Sidebar: impeachment document

📄 Sidebar: impeachment document — Tuesday, August 8, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\8\SIDEBAR-IMPEACHMENT-DOCUMENT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 131 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Dr. Terence Speed (morning, part 1) Cross-examination of Dr. Terence Speed (morning, part 2) ▶

Date: Tuesday, August 8, 1995 • Utterances: 19

During cross-examination of Dr. Terence Speed, prosecutor Rockne Harmon produced a letter Speed had written to Professor Bruce Weir without disclosing it to defense counsel beforehand. Defense attorney Peter Neufeld objected, claiming Harmon had explicitly told him before cross began that he had no impeachment documents. Judge Ito sided with the defense, giving Neufeld five minutes to read the letter before proceeding.

# 1 MR. HARMON:

Okay. Now, the quote that I just read to you, and I will give you a chance to show it to you--I want to show it to counsel first--this quote is actually from a letter you wrote to Professor Weir, isn't it?

# 2 PROF. SPEED:

Umm--

# 3 MR. NEUFELD:

Your Honor, may we approach for a second, please?

# 4 THE COURT:

Yes. With the court reporter, please.

# 5 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 6 THE COURT:

All right. We are at the side bar.

# 7 MR. NEUFELD:

I just want to note for the record that before we started to cross-examine the witness today I approached Mr. Harmon and I said, "Are there any exhibits or documents that you intend use for impeachment purposes with this witness?" And he said, "No, there are none." That is what he said to me off the record before we began today. And for the first time in the middle of the examination he is producing this letter and that violates your discovery order that all exhibits you attempt to use are to be shown to opposing counsel prior to the commencement of their testimony, be it direct or be it cross.

# 8 THE COURT:

All right.

# 9 MR. NEUFELD:

I haven't even read this letter yet, so I would object initially because of the discovery violation from--to referring to it or doing anything on it because he did fail to show me it before we started today when I specifically asked him if there is anything.

# 10 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Harmon, what is this?

# 11 MR. HARMON:

Well, we have to distinguish between exhibits--what is the difference between this and a transcript, your Honor? I fail to see the difference.

# 12 THE COURT:

Listen to my question carefully.

# 13 MR. HARMON:

I'm sorry.

# 14 THE COURT:

What is this?

# 15 MR. HARMON:

This is a letter that the good professor wrote to Bruce Weir. I mean, he exploited this yesterday when he said, "Bruce solicited my input on paper I was writing one day," so this is Professor Speed's critique of Professor Weir's paper that ultimately got published. And I'm shocked to hear that they had no idea that they had never seen this before.

# 16 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm just saying I haven't seen it, but that is not the point. The point is he should have shown me this before we started.

# 17 THE COURT:

This is a statement by this witness. This is more in the line of direct impeachment.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 MR. NEUFELD:

I need five minutes to read it.

# 19 THE COURT:

All right. Read it.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Peter Neufeld

before we started to cross-examine the witness today I approached Mr. Harmon and I said, 'Are there any exhibits or documents that you intend use for impeachment purposes with this witness?' And he said, 'No, there are none.'

Accuses Harmon of a direct misrepresentation, making this a discovery violation and a credibility issue for the prosecution.

Lance A. Ito

This is a statement by this witness. This is more in the line of direct impeachment.

Ito characterizes the letter as a prior statement by the witness, implicitly agreeing it should have been disclosed.

Rockne Harmon

I'm shocked to hear that they had no idea that they had never seen this before.

Harmon implies the defense should have known about the letter since Speed wrote it himself, deflecting the disclosure objection.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Letter written by Dr. Terence Speed critiquing Professor Bruce Weir's paper on DNA statistics

produced mid-cross-examination, challenged on discovery grounds

Notable Exchanges (2)

Lance A. Ito•Rockne Harmon

Ito twice asks 'What is this?' after Harmon deflects with an analogy to transcripts; Ito tells him to 'Listen to my question carefully.'

firm, controlling

Peter Neufeld•Rockne Harmon

Neufeld alleges Harmon explicitly said he had no impeachment documents before cross; Harmon responds with apparent disbelief that the defense hadn't seen the letter.

adversarial

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Dr. Terence Speed

prior inconsistent statement — letter written by witness

Harmon attempts to use Speed's own written critique of Weir's DNA paper to impeach his testimony, suggesting Speed's courtroom characterization of Weir contradicted what he wrote privately.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7226 • 19 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103