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 • Utterances: 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 a specific phrase that had been objected to. The judge confirmed the objection on that phrase had been 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 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103