Your Honor, for the record, before Court began I provided the Court with three photographs. I have advised Mr. Shapiro as well. And I ask for a motion in limine to be heard at this time regarding the use of these three photographs with Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony. The circumstances arose as a result of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony yesterday concerning a difference of opinion he holds regarding incise wounds 1 and 2 from photograph G-37 and the time at which those wounds were inflicted. As the Court will recall, it is Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that those wounds represent control holds that were inflicted early on in the circumstances between the assailant and Mr. Goldman. Dr. Golden's testimony, which was read to Dr. Lakshmanan in front of the jury, suggested in Dr. Golden's opinion those wounds appeared to be inflicted closer to the time of death due to the absence of hemorrhage. In the course of Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony explaining a basis for his opinion that those wounds were in fact early on as control wounds, he referred to review of certain crime scene photographs. Those crime scene photographs have not been marked nor offered at any phase of the proceeding, to my knowledge, certainly not by me. They were not part of our photographic motion that the Court reviewed concerning autopsy photographs, and I believe a total of approximately five crime scene photographs. The three photographs that I provided to the Court, only two of which we were offering, your Honor, one has a glove covering the eye and upper face area of Mr. Goldman. That is one of the two we would offer.
It is for the appearance of the two superficial incise wounds. They show hemorrhage in the crime scene photographs which is the basis for Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that these are antemortem early in the relationship between the assailant and Mr. Goldman as to when they were inflicted. I will be the first to acknowledge to this Court they are nasty photographs to look at, primarily because of the blood that is surrounding the face and neck of Mr. Goldman, but it is extremely important, your Honor, extremely important where especially there is a difference of opinion between the two forensic pathologists, one of whom the Defense has indicated yesterday they intend to call, that this jury have the best available evidence on which to make a determination. Is Dr. Golden correct when he formed the view that they were inflicted at or near the time of death or is Dr. Lakshmanan correct in his view that they were inflicted early on before death as antemortem wounds? And unfortunately, your Honor, there is just no easy way for people to be presented with this evidence, but this is very probative. Of course the aspect of whether they are control wounds inflicted early on goes to the issue of premeditation and deliberation and all of the other circumstances that we posed before. But as I said, I would be the first to acknowledge that they are not pleasant paragraphs to look at, even in the scheme of a series of photographs which the Court has candidly acknowledged are unpleasant to look at. I think to some degree this jury is at least steeled to this type of photograph, and it would be my suggestion--I am not anticipating, if the Court allows me to use the two photographs we have proposed, to have them presented at close range to the jurors. I would rather have Dr. Lakshmanan refer to them, perhaps even while seated at the witness stand, as the basis for part of his opinion that those early--that those two incise wounds were inflicted early on, and then have them available for the jury's consideration. I will not have them put up even on the board. I will not have them even displayed to the jury at this phase, but rather to have them available as evidence at the end for the jury's consideration. But for Dr. Lakshmanan to say, gee, I reviewed some crime scene photos, they were informative to me because they showed hemorrhage and so forth, and that is the basis of my opinion, the jury has no basis on which to Judge his interpretation, because they would not have the photographs if the Court found that the prejudicial impact outweighed--substantially outweighed the probative value. I believe these are substantially probative on this important issue where there may be a conflict between the opinions and where these photographs help to give the jury a legitimate basis on which to determine who is correct in their opinion, Dr. Golden or Dr. Lakshmanan.
Mr. Shapiro, I'm sure, has seen them, not today, so he may not know which ones they are and I will be glad to show them to him now and do whatever the Court wishes.
Your Honor, I have no problem with cropping to basically just leave the neck area that will show in context the complete neck area that is shown in the photographs. That in and of itself will narrow but not eliminate the unpleasant nature of the photographs. But again, I have to go back to Justice Gardner's observation, these ladies and gentlemen of the jury do not come from an insular world where matters of this nature are completely foreign, and certainly after six days of testimony involving, to some degree, very difficult photographs to look at, I believe they have, at least to some degree, as I use the word "Steeled"--become more comfortable as not an accurate way of describing it--but steeled as to what they are going to look at. And I believe they do understand that these are being presented to them for their informational value, and if the Court would like them cropped, I have no problem cropping them to expose basically the neck area and eliminate everything else, because I anticipate a foundation will be laid by another witness to show that they fairly and accurately show the condition of Mr. Goldman's neck at the time the bodies were examined at the scene on Bundy on June 13, 1994.
I suggest that we mark these first for identification purposes, if nothing else, at this point.
Certainly, your Honor. These go with what I believe is our board 358, so may I suggest they be marked respectively 358-A and B. If I could have the third photograph back--I'm really not offering it. It was just used to give the Court a context to compare two alternative photographs. Do you want me to take the two--
Your Honor, on the back of the first photograph I'm writing "358-A" and on the second photograph I'm writing at the bottom "358-B." And if I may, your Honor, I would take back then the third photograph which I do not intend to offer.
Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, we would strenuously object to these photographs, as we have strenuously objected to all the photographs. We believe that the Prosecution has presented a scenario to allow these photographs in and then withdrawn from that scenario once the Court admitted the photographs. The Prosecution told you, during the arguments, that these photographs would be necessary because there would be a conflict in the testimony between Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Golden and they would be necessary for Dr. Lakshmanan to point out the errors that Dr. Golden made. Now, after all the photographs have been entered, they have withdrawn Dr. Golden as a witness and are relying only on Dr. Lakshmanan who did not in any way participate in these autopsies. There are--what they have done is they have created their own issue that allowed these horrendous photographs to be displayed before the jury, and then said that is no longer an issue because they are not going to be offering testimony from Dr. Golden. What they have done, your Honor, is deliberately presented to this jury the most horrendous and horrifying photographs that one could imagine with only a desire to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury and anyone who would look at these photographs. And clearly the Court saw that was the case when you had to declare a recess last week when several members of this jury could not look at those photographs any longer and reported illness upon looking at those photographs.
Those photographs now have no value whatsoever. Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion of what took place need not be based on repeated gory photographs. Initially the only reason that they were going to be allowed was he was going to say, well, Dr. Golden looked at this injury and he is going to testify as to what that injury is and my opinion is different than his, and he is wrong and we are going to sacrifice Dr. Golden and his professional reputation because his theory doesn't fit the Prosecution's theory of this. And now you are in a position where you have admitted these photographs, they want more to be admitted with no purpose whatsoever since Dr. Golden won't be a witness. We would strenuously object and we believe that there should be sanctions against the People for presenting a theory to your Honor for entering the photographs and then after they were entered withdrawing from that theory.
May I briefly respond, your Honor? I'm always impressed with Mr. Shapiro's hyperbole. I find that the more hyperbole counsel uses the more probative and the more relevant and the more success this evidence is having in establishing for this jury a true understanding of the circumstances. The record will clearly reflect, and I know the Court remembers it quite accurately, that in offering these photographs we have made it clear that it is not a question of whether Dr. Golden testifies or not, it is an issue that Dr. Golden made a lot of mistakes and these photographs will help this jury, as they have I'm sure helped Dr. Wolf and Dr. Baden who have to go through the very same process Dr. Lakshmanan has gone through, and I hope they have spent the same amount of time that Dr. Lakshmanan has, because if they are called to testify, they will be questioned by me quite extensively, that these photographs are the best record to show what in fact happened and with a qualified forensic pathologist like Dr. Lakshmanan to give the jury an understanding of the significance of the findings seen in the photographs and the autopsy materials and also to understand what, if any, significance flows from Dr. Golden's mistakes, because Dr. Golden's mistakes are mistakes whether Dr. Golden testifies or not. And I do find it somewhat disingenuous for the Defense to be claiming that these photographs are irrelevant because of a claimed, quote, conflict in testimony which is not being presented when of course that is not what we told the Court, and then counsel stand up yesterday and says, in essence, Dr. Golden is going to be one of our first witnesses. Well, let's give the jury the truth and let's cut the hyperbole down to a minimum, if we possibly can, and let's talk about what Dr. Lakshmanan said yesterday. Mr. Shapiro didn't mention one whit of what the testimony from Dr. Lakshmanan was yesterday. Mr. Shapiro never objected when the testimony given by Dr. Golden, I believe at the grand jury concerning his interpretation of those two superficial incise wounds, was provided to the jury and for Dr. Lakshmanan to comment on as another mistake in his opinion, Dr. Lakshmanan's, Dr. Golden's opinion on those wounds, that is a mistake.
It tells us, as I have talked with Dr. Lakshmanan, that by seeing that hemorrhage, those superficial incise wounds bearing the same general appearance from the standpoint of hemorrhage as the major stab wounds which is to the left side of the neck which is a fatal wound to the jugular vein, were inflicted antemortem, before death, and would be consistent with Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that they are in fact control wounds when the perpetrator was threatening or taunting, pardon me, Mr. Goldman, following which it is clearly that Mr. Goldman, realizing the very dangerous and life threatening situation he was in, attempted to save his life and for which there has been much testimony and there will be much more testimony concerning his injuries that ultimately resulted in his death. But Mr. Shapiro never mentions any of that aspect in responding to our comments. He doesn't mention the substantive value of seeing those wounds with their hemorrhage before the bodies are washed at the Forensic Science Center. And the washing, as the Court will recall, is for the specific purpose of getting rid of the bloody appearance, so that the wound can be carefully examined by the forensic pathologist.
How do I know that the blood that is apparent here is blood from the wound itself or blood from the jugular vein, given the proximity?
