Your Honor, we would object to the propriety of the hypothetical that's been proffered in that it clearly is saying, assume Mr. Simpson did this, and that is expressing an opinion of counsel. It is not based on any evidence and it has no relevance to the hypothetical whatsoever.
Your Honor, if the Court looks at case such as People versus Phillips, which is I think 121 or 122 Cal. App. 3D., regarding hypothetical questions asked of experts regarding whether the Defendant could have done certain things, in this case, a murder of a child, the Court will find that there is no impropriety in doing so. These are hypothetical circumstances. Mr. Simpson's name has not been used. There are inferences within the record from which the jury can find they exist, and so each of the circumstances of this hypothetical--and the doctor is being asked assuming that these hypothetical circumstances are true, how long this struggle may have taken.
Yes. There is no evidence whatsoever that this was done by one person. His opinion is, it could have been. His opinion is, it also could not have been. So far, the doctor's testimony cannot exclude any human being on the face of the earth who is capable of holding a knife and committing these acts. And there is no evidence of motivation or rage. In fact, just the opposite. The evidence that we showed of Mr. Simpson on the video shows a very calm individual.
Why don't you take out the "Rage" part of it. But I think there is evidence in the record that would support--if you believe the blood evidence, that would support an inference that it's the Defendant at the scene. There's also a single set of footprints that would support the inference that there was only one assailant involved. So I think there's enough facts in the record that would support Mr. Kelberg's hypothetical. But I do find the "Rage" part of it to be not supported by the record at this point.
Your Honor, could I ask the reporter to read the hypothetical back and eliminate the reference to the "rage"? Because if I try and reframe the question, being human, I will not get it reframed in an identical fashion with the one exception of the Court's ruling. And I believe it would be a better way.
To comply with the Court's--if the reporter can in fact read it back without that part.
Let me have--we are charging first degree murder. Leave the "motivated" out of there. I was just asking Mrs. Robertson to check with 165 because he was coughing and wiping his eyes, and I just want to make sure--
So far, the doctor's testimony cannot exclude any human being on the face of the earth who is capable of holding a knife and committing these acts.
If you believe the blood evidence, that would support an inference that it's the Defendant at the scene. There's also a single set of footprints that would support the inference that there was only one assailant involved.
If I try and reframe the question, being human, I will not get it reframed in an identical fashion with the one exception of the Court's ruling.