He's saying there was something improper about this document. We're showing it's not an official form; if he would have thrown it away, it would have been within his rights. He didn't.
First of all, that's not even true, but that's not the point. The point is, now they're trying to rehabilitate him saying, are you familiar with rules of discovery, are you familiar with what the obligations are, and now they're saying the only obligation they had was to turn over copies to the Defense of this document, not originals, and that is exactly what the problem is here. And now they are further trying to exploit this, further misleading this jury and they're trying to exploit the fact that this Court has not yet decided whether to give the admonition right now about their discovery conduct. It's even getting worse and this is wrong.
Your Honor, I asked him a leading question at first. The leading question was I believe--I hope I'm not mistaken on this, but they would be entitled to the original and copies, and the objection was sustained. So then I said, well, "What is your understanding of discovery," to try to get around that. I mean the point is that they are entitled to this in discovery. They did get a copy in discovery. It was clearly admissible evidence. It is relevant evidence. It is proper questioning.
But the issue is, now you're--the argument Defense counsel is making is that you are overreaching by doing this, you're seeking an unfair tactical advantage from your misconduct yesterday by not disclosing this immediately and that the Court should now give the admonition that it indicated it was going to give. That's their argument, which is what prompted the Court's comment when we first came up here, don't you think you're overreaching here a little?
I don't know what the Court means by overreaching. I ask the Court to think about what the Court would do if the Court were in my position. Would you bring this to their attention?
I would just establish what was the original document, where it's been, here it is, thank you very much, good-bye. Is there anything on it? No, there's nothing on it.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, this isn't even page 4 that we are talking about anymore. I didn't ask him any of these questions with respect to page 4. I mean I don't understand. We are talking about a separate document.
And I intend to ask him the same questions on the other document that's similar to that official form.
Come back. The problem here--the problem here, your Honor, is that what--as the Court noted, that there is overreaching here. What's going on is that they are trying to vouch for his honesty and their own honesty in the discovery process by indicating, "Are you familiar with the rules of discovery? We have all been playing this game correctly. What we are authorized to do is turn over copies, and we did that. And you preserved the documents even though you didn't have any obligation," which isn't true; and they're trying to vouch for their credibility in turning this over and pretending that nothing happened here that was a misrepresentation, that misled the Defense. And that is wrong and that is additional reason to give the admonition as we requested.
At this point, I'm going to overrule the objection, but I'm going to caution counsel. Move on.
Aren't you guys overreaching with this?
I would just establish what was the original document, where it's been, here it is, thank you very much, good-bye.
They are trying to vouch for his honesty and their own honesty in the discovery process by indicating, 'Are you familiar with the rules of discovery? We have all been playing this game correctly.'
I ask the Court to think about what the Court would do if the Court were in my position. Would you bring this to their attention?