Well, you ruled that the experiments that he did on June 6th were inadmissible because they don't meet the Bonin criteria. What I have to do is not rely on that experiment at all, but rather elicit through proper foundation that he has forty years of experience in all of the institutes that he runs doing drying times to all different types of fabrics and he, through forty years of doing these drying time tests with the students and in his institutes, he has the expertise to give an opinion about the drying time of blood on this sock. That is exactly the same thing, if you will, you recalled when Deedrick testified, when you wouldn't allow him to testify about what he learned in the report, but he was allowed to rely on whatever independent information he had prior to--
I'm sorry. On other independent information he had as an expert in the field prior to the time of producing the report in this case. What we want to do with this witness is absolutely no different than that. He is not going to mention the experiment of June 6th. He is simply going to rely on this forty years' experience. And I think, your Honor, is--frankly, I will just ask those questions, and if she wants to object as to lack of foundation, I think you will decide that there is more than ample foundation. I'm not going to ask any of the key questions until I lay the proper foundation and you can rule at that time.
Your Honor, this is so--I don't know where counsel gets these ideas. First of all, it bears no relation to what Mr. Deedrick was testifying to. This is even worse than the sock drying experiment, what counsel proposes to do here. In the sock drying experiment there was at least some effort, albeit insufficient, wholly inadequate, to duplicate the conditions, but the fact that this witness has observed other times when other fabrics dried under other conditions that have no bearing on this case is so irrelevant and preposterous that it is not relevant to the testimony or to the evidence in this case. What counsel is now proposing to do is get in is expertise to say what he couldn't do with an experiment that at least attempted to duplicate the conditions. And it is not the same as Mr. Deedrick because in Mr. Deedrick's case his testimony was excluded with respect to the report because of a discovery violation, not because it was irrelevant, which was the problem with the sock drying experiment. His testimony then was permitted to go as far as his expertise went and stopped at a point when he did the independent investigation for which there was a discovery violation. We are talking apples and watermelons here; not even apples and oranges. The specious reasoning of counsel would permit this witness to testify to almost anything that he has ever seen in his life and somehow try and relate it to the very material involved in this case.
Furthermore, your Honor, if counsel is permitted to question the witness and wait for me to object, then counsel by his questioning intends to get in front of the jury what he cannot do through the sock experiment and it is entirely improper in light of the Court's obviously correct ruling concerning the experiment.
All right. I think your objection at this point, Miss Clark, is premature. I haven't heard what the foundation is. But Mr. Neufeld, given the Court's previous ruling regarding drying times, I'm very skeptical.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, the problem is that if he continues to question in front of the jury, can we do it outside the presence then?
Just also bear in mind when I didn't even ask about the experiment on June 6th I said it was more in the experiment of an actual expert and it was not the actual conditions it was something that you did at that moment, and I think you correctly ruled it was inadmissible.
How could he possibly lay a foundation saying he used these kind of materials when he didn't do it in the experiment?
The object is premature because the question hasn't been asked yet. I indicated I'm very skeptical that the foundation is going to be there.
We are talking apples and watermelons here; not even apples and oranges.
He is simply going to rely on this forty years' experience. And I think, your Honor, is--frankly, I will just ask those questions, and if she wants to object as to lack of foundation, I think you will decide that there is more than ample foundation.
I think your objection at this point, Miss Clark, is premature. I haven't heard what the foundation is. But Mr. Neufeld, given the Court's previous ruling regarding drying times, I'm very skeptical.
The specious reasoning of counsel would permit this witness to testify to almost anything that he has ever seen in his life and somehow try and relate it to the very material involved in this case.