All right. Let the record reflect that the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Goldberg, how much more do you have excepting the Court's--any redirect on the items of evidence that are pending production?
All right. Then I would recommend that--I would recommend that you have your next couple of witnesses available for the afternoon session.
Judge, two questions. One is, do you want him to finish his redirect first before I finish my cross?
Yes. Let's have him finish what he's in the middle of. Then we'll bring on those evidence items. I'm hoping we'll see it tomorrow morning 8:30 so you have an opportunity to go through it and see what's there.
Okay. One other matter, your Honor. Mr. Goldberg was suggesting on redirect examination of this witness that somehow this lens got lost perhaps when it was examined by Dr. Henry Lee. I think the Court knows as a witness and Miss Clark knows as a witness that before the items even went to Albany, when Dr. Lee had a chance to examine them and create that bindle, the lens was already missing. And I'm going to ask that the Court give an instruction on that because it should be very, very clear that before that bindle was collected and Dr. Lee looked at it, the lens was already missing, and the Court observed that and Miss Clark observed that. So that's really a deliberate attempt on misleading the jury with respect to that particular lens.
That's just a question of everything that's happened to this particular piece of item and that it's been looked at by the Defense. What is going to be very important to the People is to establish that this is an item that has no evidentiary value whatsoever and that we have spent hours showing tapes and arguing about something that is totally irrelevant. And we can do that by showing that we looked at it, that they looked at it and that no one has come up with anything or any reason why this eyeglass envelope is even slightly relevant. And this is important for the purposes of doing that and it's directly responsive to what the Defense does. And I've been told that they don't know--I don't have any personal knowledge of this, but I've been told that Miss Clark and Mr. Darden do not know that the lens was not here before it went out to Albany or that we ever had it to begin with.
Well, your Honor, the item certainly has probative value. It has shoeprints on it according to their own people. But that's not even the point. The point is, it was very clear that the reason he elicited this stuff about Dr. Henry Lee was to suggest that that's how the lens was missing. It was obvious to everybody in the courtroom. And if in fact they knew that before it went to Dr. Henry Lee--and I think the Court knows the lens was already missing--then that's a deliberate attempt to distort reality in front of this jury on that particular matter. If in fact they just want to suggest it has no probative value, then there's no point in saying that it went to Dr. Henry Lee.
There's no point in suggesting that--in asking the question, which was sustained of course, about that the Prosecution was allowing these exhibits to go out to be examined and independently tested by Defense experts. The point of those questions was very specific and very directed. Namely to suggest that that's--
Which is why I sustained the objections and I didn't want to go into that area. All right. I don't think that those questions and answers necessarily create that impression. So the request is denied. All right. Counsel, we have a number of matters that we still need to address. Let me go through them one at a time, tell you what we have on tap still and we'll set a schedule for these. I have a motion that was filed April 21st regarding a--requesting broader scope to cross-examine police officer witnesses regarding bias. I have a motion to quash an SDT for videotape footage filed by KABC. That's withdrawn?
All right. That will be off calendar. There is the People's motion to compel the Defense to produce beta copies of videotape. That was taken off calendar on the Court's motion on April the 20th. I'll leave it off calendar unless--because I understand that Mr. Douglas has already complied with that order, correct?
All right. That is off calendar. I have the People's request for parity in sanctions, which means I guess they want $950 sanctions?
All right. I have a motion filed by the Defense regarding selective disqualification of jurors filed April the 11th. I propose not to entertain that until the Court has--not calendar that until the Court has completed its investigation as to the other juror matters.
That's fine. May I say something on that? You had indicated--we had indicated to you we would undoubtedly be filing a supplement of some kind.
All right. But I'm just suggesting that we not calendar that until we've had the opportunity to talk to all of the people that we indicated we were going to talk to, et cetera, et cetera. All right. I have an April 6th hearing--motion regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Mrs. Robertson, refresh my recollection of which incident of prosecutorial--alleged prosecutorial misconduct was this?
Oh, that's right. Mr. Harmon. Never mind. I recollect that one clearly. All right. The Harmon motion and then I have the motion to--regarding Mr. Kardashian's testimony, which has not been calendared for hearing yet, and then I have a motion regarding the introduction of autopsy photographs and crime scene photos. And I have scheduled a meeting on May the 9th, next Tuesday--Tuesday after next at 8:00 A.M. with the two counsel who are going to be presenting that matter. I think it's Mr. Blasier and Mr.--
Excuse me. Mr. Uelmen and Mr. Kelberg. I'll be meeting with those counsel in chambers on the record with regard to the crime scene and autopsy photos. So that will be--that is already calendared. I have under submission as of this morning four matters, the motion regarding the reports of Andrea Mazzola regarding her activities on June the 14th. That motion was denied this morning. I have the motion for the production of items collected by Andrea Mazzola at the Bundy and Rockingham location. That motion was granted this morning. I have the motion on behalf of--motion to quash subpoenas on behalf of Cathy Randa and Michelle Abudrahm, which there is a ruling pending in my word processor for the last three weeks, and Defense motion for sanctions, which is still under submission, to reconsider sanctions.
Mr. Cochran probably has it in his pocket right now, you know. He's going to pay mine, too.
KEY QUOTEAll right. I would suggest that we calendar as the next two matters the hearing on prosecutorial misconduct regarding Mr. Harmon and the issue as to Mr. Kardashian, and I'm going to suggest we calendar both those matters for May 3rd at 4:00 A.M. excuse me. 4:00 P.M. if I was a federal Judge, I could get away with that. All right. 5-3, and we'll do that at 4 o'clock, those two motions.
Your Honor, I don't believe the Prosecution was served with a motion to reconsider the $950 sanction on the Defense. If there is such a motion pending, we're unaware of it.
There is one matter that I think is still under submission that I think is of great importance and it's going to be needed soon. That has to do with resolving the issue of how we're going to handle the consumption--the alteration of some of these blood swatches. We had agreed on that and--
Right. What had happened is, you couldn't agree. So I was going to write the stipulation. I was going to write a--
All right. And I think--I always hesitate to speak on behalf of the Prosecution, but I think that all sides would like to know exactly how you're going to handle that so we can conform the presentation of evidence on both sides and conformity with that and anticipate how that's going to be. That I think we're going to need soon.
All right. Then let me direct both parties to file proposed instructions to the jury by Wednesday, May 3rd.
I think we submitted something. We'll submit some--I guess we should submit something again.
And the other matter, your Honor, is on these--I thought the Prosecution wanted to make a motion with respect to the videotapes I showed, and we still have the matter of the finding that you made on intentional misconduct with respect--
The staples issue and when that instruction would be given. Obviously I have some personal concerns in terms of my own credibility, that that be given sometime within the time period that--
We've already exceeded the statutory maximum time in terms of arguing staples matters, haven't we?
KEY QUOTEWe'll have to calendar--all right. I think we ought to take the staples matter up on May 3rd as well. Mr. Blasier.
Thank you. Apparently Mr. Matheson will be testifying fairly soon, and we had an objection to the--at least one of the charts, that--one of the boards they were going to use, their conventional serology board, and we need to be heard on that before he testifies. And we'd also like to take a look at any new boards that have not already been used before he starts.
All right. Let me ask, Miss Clark, who will be presenting the testimony on behalf of the People with regards to Mr. Matheson and when do you anticipate calling Mr. Matheson?
that's really a deliberate attempt on misleading the jury with respect to that particular lens.
if I was a federal Judge, I could get away with that.
Mr. Cochran probably has it in his pocket right now, you know. He's going to pay mine, too.
We've already exceeded the statutory maximum time in terms of arguing staples matters, haven't we?