Sidebar

📄 Sidebar — Thursday, June 1, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\1\SIDEBAR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 86 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Gary Sims (part 1) Redirect examination of Gary Sims (part 2) ▶

Date: Thursday, June 1, 1995 • Utterances: 18

A sidebar conference during the criminal trial where Judge Ito asked prosecutor Harmon to clarify the scope of his questioning regarding DNA analyst Matheson's knowledge of prior LAPD serology testing on the sock. Scheck objected that Harmon was trying to elicit hearsay communications after similar objections had previously been sustained during cross-examination. Ito resolved the dispute by limiting the questioning to whether Matheson was aware of LAPD testing on the sock and whether he could identify stain locations by looking at it.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Harmon, where are you going with this?

# 3 MR. HARMON:

This relates to whether or not things were visible and how they were visible. Matheson tells them I've already typed one stain that is consistent with Nicole so he knows before he even gets them that there is blood on there and this relates to the show and tell that Mr. Scheck did yesterday because--I mean, I can ask it in a different way that says did he tell you anything that helped you focus on it? Yes. What was that?

# 4 THE COURT:

Uh-huh.

# 5 MR. HARMON:

Because the first stains are only noticeable because there are circles and arrows pointing to them and it is the whole sequence about whether or not the stains were visible.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, I have no objection to him calling attention to the circles and arrows, but he was cross-examining this witness and began to ask him about what communications he had with LAPD about cut-outs and blood on the glove and the sock and everything else. Mr. Harmon was the one that was objecting to hearsay and all those objections were sustained.

# 7 MR. HARMON:

That was before the show and tell yesterday.

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

Oh, no.

# 9 MR. HARMON:

About the visibility on it.

# 10 MR. SCHECK:

I think what is relevant here is what you can see and Mr. Matheson has testified about what he could see and when you can see it, and I think the testimony should be restricted to that. I understand he wants to say that there was an item--I have no objection to him eliciting from the witness did you know that LAPD performed conventional serology before you received the sock and did you see marks on the socks, that is fair game, but to get into this conversation is unfair.

# 11 MR. HARMON:

That is what is in the conversation.

# 12 THE COURT:

You can ask him if he was aware of LAPD testing on the sock and where.

KEY QUOTE

# 13 MR. HARMON:

Okay.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

Okay.

# 15 THE COURT:

And by looking at the sock could you tell where it was.

# 16 MR. COCHRAN:

While we are up here, if--I understand that neither one of them--off the record if we can.

# 17 THE COURT:

Off the record.

# 18 (Discussion held off the record.)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Rockne Harmon

The first stains are only noticeable because there are circles and arrows pointing to them and it is the whole sequence about whether or not the stains were visible.

Harmon reveals the prosecution's theory: that Matheson's prior knowledge from LAPD guided where he looked on the sock, undermining defense claims that stains were planted or invisible.

Barry Scheck

Mr. Harmon was the one that was objecting to hearsay and all those objections were sustained.

Scheck catches Harmon in an apparent inconsistency — using the same type of evidence on redirect that Harmon himself had blocked on cross-examination.

Lance A. Ito

You can ask him if he was aware of LAPD testing on the sock and where. And by looking at the sock could you tell where it was.

Ito's narrow ruling limits the redirect to visual observation and general awareness, excluding the specific hearsay communications Harmon sought.

Evidence (2)

Informal

The sock — specifically stains on it that were circled and arrowed in LAPD documentation

discussed

Informal

LAPD conventional serology testing performed on the sock prior to Matheson receiving it

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Rockne Harmon

Scheck accused Harmon of hypocrisy — Harmon had successfully objected to hearsay about sock communications during cross-examination but was now trying to elicit the same type of testimony on redirect. Harmon countered that Scheck's 'show and tell' the previous day changed the evidentiary landscape.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran requested that further discussion go off the record, which Ito granted.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Greg Matheson

prior knowledge bias

Harmon sought to show that Matheson knew stains were present on the sock before he examined it (because LAPD told him), potentially undermining defense claims that stains were imperceptible or planted after the fact.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 6258 • 18 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103