Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we invite the jury to rejoin us?
Just one scheduling matter, your Honor. I was contacted by Mr. Scheck and they filed a motion regarding the contamination studies being done by Dr. Gerdes. Could that be heard at five o'clock this afternoon? I think Dr. Gerdes is scheduled to testify tomorrow.
Are the lawyers available who are going to be arguing that issue? We may be able to get to it earlier than five o'clock.
All right, fine, three o'clock or four o'clock or whatever, but I would only ask that we do it after the Bosco matter only because Mr. Scheck needs the time, so I would just ask that it be the last order of business.
He is in Los Angeles; he is not in the building, and I'm saying I would like it to be the end of the day.
All right. Well, don't go away. I need to finish one other matter: There were two matters that had not been resolved at the end of court yesterday. There was a request for sanctions by the Defense and an instruction to the jury regarding the dispute over Mr. MacDonell's notes regarding the examination that was conducted on April the 2nd. I'm going to instruct the jury as follows when they return: "During the course of yesterday's cross-examination of Mr. MacDonell it was suggested that Mr. MacDonell's notes concerning the examination he conducted an April the 2nd, 1995, had not been turned over to the Prosecution. These notes were in fact turned over to the Prosecution on July the 17th, 1995. You shall therefore disregard any negative inference implied by the suggestion." All right. As to the request for sanctions regarding violation of the Court's direction that any use of transcripts--that a side bar be requested before transcripts are used, the court reporters have not provided me with the transcript, and I lost it on my computer yesterday, so I will take that under advisement because I have not reviewed the transcript. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
Your Honor, Mr. Goldberg, when we have our next break, would like to address the Court concerning the letter forwarded to the Court. There were discovery violations by counsel that we had raised with the Court that had not been resolved, and Mr. Goldberg forwarded the letter to the Court concerning those violations. I don't know when the Court--I think that perhaps before the jury is instructed, as the Court proposes, that the Court would need to hear from Mr. Goldberg about this, because it does bear directly on the Defense right.
No. The issue was whether or not the notes had been provided to you previously. The issue of sanctions for discovery is something completely different. It is a different subject. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
KEY QUOTEThese notes were in fact turned over to the Prosecution on July the 17th, 1995. You shall therefore disregard any negative inference implied by the suggestion.
I think that perhaps before the jury is instructed, as the Court proposes, that the Court would need to hear from Mr. Goldberg about this, because it does bear directly on the Defense right.
The issue was whether or not the notes had been provided to you previously. The issue of sanctions for discovery is something completely different. It is a different subject.