ALL RIGHT. WE ALSO HAD -- LET'S SPEND THE TIME THAT WE HAVE THEN TOGETHER THIS MORNING TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES. WE HAD -- WE CLOSED YESTERDAY'S SESSION WITH REGARD -- ARGUING OVER A VIDEOTAPE, EXCERPTS FROM A VIDEOTAPE. AND -- MR. SCHECK.
MR. GOLDBERG JUST INFORMED ME AS YOU WERE WALKING IN THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS PREPARED AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE VIDEO THAT HAD BEEN WITH ALL OF US, AND WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT BEFORE WE MAKE AN ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT.
YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY HAVE A MOMENT TO REMOVE THE BOARD. IT'S BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE LARGE MONITOR.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL REPEAT FRAMES ON THAT WITH THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THEM?
ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE STARTED OUT AS A PROSECUTION OBJECTION TO THE VIEWING OF THE INITIAL VIDEOTAPE CLIPS. WHAT'S THE PEOPLE'S POSITION AT THIS TIME AFTER -- MR. GOLDBERG, AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE CLIPS THAT ARE GOING TO BE OFFERED BY THE DEFENSE?
THANK YOU. WE WOULD OBJECT UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 AND ALSO ON THE GROUNDS OF RELEVANCE BECAUSE THIS DOES SEEM TO BE A CLASSIC INSTANCE WHERE WHAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE IT WOULD BE HIGHLY MISLEADING TO THE JURY. THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE TRUE SET OF FACTS IS HERE.
EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, MR. GOLDBERG. SHOULD THE WITNESS BE HERE FOR THIS, YOUR HONOR?
AND I'LL DIVIDE THEM UP INTO THREE BASIC CATEGORIES. ONE IS BASED UPON THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, TWO IS BASED UPON THE ENHANCED VIDEOTAPE AND THEN THIRD, BASED UPON WHAT MR. FUNG WOULD TESTIFY IF HE WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OFFER OF PROOF AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM HAVING TALKED TO HIM. NOW, TO FIRST GO THROUGH THE ISSUE OF THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, THERE ARE A COUPLE EXHIBITS THAT I THINK ARE TELLING HERE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'VE ALREADY INTRODUCED THEM. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO MARK FOR IDENTIFICATION. I THINK IT WOULD BE PEOPLE'S 179.
IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT CONTAINS A -- THREE CARDS, AND I'M GOING TO WRITE A 179 ON THE REAR OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
WE HAVE ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING A SIMILAR VIEW, BUT IT ONLY HAS ONE CARD IN IT, AS PEOPLE'S 180. I'VE PLACED A 180 ON THE REAR OF THAT.
THERE'S SOME OTHER VIEWS OF THIS. MAYBE FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, YOU WANT TO PUT THEM ALL --
ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU'VE MARKED ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS 179 AND 180. MAY I SEE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, PLEASE?
YEAH. WE'RE NOW TRYING TO FIND 179. COUNSEL THINKS HE GAVE IT BACK TO ME AND I ONLY HAVE 180 NOW, BUT I'LL GIVE THE COURT 180.
YOUR HONOR, IT'S VERY EASY LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO DETERMINE BEFORE AND AFTER. SPECIFICALLY, IF THE COURT LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE CARDS AND THEN COMPARES THEM TO WHAT THE COURT JUST SAW IN TERMS OF THE VIDEOTAPE, WE SAW MR. FUNG PLACING DOWN THE CARD NEXT TO THE CAP, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS 103, CARD NUMBER 103.
WHAT THE COURT SEES IN THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IS IN 179, THE COURT SEES THAT THAT CARD -- EXCUSE ME -- IN 180, THE COURT SEES THAT THAT CARD IS NOT THERE. SO IT'S A BEFORE PHOTOGRAPH. AND THEN IF THE COURT LOOKS AT 179, THE COURT SEES THAT THE CARD IS THERE. SO IT'S AN AFTER PHOTOGRAPH.
IF THE COURT COMPARES BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOOKS AT THE GLOVES IN THE RESPECTIVE PHOTOGRAPH -- THE GLOVE IN THE RESPECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE COURT CAN SEE IT'S AN IDENTICAL LOCATION. SO IT IS IN THE LOCATION IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN TESTIFIED TO BOTH BEFORE MR. FUNG PUT THE CARD DOWN AND AFTER MR. FUNG PUT THE CARD DOWN.
