Counsel, anything we need to take up before we proceed with the next witness? Mr. Blasier.
Yes, your Honor. On scheduling, we submitted a letter to the Court last week regarding Dr. Weir's testimony and what we proposed that is we have the 402 hearing on Thursday and the testimony, if there is going to be testimony, on Friday morning. We won't get Dr. Weir's report until this afternoon and we also--there was a book that has been referred to that we have to get out to our experts, but we think we can work within that time frame. I discussed that with Mr. Harmon. He didn't seem to have any problems with it, but I won't speak for him.
Good morning, your Honor. That is no problem. I'm not sure what that does with the rest of our schedule, but Dr. Weir is here, so--
Good morning. The issue regarding witnesses Holmes and Redfern. Your Honor, we presented the Court with moving papers. These are two very discreet incidents that are close in time; one `94, one `92. They are highly probative. They fit well within the Court's order. As I said, we went through the third investigation, we culled those down to find those incidents which fit squarely within the Court's order. These two incidents fits squarely within the Court order that the Court has come down with and the Court's ruling. They are extremely probative. They fit within the pattern. We are attempting to cull down and pare down the evidence that we do have to present the case in a streamline form in what is upcoming, and this evidence will assist us in doing that. It is extremely probative. One is a physical assault and the other I have evidence of stalking and one a pursuit in 1992.
Mr. Gordon, your moving papers indicate that discovery was provided to the Defense and I would like to know specifically when it was that these reports were turned over to the Defense.
Just a moment, your Honor. The witness were listed on the April 27th master witness list. As for the dates that the actual reports were done, I believe it was--let me check with Mr. Armstrong and the investigators if I could, your Honor--
My understanding this regards--Mr. Darden has informed me he spoke to Mr. Cochran, if--depending on the Court's order, they should be ready to go on the witness whenever the Court does rule, but let me check on the dates for the Court.
If I can add on the issue. At the time that those reports were prepared, we were operating under the order of the Court wherein the Court ordered us to provide discovery within one day. They were turned over within one business day.
All right. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Darden advises me that these reports were made available to the Defense within one business day of the completion of the report, as per the Court's previous order.
That is my understanding. I'm outside the discovery operation. February 23rd is the date of the interviews on the Holmes matter. I believe Redfern was some time in March, but I'm checking that for the Court right now.
Which are actually two separate Court reports. The Court has got both attached. Both have a February 23rd date.
Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, with regard to these two items, I'm not clear on the dates that we got these actual reports. I will accept counsel's representation regarding that. The problem, however, your Honor, is that the Court will recall we had a rather lengthy hearing on this matter, I believe, back in January, and as I recall, on or about January 18th the Court issued a very, very lengthy ruling. We went to a lot of trouble to detail all these various discrete incidents and tell us what we could expect, what evidence would be admissible and why, what evidence will not be admissible. And now to come up at the very end of trial and have these two witnesses, specifically Holmes and Redfern, with these so-called discrete acts, I think is really unfair. We didn't have a chance to argue about these before and it puts us at a disadvantage. Now, it is true there is not much in the way of reports regarding these two witnesses and I think we now have all those reports, but this motion that details this, if the Court will recall, that I didn't actually get the motion, I don't think, until Friday, somebody handed it to me on this past Friday. I spoke to Mr. Darden this morning about it and I said that we are at a real disadvantage from an investigatory standpoint. And although the reports are short and I can read those and perhaps get ready, from an investigatory standpoint, having known the items that your Honor said would be admissible, we are ready with those. These are separate items which we have not had really a chance to investigate because it hadn't been an issue, but the problem it really raises, depending upon your Honor's ruling, although I can be ready, we would like some time to obviously sit and talk to our client about it. It hasn't been relevant--but discuss with our client and also to have our investigators take a look at this also, and that is the only--that is my indication. I think there is some question about fairness regarding this, because they had all these other issues. You counted them up. You had to do a chart to go through all of them, and we dealt with those and now we have these two and then now we are in the kind of a situation at the last minute where we have to scramble around reviewing all the reports, take time to talk to our client and then perhaps also talk to our investigators, which we have not done in that regard because it was not anticipated these witnesses would be called because they were never addressed to you.
Well, let me anticipate Mr. Gordon's argument and ask you, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gordon is going to argue that these reports were turned over in February and in March and that in April, late April, these two names were added to the Prosecution's witness list.
I will have to check with Mr. Douglas with regard to that. That may very well be true, your Honor. But again, with regard to items of domestic discord, it seems to me and it seems to us that the parameters were pretty well set by your Honor in your ruling and it was not a situation--the Court--as the Court has said so many times, we have been kind of busy in here as we go along with the evidence and we kind of anticipated we would be dealing with the witnesses that were set forth at that time. So all I'm saying is that there is an element of unfairness. I was just talking to my client about it. We have had not had a chance to discuss it and there are so many witnesses set forth on both sides, and as you know, there are over 30,000 pages now of discovery. We get discovery everyday in this case, so it makes it very difficult and that is the point we are faced with.
When you say you need additional time since this motion was served on you, as I recollect here in Court last Thursday or Friday--
Umm, gee, your Honor, may I--may I have a second to talk to my client about this? Because I need obviously to talk to him and to talk with our investigators on this point. May I have a second?
I have discussed the matter with my client and also Mr. Douglas advises me that we were able to apparently interview a couple of these witnesses over this weekend, because we want to get this case over also, your Honor, so I would ask that the Court give us a couple of days, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday. We will be ready by that time.
I think they want the opportunity--you served the motion that you were going to call these witnesses to argue the admissibility, I take it, in a 402 hearing.
And if you get a favorable ruling on one or both, you should have those witnesses available.
They are certainly going to be available. The one thing I would note to the Court is that the original 402 brought--
Excuse me just a second. Gentlemen, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Goldberg, keep it down, will you please.
Just bringing to the Court's attention and for the record the original 402 brought by the Defense we listed those incidents that were known at that time. We indicated to the Court and Defense that this investigation was continuing.
No, I recollect, and you told me that there were ongoing phone calls and information coming in all the time.
KEY QUOTEI am not surprised to hear this, but counsel is entitled, since they didn't get the motion until--
These are two very discreet incidents that are close in time; one `94, one `92. They are highly probative. They fit well within the Court's order.
I think is really unfair. We didn't have a chance to argue about these before and it puts us at a disadvantage.
There are so many witnesses set forth on both sides, and as you know, there are over 30,000 pages now of discovery. We get discovery everyday in this case, so it makes it very difficult.
I recollect, and you told me that there were ongoing phone calls and information coming in all the time.