Examination question discussion

📄 Examination question discussion — Thursday, June 8, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\8\EXAMINATION-QUESTION-DISCUSSIO.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 91 of 167

◀ Recess Direct examination of Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran (afternoon, part 5) ▶

Date: Thursday, June 8, 1995 • Lines: 9

Before the jury was brought back in, prosecutor Brian Kelberg confirmed with Judge Ito that he could proceed with an examination question by omitting the rage and motivated wording previously excluded. The judge confirmed that the objection to the modified question was overruled, allowing Kelberg to ask a modified version of the question.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

# 2 THE COURT:

Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

# 3 MR. KELBERG:

Your Honor, I'm sorry, before the jurors come out--

# 4 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 5 MR. KELBERG:

--I believe I can ask the questions from the screen with that one phrase left out, and is my understanding a correct understanding that the question without that phrase, the objection has been overruled?

KEY QUOTE

# 6 THE COURT:

That's correct.

# 7 MR. KELBERG:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 8 (Brief pause.)

# 9 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (1)

Brian Kelberg

I believe I can ask the questions from the screen with that one phrase left out, and is my understanding a correct understanding that the question without that phrase, the objection has been overruled?

Kelberg clarifies the ruling to ensure he can proceed without re-triggering the objection

Notable Exchanges (1)

Brian Kelberg•Lance A. Ito

Kelberg sought clarification on how to proceed with a question after an objection ruling, and Ito confirmed his understanding was correct.

procedural

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 6320 • 9 lines

Criminal Trial

Department 103