Your Honor, I'm informed that among the items of evidence that we would like to put on today is the videotape and the grand jury testimony of Thano Peratis. And I understand that the Prosecution has taken the position that they want to offer some additional statements pursuant to 1202. Our position, and I think your Honor can rule on it at this time, is that that is appropriate for their rebuttal case, but the admission of this videotape and the grand jury testimony is former testimony, does not depend upon the availability or presentation of any impeaching evidence that they would like to present that that can be done in the course of their rebuttal case. So we were not allowed to interrupt the presentation of their case in chief by bringing in witnesses that we assert would impeach the credibility of any of their witnesses. We would like to proceed with our case with the presentation of this evidence, and if they want to offer something to rebut or impeach it, they can do that during their rebuttal case.
Your Honor, the--first of all, I'm not sure that the People were told--maybe Miss Clark was--that they intended to put on the transcript testimony of Thano Peratis today, so I--
But at any rate, your Honor, I did not research the specific issue that counsel has addressed as to the appropriate mechanism in terms of order of proof for dealing with the hearsay declaration. What we do know is that we know that the Court has statutory authority to control the order of proof. That we can be positive of. And we also know that if Thano Peratis were to have come into this courtroom, as opposed to having his testimony presented through the transcripts, that Mr. Peratis could be asked about prior inconsistent statements on the witness stand and therefore those statements could be put in front of the jury immediately during the presentation of that particular witness. Obviously we can't do that with the hearsay declarant because we are never going to be able to confront him with the prior inconsistent statements. Nevertheless, we are statutorily entitled to call a witness who can testify to those statements. What I would say to the Court is that given that the Court does have statutory authority to control the manner of proof and because the Court has in effect made a ruling or there has been a finding of unavailability, the Prosecution should be able to present those prior inconsistent statements at the same stage in the trial that we would be able to present them, if he were here live. That is immediately upon the heels of what would be his direct testimony, the reading of the transcript. Now, the other issue that is raised by what Mr. Uelmen just stated to the Court is the question of whether or not the grand jury testimony is admissible. That was not subject to both direct and cross-examination, obviously, so I'm not sure that the grand jury testimony, as opposed to the preliminary hearing, is admissible, per se, although I'm not certain whether the People would have an objection to that. I would like the opportunity to take a second look at that, or perhaps another member of our Prosecution team, to determine tactically whether we want to make that objection.
All right. We will take that up at the conclusion of Mr. MacDonell's testimony then whenever that might be, but be prepared to tell me what your position is regarding the grand jury aspect as soon as you can. Let me just make this one observation, though, about the order of proof. This witness was available to the Prosecution in their case in chief. The testimony by Mr. Peratis could have been presented, his testimony now that his recollection is X, Y and Z as far as how much blood was collected from Mr. Simpson, and then he could have been, during the direct examination, asked about prior testimony, he would have testified about how he was mistaken or whatever the offer might have been. That opportunity was available to the Prosecution. They did not avail themselves of that. Any 1202 evidence, assuming that it is admissible, will be restricted to the Prosecution's case in rebuttal.
Your Honor, we have not at this point received any statements or any offer of proof with respect to 1202, so we are completely in the dark as to whatever it is they are going to offer.
It could be rebuttal evidence that they don't have to disclose to you at this point.
One thing, so your Honor is clear on that date, we did say if he ran out of time on agent Martz, we would even call Peratis yesterday, if you recall.
KEY QUOTEI recollect, but I also wanted to say I wanted to see it one more time before we play it. My recollection is it is eight or nine minutes.
This witness was available to the Prosecution in their case in chief. The testimony by Mr. Peratis could have been presented, his testimony now that his recollection is X, Y and Z as far as how much blood was collected from Mr. Simpson... That opportunity was available to the Prosecution. They did not avail themselves of that. Any 1202 evidence, assuming that it is admissible, will be restricted to the Prosecution's case in rebuttal.
Obviously we can't do that with the hearsay declarant because we are never going to be able to confront him with the prior inconsistent statements. Nevertheless, we are statutorily entitled to call a witness who can testify to those statements.
I'm not sure that the grand jury testimony, as opposed to the preliminary hearing, is admissible, per se... I would like the opportunity to take a second look at that, or perhaps another member of our Prosecution team, to determine tactically whether we want to make that objection.
One thing, so your Honor is clear on that date, we did say if he ran out of time on agent Martz, we would even call Peratis yesterday, if you recall.