SO BASED UPON THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, WE KNOW THAT GLOVE'S LOCATION WAS WHERE THE TESTIMONY HAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
THE SECOND THING IS, IF THE COURT LOOKS AT THE VIDEOTAPE ITSELF, THE ENHANCEMENT, AND COMPARES THE VIDEOTAPE TO SOME OF THE BETTER PICTURES HERE SUCH AS 180, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, WHAT I CALL THE ARTIFACT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IN THIS AREA WHERE THE LEAVES ARE IN FRONT OF THE 102 CARD AND THE BLOOD, AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE TWO FACTORS ARE AT PLAY.
NUMBER ONE, THAT THE CAMERA IS ACROSS THE STREET. IT'S TAKEN -- TAKING PICTURES FROM A DISTANCE OF MAYBE 50 FEET OR SO I WOULD ESTIMATE. AND THERE'S A FOR SHORTENING EFFECT WHEN YOU ARE DOING THAT ANALOGOUS TO WHEN A PICTURE IS TAKEN BEHIND THE CATCHER OF THE PITCHER. HE APPEARS TO BE A LOT CLOSER THAN HE REALLY IS. DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE 90 FEET AWAY AT THE TIME.
AND, NUMBER TWO, THAT WE HAVE A SITUATION WITH THIS VIDEO PHOTOGRAPHY WHERE THE WIDE ANGLE LENS IN ORDER TO GET A CLOSE-UP OF THIS IS BRINGING MORE LIGHT INTO THE LENS -- NOW, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS, BUT THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND -- AND THE CONTRAST THAT YOU HAVE BETWEEN DARK AND LIGHT IS INCREASED. SO DARK AREAS LOOK DARKER, LIGHT AREAS LOOK LIGHTER, IN MUCH THE SAME WAY WHEN ONE GOES OUT OF A MOVIE THEATER, DARK MOVIE THEATER; THAT THE CONTRAST IS OFF AND EVERYTHING LOOKS VERY BRIGHT, IT GETS WHITED OUT WHEN YOU STEP OUTSIDE.
IF THE COURT TAKES ANOTHER LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOUR HONOR NOTICED THIS -- THERE'S ALSO SOME OTHER OBJECTS THAT APPEAR OR ARTIFACTS THAT APPEAR IN THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WE CAN QUITE POSITIVELY IDENTIFY AS BEING BLOOD, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA RIGHT UP AGAINST WHERE THE SHEET MEETS THE RISER OF THE FIRST STEP. THE BLOOD BECOMES VERY DARK, ALMOST BLACK LOOKING, GIVING MUCH THE SAME CONTRAST AS THE AREA THAT THE DEFENSE WANTS TO BELIEVE IS THE POSSIBLE GLOVE.
AND THEN TO MOVE TO THE THIRD FACTOR, YOUR HONOR, WHICH IS THE TESTIMONY OR MY OFFER OF PROOF TO THE TESTIMONY OF DENNIS FUNG.
DENNIS FUNG IS SEEN IN THE VIDEOTAPE PLACING DOWN THE CARD NEXT TO THE KNIT CAP. AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, HE IS LOOKING DOWN. HE DID NOT SEE THE GLOVE THERE AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM AND THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD HAVE MISSED IT IF IT HAD BEEN THERE. AND HE WOULDN'T BE PLACING THE CARD DOWN IN THE LOCATION THAT HE'S PUTTING IT IF THE GLOVE HAD BEEN THERE. THE CARD IS PLACED IN THE DIRT NEXT TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS. HE WOULDN'T BE -- HE WOULD BE PUTTING IT ON THE BLANKET IF THE GLOVE WERE THERE.
SO BASED UPON THOSE THREE FACTORS, YOUR HONOR, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SITUATION IN WHICH THERE'S DISTORTION IN THIS VIDEOTAPE AND WHERE WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING THAT IS AN ARTIFACT OF THE VIDEOTAPE AS A PRODUCT PROBABLY OF THE PHENOMENA THAT I JUST DESCRIBED TO YOUR HONOR AND WHERE THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE TESTIMONY WOULD ESTABLISH FAIRLY CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE GLOVE WAS IN THE SAME LOCATION BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER.
AND ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I FORGOT IS THAT THE COURT CAN ALSO NOTICE BY LOOKING AT THE VIDEOTAPE THAT YOU CAN SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE FRAME. I BELIEVE HE'S ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN AS THE COURT'S LOOKING AT THE SCREEN. SO HE TOOK THESE PHOTOS, THE STILL PHOTOS THAT WERE CUT INTO THE ENHANCED VERSION CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THAT VIDEOTAPE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE HIM THERE.
