In chambers: testimony scope

📄 In chambers: testimony scope — Monday, August 21, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\21\IN-CHAMBERS-TESTIMONY-SCOPE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 139 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Larry Ragle (part 2) Direct examination of Larry Ragle (part 3) ▶

Date: Monday, August 21, 1995 • Utterances: 20

Before the jury was brought in, defense attorney Blasier requested latitude for their first affirmative crime scene witness, Mr. Ragle, and raised a dispute about the record regarding testimony on how evidence (specifically an envelope and glove) was moved at the crime scene before collection. Judge Ito and defense counsel had conflicting recollections about whether prior witnesses (Lange and Vannatter) had explained the movement, with Ito ultimately ruling the expert could testify that moving evidence is bad practice regardless of who did it.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to join us?

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Yes, your Honor. Very briefly.

# 3 THE COURT:

You always scare me when you say very briefly.

KEY QUOTE

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

No. This will be brief. I will ask the Court for a little bit of latitude with Mr. Ragle. I know that some of these materials have been covered before. However, it's all been through our cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses. Mr. Ragle is the first person we put on as our witness on crime scene practices.

# 5 THE COURT:

I understand that.

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

The other point is, I intend to ask him questions regarding the movement of evidence, the envelope and the glove prior to collection. And I wasn't here on Thursday or Friday, but I understand that there was a bench conference where the Court stated that it was the Court's impression that there had been testimony explaining how those items got moved. We have--we do not recall any such testimony. I want to make sure that we're clear on what's in the record before I pursue that avenue. We have not found any reference anywhere to any witness explaining how those items got moved. That's our current understanding.

# 7 THE COURT:

Well, that's not my recollection. My recollection is that we've heard testimony from the investigating officers, Lange and Vannatter, that there were certain items in place, that bodies were moved and then they were replaced and photo cards placed.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

I don't--we don't recall any such testimony.

# 9 THE COURT:

Yep. Yep.

# 10 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

# 11 MR. BLASIER:

I mean, they acknowledged obviously from the photographs that the items were moved in some fashion, but I don't recall any testimony where they said, "Yeah, I did it," or, "He did it," and this was just to put things--

# 12 THE COURT:

No. I recollect an explanation for that. But that's not to say that you can't have your expert say that's not a good idea no matter how it happened.

KEY QUOTE

# 13 MR. BLASIER:

Okay.

# 14 THE COURT:

For obvious reasons. But I just might add that the jury I think can figure that out. You don't think so, Mr. Scheck?

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor--

# 16 THE COURT:

No. Rhetorical question. Let's have the jurors.

# 17 MR. SCHECK:

When we can talk, we should have a discussion about what the record states and doesn't.

# 18 THE COURT:

Well, I have a pretty clear recollection that that's already occurred. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

# 19 MR. COCHRAN:

Can we have some latitude on this?

# 20 THE COURT:

I don't know. You have to ask Mr. Blasier. He's the one making the argument for himself, Mr. Cochran.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Lance A. Ito

You always scare me when you say very briefly.

Ito's dry humor signals the running dynamic with defense counsel who routinely raise 'brief' matters that aren't.

Robert Blasier

We have not found any reference anywhere to any witness explaining how those items got moved. That's our current understanding.

Core dispute — defense is disputing the factual record on a critical chain-of-custody gap involving the glove and envelope.

Lance A. Ito

I recollect an explanation for that. But that's not to say that you can't have your expert say that's not a good idea no matter how it happened.

Ito threads the needle — he believes the record covers the movement, but grants defense the ability to criticize the practice anyway.

Lance A. Ito

I don't know. You have to ask Mr. Blasier. He's the one making the argument for himself, Mr. Cochran.

Ito's dismissive quip to Cochran after Blasier handled the argument, signaling mild impatience with tag-team advocacy.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Envelope and glove found at crime scene — specifically their movement prior to official collection

discussed as subject of disputed testimony

Informal

Photo cards placed near items after bodies were moved

referenced by Ito as part of his recollection of Lange/Vannatter testimony

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Blasier•Lance A. Ito

Blasier argues no witness ever explained who moved the envelope and glove; Ito contradicts him, recalling Lange and Vannatter testified about bodies being moved and items replaced with photo markers — but concedes defense can still have Ragle criticize the practice

strategic

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Scheck attempts to press the record dispute further; Ito shuts it down with 'rhetorical question' and calls for the jury

clipped

Light Moments (2)

Lance A. Ito

"You always scare me when you say very briefly." — delivered deadpan before Blasier's argument

Lance A. Ito

After Cochran asks for latitude, Ito tells him to ask Blasier since Blasier was the one making the argument — gently mocking the defense's tag-team dynamic

Witness Demeanor

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 7965 • 20 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103