Sidebar: statement foundation

📄 Sidebar: statement foundation — Thursday, March 2, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\2\SIDEBAR-STATEMENT-FOUNDATION.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 29 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Rosa Maria Lopez (part 2) Cross-examination of Rosa Maria Lopez (part 3) ▶

Date: Thursday, March 2, 1995 • Utterances: 19

A brief sidebar to address the foundation required before using a statement attributed to a witness but written by defense investigator John Pavelic. Judge Ito agreed with Cochran that the prosecution needed to establish whether the witness had ever seen the document before using it for impeachment.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 2 THE COURT:

OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. OKAY. THE OBJECTION IS WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS?

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

YES.

# 4 THE COURT:

AND THE QUESTION IS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS?

# 5 MR. DARDEN:

I ASSUME HE WROTE IT BECAUSE HE CLAIMED SHE SAID IT AND THAT SHE SAID IT AT THAT TIME, SO I'M GOING TO SHOW HER THE DOCUMENT.

# 6 THE COURT:

DID YOU SAY THIS? DID YOU SAY THIS?

# 7 MR. DARDEN:

YES.

# 8 THE COURT:

DID YOU SAY THIS?

# 9 MS. CLARK:

YES.

# 10 MR. DARDEN:

THE STATEMENT IS ATTRIBUTED TO HER.

# 11 MR. COCHRAN:

BUT THE STATEMENT IS WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY ELSE AND SHE NEVER SAW IT. I THINK THERE IS SOME FOUNDATIONAL -- IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE FAIR TO THE WITNESS, THERE IS A FOUNDATION, HAS SHE EVER SEEN THIS STATEMENT OR WHATEVER.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 THE COURT:

I AGREE. THERE IS A COUPLE OF FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK.

# 13 MR. DARDEN:

SO DID MR. PAVELIC CREATE THIS ON HIS OWN OR WHAT?

# 14 MR. COCHRAN:

HE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, SO I WANT HIM TO USE THE REGULAR RULES THAT WE LEARNED IN LAW SCHOOL.

KEY QUOTE

# 15 THE COURT:

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THOSE KIND OF COMMENTS TODAY. WE WILL MOVE ON FROM THE LAW SCHOOL COMMENTS. JUST A COUPLE MORE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK HE IS ENTITLED TO GO INTO IT SINCE IT IS ATTRIBUTED TO HER.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 MR. DARDEN:

OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO GO ALL AFTERNOON, CORRECT?

# 17 THE COURT:

I HOPE WE ARE GOING TO GO UNTIL WE FINISH.

# 18 MR. DARDEN:

OKAY. THANK YOU.

# 19 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Johnnie Cochran

THE STATEMENT IS WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY ELSE AND SHE NEVER SAW IT. I THINK THERE IS SOME FOUNDATIONAL -- IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE FAIR TO THE WITNESS, THERE IS A FOUNDATION, HAS SHE EVER SEEN THIS STATEMENT OR WHATEVER.

Cochran successfully argues that a third-party document attributed to the witness requires foundational questions before it can be used for impeachment.

Johnnie Cochran

HE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, SO I WANT HIM TO USE THE REGULAR RULES THAT WE LEARNED IN LAW SCHOOL.

A dig at Darden's procedural shortcut, prompting a rebuke from the judge.

Lance A. Ito

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THOSE KIND OF COMMENTS TODAY. WE WILL MOVE ON FROM THE LAW SCHOOL COMMENTS.

Ito shuts down Cochran's sarcasm, signaling irritation with courtroom gamesmanship.

Evidence (1)

Informal

A statement attributed to the witness, written by defense investigator John Pavelic

discussed — prosecution seeking to use for impeachment; foundation challenge raised

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran objects to Darden's lack of foundation for the Pavelic document; Ito agrees and orders additional foundational questions before proceeding.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran's 'law school' jab at Darden draws a mild rebuke from Ito, who had apparently heard similar comments earlier in the day.

tense

Light Moments (1)

Johnnie Cochran

Cochran quips that Darden 'went to law school' and should follow the rules they learned there, prompting Ito to shut it down as one too many such comments that day.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ unnamed witness

prior inconsistent statement via Pavelic document

Darden attempting to impeach a witness using a statement attributed to her but authored by defense investigator John Pavelic; judge requires foundation be laid first.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 5104 • 19 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103