AND THE STILL VERSIONS THAT THE COURT IS SEEING IN 179, FOR EXAMPLE, CLEARLY SHOW THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF WHERE THIS ARTIFACT IS ARE THE LEAVES AND BLOOD SPOTS AND NOT A GLOVE.
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT MR. GOLDBERG MADE GO TO WEIGHT, NOT ADMISSIBILITY. AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT BEFORE, I'VE LOOKED AT THESE VIDEOTAPES A LOT AND THESE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL.
THE FIRST ARGUMENT THAT MR. GOLDBERG MAKES HAS TO DO WITH THE MOVEMENT OF CARDS. AND HE'S SAYING WELL, IF MR. FUNG PUT -- THAT WE SEE IN THE VIDEOTAPE HE MOVED THE CARD -- PUT A CARD DOWN IN ONE PARTICULAR PLACE AND THEREFORE THAT MEANS THAT THIS MUST BE AN ARTIFACT.
YOUR HONOR, THERE'S SOME OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS HE DIDN'T SHOW YOU THAT I THINK I SHOULD. WHAT SHOULD WE NUMBER THESE?
I THINK THE COURT CAN SEE FROM THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT SHOTS TAKEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND THE CARDS WERE MOVED IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT POSITIONS SO THAT I DON'T THINK THAT AN ARGUMENT BY THE PROSECUTION THAT ONE CAN MAKE ANY PARTICULAR INFERENCES FROM THE PARTICULAR PLACEMENT OF A CARD AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME HOLDS ANY WATER HERE. I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WEIGHT AS TO -- AND THE WITNESS' RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT HE'S DOING AT A PARTICULAR TIME.
I THINK THAT THE KEY ISSUE HERE IS -- IS THAT THE GLOVE ON THE BLANKET. I'VE LOOKED AT THE VIDEOTAPE. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S THE GLOVE ON THE BLANKET. I'VE LOOKED AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEBRIS. THEY'RE GREEN LEAVES.
THE ISSUE MR. GOLDBERG ARGUES, WELL, MR. FUNG DID NOT SEE THE GLOVE THERE. THAT'S WHAT HE'S GOING TO TESTIFY TO. THAT'S WHAT HE HAS TESTIFIED TO, AND HE WOULDN'T BE PUTTING CARDS DOWN IN THE FASHION THAT HE'S DOING IF HE SAW THE GLOVE THERE.
I MEAN THE PROBLEM HERE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT MR. FUNG OR SOME -- THE PHOTOGRAPHERS, WHOEVER ELSE WAS AT THE SCENE, SOMEBODY MOVED THAT GLOVE BACK INTO THE POSITION THAT WE SEE IT ON THE CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPH. WE KNOW THIS GLOVE HAS BEEN MOVED.
WE SEE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, THE ONE WHERE FUHRMAN IS POINTING AT IT, POSITION NO. 1, THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPH, POSITION NO. 2. WE KNOW THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS DRAGGED THROUGH THAT 30-INCH AREA. WE SEE THE TRACK MARKS.
DETECTIVE LANGE SAYS THAT HE DIDN'T SEE IT MOVED. HE HAS -- HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER IT WAS MOVED OR REPLACED OR ANYBODY PUTTING IT BACK. MR. FUNG HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE WITNESS WHO'S GOING TO TELL US WHO PUT THE GLOVE BACK.
WE THINK THIS VIDEOTAPE SHOWS THAT THE GLOVE IS ON THE BLANKET AND IT'S EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE WALKING BY IT AND SOMEBODY PUT IT BACK AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN THEY WERE TAKING THE PICTURES, OR AT LEAST THAT'S AN AREA THAT WE FEEL THROUGH THIS VIDEOTAPE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PURSUE GIVEN THE STATE OF THE FACTS.
AND I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HIDE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS OR THE DEBRIS OR EXPLORE ALL OF THAT WITH THE WITNESS. LET HIM TESTIFY TO IT. HE'S THE ONE WHO'S THERE.
THE EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW THAT GLOVE GOT FROM THE POSITION WHERE IT WAS INITIALLY PHOTOGRAPHED TO THE SUBSEQUENT POSITION AND WHETHER SOMEBODY PICKED IT UP FROM THE BLANKET AND MOVED IT BACK IS A SERIOUS ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY FOR THESE EVIDENCE COLLECTORS AND MR. FUNG. IT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT THE JURY OUGHT TO CONSIDER.
