All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Mr. Goldberg is present for the People. Mr. Scheck is present for the Defense. And the Defense has announced that the next witness is Dr. Henry Lee. And as I recollect from our discussions earlier this week, Mr. Goldberg, you had some objections to make. But first of all, let's--any evidentiary hearings that we need to resolve in the nature of 402 issues with the display of exhibits?
Well, one matter maybe I could just eliminate so we can get to the jury. And that is, the Prosecution filed their motion to exclude Dr. Lee's blood transfer experiment, the wet swatches on the bindle.
No. That's precisely incorrect. Mr. Goldberg is mistaken in his affidavit as Dr. Lee informed him, and it's also in Dr. Lee's report, there was a swatch weighing experiment which he indicates in his report because of the inability to weigh the swatches on a scale, he couldn't do so. The swatch drying experiment is something we definitely intend to introduce. If Mr. Goldberg was mistaken in his understanding of the conversation, Dr. Lee has discussed that at length with Dr. de Forest. As I indicated, they spoke for four hours on Saturday, and I think as reflected in the motion, there is some other misunderstandings as to precisely how it was conducted. Be that as it may, they waited until the very last minute to file this objection even though they had the report for quite some time. And just as an indication, on page 2 of the motion, they indicate that the court excluded evidence of the blood drying experiment conducted by the Defense on 352 grounds based on for lack of substantial similarity. So this is a brief that's been in the word processor for so long that they didn't even correct the fact that the glove drying experiment was admitted.
My only suggestion is that we are not going to get to that until I think, by present scheduling, Friday morning. So we could take that up Thursday afternoon, we could take that up Friday morning, but I don't think there's any need to waste court time arguing about that this afternoon.
All right. Counsel, if you recollect, a while back, I advised you that on August 23rd, which is tomorrow, one of our jurors has a dentist appointment that will cause us to conclude tomorrow at 3:45. So, Mr. Goldberg, I'm going to accept--I'm inclined to accept Mr. Scheck's suggestion that we have this argument on the swatch drying experiment at approximately 4:00 o'clock tomorrow afternoon so that we can use all the jury time today. Is that acceptable to the People?
Yes, your Honor. That seems to be reasonable. And anyway, I think it would make more sense to bring up the issue of discovery violations first.
There were some other issues after discovery violations, your Honor, I wanted to--
You want to know about the boards? Maybe you should make your board objections if any.
Well, whatever order the court wants to handle these in. If the court were inclined to accept our arguments, as we think your Honor should, about discovery violations, it's possible that this witness would be precluded or delayed, and I think there are some very substantial issues here.
All right. Mr. Goldberg, then we'll take up the discovery issue at this point. What I have before me, what was provided to me this morning was a sheaf of what appear to be reports, and there's an index on the top, items 1 through 11, and it's entitled, "Late discovery by Defense," and that was given to me this morning, although I have not inspected the package as I've been busy with other matters today.
I understand, your Honor. And I'd ask the court after argument to take a look at the package because I think it will make things more understandable. Let me just start by saying that we are not in any way implying through this motion that Dr. Lee was in any way responsible for any of the violations here and it does not in any way negatively reflect upon him.
I compiled a list--I actually had a list compiled for me of 11 items that we received that says "Late discovery by the Defense" and itemizes each one of the particulars, the date that the report was generated and the date that it was received, and I'd like to just make some comments about the items on the list. Nos. 1 and nos. 2 deal with crime scene visits on June the 25th and June the 26th by Dr. Lee, Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf and detail things in the nature of what they've identified as being possible additional shoeprints, that the Defense intends to introduce evidence as to cigarette butts, that they intend to introduce evidence as to additional items that were found in the foyer of the Defendant's home that they intend to introduce evidence on. This is what I would describe, your Honor, as being a violation. Obviously, it's less egregious than many of the other violations that I'll be talking about, but the point is, your Honor, that we are entitled to pretrial discovery 60 days prior to trial, and this doesn't even come close. I don't see any excuse or justification for why when Dr. Lee was on the witness list, as were Drs. Baden and Wolf, this material could not have been turned over to us much earlier. So this is a discovery violation.
