Sidebar: Dr. Thompson's letter

📄 Sidebar: Dr. Thompson's letter — Friday, June 23, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\23\SIDEBAR-DR-THOMPSON-S-LETTER.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 102 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Dr. Bruce Weir (part 3) Cross-examination of Dr. Bruce Weir (part 4) ▶

Date: Friday, June 23, 1995 • Utterances: 10

At sidebar, Judge Ito ruled on the admissibility of a letter attributed to Dr. Thompson. Defense attorney Neufeld argued the letter was distinguishable from a prior ruling because the current witness had reviewed it since November, but Ito noted the letter was unsigned and sustained the objection on hearsay and Evidence Code 352 grounds.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. We're over at sidebar. Counsel, do you recollect my ruling on this letter the last time?

# 3 MR. NEUFELD:

Your ruling on the letter last time was because Robin Cotton was not familiar with it. This letter was actually given to him back in November. He reviewed it. He's very aware of it, knows who signed it. That's the difference.

# 4 THE COURT:

It's not signed.

# 5 MR. NEUFELD:

What?

# 6 THE COURT:

It's not a signed letter, counsel.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. NEUFELD:

It doesn't have the signature, but let him say that he does not believe that these people--I'm not going into the contents of the letter yet.

# 8 THE COURT:

All right. I'm sustaining the objection to the letter both on hearsay and 352 grounds.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 MR. NEUFELD:

Your Honor, then I would ask, can I--what I would like to do--

# 10 THE COURT:

Counsel, we've already gone through this letter.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Lance A. Ito

It's not a signed letter, counsel.

Cuts to the core deficiency of the exhibit — lack of authentication — which undermines Neufeld's argument that the witness's familiarity with it cures the prior ruling.

Lance A. Ito

I'm sustaining the objection to the letter both on hearsay and 352 grounds.

Double-grounds the exclusion, making it harder to challenge on appeal.

Peter Neufeld

This letter was actually given to him back in November. He reviewed it. He's very aware of it, knows who signed it. That's the difference.

Neufeld's argument turns on witness familiarity rather than the document's admissibility, which Ito quickly deflates.

Evidence (1)

Informal

An unsigned letter from or related to Dr. Thompson, previously ruled inadmissible when Robin Cotton was on the stand

challenged, excluded

Notable Exchanges (1)

Peter Neufeld•Lance A. Ito

Neufeld tries to distinguish the prior ruling by emphasizing the current witness reviewed the letter in November; Ito immediately counters that the letter is unsigned, cutting off the authentication argument.

strategic, deflating

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 6535 • 10 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103