My objection is, your Honor, not even Mr. Bodziak or any Prosecution expert will be testifying that was a shoeprint in the Bronco, and to elicit from a leading question that statement from this witness I think is highly improper. He's not qualified to state that. It's contrary to what the People know their own experts have stated in the reports and I think it's highly improper. I think a motion to strike is appropriate here with an instruction to the jury to disregard it.
Well, actually I thought Mr. Bodziak said it was a shoeprint, but he couldn't make it to anything. He said he couldn't say that it came from a Bruno Magli shoe is my recollection, but this witness does have--I mean it's not even an area of expertise to say you see a bloody shoeprint, and he is going to say he sees something that looks like a bloody shoeprint in the Bronco and it's simply coming in for the purpose of showing that by the time that the Defendant got home, there was very little or no blood on the shoes. It's coming in not for purposes of necessarily showing there was a shoeprint, but there was blood being absorbed from the Defendant's shoes apparently onto the Bronco, onto the Bronco carpet.
We haven't seen them. Shoeprints on the floormat of the Bronco with fibers, it's been something that--red fibers, it's been examined by all the experts. It's going to be disputed, the issue as to what that is, how it got there. But the point is that we've seen nothing so far from their expert saying that that is--that that can be identified as a shoe impression. Now, if he wants to show him a picture of whatever's in the Bronco, you know, what he saw there, that's fine. This I think is highly improper.
If Mr. Fung had conducted some analysis or did a report saying he was going to testify this was a shoe impression, we certainly--
--at great lengths. You don't think it's appropriate for him to be asked the question, "Did you see something that looked like a shoeprint there?" Are you going to show him a photograph at some point?
If he's going to give an expert opinion that's a shoe impression, he can do this. This was a leading question; was there a shoe impression in the Bronco. It's contrary to all the reports we've seen up to this point and I think that was improper. It was done in a leading fashion to convey certain impressions to the jury. He's not going to put him on as that kind of expert for this purpose on that piece of evidence.
I don't understand what the legal basis of the objection is. It seems like there has to be a legal basis for it.
I mean, I could testify to that. Anyone can say, "I saw a shoeprint." That's not an expert opinion. I mean, comparing it, that's an expert opinion.
I don't like the question as phrased. I agree with that. You can ask him if during his examination he saw anything that resembled a shoeprint.
No. No. For these purposes, I'll allow it to get us in and out of it quick. But what did he do with this shoeprint?
Your Honor, if he is going to do this, I think he should just show him a picture, ask him what he observed and what his opinion is if he wants to try to lay foundation as to whether--
I agree it would be better if he did. But he's the lawyer. He can do it the way he wants.
KEY QUOTEIt was done in a leading fashion to convey certain impressions to the jury. He's not going to put him on as that kind of expert for this purpose on that piece of evidence.
It's coming in not for purposes of necessarily showing there was a shoeprint, but there was blood being absorbed from the Defendant's shoes apparently onto the Bronco, onto the Bronco carpet.
I agree it would be better if he did. But he's the lawyer. He can do it the way he wants.