There is--the People are making a motion under 352 to exclude the testimony as being irrelevant and undue consumption of time. The reason for this motion, your Honor, is that blood from the Bronco was collected on June the 14th. This witness only had contact with the Bronco on June 15th after the blood was collected. It is true further stains were collected from the same areas that had been previously collected on the 14th. However, all that does is prove further that the blood--the area was not contaminated because we arrived at the same results whether the blood was collected in June and as we do later on in August. So this witness' testimony is completely irrelevant and immaterial.
Well, first of all, as the Court is aware, they were collecting blood from the Bronco up until August, 300 series, whatever. This man moved this car on the 15th. Counsel doesn't want him to testify because she knows he's going to say that no blood was in there. This is very relevant testimony. They're still collecting evidence up to this date. This vehicle was not secured. The Court will recall this was the case where the car could have been released to Hertz. There was no hold on it by Haro or anybody else. He doesn't see any number of things take place. So it's very, very relevant. There's not a 352 problem. It's very relevant. We want to get this witness on and off.
We don't need a soap box, you know, to search for the truth. This has nothing to do with anything. That's the point. The fact that they checked a box or didn't check a box on the impound sheet is irrelevant. That means nothing. We have photographs from the 14th showing the blood inside the Bronco. This witness didn't look for blood in the Bronco. He got in enough to put a piece of paper in the cap, and that's it, and allegedly takes some receipts later on out of the side door.
This has got nothing to do with anything. Again, this is more smoking mirror. That's fine if there's something tangentially relevant. But the recovery of evidence was achieved before this witness had contact with the Bronco. This is a waste of time, everybody's time and produces nothing in the search for the truth at all. It's simply misleading, confusing and under consumption of time. This kind of goofing around when the jury is being sequestered--everybody has half day. We don't. This is a joke.
Could counsel keep her voice down? These are the same people, your Honor, who brought down Brian Kelberg for eight days on direct testimony--
We don't have to rehash that, but she's the one who's saying that. I'm just saying as an offer of proof, a document with Nicole Brown Simpson's name or whatever on it is very relevant to a number of issues.
Just by way of observation, it appears to me we extend the courtesy to counsel to make objections after the question is completed and not interrupting counsel, and that's always been the Court's policy and that has not been followed with Mr. Cochran's questioning.
Mr. Cochran though has a well-developed talent for asking leading questions, and I can tell right away where we're going with some of them.
KEY QUOTECounsel doesn't want him to testify because she knows he's going to say that no blood was in there.
This kind of goofing around when the jury is being sequestered--everybody has half day. We don't. This is a joke.
Mr. Cochran though has a well-developed talent for asking leading questions, and I can tell right away where we're going with some of them.
Nobody asked.