Sure, sure. Right here, (indicating). "I'm in the business of giving hope to the hopeless. No one can contradict me. I have to be very, very careful."
"I'm in the business of giving hope to the hopeless and since nobody in the world can contradict me, I have to be very, very careful," and then down here, (indicating), "I don't want to say I'm anti-jury, I'm just anti that jury. I have no faith in the jury system left. I only want a judgment. I do my naughty things and I'm thinking of doing twelve of them right now," and that is in response to the jury verdict in the Jean Harris case where the Defendant was, that she accidentally shot, Dr. Scarpetta--not Scarpetta.
KEY QUOTETarnower, that is it, and the jury rejected his opinion and voted guilty of murder and his response to their rejection of his theory on his testimony to support their theory that it was an accident, because the crime scene reconstruction was important to that theory, was, you know, the heck with juries.
All right. His opinion about jury systems and about a particular jury trial he was involved in has absolutely no relevance to his impeachment in this case at all, your Honor. His reaction--and the fact a jury disagreed with him and obtained a verdict has no relevance to how a jury in this case should treat his expert testimony. We would never--we had a situation, your Honor, where you could impeach an expert witness by showing that in the another case where he offered expert testimony the jury returned a contrary verdict, it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant, it is immaterial and certainly under 352 its prejudicial impact would certainly outweigh any probative value. His anger or resentment and what a jury did in another case is simply being offered here to try and poison this jury toward him to show that he disliked any particular jury. It has no relevance to the cross-examination here. As to the other quote--
Sorry. As to another quote, your Honor, where it says, "I'm in the business of giving hope to the hopeless," I actually know that he is not the author of that quote, that even though it appears in quotation marks, it is actually a quote that was taken from a Prosecutor who had retained him. And I have discussed this quote with him in the past and he has proof, which we can--I can produce to the Court, in fact, that will show that he is not the source of this quote, that the quote was actually made by a Prosecutor who had retained him.
Because we have a quote by the Prosecutor at a date prior in time to this article where he talks about, you know, that "I'm in the business of"--not MacDonell--Prosecutor talks about giving hope to the hopeless, and that is what MacDonell can do for me.
What about the part "No one can contradict me"? That doesn't sound like a Prosecutor said that.
I didn't ask him about that. I can't make a representation about that, your Honor. I think this other thing at the bottom is just clearly prejudicial and absolutely no probative value.
With respect to the bottom paragraph, your Honor, this goes to the witness' attitude, bias and credibility directly. He has asserted that there is no check or balance on him.
All right. Counsel, here is the problem with that, though. Then we have to go in the facts and circumstances as to why he disagrees with the Jean Harris jury.
I really disagree, your Honor, and he has been cross-examined on this before and it certainly didn't take more than two minutes. It is a very simple thing. The jury came back with murder. He testified in support of an accidental shooting. That is it. And he thinks the jury is wrong period. I mean, this doesn't go very far. That is about two questions.
That is all it takes. I don't see a 352 issue there. But certainly when a man says that the only thing that is a check or balance is a disagreement from the opposing side, especially from the jury, the fact that he ultimately rejects everything, I think it is very had probative for this jury to assess his credibility.
Under 352 we will take up a lot of time. We will relitigate the Jean Harris case. He will come forward and bring out all the evidence that supports his position. It is absurdity and is really not relevant here.
Your Honor, I would like to show the Court the transcript in the Briggs case where he was confronted with this article before and the question and the answer couldn't have taken more than three minutes.
There is no 352 issue with respect to this. He has his view. And if counsel wants to bring out on redirect that his view is different than the jury's, this is not going to require relitigation. This goes to his attitude; not the proof of the matter asserted.
Hold on. I agree with you, it does go to his attitude and it says a lot. The problem is I'm not going to relitigate the Jean Harris case. The 352 to the "Twelve naughty things" is sustained. The objection is overruled to the "Hopeless" business.
"I'm in the business of giving hope to the hopeless and since nobody in the world can contradict me, I have to be very, very careful"
"I don't want to say I'm anti-jury, I'm just anti that jury. I have no faith in the jury system left. I only want a judgment. I do my naughty things and I'm thinking of doing twelve of them right now"
I actually know that he is not the author of that quote, that even though it appears in quotation marks, it is actually a quote that was taken from a Prosecutor who had retained him.
The 352 to the 'Twelve naughty things' is sustained. The objection is overruled to the 'Hopeless' business.