We are over at the side bar. You guys are just bound and determined to make this a difficult day for me.
No, your Honor, but I think this is now the second time Mr. Bailey has objected and the second time that we have been given a speech and I thought--
Well, counsel, my concern is that we discussed yesterday the Court's concern about the term "Match" in whether or not that is appropriate in this particular arena, which I don't believe that it is, given the testimony that we have just heard.
The testimony I heard is that this is a--that they do use and this is what they mean by that term and he qualified it and explained it. This is the expert himself who says that the term is appropriate with the following meaning attached to it.
My objection, your Honor, and I had a discussion with him last night as to whether this 1977 FBI manual on hair and fiber is still current, it has never been replaced. The policy of the department is that there is not a match. The most can be said is "Consistent with" or "Similar" and he agreed that that was still the case. Now we've had the word "Match" used with the DNA and I think it is very inappropriate to use that same term here. It is being deliberately used to try and enhance the Prosecution's position that this is Mr. Simpson's hair and not just one that is consistent. And it is plain English. This jury knows what the word "Match" means. To abuse it in this man's testimony is very prejudicial.
That is incorrect. We are not abusing it and I want Mr. Bailey to point out to the Court where it is written in that manual that you can't use the term "Match." Mr. Deedrick--I asked Mr. Deedrick last night is this inappropriate under your guidelines?
I'm sorry. Is this appropriate under your guidelines and is this an appropriate term and do you go outside the hicks guide? And he said, "No, I do not, and my testimony is going to fit within these guidelines."
The introduction here makes it very plain of what can and cannot done. Your Honor, in his record on fibers he used the word "Match." That is a term of efficacy. Mr. Deedrick is well-known.
I don't know about well-known and I don't think personal attacks are warranted, but the expert has indicated this is an appropriate term to use with the explanation that he has given and I think he has explained very well he can say could have come from, consistent with, and that is what we mean. We mean the microscopic characteristics match and they do. I mean, that is the bottom line, your Honor. That is how he makes his conclusion, do they match, they match. Does that mean that it could only have come from this person? No. He is going to say that about 200 times on direct, that it doesn't mean it comes from only this one person. I'm going to be bringing it out repeatedly. But do the microscopic characteristics match? Yes, they do. Does that mean it could only have come from him? No, it doesn't.
All right. I'm going to sustain the objection to the use of the term "Match." Instruct your witness.
KEY QUOTEThe policy of the department is that there is not a match. The most can be said is 'Consistent with' or 'Similar' and he agreed that that was still the case. Now we've had the word 'Match' used with the DNA and I think it is very inappropriate to use that same term here.
It is plain English. This jury knows what the word 'Match' means. To abuse it in this man's testimony is very prejudicial.
Does that mean that it could only have come from this person? No. He is going to say that about 200 times on direct, that it doesn't mean it comes from only this one person.
I'm going to sustain the objection to the use of the term 'Match.' Instruct your witness.