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 jurors, please.
Your Honor, my apologies for making a statement to the court in the presence of the jury about these exhibits. I just want to be clear about the rules. If the witness is going to be questioned about a section from a treatise, it has to be established, as I understood, that he relied upon it, and I thought as well that counsel would be given an opportunity.
I just want to make it clear to the court that we had some discussion about what would be used with Dr. Lee and I was handed this paper seconds before the question was asked and that is the only reason I wanted time to see exactly what was being asked of the witness.
You were given--you see, let me tell you what my perspective is, Mr. Scheck, so we understand each other.
I did not hear the foundational questions to Dr. Lee that he was about to be cross-examined as to somebody else's opinion in a learned treatise. I didn't hear the questions. I didn't hear anything read from an article, so I assumed that your objections were premature. And that is the way I felt at that time and I think that is the way the testimony unfolded, that is what came out, because he was not cross-examined or impeached as to anything in a learned treatise that he didn't rely upon or agree with.
I have much more confidence in this witness than apparently the lawyers do.
KEY QUOTENo, nobody can--I yield to no one in my confidence in this witness. But the point is simply a procedural one because I don't want to be in the position of where I say something in front of the jury that--
This witness is not going to argue with either side about other scientist's opinions.
You are entitled to it, and if he is about to be cross-examined, you have the opportunity to read to see what it is.
And he did. And just so that I'm clear on the practice, he was asked about labor and Epstein generally he said excellent people, and then Mr. Goldberg read something from his notes which in fact it was my understanding was either a direct quote or a summary of this and I thought at that point--
It was such an innocuous question, aren't there variables that have to do with how long it takes something to dry? That is a question that doesn't have to come out of a learned treatise and was obviously the focus of where Mr. Goldberg was going. It was not directly from this article. I agree with you, you have got the materials, if he is going to use specific passages to cross-examine before he goes into it.
Just for the record, I will make a copy. What then unfolded is that specific tables were used with different conditions for drying cloth swatches with one drop of blood.
Mr. Scheck, that was a speaking objection. If you had said "Foundation" you probably would have been sustained.
KEY QUOTEWell, your Honor, I will get to it. I just want to have any misunderstanding between us--
Okay. And I will make an application when this is done, I want you to take a look at it, because I think it opens the door to some other things that had previously been--
I didn't ask about any experiments. I asked him about the generalized knowledge that he has which is what he testified to on direct. He was testifying from his generalized knowledge.
I understand, but then you went into this chart where somebody else did an experiment about drying times.
He was the one that told me about it. I wasn't going to get into that except Dr. Lee wanted to.
Just because they go into it doesn't mean you should cross-examine on that. I thought he left you with a pretty wide parameter, if you set it out to dry at night and you come back the next morning it ought to be dry. I think that left you a wide enough parameter to work with, but you insisted on making it tighter, so I don't know. But I will see what the article says and probably get to read the article over the lunch hour, not that I have other things to occupy my time with.
I have much more confidence in this witness than apparently the lawyers do.
Mr. Scheck, that was a speaking objection. If you had said 'Foundation' you probably would have been sustained.
But you got the transfers. I mean, what more do you want?
Ours, too, your Honor.