I DIDN'T TAKE THESE VIDEOTAPES. I DIDN'T MAKE THEM UP. WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH THE BEST EVIDENCE WE CAN.
FRANKLY, WE WOULD URGE THE -- IT APPEARS THAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR AT LEAST THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT US TO GET ACCESS TO ALL THE OUTTAKES OF VIDEOTAPES OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTORS AND, YOU KNOW --
VIDEOTAPES OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION PROCESS.
AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT. EVERY TIME I TURN ON THE TELEVISION SOMETIMES IN THE MORNING -- AND I TRY NOT TO WATCH ANY DURING THIS -- BUT AT VARIOUS DIFFERENT TIMES, I ALWAYS SEE A NEW SHOT THAT I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN BEFORE.
MAYBE THE MEDIA COULD HELP US -- I DON'T KNOW -- IN THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH.
WELL, THE FACT THERE WERE 12 OR 15 VIDEO CAMERAS ACROSS THE STREET OUGHT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING.
YEAH.
I'D LIKE TO SEE -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE OPEN TO -- WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS MUCH VIDEO AS WE POSSIBLY COULD TO GET TO THE TRUTH OF THIS, BUT WE'RE ONLY WORKING WITH WHAT WE HAVE. AND WHAT WE HAVE WE THINK RAISES A SERIOUS ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY AND WE SHOULD CONFRONT THE WITNESS.
ALL THESE OTHER FACTORS GO TO WEIGHT. IF THEY WANT TO CALL PEOPLE WHO THEY CLAIM ARE EXPERTS IN PHOTOGRAPHY WHO ARE GOING TO SAY THAT THESE LEAVES COULD HAVE CREATED THAT IMPRESSION WITH A TELEPHOTO LENS, WHATEVER --
WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AND WE DON'T THINK IT'S TRUE. WE THINK THAT'S THE GLOVE OR CERTAINLY AN EXCELLENT CHANCE THAT'S THE GLOVE. WE THINK THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER IT AND ALL THESE ARGUMENTS GO TO WEIGHT.
I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE WHAT'S GREEN IS GREEN. GREEN LEAVES ARE GREEN.
THE POSITION OF THAT OBJECT IS PLAINLY -- IF YOU USE AN ORIENTATION OF THE WHITE CEMENT AREA OF THE BANISTER AND ITS RELATION TO THE GLOVE, IT'S PLAINLY MUCH FURTHER ON THE SIDEWALK -- ON THE TILES AND ON THE BLANKET THAN ANY POSITION THAT THE GLOVE HAS BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED PREVIOUSLY.
AND I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO EXPLORE THE MYSTERY OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GLOVE AND THE ENVELOPE AND THE HAT WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS DRAGGED THROUGH IT BECAUSE NO PROSECUTION WITNESSES HAVE COME FORWARD AND INDICATED HOW IT GOT FROM POSITION 1 TO POSITION 2, AND WE CLAIM THIS IS POSITION 3.
AND, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD INVITE YOU -- THERE IS -- THERE IS -- YOU HAVE THE TWO CASSETTES IF YOU -- NO, NO. THERE'S TWO -- ALL THIS VIDEO IS TAKEN OFF THE INITIAL TWO CASSETTES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTION.
NO. WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE VIDEOTAPE AGAIN. ANOTHER POINT OCCURRED TO US. THAT THE LEAVES FROM THE TREE ARE A DARKER GREEN THAN THE LIGHT LEAVES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND. SO IF ANYTHING WOULD BE TURNING A DARKER COLOR, IT WOULD BE THOSE GREEN LEAVES FROM THE PLANT THAT ONE SEES AS GREEN.
YES. JUST VERY BRIEFLY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HIT ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE SPECIFIC ITEMS.
NUMBER ONE, IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO DO HERE IS NOT TO RESOLVE A MYSTERY, BUT TO CREATE A MYSTERY. AND THAT IS PRECISELY WE THINK WHAT 352 IS DESIGNED TO AVOID; SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO LITIGATE AN ISSUE, PERHAPS BRINGING IN EXPERTS, GOING TO FURTHER LENGTHS TO TRY TO ENHANCE THIS AND DETERMINE WHAT IT IS WHEN PLAINLY YOU CAN NOT MAKE THE ASSERTIONS OR DRAW THE INFERENCES THAT THE DEFENSE IS ASKING THIS COURT TO ALLOW A JURY TO DRAW FROM THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE QUALITY OR LACK OF QUALITY THAT IS EXHIBITED IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS. A FEW OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS, YOUR HONOR.