I don't think that there can be any issue about that legally and factually. It is not as significant in my view. It is significant, but not as significant as many of the other more egregious ones I'd like to discuss. Next, we have an examination report of Dr. Lee relating to an August the 19th examination. The report's dated August the 22nd. And this--I don't know how significant this is because this one particular one relates to the knife that the court has previously ruled evidence would not be admissible on. And I'd assume that that is still going to be the ruling, and if that's the case, the materiality of this violation would be less significant. The next one we have, item no. 5, is a very significant violation relating to the piper tech visit by Drs. Lee, Baden and Wolf. There's seven pages of notes, and I'll discuss that in conjunction with no. 6, if I may, your Honor.
Yeah. I'm going to tell you that, your Honor. The first page says, "Defense 1028, Lee, Baden, Wolf, 3-4-95 piper tech visit," and then there's a series of typewritten notes starting with 1029.
This examination deals with a number of pieces of evidence that will be the subject of testimony here today, including hair and trace evidence, including some of the bindles and the packaging material. More particularly, it deals with bindle no. 47, which the court is going to be hearing a lot more about in the evidence. It mentions bindle 47 and some of the other bindles. Those are also mentioned you'll see in some other notes that I'll talk about later. And the examination of the bindles is one of--what the Defense considers to be the pivotal aspects of Dr. Lee's testimony insofar as they are attributing an enormous degree of significance to certain transfer stains that occurred on bindle 47 and suggesting that this is evidence of a conspiracy to plant evidence. I don't think Dr. Lee is going to be testifying to that per se, but that will be the circumstantial evidence that they are going to be asking the jury to draw from his testimony. Maybe even more than that. I don't know. It depends on exactly the questions that are asked, but this is some very significant evidence. And it's a volume of material here and it touches in a number of different areas. It deals with the conspiracy aspects of the Defense case. It deals with the evidence integrity aspects of the case. It deals with the competency aspects of the case and that they're saying they're numerous items of hair and trace evidence that were not collected by Douglas Deedrick and Susan Brockbank, that the implication being that they should have been collected. So it really touches every aspect and every theory of the Defendant's case. Item no. 7 relates to a report of seven pages of February the 16th of 1995. The February the 16th visit to the Los Angeles Police Department involves the socks. And I'd just like to find that report. This report, your Honor, which starts with Defense 1055 relates to various notes that were taken at the time that the socks were examined. And the court knows the significance of this material. This goes directly to their planting issue and their planting theory and is the only piece of physical evidence that the Defense contends supports their planting theory, and that was turned over to us on the 8th.
No. 8 is a series of 20 pages, reports relating to examinations that were performed by Dr. Lee at his home laboratory on March the 9th of 1995, and we received that on the 8th of this month. And that starts on page 1063. And your Honor can see that there are quite a few notes covering a wide range of topics, most particularly, the bindle no. 47 which is discussed on page 1065, which is again evidence that the Defense considers to be powerful evidence, where they are going to be arguing is powerful evidence of a conspiracy because of the transfer stains. It also contains an examination of item 78, which are Ron Goldman's boots and will be testified to by Dr. Lee. Apparently he saw some staining to the exterior of the package and they're going to be addressing that as part of the evidence integrity issue. And just to give the court an example of the kinds of things--and I'm sure your Honor knows as a trial attorney and as a Judge, that an advocate would want to do in this kind of situation is to have the opportunity not only to go back and look at these items again, to trace the history of these items again, when they were packaged, when they were repackaged, to try to figure out under what circumstances these kinds of transfers could have occurred, but we also want to send these notes to our experts, our hair and trace people, our footprint people, our people at the laboratory at SID for the purposes of getting their input to prepare for cross-examination. There's an enormous amount of work that is entailed in the receipt of these kinds of materials. The next item is another discovery violation of Dr. Lee's visit to cellmark where he apparently weighed the swatches and looked at the swatches. The primary significance of this in my estimation is that Dr. Lee measured the swatches in item 47, bindle 47, and I suspect would be integrating that into his testimony about that bindle. Item no. 10 is the photographs from all of the examinations that I just mentioned, the February 16th examination, the Albany examinations that started on February the 16th, the home visit examination on March the 9th, and the photographic material entails a stack of material which we received color Xeroxes of. Your Honor has heard