ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN.
YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT ASKED TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING.
ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WOULD THE COURT ASSIST US? IN THE TESTIMONY OF SEVERAL WITNESSES HAS BEEN MENTION OF THE HOMICIDE MANUAL UPDATED AND ALSO THE LAPD MANUAL. IF THE COURT WILL RECALL, AT ONE TIME WE HAD AN LAPD MANUAL HERE THAT WAS SENT BACK. WOULD THE COURT ASSIST, I THINK PERHAPS BOTH SIDES, IN GETTING A MANUAL, BOTH MANUALS HERE TODAY, IF POSSIBLE?
YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY EXTENDING MY SINCERE APOLOGY, VERY SINCERE APOLOGY FOR BEING LATE THIS MORNING. I GOT ON THE FREEWAY AND DIDN'T MOVE FOR HALF AN HOUR, BUT YOU KNOW, I LEFT EARLY THINKING THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME, BUT IT UNFORTUNATELY WASN'T AND I DO DEEPLY APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT FOR BEING LATE THIS MORNING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER THAT THE COURT WANTED ME TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING, FIRST OF ALL, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT, FIRST OF ALL, IN DIRECT, THAT THE WITNESS DID NOT TESTIFY TO ANY MATTERS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR ANY MATTERS THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO VALID IMPEACHMENT FROM THAT SEARCH WARRANT.
EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY I SUGGEST -- EXCUSE ME, MARCIA. MAY I SUGGEST THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER BE EXCUSED FROM THIS ARGUMENT?
YES. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU STEP OUT AND WAIT OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY, PLEASE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE ISSUE IS WHAT RELEVANCE DO THESE STATEMENTS HAVE. UNDER 352 THEY ARE -- CLEARLY IT IS GOING TO BE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME TO ADMIT THEM, NO. 1 THING, AS A BROAD GENERAL ISSUE. IF THE DEFENDANT --
BECAUSE IF THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO GO INTO THIS WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT ON THE TWO MATTERS THAT WERE INDICATED YESTERDAY IN CHAMBERS, THEN THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED PROPERLY TO GO INTO ALL OF THE MATTERS IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WERE CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL WIND UP DOING IS ESSENTIALLY LITIGATING VALIDITY OF THE WARRANT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. THE WARRANT AND ITS AVERMENTS ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE JURY, AS IS STATED IN 1538.5(M). THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LITIGATING THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH WARRANT IS TO DETERMINE IF THE WARRANT STATES PROBABLE CAUSE. PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS ARE NOT THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY; THEY ARE THE PROVINCE OF THE JUDGE, AND THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE ITS RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE STATEMENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT TO BE USED AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY THAT IT CAN BE ATTACHED TO. THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS WHAT WE HAVE TO BASE THE DETERMINATION OF PRIOR INCONSISTENCY ON. THERE HAVE BEEN NO STATEMENTS. IF THERE HAS BEEN NO FOUNDATION AT THIS TIME TO THIS POINT THAT WOULD PERMIT FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT STATEMENTS AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, THEN IN THAT CASE THE ANALYSIS HAS TO BE A PEOPLE VERSUS WHEELER, OTHER BAD ACT ANALYSIS AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE STATEMENTS AMOUNT TO ACTS OF MORAL TURPITUDE. WE SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY STATE THAT THEY AMOUNT TO THAT, AND IN FACT, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE COURT ITSELF FOUND, NO. 1, THAT EVEN THOUGH THESE WERE