Sidebar: envelope evidence

📄 Sidebar: envelope evidence — Tuesday, February 7, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\7\SIDEBAR-ENVELOPE-EVIDENCE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 14 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Karen Crawford (part 1) Direct examination of Karen Crawford (part 2) ▶

Date: Tuesday, February 7, 1995 • Utterances: 20

Defense counsel Shapiro proposed a stipulation about an envelope exhibit, arguing the witness could only identify her own handwriting on it — not the envelope itself in its current state. Clark objected to being blindsided by the stipulation in open court and refused it, insisting the People were entitled to present the evidence fully. The judge sided with the prosecution's right to try their case as they saw fit, while flagging a separate issue about whether the envelope — which has visible blood stains — should go to the jury in its present form.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

THEY LEFT IT OVER THERE SO THE JURORS COULD SEE IT.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

IN THE FUTURE, WHEN COUNSEL WANTS TO STIPULATE TO SOMETHING, I WOULD LIKE TO BE APPRISED OF THAT AHEAD OF TIME INSTEAD OF IN OPEN COURT. THE PEOPLE REFUSE THE STIPULATION. OBVIOUSLY IT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE JURY SHOULD SEE AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD EITHER BE -- ARE REQUIRED TO STIPULATE TO BY LAW AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE SHOWN SO THAT THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY IS CORROBORATED, THE CRIME SCENE IS --

KEY QUOTE

# 5 THE COURT:

I AGREE WITH YOU AT THIS POINT THAT WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, SET THE FOUNDATION FOR THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. WHETHER OR NOT THIS ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO THE JURY IN ITS PRESENT FORM IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

# 6 MR. SHAPIRO:

ALSO, YOUR HONOR, MAY I --

# 7 THE COURT:

SURE.

# 8 MR. SHAPIRO:

THE ENVELOPE IS NOT THE WAY SHE SAW IT. SHE JUST SAW A PLAIN ENVELOPE.

# 9 THE COURT:

UH-HUH.

# 10 MR. SHAPIRO:

I THINK THE STIPULATION IS A PROPER ONE TO MOVE THESE PROCEEDINGS ALONG. SHE CAN'T IDENTIFY THAT ENVELOPE NOW OTHER THAN THAT IS HER WRITING ON IT, WHICH WE HAVE AGREED TO STIPULATE TO, SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE --

# 11 THE COURT:

I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO TRY THEIR CASE AS THEY SEE FIT.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 MR. SHAPIRO:

THANK YOU.

# 13 THE COURT:

BUT THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT WE WILL TAKE UP LATER WHEN IT GOES TO THE JURY.

# 14 MR. SHAPIRO:

THANK YOU, JUDGE.

# 15 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU.

# 16 MR. SHAPIRO:

HOW ABOUT SHOWING THIS TO THIS WITNESS? CAN WE JUST HAVE HER SHOW THE FRONT SIDE OF THE ENVELOPE?

# 17 MR. COCHRAN:

THE BLOOD WASN'T ON THERE.

# 18 MS. CLARK:

I HAVE TO SHOW THE GLASSES INSIDE. HOW AM I GOING TO DO THAT?

# 19 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL JUST IDENTIFY FOR THIS PURPOSE AND AT A DISTANCE YOU CAN REALLY TELL. THE INTERESTING NATURE OF THE ENVELOPE AS FAR AS THE BLOOD IS CONCERNED BECOMES APPARENT WHEN YOU SEE THE IT WITHIN ABOUT 18 INCHES.

# 20 MR. SHAPIRO:

THANK YOU, JUDGE.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

IN THE FUTURE, WHEN COUNSEL WANTS TO STIPULATE TO SOMETHING, I WOULD LIKE TO BE APPRISED OF THAT AHEAD OF TIME INSTEAD OF IN OPEN COURT. THE PEOPLE REFUSE THE STIPULATION.

Clark rejects the defense tactic of springing a stipulation in open court, framing it as a procedural ambush.

Robert Shapiro

SHE CAN'T IDENTIFY THAT ENVELOPE NOW OTHER THAN THAT IS HER WRITING ON IT, WHICH WE HAVE AGREED TO STIPULATE TO, SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE --

Shapiro's core argument: the stipulation is appropriate because the witness's identification is limited to her handwriting, not the envelope itself.

Lance A. Ito

I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO TRY THEIR CASE AS THEY SEE FIT.

Clean ruling against the defense stipulation gambit.

Lance A. Ito

THE INTERESTING NATURE OF THE ENVELOPE AS FAR AS THE BLOOD IS CONCERNED BECOMES APPARENT WHEN YOU SEE IT WITHIN ABOUT 18 INCHES.

The judge acknowledges the blood on the envelope is a visibility issue — flagging the practical problem of showing it to a jury.

Evidence (1)

Informal

An envelope containing glasses, bearing a witness's handwriting and visible blood stains

Discussed — admissibility and manner of presentation to jury debated; prosecution refused defense stipulation

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Robert Shapiro

Clark refused the defense's mid-court stipulation and objected to not being warned in advance. Shapiro argued the stipulation was reasonable to move proceedings along since the witness's identification was limited.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Marcia Clark

Cochran noted the blood wasn't visible on the front of the envelope; Clark pushed back that she needed to show the glasses inside, creating a practical display problem.

procedural

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 4687 • 20 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103