about this in part already, and starts on page 1099 of discovery and ends on page 1226. And to give the court just a rough idea of the kinds of things that are contained here, there are pictures of items that were contained in the bindles. There are photographs of bindle 47 which I've discussed. There are pictures of the boots that I discussed, item 78, and the transfer stains that the Defense is going to be presenting evidence about. There are photographs of virtually every piece of evidence that the--well, every piece of evidence that the Defense will be talking about. There are photographs showing imprints on some of the evidence, including the eyeglass envelope. There are photographs indicating that there was a hole in one of the packaging materials containing the eyeglass envelope and so on and so forth. These are the kinds of photographs, just to give the court an idea, where you cannot simply look at the photograph to say, okay, this is a shoe, this is a stain, this is a bindle. These are the kinds of photographs, as many of the photographs in this case, where you have to take out your magnifying glass and study them and look at each little mark and each little dot and each little irregularity and try to figure out what is the Defense going to be making of this, how are they going to be hinging some kind of a theory on the existence of four transfer stains in a bindle, what is the configuration of those stains, do they match up to the swatches that were put in the bindle, what about this footprint that was seen that was discovered on the walkway several weeks after the crime, carefully looking at the tiles trying to figure out what other anomalies in the paving surface the Defense could claim are footprints and so on. It's very detailed work and it involves not only the attorney, but also the assistance of our experts. And we have sent these things and they are preparing materials for us, some of which we have not received yet. And then we have the last item, item no. 11, which deals with Dr. Wolf's testi--excuse me--I believe these are Dr. Wolf's notes in Albany. Dr. Lee did not take his own notes. He delegated that responsibility for the purposes of speeding things up. The court will recall the circumstances of that examination. And I believe that Dr. Wolf took the notes during that examination. These notes, again, cover a very significant amount of material. Your Honor, what I'd stress to the court is that virtually all of the items I'm talking about, 5 through 11, were turned over on August the 8th or the photographs on August the 9th. The--excuse me--the last notes August the 9th and the photographs August the 3rd. All of them were turned over a very significant period of time after they were taken and very shortly before Dr. Lee is testifying.
This to me seems like the clearest example of a discovery violation that the court could ever hope to have. And I know that your Honor has made numerous admonishments about gamesmanship, about games playing, and I don't want to try to get into motives or what people are up to. But in determining sanctions, and this is the only reason that I'm mentioning it, as the court recalls from some of the briefs that we filed previously, in determining the question of preclusion, it has been held, and we previously cited the court this case and a very similar points and authorities relating to Dr. MacDonell where the court also found discovery violation, in People versus Jackson, the court held that if the admission is willful in hope of obtaining a tactical advantage, the court may exclude the witness' testimony. So the question of tactical advantage--and that's the only reason I'm raising it at all--is a legal issue for the court to decide, and there does not seem to be any reason whatsoever why these materials were not turned over much more promptly. I know that Professor Uelmen at one point used the term "Immediately" means immediately. I quite frankly--although that phrase obviously is very helpful to us here--believe that it is possible that some minor delay could be excused or could be explained. I don't think "Immediately" necessarily means that if the examination is completed on the 16th of February, that it's mandatory that we have received it on the 17th or the 18th. I can understand how counsel would like to look at them for the purposes of perhaps seeing privileged materials or might want to review them themselves. It might take time to Xerox and so on. But there is no possible conceivable definition, whether you accept Professor Uelmen's strict definition or my somewhat more liberal definition of what "Immediately" means, that these are turned over immediately, your Honor. And this is a case where we have been prejudiced. I have tried to tell the court in previous instances where I have claimed violations, yes, there's a violation here, your Honor. But in all honesty to the court, I cannot represent that we have been prejudiced because I have been able to evaluate it and, therefore, the sanction that I am asking is something less than preclusion or less than even a delay, because I have had the opportunity to look at it. This is a situation where we have been flooded with extremely detailed material, a tremendous number of photographs at the very last minute and I have not had the capacity to review these fully. Our experts have not. We have been prejudiced, and this to me is about as clear an example of a situation where witness preclusion is an order that I think we could imagine. Thank you.
