Sidebar: impeaching witness

📄 Sidebar: impeaching witness — Thursday, April 20, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\20\SIDEBAR-IMPEACHING-WITNESS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 60 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Andrea Mazzola (part 2) Direct examination of Andrea Mazzola (part 3) ▶

Date: Thursday, April 20, 1995 • Utterances: 18

Defense attorney Peter Neufeld objected to prosecutor Hank Goldberg impeaching his own witness with prior inconsistent testimony during direct examination. Judge Ito clarified that California follows modern/federal law allowing any party to impeach any witness, including their own, and overruled the objection. The dispute centered on whether the witness's prior testimony about selecting stains at Bundy contradicted or merely differed from her current testimony.

# 1 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 2 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 3 THE COURT:

All right. We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Neufeld.

# 4 MR. NEUFELD:

Your Honor, my concern is, I understand--

# 5 THE COURT:

Keep your voice down.

# 6 MR. NEUFELD:

Sorry. I understand it's perfectly proper to try to diminish the sting of Defense argument when presenting these up on direct examination, but I would object to his use of--actually impeaching the witness with prior testimony which is inconsistent with the testimony she just gave on direct examination at this time. I don't believe that's an appropriate thing to be done on direct examination.

# 7 THE COURT:

Well--

# 8 MR. GOLDBERG:

In California it is.

# 9 THE COURT:

Do you have any case authority for that, counsel?

# 10 MR. NEUFELD:

To be quite honest, that's the law in both the two jurisdictions in which I practice. I'm not familiar with what the law is in California on that particular point.

# 11 THE COURT:

California would follow the modern and federal law. Any party can impeach any witness including their own.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 MR. GOLDBERG:

Do you have your transcript?

# 13 MR. NEUFELD:

Can I have an offer of proof what he intends to read?

# 14 MR. GOLDBERG:

Do you want me to read the--

# 15 THE COURT:

No. Just tell me the general area.

# 16 MR. GOLDBERG:

The offer of proof is, she said that she selected all the stains at Bundy, and it's a little bit ambiguous in relationship to what she said here.

KEY QUOTE

# 17 MR. NEUFELD:

It's not ambiguous. It contradicts it.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 THE COURT:

Okay. All right. At this point, the objection is overruled.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Peter Neufeld

I would object to his use of--actually impeaching the witness with prior testimony which is inconsistent with the testimony she just gave on direct examination at this time. I don't believe that's an appropriate thing to be done on direct examination.

Neufeld's objection reveals the prosecution's own witness gave testimony that differed from her prior statements, prompting the prosecution to impeach her themselves.

Lance A. Ito

California would follow the modern and federal law. Any party can impeach any witness including their own.

Ito settles the legal question definitively, allowing the prosecution to proceed with impeaching their own witness.

Peter Neufeld

It's not ambiguous. It contradicts it.

Neufeld concedes the inconsistency is real but uses it to underscore the contradiction rather than dispute it — a double-edged moment.

Hank Goldberg

The offer of proof is, she said that she selected all the stains at Bundy, and it's a little bit ambiguous in relationship to what she said here.

Reveals the substance of the prior inconsistent statement — who selected which stains at the Bundy crime scene, a key evidence-handling issue.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Prior testimony in which the witness stated she selected all the stains at Bundy

cited as basis for impeachment

Notable Exchanges (2)

Peter Neufeld•Lance A. Ito

Neufeld admitted he was unfamiliar with California law on the point, and Ito corrected him, ruling against him.

matter-of-fact

Peter Neufeld•Hank Goldberg

After Goldberg described the inconsistency as 'a little bit ambiguous,' Neufeld sharply rejoined that it outright contradicts her direct testimony.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ unidentified female witness (criminalist/evidence collector)

prior inconsistent statement

Prosecution sought to impeach their own witness by confronting her with prior testimony that she selected all stains at Bundy, which differed from what she said on direct examination.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 5781 • 18 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103