Your Honor, I think he opened the door to playing the tape by his descriptions of how the camera panned. I think at this point he can't object to--the questions were done for purposes of impeachment in terms of his change of testimony. He has now redirected on how this tape didn't make the slightest bit of difference and now he has questioned him in implying what the view of that is in relation to the still photographs.
KEY QUOTEBut I still have the problem, Mr. Scheck, that one of the issues here is timing and the foundation for the tape is not there. I still have that problem. If you want to cross-examine him on what he saw on the tape, be my guest, but as to the actual playing of the tape, until we have somebody come in and lay a foundation as to precisely when it was, then we have a problem.
Your Honor, we have actually--the problem is I think, your Honor, that we've already had testimony on this and this is a tape. The real problem that I have with it--
You see, you want to lock them into an hour or specific time. That is the stipulation you were offering.
No, no, no, no, no. I have no desire to lock them in. What I would ask the Court to do is on its own--a fair summary of what the different versions of time on the tape. I mean, we've had testimony. We've had testimony from the Prosecution's own witnesses that the time is either 3:14 or their better view of it is that it is 4:14 because the clock was not set ahead because of daylight savings time. It seems to me, particularly the tape that was turned over late in the game, that for them to be insisting now that this tape shouldn't be displayed to the jury on this point, when it is perfectly obvious that the redirect examination was questioning the witness on positions that he had taken previously on direct and that it related to the tape--and they have now been allowed to bring out through the witness an assertion that this tape depicts things in a certain manner that wouldn't be harmful or has no suspicious connotation with respect to the collection of the socks--it seems to me that it is unfair for them to hide behind this kind of foundational objection when the Court can clear it up with a simple statement with respect to the foundational testimony that was already given by the People's own witness. It is a very short segment, won't take very long, and I think in terms of the orderly presentation of evidence in a long trial, I think this would clarify to the jury what everybody is talking about, since the witness saw the tape himself.
All right. I'm going to sustain the objection, the same objection that the Court previously sustained. If you want to bring this in in your case in chief, bring in those witness. I am not precluding the playing, but you don't have the foundation at this point.
I think he opened the door to playing the tape by his descriptions of how the camera panned.
the foundation for the tape is not there. I still have that problem. If you want to cross-examine him on what he saw on the tape, be my guest, but as to the actual playing of the tape, until we have somebody come in and lay a foundation as to precisely when it was, then we have a problem.
it seems to me that it is unfair for them to hide behind this kind of foundational objection when the Court can clear it up with a simple statement with respect to the foundational testimony that was already given by the People's own witness.
If you want to bring this in in your case in chief, bring in those witness. I am not precluding the playing, but you don't have the foundation at this point.