Good afternoon, your Honor. I would like to respond to this since I've been dealing with expert discovery since about March. All this talk about violations, as an example, no. 4 is a report concerning the examination of the knife in the envelope. There's not going to be any testimony about that. That's not even discoverable. That obviously can't be a violation. We're not required to turn over anything that we don't intend to rely on or don't intend to offer. I would remind the court that in March of this year, I met with the court in chambers. I submitted a memo at that time in camera explaining what we felt our position was on discovery, what the law required and what it did not require, and we quoted penal code section 1054.3, which talks about expert discovery and includes "Results of physical or mental exams, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons which the Defendant intends to offer." I explained what our position was to you at that time. We had all those notes there. We sat down, we went over all of then. If there was any instance of any of our experts doing anything to the evidence, doing a phenol test, examining Mr. Simpson, doing something other than just writing down what they see, that was turned over at that time. The rest of it was not. The rest of it is not discoverable at that time. Any other notes that an expert intends to rely on, they're entitled to when the expert--to see those when the expert testifies. If he relies on notes of things that he made to himself, they can see that then. A couple of weeks ago, we decided to turn over all of this stuff, most of which there's not going to be any testimony about at all. Photographs, the court has consistently ruled that photographs are real evidence. The code requires that we turn over any real evidence that we intend to offer. We have provided photographs that we intend to use with Dr. Lee and those were provided back on the 8th or the 9th, sometime ago. All the other photographs that we gave, we didn't have to turn those over. Those can't be violations because we didn't have to turn them over. We made them available however. In every one of these events, I believe without exception, the Prosecution was present. They had representatives there, and every time any piece of evidence was examined, they were there. They had the ability to take their own notes, to watch the notes that we were taking, to take the same photographs that we took. They had the same opportunity as we did to examine this evidence.
In Albany, they took a videotape. Any time we looked at a piece of evidence, they photographed it at the same time that we photographed it. And I might also add that if we're supposed to provide things 60 days before trial, most of these things didn't exist even when the trial started. These are--all of these events or most of them relate to things that happened after the trial started. Finally, we're not required to decide 60 days before trial what issues an expert is going to testify about and what issues an expert is not going to testify about. Those decisions certainly were not made--
Well, certainly, yeah, it's certainly obvious that we intended to call Dr. Lee from the beginning. It's not obvious at all as to what issues he was going to testify about and not testify about. And that decision was not made until the Defense case started and it wasn't made right at the time. It's been made continuously. But we've made all that stuff available that--much of which, as I said, he's not going to testify about. The notes that we turned over recently are notes of observations of evidence. Nothing was done--any time some trace evidence was removed from an item, we turned that over. Any time that any kind of a test was performed, that was all turned over a long time ago. So I--I take real issue with the notion that these are all violations of the discovery law. They aren't. We gave them too much. And I'm getting a little bit tired of standing up here and explaining why I haven't violated the law when I've given them stuff they aren't entitled to. So I don't think there's any violation here at all. He said that they haven't been prejudiced by anything. I think we're wasting our time.
Well, let me--actually, Mr. Blasier, of these items that Mr. Goldberg has listed in his list, items 1 through 11, are there any of these matters that you are not going to be presenting? For example, item 4, you've indicated you're not going to be presenting any of the evidence with regards to that item, correct?
Right. Most of what is contained in these notes, we're not going to be presenting. I mean, in Albany, they examined, I don't know, 75, a hundred items. There's only going to be testimony about a couple of those, and any notes about those are just, you know, we looked in this package and that's what was in there. That's all it was. We weren't allowed to do anything else other than just look at stuff. So most of this is not going to be covered.
