All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jury, please.
During testimony of Dr. Gerdes he brought up the fact that he had been granted certain funds as a result of a proposal to an IST or a, quote, newer or better method. I can't recall the words he used. During the break I asked Mr. Scheck and Dr. Gerdes about the availability of that proposal. I was informed by Dr. Gerdes that there would be no problem of providing a one-page copy of the grant that contains an abstract of the proposal, but as to the proposal, Dr. Gerdes explained that there was a proprietary interest and that that would not be available to the People. It is our request that that be provided. I think it is very relevant in this case for reasons that I can give if the Court would like to hear immediately.
We have offered to make Dr. Gerdes available to explain in any great detail anything that Mr. Clarke wants to ask him about the proposal and the technique, and I would have to consult with him further about what the legalities are in terms of the proprietary nature of it.
KEY QUOTEAll right. Why don't you confer over the lunch hour on that issue, all right? And what is--one of the Court's available remedies in these issues is to issue a protective order if anything like that is produced.
And that the copy not be copied and it be returned to the Court's custody upon review and that it can be kept here in the courtroom.
Dr. Gerdes explained that there was a proprietary interest and that that would not be available to the People.
One of the Court's available remedies in these issues is to issue a protective order if anything like that is produced... the copy not be copied and it be returned to the Court's custody upon review.
We have offered to make Dr. Gerdes available to explain in any great detail anything that Mr. Clarke wants to ask him about the proposal and the technique.