Sidebar: prosecution letter

📄 Sidebar: prosecution letter — Tuesday, July 25, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\25\SIDEBAR-PROSECUTION-LETTER.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 121 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Roger Martz (part 1) Direct examination of Roger Martz (part 2) ▶

Date: Tuesday, July 25, 1995 • Utterances: 8

Defense attorney Blasier sought to introduce a letter from prosecutor Harmon to FBI Agent Martz explaining the scope of his testing assignment. Clark objected on relevance grounds, arguing the attorney's framing of instructions was less relevant than what Martz himself understood he was supposed to do. Judge Ito overruled the objection, allowing the letter in.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. We are over at the side bar. Off the record.

# 3 (Discussion held off the record.)

# 4 MS. CLARK:

The objection, your Honor, is on the ground of relevance. I do not see what the letter to Agent Martz has to do with anything concerning his testing results. I'm sure that--well, I'm not going to put words in Mr. Blasier's mouth. I'm sure that he can articulately frame his reason for wanting to get it in, but I do not think it is appropriate.

# 5 THE COURT:

What is the relevance?

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

Well, this explains what he was asked to do. Obviously it is relevant as to what he did, whether it shows bias, if did he what he asked to do, if he did something different. It frames his whole testimony as to what he did and why.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MS. CLARK:

He was asked to conduct certain tests. It was framed in the mind of the attorney this way. But I think that the appropriate question would be whether, you know, what he felt. What he felt he had to do, not what words Mr. Harmon used. Whatever words Mr. Harmon used, the appropriate and relevant question is what did he think he was supposed to do and how did he think he was supposed to go about it.

# 8 THE COURT:

Uh-huh. All right. The objection is overruled.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Marcia Clark

I do not see what the letter to Agent Martz has to do with anything concerning his testing results.

States the prosecution's relevance objection — trying to keep jury from seeing how the prosecution framed Martz's assignment.

Robert Blasier

This explains what he was asked to do. Obviously it is relevant as to what he did, whether it shows bias, if did he what he asked to do, if he did something different.

Reveals the defense strategy: use the letter to suggest Martz was directed toward a predetermined result, implying potential bias.

Marcia Clark

The appropriate and relevant question is what did he think he was supposed to do and how did he think he was supposed to go about it.

Clark attempts to redirect focus to Martz's own understanding rather than Harmon's potentially damaging written instructions.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Letter from prosecutor Harmon to FBI Agent Martz outlining what testing he was asked to perform

contested admission — objection overruled, admitted

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert Blasier•Marcia Clark

Blasier frames the letter as showing potential bias or deviation from instructions; Clark counters that the attorney's words are less probative than the expert's own understanding of his mandate.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Agent Martz

bias — prosecutorial direction of testing

Defense seeks to use Harmon's letter to Martz to suggest the expert was guided toward specific results, undermining his independence.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7020 • 8 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103