Sidebar: impeachment foundation

📄 Sidebar: impeachment foundation — Tuesday, April 18, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\18\SIDEBAR-IMPEACHMENT-FOUNDATION.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 59 of 167

◀ Re-redirect examination of Dennis Fung (part 3) Re-redirect examination of Dennis Fung (part 4) ▶

Date: Tuesday, April 18, 1995 • Utterances: 6

A brief sidebar where Goldberg argues that prior testimony about investigating evidence movement doesn't specifically cover interviewing witnesses, so it can't be used for impeachment. Scheck counters that 'inquiries' and 'interviews' are close enough to constitute direct impeachment. Ito overrules the objection.

# 1 THE COURT:

Mr. Goldberg.

# 2 MR. GOLDBERG:

Your Honor, the problem here is if the Court would--

# 3 THE COURT:

Wait, wait, wait.

# 4 MR. GOLDBERG:

--look at the transcript--"isn't your responsibility to investigate whether evidence at the scene hasn't moved or altered from its original position? "Vague as to the word `investigate,'" which the Court overruled. Then he says: "I--in some respects, it is my responsibility, yes." Okay. So that's vague. "All right. And are you supposed to make inquiries of people at the scene as to whether or not evidence has been moved or altered? "Yes." But it doesn't say anything about interviewing witnesses.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

Inquiries, interviews I think are close enough that it's direct impeachment.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 THE COURT:

Objection is overruled.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Hank Goldberg

it doesn't say anything about interviewing witnesses.

Goldberg's core argument — trying to distinguish 'inquiries' from 'interviews' to block impeachment.

Barry Scheck

Inquiries, interviews I think are close enough that it's direct impeachment.

Scheck collapses Goldberg's distinction in a single sentence; Ito agrees.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Prior trial transcript containing testimony about responsibility to investigate whether evidence had been moved or altered at the scene

discussed as foundation for impeachment

Notable Exchanges (1)

Hank Goldberg•Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Goldberg tries to parse a distinction between 'inquiries' and 'interviews' in prior testimony to defeat impeachment; Scheck argues they are close enough; Ito overrules the objection without elaboration.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ unidentified witness (likely a criminalist or detective)

prior inconsistent statement

Defense seeks to impeach using prior testimony that the witness had a responsibility to make inquiries about whether evidence had been moved or altered at the scene.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 5752 • 6 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103