Well, he's asked and answered numerous questions of his understanding of the People's theory based on what other people have told him. The Defense is trying to show that he's trying to lie to conform his testimony to the Prosecution's theory. I would like to show the Prosecution's theory is, it was there on the 13th, he believes it to be there on the 13th, but he cannot testify that it was there on the 13th because he didn't see it, and it shows that he is not willing to bend and conform his testimony or even I think the terminology sometimes used is "Fudge" his testimony by testifying to something that he ultimately knows is true, that it was there on the 13th.
I think he can get that--the form of the question is plainly argumentative. He can ask him other questions he's been asking before, you know.
The topic is germaine, but I don't like the way that question is formulated.
KEY QUOTEOn that subject, can we remember again--in the spirit of cooperation, I refrained from objecting and my colleague on the other side forgot again. I didn't say anything about it.
His objection was a speaking objection. We are talking about courtroom rules and procedures which your colleague is not following.
No, no. But that's not--that's for Hank Goldberg to do. That's what I'm saying. He's in violation of doing that. I'm just clearing it up.
it shows that he is not willing to bend and conform his testimony or even I think the terminology sometimes used is 'Fudge' his testimony by testifying to something that he ultimately knows is true
The topic is germaine, but I don't like the way that question is formulated.
in the spirit of cooperation, I refrained from objecting and my colleague on the other side forgot again.
I could give him some suggestions, but it's not my place.