All right. The record should reflect all the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Who's the next witness?
Yes, your Honor. I tried to bring this up this morning. I just would like the Court to know we have no notes, have no report from Professor Speed, which is not surprising in the way this case--
Notes, n-o-t-e-s, and no report from Professor Speed. So I would like at this point--we seem to have--contrary to what Mr. Cochran said this morning, you know, we're going to get all the notes, Mr. Blasier says we only get notes that we ask for. I would like to ask for whatever notes he has because I'm not sure that's the way you interpret prop 115. Now that he's here and about to testify, it would be nice to have some idea what he was going to talk about.
Your Honor, there are no notes at all regarding the subject matter of his testimony. As I have already explained to Mr. Harmon, I think it was also mentioned by Mr. Scheck earlier today, he did no calculations at all. He will be testifying broadly in a way that is critical of and contradicts the expert testimony of such witnesses as Robin Cotton and Bruce Weir on statistical issues and he will be speaking in general terms about what's wrong with their testimony as an expert in the field of statistics. There are no calculations that are going to be coming in through this witness. And that's why there's no notes and that's why there's no report.
All right. You know the hazard though of this is that probably what will happen is, you'll finish your direct examination and then we'll have a two-week request for a continuance.
KEY QUOTEWell, they may make the request. I think what you'll find, your Honor, based on the testimony of this witness--by the way, as I mentioned Mr. Harmon, I think if we start in oh, in five minutes, there's a chance we might actually finish the entire direct examination today. It's going to be very narrow and very defined.
Right. And you may find in fact giving them the evening to consider the scope of cross-examination may be more than adequate.
Your Honor, I just want to interject something. It's not that we didn't try to avoid this. Professor Speed can attest to this. I sent him a letter as we have sent to other witnesses alerting him that we had no idea what he was going to talk about. He was in the local hotel where all the Defense experts hold up. He sent me a cordial note back saying thanks, but no thanks. And not wanting to be in this situation where I was going to ask you for a continuance so I could effectively cross-examine him, I faxed him every place I could think of--and I haven't gotten a cordial acknowledgment to this one--I said, okay, if you don't want to talk to me, talk to your friend and colleague, Bruce Weir, just so we could avoid exactly what's unavoidable right now. I haven't gotten a response. It would be nice if I had an acknowledgment that he got it at statistics at UC Berkeley or at the local hotel where they all stay. I haven't gotten even that. But we've really tried to avoid this. And I have no idea what he's going to talk about. I have one specific item that I know he is going to talk about that I would like to take up now. So we've really tried to avoid this because we really want to get this case going too. We want to finish this case. But we certainly can't do it when they sandbag us, where they don't even allow us access to have a cordial conversation with people whom they're colleagues with. So that's the reality. We've tried to avoid this. It's unavoidable right now, your Honor.
The other area is the infamous letter that got Mr.--my colleague, Mr. Clarke, here, the black mark. We're going to see it again, and they're going to try to get it in through Professor Speed. And, you know, I think you need to look at this whole packet of letters. This is a packet of signators for which actually there are no signatures. There is the rejection letter from nature which explained why they don't publish letters with all these signatures on it. And then somehow as if this cures all the hearsay, Professor Coyne--
Well, we're going to deal with it again because they think that this August 3rd affidavit from Professor Coyne, whom we'd love to see up in the blue chair, is going to allow Professor Speed to get this letter in. And I just alert the Court that I think we should have some discussions about the propriety of this.
Your Honor, it's my understanding the ruling on the letter in part stems from the fact it couldn't come in through those other witnesses. This is a witness who was actually part of the collection of signatures for the letter. He's not just one of the signators himself. He actually personally collected signatures for it and got--
Well, then perhaps he has the expertise to testify to its contents or the nature of the letter without actually going into the hearsay of the letter itself.
You mean without--right. I agree with you. I don't--I'm not planning on actually introducing the letter. But I believe that, you know, under 801(B), he is allowed to sort of rely and consider hearsay as part of the basis for his opinion. I do not intend to introduce the piece of paper.
Because I don't want to get into the publication processes and the--all of that kind of stuff, the peer review and all of that.
Well, we would like a 402 hearing on whether or not this falls within 802. This thing was never published. I don't think it's too big a guess, he's probably never even seen half the people who have signed this letter and he probably doesn't even know the other half of them, and I think we're entitled to know if they're going to try to funnel this in. Remember now, we've had all these names read off, okay. They just want to plant this in the report.
Well, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Harmon, let's do this. Let's start the direct examination, see how far we get. If we hit this particular point and it seems to be a point in controversy, it could be a big deal based upon the context of his testimony or it could be a very not big deal. I don't know. Let's see.
When we hit the letter, we'll talk about it. All right. Let's have the jury. If we hit the letter.
Your Honor, can I pass this up--this is the same package I gave to Mr. Harmon--in case it does come up?
they sandbag us, where they don't even allow us access to have a cordial conversation with people whom they're colleagues with
He sent me a cordial note back saying thanks, but no thanks.
You know the hazard though of this is that probably what will happen is, you'll finish your direct examination and then we'll have a two-week request for a continuance.
He will be testifying broadly in a way that is critical of and contradicts the expert testimony of such witnesses as Robin Cotton and Bruce Weir on statistical issues.