Recross-examination of Dr. Michael Baden

📄 Recross-examination of Dr. Michael Baden — Friday, August 11, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\11\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-MICH.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 134 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Dr. Michael Baden Adjournment ▶

Witness: Dr. Michael Baden
Examiner: Brian Kelberg
Called by: Defense • Date: Friday, August 11, 1995 • Lines: 5

In a single-question recross, Kelberg asked whether Shapiro could have called Golden if Baden thought he had significant evidence to add. Baden briefly answered 'Yeah'; Ito sustained Shapiro's legal-conclusion objection, and Kelberg ended the examination.

# 1 MR. KELBERG:

One question.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELBERG

# 2 MR. KELBERG:

And, doctor, you are also aware that if you thought there was anything significant that Dr. Golden could add, Mr. Shapiro could have called him just as well as I could, correct, doctor?

KEY QUOTE

# 3 MR. SHAPIRO:

Calls for a legal conclusion.

# 4 DR. BADEN:

Yeah.

# 5 THE COURT:

Sustained.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Brian Kelberg

you are also aware that if you thought there was anything significant that Dr. Golden could add, Mr. Shapiro could have called him just as well as I could, correct, doctor?

Kelberg attempts to neutralize any implication that the prosecution was hiding Dr. Golden by pointing out the defense had equal ability to call him.

Dr. Michael Baden

Yeah.

Baden begins to answer before the objection is ruled on, suggesting he agreed with the premise.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Brian Kelberg•Robert Shapiro

Kelberg's sole recross question was immediately objected to by Shapiro as calling for a legal conclusion, and Ito sustained it — shutting down Kelberg's attempt to score a procedural point.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Robert Shapiro

strategic implication

Kelberg implicitly accused the defense of inconsistency — if they believed Dr. Golden's testimony mattered, they could have called him themselves.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7276 • 5 lines • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103