📄 Sidebar: analysis report — Wednesday, January 25, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JAN\25\SIDEBAR-ANALYSIS-REPORT.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 6 of 167

Sidebar: analysis report

Date: Wednesday, January 25, 1995 • Utterances: 14
Marcia Clark objected at the bench to defense counsel displaying only a single line from a Gray Matheson DNA analysis report, arguing the excerpt was misleading because it omitted a critical qualifier: that the degrading marker 'could be hers' (Nicole Brown Simpson's) but degrades quickly in liquid blood pools. Ito overruled the objection, ruling that the issue had already been litigated over two prior days and any defect was waived.
1 MS. CLARK:

I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

2 THE COURT:

DO YOU NEED THE REPORTER?

3 MS. CLARK:

YES.

4 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
5 THE COURT:

MR. HODGMAN.

6 MS. CLARK:

SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS TRYING TO READ IT ON THE SCREEN. THE OBJECTION IS TO THIS PASSAGE. I THOUGHT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO USE THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. IT'S VERY MISLEADING. THE VERY NEXT LINE IS A QUALIFIER. WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED -- YEAH. WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED ONE LINE FROM THE REPORT THAT WOULD APPEAR TO EXCLUDE NICOLE BROWN WHEN IN FACT WHAT GRAY MATHESON STATED IS, THIS MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY IN LIQUID POOLS OF BLOOD AND THAT IT COULD BE HERS, BUT THAT THE MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY.

7 THE COURT:

HERE'S THE PROBLEM. WE HAD TWO DAYS OF SHOW AND TELL FOR THIS PURPOSE.

8 MS. CLARK:

I UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.

9 MR. SCHECK:

I SAW THE ACTUAL REPORT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS --

10 THE COURT:

NO. ONE PERSON.

11 MR. COCHRAN:

JUDGE, AS THE COURT INDICATES, WE HAD TWO DAYS OF THIS. WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND SHOWED THEM EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD. AND NOW WE'RE HERE LIKE LAST TIME. THEY WANT TO LITIGATE EVERYTHING. MISS CLARK DIDN'T NOTICE IT. THE YOUNG MAN, MR. GOLDBERG, CAME RUNNING UP SAYING THOSE THINGS. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO PROCEED. WE'RE DOING WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING, JUDGE. WE'RE TRYING TO. THEY'RE OBJECTING TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE ALREADY RULED ON. THEY JUST GOT ON ME ABOUT THAT ONE MINUTE AGO, AND I SHUT UP.

12 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

13 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT, BUT I THOUGHT WHAT I REMEMBERED WAS THAT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. NO OBJECTION TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S FAIR AND IN CONTEXT. BUT THIS IS VERY MISLEADING. IT'S IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO WHAT THE EXPERT CONCLUDED. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID AT ALL.

14 THE COURT:

OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. WE HAD A CHANCE TO LITIGATE THIS. IF THERE'S ANY DEFECT, IT'S BEEN WAIVED AT THIS POINT.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Marcia Clark
WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE IS EXCERPTED ONE LINE FROM THE REPORT THAT WOULD APPEAR TO EXCLUDE NICOLE BROWN WHEN IN FACT WHAT GRAY MATHESON STATED IS, THIS MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY, ESPECIALLY IN LIQUID POOLS OF BLOOD AND THAT IT COULD BE HERS, BUT THAT THE MARKER DEGRADES QUICKLY.
Clark identifies the core misleading tactic: the defense cherry-picked a line that appeared to exculpate Simpson by excluding Nicole's DNA, while omitting the expert's own qualifier that degradation explained the absence.
Lance A. Ito
OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. WE HAD A CHANCE TO LITIGATE THIS. IF THERE'S ANY DEFECT, IT'S BEEN WAIVED AT THIS POINT.
Ito shuts down the prosecution's attempt to re-litigate evidence presentation, invoking the two-day pretrial process as binding.
Johnnie Cochran
THEY'RE OBJECTING TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE ALREADY RULED ON. THEY JUST GOT ON ME ABOUT THAT ONE MINUTE AGO, AND I SHUT UP.
Cochran frames the prosecution's objection as bad faith and invokes his own recent compliance with Ito's admonishments to score a fairness point.

Evidence (1)

Informal
Gray Matheson DNA analysis report discussing a degrading marker found in liquid pools of blood, potentially Nicole Brown Simpson's
disputed — defense displayed a single excerpted line; prosecution objected that omitting the qualifier was misleading

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia ClarkLance A. ItoJohnnie Cochran
Clark argued the defense excerpted one line of a report to falsely imply Nicole Brown Simpson was excluded as a DNA source, while the very next line qualified that result. Cochran countered that everything had been pre-cleared in two days of 'show and tell.' Ito sided with the defense on waiver grounds.
strategic
Barry ScheckLance A. Ito
Scheck attempted to interject ('I saw the actual report. The fact of the matter is --') but Ito immediately cut him off with 'No. One person,' enforcing the one-attorney-at-a-time rule at sidebar.
procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Gray Matheson (expert report)
selective quotation / misleading excerpt
Defense displayed one line of Matheson's report suggesting the marker did not belong to Nicole Brown, omitting Matheson's own qualifier that the marker degrades quickly in liquid blood pools and 'could be hers' — effectively inverting the expert's conclusion.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)
Proceeding 4493 • 14 utterances
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 JAN 25, 1995 📄 Sidebar: analysis report
JAN 25, 1995 KRT DvH TD