT LAB REPORT 16.

# 7 THE COURT:

WHERE THE ORIGINAL NOTE HAS NOW SHOWN UP.

KEY QUOTE

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

I EXPECTED THIS TO BE THE CASE, THAT MR. GOLDBERG INFORMS ME THAT HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A REQUEST IT BE TURNED OVER. HE'S INDICATED TO ME HE IS NOT AWARE OF IT. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A DOCUMENT THAT IF THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL, WE WANT TO PRESENT IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, AT THE LUNCH HOUR, WHY DON'T YOU CONTACT MR. MATHESON, SEE IF YOU CAN PRODUCE THAT SHEET. THANK YOU.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Barry Scheck

I EXPECTED THIS TO BE THE CASE, THAT MR. GOLDBERG INFORMS ME THAT HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A REQUEST IT BE TURNED OVER.

Scheck is flagging a potential discovery violation — the defense had already requested this document and the prosecution claims ignorance of its existence.

Lance A. Ito

WHERE THE ORIGINAL NOTE HAS NOW SHOWN UP.

The judge's phrasing implies the document's reappearance is notable — it had been missing or unaccounted for.

Barry Scheck

I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY.

Scheck is being procedurally careful, using the sidebar to avoid signaling the document dispute to the jury.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Lab Report 16 — an original handwritten note associated with the report that had been previously requested by the defense but not produced

discussed; court ordered prosecution to locate and produce

Notable Exchanges (1)

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Scheck disclosed his intent to question Fung about Lab Report 16 and raised the missing original document at sidebar to keep the jury from seeing the production dispute play out.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Dennis Fung

prior inconsistent statement / document discrepancy

Scheck is laying groundwork to question Fung about Lab Report 16 using an original note whose existence and whereabouts the prosecution could not account for — suggesting the official record may differ from the original.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 5657 • 9 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103