Sidebar: Sconce evidence admissibility

📄 Sidebar: Sconce evidence admissibility — Monday, August 14, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\14\SIDEBAR-SCONCE-EVIDENCE-ADMISS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 135 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (part 1) Cross-examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (part 2) ▶

Date: Monday, August 14, 1995 • Utterances: 10

During a sidebar, defense attorney Blasier objects to Marcia Clark's line of questioning about Dr. Rieders' involvement in the Sconce case, calling it improper impeachment and too far afield. Clark argues Rieders has been deliberately evasive and dishonest about mistakes he made in a capital murder case, which is directly relevant to his competence as an expert witness. Judge Ito allows the general questioning to continue but rules that a memo Clark is relying on is hearsay and can only be used to refresh Rieders' recollection.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 2 (Brief pause.)

# 3 THE COURT:

Interesting. All right. I have looked at page 6 and 7. Mr. Blasier, what is your objection?

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

My objection is this whole line of questioning. This is--this is extremely extraneous. We are going far afield. Dr. Rieders has talked to Dr. Henion and we have Dr. Henion's report who says I'm not saying that Dr. Rieders was wrong. Dr. Henion tested tissue that was taken in the mausoleum that was five years old and it is described is a being the condition of mud. His results were that he couldn't find anything. He says I can't tell what you might have been there before. This is completely improper impeachment and now we have a memo that--I haven't read the whole thing. I'm assuming it talks about the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. I think this is completely far afield and completely inappropriate and I would ask that the Court direct Miss Clark to ask no further questions along this and to strike any testimony.

# 5 MS. CLARK:

Your Honor, this witness has repeatedly been deliberately evasive and untruthful about what has gone on in the Sconce case, and that is because he knows he made major mistakes in a capital murder case that is highly significant to his competence, which is significant to this jury.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 THE COURT:

Which is why I'm allowing you to go on with this line of questioning, but this particular memo at this point is hearsay, isn't it?

# 7 MS. CLARK:

I'm only attempting to refresh his recollection. He has indicated to us that no one asked him for an explanation. That is a direct lie because that--we have--what we have here--

# 8 THE COURT:

Keep your voice down.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 MS. CLARK:

What we have here is Dr. Rieders explaining to Denoce why this was his effort to explain.

# 10 THE COURT:

The only thing you can do at this point, since it is a hearsay document, since it is not to him and wasn't addressed to him, is ask him to look at it to see if that refreshes his recollection on that particular point. And if it doesn't, that is the end of it. All right.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

This witness has repeatedly been deliberately evasive and untruthful about what has gone on in the Sconce case, and that is because he knows he made major mistakes in a capital murder case that is highly significant to his competence, which is significant to this jury.

Clark's core argument for why Sconce impeachment is relevant — connecting prior case errors directly to Rieders' credibility as an expert in this trial.

Robert Blasier

Dr. Henion tested tissue that was taken in the mausoleum that was five years old and it is described as being the condition of mud. His results were that he couldn't find anything. He says I can't tell what you might have been there before.

Blasier attempts to neutralize the Sconce impeachment by framing Henion's failure to replicate Rieders' findings as a degraded-sample problem, not evidence of error.

Lance A. Ito

The only thing you can do at this point, since it is a hearsay document, since it is not to him and wasn't addressed to him, is ask him to look at it to see if that refreshes his recollection on that particular point. And if it doesn't, that is the end of it.

Ito threads the needle — permitting the impeachment line but sharply limiting how the memo can be used, effectively capping Clark's leverage.

Lance A. Ito

Keep your voice down.

A rare direct rebuke of Clark mid-argument, suggesting she was becoming heated at the bench.

Evidence (3)

Informal

A memo related to the Sconce case prosecution decision — Clark characterizes it as Dr. Rieders explaining his methodology to a prosecutor named Denoce

challenged as hearsay; restricted to use for refreshing recollection only

Informal

Dr. Henion's report on tissue samples from the Sconce case mausoleum, described as being in 'the condition of mud' after five years

discussed by Blasier to rebut the impeachment significance

Informal

Pages 6 and 7 of an unspecified document that Ito reviewed before the sidebar began

reviewed by judge

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark pushes hard on Rieders' alleged dishonesty, raising her voice; Ito cuts her off with 'keep your voice down' and then issues a narrow ruling permitting the questioning but neutering the memo.

heated/controlling

Robert Blasier•Marcia Clark

Blasier frames the Sconce comparison as scientifically unfair (degraded samples) while Clark frames it as deliberate evasion about professional mistakes — two incompatible narratives about what the Sconce case actually shows.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Fredric Rieders

prior bad acts / professional incompetence in another case

Clark attempts to impeach Rieders by demonstrating he made significant errors in the Sconce capital murder case and has been evasive about them under examination. Blasier argues this is improper and that Henion's inability to replicate results was due to sample degradation, not Rieders' error.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7294 • 10 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103