Yes. And at this point, I think we need to discuss also the 1054.7 issues with regards to this tape. All right. Miss Clark, anything else you want to add to the record with regard to Miss Stockdale?
Well, factually speaking, perhaps we need to--we have a conflict here and maybe what we need to do is call Dana Thompson unless--I don't think it matters actually.
Well, the issue was whether or not Miss Stockdale had a copy that was still available. She's indicated that she taped over the tape a number of times. So in all likelihood, it's not recoverable except for perhaps by the NSA, and I don't think they're going to help us with this.
I certainly doubt it, your Honor. And that was back in March or April `95 before we could have known.
Right. Now, have you made inquiry of this phone voice mail service whether or not their database still includes this, because you've gotten authorization from her to get the original from the digital format.
Does the Court want us to make that effort to get that before we resume with argument on this issue?
The Defense previously under 1054.7 filed affidavits regarding this particular tape. And, Mrs. Robertson, we'll need to get that sealed package. All right. But I do think that you ought to--at this point, I'm going to direct you to contact the voice mail service and see if the database from that date is still available.
The People would make a motion then for those 1054.7 materials though to be discovered at this time as well.
All right. I'll take that matter under submission. All right. But I'm going to direct you to contact the voice mail system this afternoon. And Bruce Humiston was the name?
The 1054.7 submission, your Honor, was to preserve the Defendant's work product privilege. We don't believe that they're entitled to see that, but the only theory under which there's any duty at all to turn this over would not arise under 1054, but under the Meredith case. And that's whether we have foreclosed access by the Prosecution by taking physical possession of--
KEY QUOTEWhich is why I'm directing--I'm putting them on notice that that exists, that it's still in sealed condition. I'm directing them to go to the original source at this point.
Well, we contend Meredith doesn't apply because it's not inculpatory evidence and because we have not foreclosed access. So for both of those reasons.
All right. Anything else we need to wrestle with this afternoon? All right. Then we'll stand in recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning with regards to the IAD issue and finding of materiality after the city attorney's office--after the Defense files its declaration of materiality, the Court will hear orally any argument that the city attorney's office has, I'll hear comment from the District Attorney's office as well and then I'll hopefully be able to make a ruling on the prima facie materiality issue at that point.
Right. Well, this is the whole issue though. It's--that's one small part of a larger issue, because I mean, that issue includes, you know, Dr. Rieders, it includes MacDonell, i mean, it's the whole issue of blood on the socks is what the issue is. And then i think the defense should be prepared to go forward with its next witness at 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
We're going to do the best we can. We may not have enough for the entire afternoon.
in all likelihood, it's not recoverable except for perhaps by the NSA, and I don't think they're going to help us with this.
The 1054.7 submission, your Honor, was to preserve the Defendant's work product privilege. We don't believe that they're entitled to see that, but the only theory under which there's any duty at all to turn this over would not arise under 1054, but under the Meredith case.
It may become a nonissue later today.
that issue includes, you know, Dr. Rieders, it includes MacDonell, i mean, it's the whole issue of blood on the socks is what the issue is.