📄 Sidebar (3) — Wednesday, March 29, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\29\SIDEBAR-3-.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 47 of 167

Sidebar (3)

Date: Wednesday, March 29, 1995 • Utterances: 16
Cochran requests permission to question a court's witness (a special master) about recovering a knife at Rockingham during the prosecution's case-in-chief, arguing it is relevant because the coroner compared a knife from Ross Cutlery to the victims' wounds and found consistency. Darden objects strenuously, calling the knife irrelevant since it is not the murder weapon and accusing Cochran of grandstanding. Ito sustains the objection, ruling the inquiry is out of logical order and directing Cochran to recall the witness during the defense case.
1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)
2 THE COURT:

MR. COCHRAN, WHERE ARE YOU GOING NOW?

3 MR. COCHRAN:

WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO GO IS I WOULD LIKE TO HIM ASK -- HE IS GOING TO BE AWAY ANYWAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE RECOVERY OF THE KNIFE AT ROCKINGHAM, MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS. HE IS A COURT'S WITNESS ANYWAY. ASK HIM WHERE HE RECOVERED IT AND WHEN HE RECOVERED IT AND SAVE HIM HAVING TO COME BACK.

4 MR. DARDEN:

THE REASON I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT THAT IS BECAUSE THE KNIFE IS IRRELEVANT, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, SINCE IT ISN'T THE MURDER WEAPON, BUT YOU KNOW, I KNOW HOW MR. COCHRAN LIKES TO PLAY TO THE PUBLIC ON THESE ISSUES. BUT IT EXCEEDS DIRECT, IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IT IS AN ISSUE THAT I THOUGHT WE HAD ALL AGREED THAT WE WOULD LITIGATE AT SOME FUTURE POINT. JUDGE WONG WILL BE BACK IN TOWN TUESDAY. MR. COCHRAN, HE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR DEFENSE CASE IF YOU WANT TO ATTEMPT TO PUT IN A KNIFE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.

5 MR. COCHRAN:

WELL --

6 MR. DARDEN:

IN ANY EVENT, WE STRENUOUSLY OBJECT. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER. LET HIM PUT ON A DEFENSE, JUDGE. LET HIM PUT ON THEIR OWN DEFENSE, CALL WHATEVER WITNESSES YOU THINK ARE APPROPRIATE WHEN THE TIME COMES, MR. COCHRAN.

7 MR. COCHRAN:

OKAY.

8 MR. DARDEN:

BUT DON'T TRY TO USE US.

KEY QUOTE
9 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I -- IF THEY COULD TRY NOT TO BE PERSONAL, I AM TRYING TO ADDRESS THE REMARK TO YOU, NOT TO THEM, AND WHAT I AM INDICATING TO THE COURT IS THAT THIS WILL BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME. I ASKED TO APPROACH. UNLIKE THEM, I DIDN'T ASK QUESTIONS OUT THERE. I APPROACHED THE BENCH AND ASKED YOU TO GO INTO THIS. THIS IS RELEVANT, VERY RELEVANT, BECAUSE THE SPECIAL MASTER IS APPOINTED BY YOU. AND FURTHERMORE, THERE IS GOING TO BE TESTIMONY FROM THIS CORONER. THE CORONER COMPARED THESE KNIVES, SO THEY MAY WANT TO LIMIT WHATEVER -- THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HIDING EVIDENCE, THEY MAY WANT TO LIMIT WHAT IS RELEVANT, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE CORONER TESTED THIS PARTICULAR KNIFE FROM ROSS CUTLERY AND COMPARED IT WITH THE WOUND AND FOUND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE WOUND. THE FACT THAT THEY FIND OUT NOW THAT IT WAS A THEORY THAT DIDN'T WORK DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE PART OF THIS TRIAL, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I CAN BRING OUT, WHILE HE IS HERE, THAT HE DID RECOVER A KNIFE AT SOME POINT.

HE CALLED A PARTICULAR OFFICER WHO RECOVERED THE KNIFE. WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE THAT KNIFE. AND I JUST WANT TO BRING OUT THE FACT THAT HE DID IN FACT, AS A SPECIAL MASTER, RECOVER THE KNIFE EARLIER.

10 THE COURT:

UH-HUH.

11 MR. COCHRAN:

I WILL ASK LEAVE TO MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

12 MS. CLARK:

DURING OUR CASE.

13 MR. DARDEN:

IF YOU DO THAT --

14 THE COURT:

THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE OFFER -- THE ORDER OF PROOF, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT COMPLETELY OUT OF LOGICAL ORDER TO GO INTO THOSE ISSUES NOW, SO I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. JUDGE WONG IS AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THE PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR PRESENTATION OF THE CASE. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

15 MR. COCHRAN:

BRING HIM BACK WHEN IT IS OUR PART OF THE CASE. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO ME?

16 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Christopher Darden
I KNOW HOW MR. COCHRAN LIKES TO PLAY TO THE PUBLIC ON THESE ISSUES.
Darden breaks from legal argument into a personal attack, accusing Cochran of theater rather than legitimate advocacy — prompting a sharp rebuke from Cochran.
Johnnie Cochran
THE CORONER TESTED THIS PARTICULAR KNIFE FROM ROSS CUTLERY AND COMPARED IT WITH THE WOUND AND FOUND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE WOUND. THE FACT THAT THEY FIND OUT NOW THAT IT WAS A THEORY THAT DIDN'T WORK DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE PART OF THIS TRIAL.
Cochran reveals the substantive basis for his request: the prosecution once pursued the Ross Cutlery knife as a potential murder weapon, and that history is fair game for the defense.
Christopher Darden
DON'T TRY TO USE US.
Darden's most heated line — accusing Cochran of exploiting the prosecution's witnesses and case structure to front-load defense themes.
Lance A. Ito
I THINK IT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT COMPLETELY OUT OF LOGICAL ORDER TO GO INTO THOSE ISSUES NOW, SO I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
Ito's ruling is purely procedural — he does not rule the knife irrelevant, only that its timing is improper, leaving the door open for the defense case.

Evidence (2)

Informal
Knife recovered at Rockingham by a special master
discussed — Cochran seeks to question witness about recovery; objection sustained
Informal
Knife from Ross Cutlery, previously tested by the coroner and found consistent with the victims' wounds
referenced by Cochran to establish relevance

Notable Exchanges (2)

Christopher DardenJohnnie Cochran
Darden accuses Cochran of playing to the public and trying to 'use' the prosecution's witnesses; Cochran responds by asking the court to keep things impersonal and argues the knife evidence is legitimately relevant given the coroner's prior testing.
heated
Johnnie CochranLance A. Ito
Cochran makes a detailed legal argument for why the knife is relevant and asks to treat the special master as his own witness mid-prosecution-case; Ito cuts it off on order-of-proof grounds alone.
strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Johnnie Cochran
ad hominem / motive attack
Darden characterizes Cochran's request as grandstanding for the public rather than a good-faith legal argument, framing it as an attempt to smuggle defense themes into the prosecution's case.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)
Proceeding 5501 • 16 utterances
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 MAR 29, 1995 📄 Sidebar (3)
MAR 29, 1995 KRT DvH TD