Sidebar: hearsay objection

📄 Sidebar: hearsay objection — Wednesday, February 8, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\8\SIDEBAR-HEARSAY-OBJECTION.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 15 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Louis Karpf (part 1) Redirect examination of Louis Karpf (part 2) ▶

Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 • Lines: 22

A brief sidebar to resolve a hearsay objection during testimony related to Eva Stein's account of being awakened by dogs barking. Clark argued the statement qualified as a prior consistent statement under Evidence Code section 1235, rebutting an implied impeachment of Stein's timeline. Ito overruled the objection, agreeing with Clark.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER HERE AT THE SIDE BAR. THE OBJECTION IS HEARSAY. WHAT IS THIS, 1335?

# 3 MS. CLARK:

YES.

# 4 THE COURT:

PRIOR CONSISTENT --

# 5 MS. CLARK:

OR IS IT 1235?

# 6 THE COURT:

1235.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

IT IS 35, I KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT, PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT.

# 8 MR. COCHRAN:

NO. YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT THE WAY YOU DEMONSTRATE ANY PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT OR WHATEVER. THIS IS HEARSAY AND IT IS NOT AN EXCEPTION AND IT IS NOT ANY PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE AN OFFER OF PROOF.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

COUNSEL JUST HAD IT AND COUNSEL HAS NO ARGUMENT WITH THIS ONE. IT CLEARLY IS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH EVA STEIN'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THIS WITNESS CAME HOME BY DOGS BARKING BY THIS WITNESS' STATEMENT THAT HE DOESN'T RECALL SEEING HER COME DOWNSTAIRS AND TALK TO HIM AND SHE HAS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WHERE SHE HAS TOLD HIM THE SAME THING THAT SHE HAS TOLD US. CLASSIC 1235.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. COCHRAN:

SHE MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT. THE POINT IS SHE IS TRYING TO FORCE EVERYTHING ON 1045 AND OVERLOOKING WHAT THESE WITNESSES TOLD EVERYBODY ELSE. SHE CAN'T -- THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE, AND THE SMALLER PICTURE, WHAT THIS WITNESS SAYS IS HE GOES -- GOES HOME, GETS HOME --

# 11 THE COURT:

NO. THE ISSUE IS WHAT EVA STEIN SAID.

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

YES. WHAT SHE SAID TO HIM IS STILL HEARSAY AND THAT IS NOT ANY PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT.

# 13 MS. CLARK:

WELL, IF THAT IS NOT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT, THEN I SUPPOSE NOTHING THAT COUNSEL WAS DOING -- MAYBE COUNSEL'S CROSS OF THIS WITNESS COULD ALL BE STRICKEN, BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE INTENT OF IT WAS IMPEACHMENT OF EVA STEIN.

# 14 MR. COCHRAN:

I'M NOT EVEN RESPONDING TO THAT, IT IS TOO RIDICULOUS, AND I'M BEING NICE TODAY.

KEY QUOTE

# 15 MS. CLARK:

TODAY IS THE NICE DAY.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION WILL BE OVERRULED. IT IS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT.

# 17 MR. COCHRAN:

WHAT IS THE OFFER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR? CAN I HEAR THE OFFER OF PROOF?

# 18 MS. CLARK:

CAN WE NOT HAVE ARGUING AFTER THE RULING, MR. COCHRAN.

# 19 MR. COCHRAN:

I'M NOT ARGUING WITH ANYBODY. I WANT THE OFFER OF PROOF.

KEY QUOTE

# 20 THE COURT:

WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY?

# 21 MS. CLARK:

YEAH, SHE DID, OF COURSE.

# 22 THE COURT:

OKAY. THANK YOU.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Marcia Clark

COUNSEL JUST HAD IT AND COUNSEL HAS NO ARGUMENT WITH THIS ONE. IT CLEARLY IS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH EVA STEIN'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS AWAKENED HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THIS WITNESS CAME HOME BY DOGS BARKING BY THIS WITNESS' STATEMENT THAT HE DOESN'T RECALL SEEING HER COME DOWNSTAIRS AND TALK TO HIM.

Clark argued that the statement was prior consistent because it repeated Stein's account and responded to what Clark characterized as an attempt to impeach Stein.

Johnnie Cochran

I'M NOT EVEN RESPONDING TO THAT, IT IS TOO RIDICULOUS, AND I'M BEING NICE TODAY.

Cochran deflects Clark's counterargument with a dismissive quip, revealing some friction under the procedural surface.

Marcia Clark

TODAY IS THE NICE DAY.

A rare moment of dry courtroom banter between opposing counsel.

Johnnie Cochran

I'M NOT ARGUING WITH ANYBODY. I WANT THE OFFER OF PROOF.

Cochran presses for an offer of proof even after the ruling — a procedural maneuver to get the substance on record.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Eva Stein's statement about being awakened by dogs barking approximately half an hour before the witness came home

discussed as prior consistent statement to rehabilitate Stein's testimony

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Johnnie Cochran

Clark argued Cochran's own cross-examination of the witness was designed to impeach Stein, making it hypocritical for him to block a prior consistent statement rehabilitating her. Cochran flatly refused to engage, calling it 'too ridiculous.'

heated

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark

Cochran continued pressing for an offer of proof after Ito had already ruled, prompting Clark to object to post-ruling argument.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Marcia Clark

Cochran said he was being nice that day, and Clark responded in kind, creating a moment of sparring levity.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Eva Stein

Clark's characterization of intended impeachment during argument

Clark argued that Cochran's cross-examination was intended to impeach Eva Stein by using the witness's statement that he did not recall seeing her come downstairs and talk to him.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 4727 • 22 lines

Criminal Trial

Department 103