I'm going to ask the Court to admonish Mr. Neufeld from making loud repeated comments concerning the objections and the questions being asked by Mr. Goldberg. He does it audibly so that the jury can hear every word in response to every ruling and every remark made by his cocounsel, Mr. Scheck, and in response to any questioning that may be objected to by Mr. Scheck, and I think it's highly inappropriate and obviously done for the purpose of influencing the jury. And they can hear it obviously, your Honor, because I can hear every word and it's said very loudly while he's facing them.
As to this witness' testimony, he is allowed to rely on opinions of other experts. He is allowed to rely on anything that is of the nature that would be relied on by experts in this field, and Dr. Saferstein has said you do not have to use paper, you can use plastic.
Your Honor, apparently Dr. Saferstein was interviewed on I think Geraldo or something. I haven't seen the interview. I only heard of it. But it seems the key issue here is substance. If they want to call Dr. Saferstein to say it's okay to keep samples in a plastic bag for seven hours in a truck, let them call him. But I haven't heard him say that he specifically approves of that. The text of his books speak for itself. It seems to me improper to have this witness testifying to hearsay.
721 allows somebody to be cross-examined and direct examined on published reports, which I don't think Geraldo qualifies as. Do you have any other exceptions that would allow hearsay by Dr. Saferstein seen on TV?
KEY QUOTEHow about the elmo exception to the hearsay? If we put it up on the elmo, it's not hearsay no more. Your Honor, what I would say is that an expert is allowed to rely on things that he learned in seminars or things that he learned while he was being trained at LAPD. He can talk about what his training was, how they taught him to do things. They attend seminars of the American Federation of Criminalists and the California Association of Criminalists all the time.
KEY QUOTEAnd it's not coming in for the truth of the matter asserted, but the basis for his opinion.
No. Well, no, because I don't think expert treatise necessarily does come in for the truth of the matter. It comes in either to impeach the expert or to support his opinions, and when the expert is testifying, what his opinion is based upon.
You were offering it--if I may interrupt you just a minute--as to what the true interpretation of Saferstein's text is. So he's offering it for the truth.
All right. I am going to sustain the objection. Mr. Cochran, would you warn Mr. Neufeld to keep his voice down. I can hear him and I've already admonished him once. If I have to admonish him again, it will be in front of the jury.
It's just that he has a deep loud voice. He's talking to me, and I'll tell him to whisper.
How about the elmo exception to the hearsay? If we put it up on the elmo, it's not hearsay no more.
721 allows somebody to be cross-examined and direct examined on published reports, which I don't think Geraldo qualifies as.
He does it audibly so that the jury can hear every word in response to every ruling and every remark made by his cocounsel, Mr. Scheck, and I think it's highly inappropriate and obviously done for the purpose of influencing the jury.
If I have to admonish him again, it will be in front of the jury.