MISSTATEMENTS, THEY WERE NOT MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS SUCH THAT THEY WOULD INVALIDATE THE WARRANT AS A WHOLE. THAT MAKES THEM -- THE COURT, IN ESSENCE, HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THESE ARE COLLATERAL MATTERS BECAUSE THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO CHICAGO AND THE HUMAN BLOOD ON THE BRONCO DOOR ARE NEITHER OF THEM MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS. THE COURT FOUND RECKLESS DISREGARD WITH RESPECT TO THOSE STATEMENTS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, FOUND THAT THE WARRANT WAS SUFFICIENT AND DID STATE PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT NEVER DID THE COURT FIND THEM TO BE MATERIAL. THAT IN ITSELF INDICATES THE COLLATERAL NATURE OF THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT AND THAT IS REALLY THE ESSENCE AND THE FOCUS OF THE PEOPLE'S ARGUMENT HERE, IS THAT WE HAVE COUNSEL ATTEMPTING TO OPEN HIS OWN DOOR, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS-EXAMINING ON COLLATERAL MATTERS. PEOPLE VERSUS REYES, 62 CAL.APP.3D AT 53 -- 53 AT PAGE 62, PEOPLE VERSUS TAYLOR, 8 CAL.3D 174 AND PEOPLE VERSUS LAVERGNE, L-A-V-E-R-G-N-E, 4 CAL.3D 735, ALL OF WHICH INDICATE THAT A PARTY MAY NOT CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS ON COLLATERAL MATTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELICITING SOMETHING TO BE CONTRADICTED, WHICH IS WHAT COUNSEL IN THIS CASE PROPOSES TO DO. WHAT IS STATED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT IS RELEVANT TO WHAT THE WITNESS -- IS RELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.
BUT ISN'T WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IS MR. SHAPIRO WILL ASK DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID YOU MAKE ANY MISTAKES IN THAT SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND HE WILL PROBABLY SAY, YES, I DID, I MADE TWO MISTAKES OR THREE MISTAKES, X, Y AND Z, AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT, WON'T IT?
WELL, NO. HE MAY ASK THAT. I WOULD OBJECT AS IRRELEVANT. WHAT HE PUTS IN -- WHAT IS PUT INTO A SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT IS NOT RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR A JURY TO HEAR.
BUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER YESTERDAY TESTIFIED THAT HE DID TAKE SOME NOTES AND HE INCLUDED IN THAT DEFINITION THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT DAY, IF YOU RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.
I RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY, BUT WHAT I RECOLLECT IS THAT THAT WAS MR. SHAPIRO'S CHARACTERIZATION AND NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S, AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT AS I RECALL, DETECTIVE VANNATTER RESISTED THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE IT REALLY DID NOT COMPORT WITH WHAT HIS DEFINITION OF NOTES WERE. AND THE -- MR. SHAPIRO KEPT INSISTING THAT IT WAS PART OF HIS NOTES, BUT THAT WAS HIS CHARACTERIZATION, NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S. I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER ADOPTED BY HIM. IT WAS PART OF THE THINGS THAT HE WROTE IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, OF THE MANY WRITINGS THAT HE HAS DONE IN THIS CASE WITH THE CHRONOLOGICAL LOG, ET CETERA, BUT I DO NOT RECALL THE WITNESS ADOPTING THAT DEFINITION. THAT WAS ONE -- THOSE WERE WORDS PUT IN HIS MOUTH BY MR. SHAPIRO.
LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT THAT YOU RAISE, WHICH IS THE COLLATERAL NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT OR THE EVIDENCE, LET'S NOT EVEN CALL IT IMPEACHMENT AT THIS POINT. YOU INDICATE THAT THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT AND SHOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS CORRECT.
TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S TESTIMONY. DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD? MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538 IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.
THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE -- BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
WITH RESPECT, HOWEVER, TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, NOW WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO ISSUES OF WHAT EXACT INFORMATION WAS IMPARTED TO THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE TO CATHY RANDA AND WHAT INFORMATION EXACTLY WAS IMPARTED FROM THAT OFFICER TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IF ANY, AND WHERE DETECTIVE -- WHAT WITNESSES TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO CAUSE HIM TO LEAD HIM TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO NOW CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE NOT JUST THE -- OF COURSE THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ELICIT AS BEING INCORRECT, BUT THEN TO BOLSTER HIS CREDIBILITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF THE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT A SLOPPY JOB, BUT TO ESTABLISH ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENT. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF HE IS WRITING A WARRANT THAT CONTAINS SUCH ABUNDANT PROBABLE CAUSE, WHY JEOPARDIZE IT BY DELIBERATELY MISSTATING SOMETHING TO MISLEAD A MAGISTRATE, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ARGUING, THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD. OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE SEARCH WARRANT WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT, AND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ARGUABLY INCORRECT, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, ALTHOUGH FACTUALLY INCORRECT, AS WE LATER DETERMINED, THE ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AT THE TIME AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON THAT THIS IS COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. THIS GOES TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. THIS IS WHAT HE BELIEVED BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT HE HAD. THAT IT LATER DEVELOPED THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT DOES NOT IMPEACH HIS VERACITY AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENT. IT SIMPLY GOES TO SHOW THAT LATER INVESTIGATION DISPROVED SOME ASPECT OF WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. SO IT DOESN'T EVEN IMPEACH WITH RESPECT TO HIS CREDIBILITY. IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. HOW IS THAT VALID IMPEACHMENT? HOW IS THAT FAIR IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN WE GET INTO 352 ISSUES AND UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME IN WHICH HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION HE HAD, WHERE HE GOT IT, WHAT LED HIM TO THAT CONCLUSION AND CALL THE WITNESS BACK TO THE WITNESS STAND AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY TOLD HIM AND WHY THEY TOLD HIM THAT AND AT WHAT POINT AND THEN AT WHAT POINT IT WAS LATER DETERMINED OTHERWISE. WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN BLOOD AND ANY OTHER MISSTATEMENTS -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER ACTUALLY -- BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THAT, SO WE NOW ARE GOING TO CONVENE A MINI TRIAL AND WHAT IS TRUE AND NOT TRUE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, BASICALLY REQUIRING THE JURY TO REVIEW AN AREA THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE, AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED FULLY AND COMPLETELY AND PROPERLY UNDER THE STATUTES BEFORE THIS COURT. AND THIS COURT MADE ITS DETERMINATION, BUT WHAT COUNSEL IS NOW GOING TO DO IS REOPEN AN AREA THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE IN THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, BECAUSE AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE WILL THEN CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WRITTEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DERAIL THE TRIAL AND SPEND ANOTHER WEEK ON TESTIMONY THAT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED TODAY.
YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE CENTRAL THEMES OF THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE IS THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, AND WE ARE DEALING IN AN AREA HERE WHERE THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE AN EXTREME FINDING REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
AND THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT THIS MAN HAS STATED UNDER OATH TO A MAGISTRATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A WARRANT AND FOR ME TO EXAMINE WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE GOT THAT WARRANT. THESE ARE NOT COLLATERAL ISSUES. THESE STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO COME DIRECTLY FROM BRIAN KATO KAELIN AS TO WHAT HE TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND WILL COME DIRECTLY FROM THE VERY SKIMPY TWO PARAGRAPHS OF NOTES THAT WERE THE ONLY NOTES TAKEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BESIDES HIS RECORDATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. AND SO IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS IMPEACHABLE MATERIAL, HIGHLY RELEVANT, AND GOES TO THE ESSENCE OF WHAT OUR CASE IS ABOUT, AND THAT IS CREDIBILITY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE STRESSED FROM DAY ONE.
KEY QUOTEMR. SHAPIRO, WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS MISS CLARK'S 352 ISSUE AND HER ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL NECESSITATE A MINI TRIAL AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INVOLVED.
I THINK THIS MAY BE THE QUICKEST PART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WE HAVE SEEN IN THE TRIAL. IT WILL TAKE MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LAST TWO HOURS FROM YESTERDAY AND TODAY IN ARGUING THIS ISSUE. IT SIMPLY IS DID YOU PUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT A CHEMIST TOLD YOU THERE WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE CAR? WE KNOW A PRESUMPTIVE TEST MEANS ONLY THAT IT COULD BE BLOOD, BUT IT COULD BE OTHER SUBSTANCES.
SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU COULD DO THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THESE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?