Well, how do you suggest we do this, because obviously I shouldn't bother to deal with discovery issues on items you're not going to be offering or observations that you're not going to be offering. Can you let me know here what's pertinent?
I have not gone through the notes to try and isolate that. I don't think that's my responsibility. Mr. Goldberg hasn't--I don't think he's pointed to any specific instances of something he knows that Dr. Lee's going to testify about that he's been surprised about. I--it would take me quite a long time to sit down and cross out all those parts of the notes that weren't discoverable in the first place. I didn't take the time to do that. I just gave him everything. They've talked to Dr. Lee. They know what he's going to testify about. They've seen all the boards. They know exactly what he's going to testify about.
All right. Mr. Goldberg, we need to narrow this down a little because there's a lot here that may not even be relevant to the presentation.
I understand that, your Honor, and I specifically mentioned that in the case of item 4, where I said in all probability, there could be no prejudice there because the court has previously ruled that that item was inadmissible. Just to clarify the record--and I think the court hears the--understood this, I said that there were severely--
I don't recollect that I said it was inadmissible. I thought there was clear indication it wasn't going to be offered. But be that as it may.
Well, whichever. I thought we had some litigation. I wasn't directly involved in that. But at any rate, I did point that out to the court.
Okay. But the point is, your Honor, I pointed out that I didn't feel that we were prejudiced. I also said that I felt that we were severely prejudiced and tried to detail why as to everything else. I tried to highlight some of the things that are contained in these reports that I know they will be testifying about. One is bindle 47, which the court saw referenced in a large number of these notations, including the Albany visit, including the cellmark visit and I believe including Dr. Lee's home visit--excuse me--home analysis on March the 9th. Another item that we know they're going to be talking about is the imprint evidence, for example, on Ronald Goldman's jeans, the imprint--they claim there's some imprint evidence on his jeans. They claim there's some imprint evidence on the eyeglass envelope. They claim there's some imprint evidence on that little triangular piece of paper that wasn't collected. All of these items are contained in these notes, the analysis photographic enhancements, blow-ups, additional photographs that they took in the set of photographs that's listed as having been taken--as having been turned over in discovery on August the 3rd, `95. What I would say to make it simple is that from looking at the boards--and that's the only indication that I have as to what he's going to be testifying to--there is nothing that he's going to be testifying to that isn't contained in the items that we are complaining about discovery violations with the exception of item no. 4. In other words, that there will be no subject matter that he will address in his testimony of which I am aware that is not in some fashion discussed in one of the other 10 reports that I have listed here. So that makes it very simple, your Honor, and I have tried to list the ones that I know about and the ones that we also believe that the Defense is going to be attributing an enormous amount of significance to. Now, we have argued the question of discovery obligations over and over and over again and the court has ruled on this at sometimes I guess what could be described as advisory type rulings that the court made. And we know that the plain language of the statute says that we are entitled to "Reports or statements, including the results of examinations, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons which the respective parties intend to offer in evidence."
Examinations is exactly what we are talking about with respect to looking at these items carefully, microscopically and then rendering opinions about them. We are also talking about comparisons when we're talking about imprint evidence. And Dr. Lee will testify that in the case of some of the imprint evidence, that he made efforts to look at some of the items that were at the crime scene to determine whether or not those could have been responsible. So the plain ordinary language of the statute plus the case law that interprets it, the key case being the Hines versus Superior court case, which has been cited over and over again--by now, I'm sure your Honor probably has at least partially memorized the law--and the Defendant's legal obligation is very, very clear. They have to turn over results of examinations. They have to turn over results of comparisons, and that is precisely what we're talking about. Now, in terms of real evidence, the statute also talks about real evidence. So you can characterize photographs in two ways I believe and I believe both characterizations are correct. One is a photograph--
I think two characterizations can be applied to the case of expert witnesses. Number one, I believe that counsel is correct, you can characterize a photograph as being real evidence. But real evidence is one of the five categories of items that come under 1054. So if counsel is correct in his interpretation, I believe that he is--at least in part, he is obligated to turn those over to us pursuant to those provisions of 1054. The other way that I believe that it is appropriate to characterize photographs--and maybe I'm making the issue unnecessarily complex because I think counsel has conceded at least they fall under one of the categories. But the other way of characterizing them is as notes or documentation. The court in this case has heard the phrase "Photo documentation" testified to over and over and over again by criminalists. Mr. MacDonell was asked why he didn't write certain findings down in his notes, and he said, "Because I photo documented them so I didn't need to."
