Your Honor, I think this is all beyond the scope, no. 1. No. 2, I don't think the passage he's pointing to is in any way inconsistent with his testimony. It certainly does not support the questions that were asked, that he told the jury that these were definitely the jeans.
That's on page 397 where the defense attorney is asking him about a hypothetical, if in fact the assailant of Miss Hoeplinger were standing at the time when she was sitting or lying on the couch and if there had been an impact, would he expect the jeans of the perpetrator to be covered with blood, and the answer, depends on what object in between the perpetrator and the blood source, all depends on how far the person stands, there are a lot of variations.
But that's not the question that you asked though, whether or not he was--whether or not those were the jeans.
No. He already admitted to that. I'm not impeaching on that. I'm impeaching on did he expect to find a lot of blood in this type of a case. He seems to have waffled on that.
Your Honor, I would point out from the transcript here, pointing to 397, he was asked a series of questions about blood spots and would it be fair to state question on 397, "Answer: I can not tell." It goes on to say depends on a lot of variations. He was asked a hypothetical. I think it's very misleading to question the witness about a hypothetical which he says doesn't contain all the variables in another case that's not this case. I think it's way beyond the purpose of the examination.
This is a case where the crime scene was much bloodier than ours, much more activity. They were dragging the bodies all over, and the clear import of this man's testimony before a jury, substantially admitted, was that the jeans only had two little drops of blood on this.
KEY QUOTESince we have no clothing recovered, it doesn't have a whole lot of relevance, does it?
KEY QUOTEThe Defense--if the Defense will stipulate that it's not relevant how much if any blood--well, that's what they're claiming is relevant to the blood in the Bronco and the blood on Rockingham, the amount of blood, but if they'll stipulate that's not a relevant issue--
Mr. Goldberg, you already got in the record the doctor saying, well, under normal circumstances, you would expect a lot of blood given the kind of activity here, but it all depends on what the contact was, and we don't know. That's what he said. So I'll sustain the objection.
KEY QUOTEThis is a case where the crime scene was much bloodier than ours, much more activity. They were dragging the bodies all over, and the clear import of this man's testimony before a jury, substantially admitted, was that the jeans only had two little drops of blood on this.
Since we have no clothing recovered, it doesn't have a whole lot of relevance, does it?
I think it's very misleading to question the witness about a hypothetical which he says doesn't contain all the variables in another case that's not this case.
Mr. Goldberg, you already got in the record the doctor saying, well, under normal circumstances, you would expect a lot of blood given the kind of activity here, but it all depends on what the contact was, and we don't know. That's what he said. So I'll sustain the objection.