I believe, and I can only make an offer of proof--and perhaps the Court might want to have Dr. Lakshmanan briefly get on the witness stand and I can do a very quick 402 examination regarding what he observes in those photos regarding those two wounds and the significance, if any, to him, or I can make an offer of proof, whichever the Court prefers.
Let's assume that there is a dispute whether or not--as to the age of those wounds. What is the real probative value one way or another?
If in fact those are antemortem wounds and support Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that they are control wounds which would be in conformity with, as the Court will recall, the demonstration where Mr. Goldman is being restrained from behind by the perpetrator who is taunting him with the knife in front of his neck and drawing the knife across to create those superficial incise wounds, that is a reflection of premeditation and deliberation, that control and those threatening type wounds, rather than at the end, which I must suggest makes no sense logically. If all hell breaks loose, for lack of a better term, in a struggle between Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator, it makes no sense logically that the perpetrator, who is engaged in inflicting all the defensive wounds and in inflicting fatal stab wounds to the abdomen and the chest and left side of the neck is then going to at some point while Mr. Goldman is disabled from moving, because you need that, carefully draw parallel superficial incise wounds along the neck. I mean, logically I would suggest to the jury, if I were arguing this case, that that would make no sense whatsoever and would be another reason why Dr. Golden's opinion would not make sense, would not stand the scrutiny of scientific investigation. But from the standpoint of medical evidence, besides logic--
Mr. Kelberg, isn't the real issue here what was the cause of death and is it possible for one person to have committed both of these killings? Isn't that the bottom line here?
It is part of the bottom line. One person committing, yes, the fact that these are control superficial incise wounds at the beginning with a taunting and so forth, I think does reflect that it is a single killer who has knocked Nicole Brown Simpson into a dazed or potentially even unconscious state from a concussion, as the Court will recall, to the contusion to the head and now is dealing with Mr. Goldman and dealing with Mr. Goldman with a threatening, taunting control type series, two superficial incise wounds and going to the issue of premeditation and deliberation. But those are not the only issues in this case. It is not just cause and whether one perpetrator did these things, because premeditation and deliberation is built along a process that is not necessarily related to the number of people involved, but actually to the manner of the killing itself. And cause of death, as the Court knows, is a narrow area dealing with the manner which a murder takes place and this is a matter that deals more with the manner than with the cause. I don't think anybody disputes the cause, I mean, having knows these two people bled to death from sharp force injuries, but if that were the only issue, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have taken up six days or seven days of this Court's time, the jury's time, Defense counsel's time. We are here because there is a lot more to this than cause of death and this concept of one perpetrator.
Your Honor, this appears to be an unprecedented marathon to present evidence that is readily susceptible of reading from a crystal ball, and we have spent seven days, the People want to spend two more days, to criticize what they say is a search for the truth. And that is, there is not one medical examiner or forensic pathologist in the world who would tell you that you are better off looking at photographs to come to an opinion than you are at doing an actual autopsy and looking for evidence. The People love to continue to talk and press and go into minutia and detail that most people who are looking at this case are mystified by, and I think it is time for your Honor to step in and say the jury has enough evidence on the real issues at hand, limit the issues, limit the testimony, and let's, if the real intent is to move this case on and to get at the truth, get at the truth, and that would be by calling the person who did the autopsy, not by somebody who is trying to now look to the past in some mystifying way and reconstruct in their mind what might have happened. It is pure guesswork at its best. Thank you.
No. I think I've heard enough. All right. The Court will sustain the objection to 358-A. I will overrule the objection to 358-B. I will direct that it be cropped to depict only the area between the gloved hands.
KEY QUOTEAll right. Your Honor, if I could get scissors--in fact, actually I think we have scissors. Can I give the Court scissors and the Court crop it in the manner--
And your Honor, may I ask that the two dismembered portions of the photograph be kept, however, as part of the exhibit in the event of the conviction and review on appeal, so that the Court will understand--Court of Appeal, that is--the discretion exercised by this Court in excising those two portions?
And your Honor, this one is not marked because the portion that the Court excised had the writing. May I mark this as 358-B?
I will be the first to acknowledge to this Court they are nasty photographs to look at, primarily because of the blood that is surrounding the face and neck of Mr. Goldman, but it is extremely important, your Honor, extremely important where especially there is a difference of opinion between the two forensic pathologists
What they have done, your Honor, is deliberately presented to this jury the most horrendous and horrifying photographs that one could imagine with only a desire to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury and anyone who would look at these photographs.
I'm always impressed with Mr. Shapiro's hyperbole. I find that the more hyperbole counsel uses the more probative and the more relevant and the more success this evidence is having in establishing for this jury a true understanding of the circumstances.
I think I've heard enough. All right. The Court will sustain the objection to 358-A. I will overrule the objection to 358-B. I will direct that it be cropped to depict only the area between the gloved hands.
there is not one medical examiner or forensic pathologist in the world who would tell you that you are better off looking at photographs to come to an opinion than you are at doing an actual autopsy