Sidebar: evidence terminology

📄 Sidebar: evidence terminology — Wednesday, August 16, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\16\SIDEBAR-EVIDENCE-TERMINOLOGY.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 137 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Michele Kestler (part 1) Cross-examination of Michele Kestler (part 2) ▶

Date: Wednesday, August 16, 1995 • Utterances: 12

Defense attorney Peter Neufeld objects to the prosecution using the word 'blood' to describe stains observed in the Bronco that had not been confirmed through DNA testing. Judge Ito rules that only tested and corroborated items may be called blood; for others, the witness must use neutral language like 'red stains' or 'red substances.' Darden agrees to the terminology change, and the issue is resolved quickly.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. We're over at the sidebar. What's your objection, Mr. Neufeld?

# 3 MR. NEUFELD:

My objection is, if she's--the only items which are allowed to be described as blood are those items which have been subsequently tested and corroborated. We know that the stains on the console were subsequently tested for DNA and corroborated. I'm not aware of any other stains observed or collected on that date being subjected to DNA analysis in this case.

# 4 THE COURT:

Were you asking about the steering wheel, Mr. Darden?

# 5 MR. DARDEN:

I think it is 293. We can get a list and see.

# 6 MR. NEUFELD:

Check on that. My recollection is, no, that's--29 was the steering wheel that was collected on June 14th and tested. So if they're talking about something different now, it's my understanding there was no DNA testing on any of the items collected subsequently except on the console.

# 7 MR. DARDEN:

Is she allowed to say that she saw red stains as opposed to using the term "Blood"?

KEY QUOTE

# 8 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 9 MR. DARDEN:

Okay. Why don't I just change it to that?

# 10 THE COURT:

Because if you recollect, I allowed Mr. MacDonell to testify that he saw red substances on the opposite side of the sock. So--

KEY QUOTE

# 11 MR. DARDEN:

I'll use red stains or substances.

# 12 THE COURT:

All right. Or whatever. Dry red stain, whatever.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Peter Neufeld

The only items which are allowed to be described as blood are those items which have been subsequently tested and corroborated.

Establishes the defense's evidentiary principle: characterizing a stain as 'blood' is a conclusion requiring scientific support, not merely an observation.

Christopher Darden

Is she allowed to say that she saw red stains as opposed to using the term 'Blood'?

Darden proposes the practical compromise that resolves the objection.

Lance A. Ito

Because if you recollect, I allowed Mr. MacDonell to testify that he saw red substances on the opposite side of the sock. So--

Judge cites prior ruling as precedent, providing consistency in terminology standards across witnesses.

Evidence (3)

People's 293 (tentative)

Steering wheel collected June 14th, subsequently tested for DNA

discussed as example of properly confirmed blood evidence

Informal

Stains on the Bronco console, DNA tested and corroborated

cited as permissibly called 'blood'

Informal

Other Bronco stains collected on the same date, not subjected to DNA analysis

subject of the objection — must be called 'red stains' or 'red substances'

Notable Exchanges (1)

Peter Neufeld•Lance A. Ito•Christopher Darden

Neufeld draws a precise line between tested/confirmed blood evidence and mere visual observation of stains; Ito upholds the distinction and Darden agrees to use neutral language.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7328 • 12 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103