I CAN'T SAY FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER. AS YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER OF 26 YEARS AND HE DOES NOT LIKE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER A QUESTION, SO IF HE DIRECTLY ANSWERED YES OR NO --
I CAN DO IT IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT AS YOU KNOW, CROSS-EXAMINATION DEPENDS ON THE ANSWERS. IF HE IS HONEST AND SAYS, YES OR NO, AND YES, I MADE -- I MADE A MISTAKE, OR YES, I MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION, IT CAN BE VERY QUICK. BUT IF HE IS NOT AS FORTHCOMING, THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW HIM WHAT HE WROTE, HOW HE DID IT BEFORE AND THE INFORMATION HE HAD AT HAND. IN ANY EVENT, IT WILL NOT BE A LENGTHY PART OF THE EXAMINATION.
MAY I ASK -- MAKE ONE FURTHER POINT, YOUR HONOR? I'M GETTING THE DISTINCTIVE IMPRESSION FROM COUNSEL THAT THERE IS SOME BELIEF ON THIS SIDE OF COUNSEL TABLE THAT THEY CAN ADMIT THE COURT'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THEIR QUESTIONING OF THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK THE COURT DISAGREES.
NO, I AGREE WITH THAT. HOW IT IS PHRASED IS VERY CAREFUL. DID YOU SAY -- AS I UNDERSTAND MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT, I THINK THE GIST OF WHAT THE QUESTION WILL BE IS DID YOU INDICATE TO THE MAGISTRATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A TEST FOR HUMAN BLOOD? YES OR NO. DID YOU INDICATE TO THE MAGISTRATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TRIP TO CHICAGO WAS UNANTICIPATED? YES OR NO. THINKING ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT, I COULD DO THIS IN FOUR QUESTIONS.
IT COULD BE, BUT IT WON'T BE, AND ONCE HE GETS INTO THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RESPOND.
I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR ASKING THE QUESTIONING ON THE SEARCH WARRANT AND TELLING THE JURY WHAT YOUR FINDINGS WERE.
RIGHT. WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING TO THE COURT IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IT WILL BE -- I DON'T THINK THAT IF PERMITTED TO DO THIS QUESTIONING COUNSEL WILL CONCLUDE IT QUITE THAT EXPEDITIOUSLY, AND ONE HAS TO ALSO CONSIDER THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD THEN BE ENTITLED TO COUNTER WITH ALL OF THE CORRECT STATEMENTS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE DONE PROPERLY IN THAT SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT.
IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF TIME WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP SPENDING ON AN ISSUE THAT IS CLEARLY COLLATERAL. OKAY. I HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT ARGUMENT AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE IT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, BUT I DO WISH THAT THE COURT WOULD INSTRUCT COUNSEL NOT TO QUESTION THE WITNESS ON YOUR HONOR'S RULINGS WITH RESPECT TO THIS WARRANT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, MISS CLARK, I AM GOING TO ALLOW LIMITED QUESTIONING OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AS TO THOSE TWO STATEMENTS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, AND AS I HAVE INDICATED TO COUNSEL, IT IS A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO ALLOW IN THAT AREA. LIKEWISE, THE REDIRECT AS TO REHABILITATION WILL BE SOMEWHAT LIMITED AS WELL ALSO. MR. SHAPIRO, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO MENTION IN THIS ANY -- NOT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT CALL FOR LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OR THAT INDICATE THE COURT'S PREVIOUS RULING OR FINDINGS WITH REGARDS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT, WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?
WE ARE GOING TO NOW CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE NOT JUST THE -- OF COURSE THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ELICIT AS BEING INCORRECT, BUT THEN TO BOLSTER HIS CREDIBILITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF THE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT THIS MAN HAS STATED UNDER OATH TO A MAGISTRATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A WARRANT AND FOR ME TO EXAMINE WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE GOT THAT WARRANT.
THINKING ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT, I COULD DO THIS IN FOUR QUESTIONS.
IN THE TALMUD COURTS THERE ARE NO LAWYERS; IT IS JUDGE ASKING QUESTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO.