In light of the fact that the performance of Dr. Golden is going to be addressed by this witness, we would like to have available immediately all of his review records done by Dr. Lakshmanan. It's our understanding that the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner is required under their manual to periodically review and evaluate the performance of the doctors, so we would like to get that for purposes of cross-examination, as well as evaluate their ability to estimate the time of death and their ability to perform their duties and to testify. There's a form that is sent out. I understand that form is also sent out to Prosecutors to have a review sent back to the Coroner. At least there's a form for that in their manual. I would also like that information if it's available. And I don't know that they keep such records for others.
Your Honor, it seems to me these are personnel records, and I believe the appropriate way to handle it would be to inquire of the Coroner's office. And if there is a legal basis to object to that, I think it should be done in that manner.
Why don't you do this. Why don't you advise Dr. Lakshmanan that he should expect an SDT for these records and get it started.
It may be even quicker if you could ask him to bring them to Court and review them in camera, see if--
I don't think that's appropriate. I think he should have the County counsel present with him.
You asked us to respond to the other thing about page 4, this jury instruction, Marcia and I. I would like to take two subjects up first. We can do it on the record or however you want to or up here.
Number two, you had asked us to respond by June 2nd, let you know what our thought is on this, and I would just like to address that briefly if I could.
As to your order entitled "Sanctions" dated May 28, 1995, you proposed a jury instruction admonishing this jury, and we would ask the Court to read that instruction. And we would ask one other thing. I talked to Mr. Scheck. He feels also that the Prosecution should be precluded from arguing regarding this point. In addition, he may want to argue it a little further. And secondly, you got a copy and I think the People did also of the proposed jury instruction we wanted regarding air-tight alibi. We would ask the Court to consider giving that, and I have the language here.
I wanted to be heard, and I can't do it now obviously because I've got to go. We wanted to be heard also regarding the Court's proposed admonition to the jury, especially in light of the rough treatment Mr. Goldberg was given over a very innocuous thing. I think the jury has heard the Court admonish and basically slash and burn the Prosecution on many occasions.
No. Over very innocuous things where Defense has been given--the jury's been told about the Defense misconduct once even though misconduct has been repeatedly occurring. We already have imbalances in the way the Prosecution's been treated in the eyes of the jury. Outside the presence doesn't matter because they don't know about it. But in their presence, we've been admonished, sanctioned, yelled at and basically reprimanded at every bend and turn for innocuous things.
Well, I would like to be heard then with respect to all of these things at the appropriate time when we have a chance to do so. I think that the Court has really perhaps not been able to remember all of the times we have been sanctioned by the Court in the presence of the jury and hank's treatment very notable in that regard with respect to the--
The problem is, Mr. Goldberg related an agreement between proposing counsel and the Court.
KEY QUOTEBecause the substance of the issue concerning that agreement was so non--was so non-prejudicial, it was so non-probative of anything even at the time it happened. And we went to sidebar. Counsel was--counsel who's present now was saying, oh, well, it's really no big deal because it really was no big deal. So I mean we just think you are talking about form over substance. So if we are going to argue this, let's do that. With respect to the air-tight alibi issue, I mean, we need to be heard about that because the instruction proffered by Mr. Dershowitz is out of the ball park, and the proffer in the request by Mr. Scheck precludes us from arguing something to the jury for which they heard evidence, absolutely unconscionable.
When do you think you can have a written response filed on those two issues? I want to see a written response by Defense counsel first, and then we will--
You guys are talking at the same time. Go ahead. I'll tell you what. Why don't you both file your P&A's Friday.
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 159 pages 30299 - 30435
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Friday June 2, 1995 A.M. 30299 159
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS
Motion re modification of ruling re 30299 159 autopsy photographs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 159 30350K
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan 159 30350K
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
295 - Curriculum vitae 30351 158 of Dr. Sathyavagiswaran
296 - Photograph of 30412 158 a side view of the Coroner's van
297 - Photograph of 30414 158 a gurney and drying racks in the garage of the Coroner's office
298 - Photograph of 30418 158 a weighing scale and height device in the Coroner's office
298-A - 1-page document 30420 158 entitled "Case report" 94-05136
298-B - 1-page document 30425 158 entitled "Case report" 94-05135
In their presence, we've been admonished, sanctioned, yelled at and basically reprimanded at every bend and turn for innocuous things.
Miss Clark, your argument is about to lose a lot of credibility.
The instruction proffered by Mr. Dershowitz is out of the ball park, and the proffer in the request by Mr. Scheck precludes us from arguing something to the jury for which they heard evidence, absolutely unconscionable.
The problem is, Mr. Goldberg related an agreement between proposing counsel and the Court.