All right. We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark.

Yes, your Honor. I need to address the Court. I'm about to wrap up the Sconce inquiry and go into our case and we will be done quickly. However, a couple of things came to light after we began the testimony that I think makes the dismissal of the case very relevant and important impeachment of this witness. Two things. Now three actually. He has admitted that he did not offer the scientifically acceptable basis for reconciling the differences that would have permitted the case to continue. As a result of his inability or failure to do so back in 1991, the case was dismissed. He has attacked Denoce saying that that conversation never occurred and the representations made in this memo never occurred. If that were true, if what he is saying were true, that he knew back then that it was the difference in the two tissues and then the case would never have been dismissed. His failure to communicate that to the Prosecutors indicates a lack of his own belief in the validity of that, but it is important to show that he could have prevented the dismissal of capital murder charges had he offered the scientifically valid reason that he knew existed at the time. Furthermore, he did in fact offer that explanation to Dr. Lovell in January of `95, two months after he was put on the Defense witness list, and again last week contacted Dr. Henion to try to pressure him into agreeing that he got the same--he got the exhumation tissues which we will prove is not true, is not true. He tested splits for Dr. Rieders. Dr. Henion tested splits of Dr. Rieder's tissues, we will prove that, but the fact of the dismissal, it goes to the heart of the impeachment of this witness' failure to come forward with a reasonable explanation that could have permitted the case to continue. So I'm asking leave the Court now, in light of this new information, to allow me in two or three questions, the fact that the case was dismissed for failure to give valid scientifically acceptable reason.

This is a legal conclusion from the D.A.'s office that has many things to prove besides just this. It would be completely improper to put in a conclusion from a District Attorney that they dismissed a case when it could relate to all sorts of different things in terms of motive, opportunity, intent. This was one small part of that case. It is completely irrelevant as to what the D.A. decided to do.

Can I show the Court the copy of the letter to Dr. Lovell that I would like to show this witness, because it shows that he knew the case was going to be dismissed. And it is important because the D.A. was calling him to say, hey, look, we are going to have a dismissal unless you can reconcile the difference.

Here is the problem, though: What we need to establish here is that Dr. Rieders did testing in this case and got different results than other scientists who you will probably call and say that Dr. Rieders' results were mistaken.

Uh-huh.

It is impeaching his credibility and failure to give the valid scientific reason why which he apparently had which could have prevented the dismissal and says he knew about it at the time but failed to offer it to the D.A.