AS TO THE STATEMENT ABOUT CARDS BEING MOVED, IF THE COURT LOOKS AT ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE INTRODUCED VERY CAREFULLY, I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT CARDS ARE MOVED. WHAT THE COURT WILL SEE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW MORE CARDS.
SO IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHAT WE HAVE IS A CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS TAKING PICTURES AND CARDS ARE BEING ADDED AS HE'S TAKING PICTURES. AS THE COURT CAN SEE EARLIER PICTURES THAT ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CARDS AND THEN SEE A PICTURE ONE FRAME LATER, IT HAS MORE CARDS.
NOW, THIS SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS URGING UPON THIS COURT, WHICH IS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHER WERE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE VIDEOTAPE. WE KNOW THAT FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT I ALREADY STATED, AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT BECAUSE IF THE COURT CAN RECALL THE VIDEOTAPE, THE AREA JUST BELOW THE FIRST RISER, THE COURT DID NOT SEE THE CARD THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE FOR ITEM NO. 42. THAT'S CARD 107.
SO WE KNOW THAT THAT VIDEO WAS SHOT BEFORE ALL THE CARDS WERE PUT IN PLACE. WE KNOW THAT IT WAS SHOT AS DENNIS FUNG WAS PUTTING IN PLACE THE CARD FOR THE KNIT CAP. AND IF THE COURT SIMPLY LOOKS AT THE BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE ONLY OBJECT THAT IS A POSSIBLE CANDIDATE FOR BEING WHAT WE ARE SEEING ON THIS VIDEO SHOT FROM PERHAPS 50 FEET AWAY IS THE BLOOD AND LEAF AREA THAT'S DEPICTED ON BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT.
YOUR HONOR, FINALLY, I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT FROM THE VIDEO THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE BLANKET IS FOLDED OR CURVED RIGHT IN BACK OF WHERE -- WHAT THEY WANT THE COURT TO BELIEVE IS AN OBJECT IS LOCATED, THEREBY CREATING AN ILLUSION OF SOME HEIGHT.
SO -- I MEAN, IF THE COURT CAN JUST THINK ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT WE'VE HAVING HERE, THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE NUMBER OF COMPETING INFERENCES. ARE WE REALLY TRYING TO SHED MORE LIGHT ON THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE OR ARE WE REALLY SIMPLY TRYING TO CONFUSE?
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 IS AND THAT IS WHY THE PROSECUTION IS ASKING THE COURT TO USE YOUR DISCRETION UNDER THAT EVIDENCE CODE SECTION TO EXCLUDE THIS EVIDENCE.
ALL RIGHT. THE COURT'S VIEW OF THE -- BOTH VIDEOTAPES INDICATE THAT THE OBJECT THERE APPEARS TO BE THREE DIMENSIONAL, HAS A DARK LOOKS TO THE COURT TO BE A BROWN COLOR, AND I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE VIDEOTAPE. WHAT'S OUR NEXT ISSUE?
KEY QUOTESOMEBODY MOVED THAT GLOVE BACK INTO THE POSITION THAT WE SEE IT ON THE CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPH. WE KNOW THIS GLOVE HAS BEEN MOVED. WE SEE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, THE ONE WHERE FUHRMAN IS POINTING AT IT, POSITION NO. 1, THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPH, POSITION NO. 2... WE CLAIM THIS IS POSITION 3.
WHAT THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO DO HERE IS NOT TO RESOLVE A MYSTERY, BUT TO CREATE A MYSTERY. AND THAT IS PRECISELY WE THINK WHAT 352 IS DESIGNED TO AVOID.
ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT MR. GOLDBERG MADE GO TO WEIGHT, NOT ADMISSIBILITY.
THE COURT'S VIEW OF THE -- BOTH VIDEOTAPES INDICATE THAT THE OBJECT THERE APPEARS TO BE THREE DIMENSIONAL, HAS A DARK LOOKS TO THE COURT TO BE A BROWN COLOR, AND I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE VIDEOTAPE.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE WITNESS WHO'S GOING TO TELL US WHO PUT THE GLOVE BACK.