A photo is worth a thousand words, so criminalists can use the technique of photography as a supplement to or a substitute for documentation. So it also falls under the category of laboratory reports. But maybe I'm being a little bit too analytical here, your Honor, because no matter how we want to look at it, we're entitled to these under 1054. And your Honor has previously ruled on this kind of material in the context of Mr. Deedrick's blow-ups where we were simply taking evidence that the Defense had analyzed at length and blowing it up, and the court said that the Prosecution had violated our discovery obligations as I recalled and had to undertake an analysis as to the effect of those violations. So they clearly have violated their discovery obligations here. Now, in terms of people being present, Ron Raquel was present from the crime lab at the Albany visit, but he was told and instructed that he was not supposed to look over the shoulders of experts, but simply supposed to observe the transaction between when the evidence left his possession and went into the expert's possession; and there's no way he can tell us the results of microscopic examinations and conclusions that were reached and things that were observed by Dr. Lee and his colleagues under the microscope. Also, I do not believe anyone was present at the time that certain examinations were made at Dr. Lee's home laboratory; and in no case did the presence of any experts in any way aid the Prosecution or lessen the amount of prejudice that we have suffered in terms of identifying issues or determining what the Defense was looking at. If you're looking at an envelope under a microscope, we know--we may know they're looking at the envelope under the microscope, but it doesn't tell us anything about what they're seeing, what they're finding, what they're concluding. That kind of material is in their notes. The statutory language of the law, your Honor, does not make any exception for which items are going to be testified to and which are not. Saying once an expert has been identified as someone that they reasonably expect to call, at that point, the entire report needs to be turned over. They don't say part of the report or a portion of the report. If there was any portion of the report that was not discoverable at that time, the only procedure that could be taken under 1054.7 would be an in camera hearing, and the only exception that I think the court would allow under that statute would be if there was work product. In other words, if he said on cross-examination, ask the Prosecution's expert this, or in argument you might want to point out that. That kind of material could be deleted by the court. But other than that, there is no legal basis whatsoever for saying, well, this part of the report they can get, but not that part of the report. We get the whole report and we're entitled to see things in context and we're entitled to see what was going on at the time that these examinations took place, what else they might have looked at that could have affected their examination of the evidence that they're testifying to, what kind of cross-contamination might have occurred and the like. I mean, if the Prosecution were only going to introduce evidence as to three of the items on the Bundy walk, three of the bloodstains, would we be able to say that we don't need to give them discovery as to the other two because it's not relevant when they were processed at the same time and looked at the same time, part of the same case and somehow sever that out of our report? The law makes absolutely no provision for that whatsoever. Your Honor, I believe that the legal issues and factual issues here are absolutely clear. There is a violation and exclusion is the appropriate remedy.
Your Honor, 1054.3 does not say "The results of any examinations." It says "Physical or mental examinations." That's why we turned over the examinations of Mr. Simpson. That's why we turned over some psychological test results, because it fell under that particular category. 1054.3 also says it's limited to things which we intend to offer. In spite of Mr. Goldberg's desire to have everything that we might have done in the entire case, he's not entitled to that. I would remind the court that we weren't even allowed to get pictures that Gary Sims took of the work that he did because we had someone there available to take the same kind of pictures. We make a decision on what we intend to use as exhibits. I thought we were operating under a rule that it was either one day or three days before we would present any exhibits, any real evidence. We provided these photographs that are on the boards long--much longer ago than three days, and I think we've complied with the standards that the court has set up. All of these notes, I think almost every category, these were all reviewed by the court and the court concurred in our assessment as to what we had to turn over and what we think we didn't have to turn over.
