Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Mr. Harmon, have we gotten set up?
Yes, your Honor. And I just want to explain the order I will do things. We are going to go through some new Bronco results, some new sock results and some new Bundy results, and then we'll take all the boards down. And I have eight autorads. I'm going to show three of them on the elmo and capture three of those and then when we are done with I will have all of them marked and then we've got the big light box back in the hallway.
The monster, so I want to put all eight of them up there and afford the jury an opportunity to review them and then we will be done.
Let me ask Mr. Fairtlough to pull the Bronco easel back, because it blocks the view of juror no. 7. The witness on the witness stand cannot be seen by juror no. 7, so why don't you take it down. Let's bring the jurors in and then you can bring it back up.
Your Honor, I do--to be frank, I don't understand why we need the monster. There is--we are more than willing to stipulate that the bands align. You can show them on the elmo. I don't think that there is any reason to go through that again, particularly since these are cumulative results on material that we have already been over, so I think that there reaches a point where there is more prejudice here than probative value in terms of the number of times that you can show the same material again and again to the jury in an effort to make it seem like it is more than it is.
It may be cumulative in terms of the overwhelming amount of DNA evidence that we've presented. The only accumulation that we have seen is--and we have PCR results from three of these four stains. Now we have an additional PCR result on one of the stains, one of the stains there was no testing on and now we have an eight-probe match showing Mr. Simpson's blood on the back gate and Mr. Simpson's blood on sock number A. The jury has not seen this before.
That is not my point. My point is simply that it should be enough to show the autorad on the elmo of material that we've already seen autorads on. I'm not objecting that they can put in more data on the same stains. All I'm saying, it seems to me plainly cumulative to show the same exhibit again and again and have this whole parade of people looking at the autorad again. It seems to me they can show it on the elmo and put it in evidence.
I would just like to point out I'm only going to show three on the elmo. I could show all eight and it would take a lot longer than I think putting the big light box up.
All right. We will probably spend more time arguing about it than looking at it.
KEY QUOTEI think so, too. Mr. Harmon, you assure me you can present all of this in one hour, correct?
All right. You've got an hour. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
The monster?
We will probably spend more time arguing about it than looking at it.
We already have, I think.
I think that there reaches a point where there is more prejudice here than probative value in terms of the number of times that you can show the same material again and again to the jury in an effort to make it seem like it is more than it is.