Refresh my recollection so I can get my notes as to the in camera hearing. When did we conduct that?
I think that--actually, I think there were a couple. My recollection is, the first--I didn't bring my notes on this because I didn't know they were going to make this motion. But I think the first one was March 17th and I think that there was another one on March 24th if I recall. And I specifically asked--as to the Albany visit, I explained to the court that the only thing that we actually did where we did something to the evidence was remove some trace evidence from some things and put them in bindles, and you suggested we turn over a list of that, which we did. That was it as far as the Albany notes are concerned. But I think those were the two days that we met in chambers.
And I remind the court that Dr. Lee's report, once it was written, was turned over actually prior to Mr. MacDonell's report. And again, they were present at all of these things. They could take their own pictures. They looked at what we were looking at and they can take their own notes, and we weren't allowed to do anything except remove some trace evidence in Albany.
All right. Mr. Scheck, what is the--what is your schedule for the first issues that you're going to address with Dr. Lee?
All right. I intend to--you have the boards, the list of boards. We're going to go through his qualifications. We're going to have a discussion from his textbook of the chart they have dealing with crime scene procedures, recognition, documentation, preservation, et cetera, and a short discussion of the procedures in this case, but not very much. And then we're going to go right into the imprint evidence, imprint evidence, their photographs on the walkway, their piece of paper. All these--half of these pictures on the boards are their pictures. Half of them are their pictures. They spoke to Dr. Lee. Dr. de Forest sat down and went over this four hours with him on Friday. They spoke to him when he was in Indonesia. Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Goldberg have spoken to him on the telephone.
I'm not--counsel, I'm not interested in that. I just asked you a very simple question; what are you going to present? I'm not interested in hearing the argument. The reason for this is simple. I have to get my notes and review the transcript of our in camera hearing back in March--
--before I can rule on this. But my recollection right now is, I don't recollect that in camera hearing. So what I'm going to do is present Dr. Lee, we can go through his qualifications, the other generic stuff, and then we'll get to--I'll see.
Well, I'd like to go at least through the imprint evidence and I'll--there can't be an issue about that. Those pictures were turned over by their own version--
I'm just asking you what your agenda is because I'm not going to rule on the sanction request until I've had the opportunity to review my notes and review the transcript. I don't recollect this. And what's presented to me here by the Prosecution is a pile of reports and a list of dates that makes no sense to me. So I need to go through this and see what it is and compare it with my notes. This is another incoherent presentation. All right? But I'd like to use what part of the court day we can use, and that's what we're going to do.
We'll go through the qualifications. We'll go through the basic theory. I'd like--well, I'll do what you want.
Only one factual point, if you permit me, just one; and that is the present state. If you're going to consider this in terms of the records as to these visits, I was there for a few of these. And Dr. Lee will examine something and one of our people examined something, Mr. Taggert or somebody or Mr. Wilson comes and they take a picture. They have all their criminalists there. So we're talking about the pictures and--
And I'd like to know this. We're in this bizarre position. We go, we get permission to look at the evidence in the middle of the trial. We finally get an opportunity to take pictures of it. We take the pictures, we turn over our pictures to them. Now, this happened with Dr. Blake. They have all of Dr. Blake's pictures, we have none of garrison's pictures--
This to me seems like the clearest example of a discovery violation that the court could ever hope to have.
I'm getting a little bit tired of standing up here and explaining why I haven't violated the law when I've given them stuff they aren't entitled to.
This is another incoherent presentation. All right? But I'd like to use what part of the court day we can use, and that's what we're going to do.
What part of no don't you understand? Let's have the jury, please.
They waited until the very last minute to file this objection even though they had the report for quite some time. And just as an indication, on page 2 of the motion, they indicate that the court excluded evidence of the blood drying experiment conducted by the Defense on 352 grounds... they didn't even correct the fact that the glove drying experiment was admitted.