ALL RIGHT. WE ARE BACK OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, I LET YOU GO INTO THAT OTHER BUSINESS ABOUT THE TRACE EVIDENCE BECAUSE MR. COCHRAN WENT INTO THE BUSINESS ABOUT THE HAIRS.
YOU ARE RIGHT. WHAT I'M GOING AT IS THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT ISSUE AND THIS WAS FOUNDATIONAL TO THE FACT THAT WHAT WE HAD, ON JUNE 17 AT THE TIME OF FILING, WHICH THIS WAS A CENTRAL KEY THEME OF THE DEFENSE, BUT BY THE 17TH, WHEN WE FILED, WE HAD PCR RESULTS ON THE BLOOD TRAIL AT BUNDY, ON THE BRONCO, AND ON THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM.
LET ME SUGGEST THAT YOU DO THIS, THOUGH: LET ME SUGGEST THAT -- I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS MADE THAT YOU WANT TO COUNTER, BUT LET ME SUGGEST YOU DO THIS: PUT ON THAT OTHER STUFF, THEN YOU CAN BRING HIM BACK TO SAY WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU HAVE? YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND THERE IS A FOUNDATION FOR IT. WHAT DID YOU HAVE ON JUNE THE 17TH? THIS INFORMATION, THIS INFORMATION, THIS INFORMATION.
WHAT ABOUT THIS, YOUR HONOR: WHAT IF I DO THIS, BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS AVOID RECALLING WITNESSES. THIS CASE IS GOING TO GO ON FOR THE NEXT CENTURY.
NO, HE IS NOT, BUT I HATE TO HAVE TO RECALL WITNESSES WHEN WE CAN GET THIS DONE NOW. AND HERE IS A NON-HEARSAY WAY TO DO IT. LET ME ASK THE COURT FOR GUIDANCE TO THIS. IF I COULD ASK HIM AS OF JUNE 17TH WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THE CASE FOR FILING WERE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF TESTING DONE ON THIS, THIS, AND THIS?
THAT DOESN'T CALL FOR HEARSAY OR THE CONTENTS. IT GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED INTO ISSUE BY COUNSEL IN TALKING ABOUT THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT. AND THIS IS A FAIR COUNTER TO THAT WITHOUT ASKING FOR THE RESULTS OF ANY TESTS. GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND WITHOUT ADMITTING THE RESULTS. ALLOWS HIM TO EXPLAIN THAT HE WAS AWARE OF CERTAIN THINGS AT THE TIME OF JUNE THE 17TH THAT GOES COUNTER TO COUNSEL'S --
WITH REGARD TO THIS, I DID NOT GO INTO THE BLOOD ASPECT BECAUSE I WAS TOLD, AND THE COURT SUSTAINED OBJECTIONS, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS FOR THAT, IT IS HEARSAY OTHERWISE. AND I JUST OBJECT TO THE COURT GIVING GUIDANCE TO THE PROSECUTION, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER.
AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD -- THEY DON'T NEED ANY HELP. I CERTAINLY DON'T NEED ANY HELP. THE COURT JUMPED ON ME YESTERDAY BECAUSE OF WONG AND FUNG. I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, BUT I KNEW HE HAD MISTAKEN THAT. TO DO THAT IN FRONT OF THE JURY, BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT IT --
I WOULD NOT LIKE THE COURT'S INTERFERENCE. THE COURT MAY BE SENSITIVE ABOUT THAT, I KNOW. I GREW UP IN THIS AREA. I WENT TO L.A. HIGH SCHOOL, SO I KNOW A LOT ABOUT DIVERSITY, SO I TAKE UMBRAGE TO THAT. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH ME. BUT I KNEW THIS OFFICER DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF ATTITUDE AND HE TALKED TO MATHESON AND FOUND THAT, SO I AM JUST POINTING THAT OUT. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT, THEY DON'T NEED ANY HELP WITH THEIR CASE, YOUR HONOR, AND THE RULES ARE GOOD FOR BOTH SIDES AND THIS IS HEARSAY. I HAVE A THEORY OF RUSHING TO JUDGMENT RELATING TO HIM, THEN SHE CAN DEAL WITH THAT. IF SHE HAS OTHER WITNESSES, SHE CAN BRING THEM ON, AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE COURT RULED AND I THINK THAT IS FAIR.
HERE IS THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT HELPING THE PROSECUTION. I'M JUST SUGGESTING A SMOOTHER WAY TO DO THIS BECAUSE THAT IS MY JOB.
WE HAVE TWO THINGS: FIRST, YOU SAY YOU ARE OBJECTING TO HER QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT INFORMATION DID HE HAVE AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME AS HEARSAY.
YES, IT IS HEARSAY. HE SAYS HE GOES AND TALKS TO THESE PEOPLE AND PRESCRIPTION REPORTS.
WAIT, WAIT. BUT THEN YOU OBJECT TO MY SUGGESTING A WAY TO DO THIS THAT COMES AFTER THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES.
WHICH WAY WOULD YOU LIKE IT? WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LET THIS STUFF IN AS A NON-HEARSAY STATE OF MIND OR DO YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THEM PUT THEM IN LATER? WHICH WOULD YOU LIKE, MR. COCHRAN?
KEY QUOTELET ME SAY THIS: I DON'T FOLLOW -- THOSE DON'T NECESSARILY LOGICALLY FOLLOW. IF THEY ARE DEALING WITH HEARSAY AND I WANT TO MAKE IT A SHORTER WAY SO THEY COULD MOVE ALONG, I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. I THINK THEY HAVE TO GO INTO IT THE RIGHT WAY. THEY WAIT UNTIL THE RIGHT WITNESS COMES IN AND DEAL WITH THAT AT THAT TIME. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD.
WHEN THEY GET THE PCR AND DNA WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT THEN.
MR. COCHRAN, THE ONLY THING THAT I PRECLUDED YOU FROM GOING INTO YESTERDAY WAS FAYE RESNICK, BECAUSE THIS DETECTIVE SAID I DIDN'T TALK TO HER, I WASN'T AWARE OF WHAT HER INTERVIEW HAD TO SAY.
AND TO THEN BOOTSTRAP THAT IN WITH WERE YOU AWARE OF SOME DRUG PROBLEMS OVER AT BUNDY ADDRESS, THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, THAT WAS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS.
I ASKED HIM WAS IT VANNATTER AND I BACKED UP. I DIDN'T TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME OTHER WILD THEORY TO CHANGE YOUR MIND. YOU RULED ON THIS AND I WAS JUST SAYING THAT MY OBJECTION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MY CLIENT AND OUR SIDE, THAT WE DON'T ASK FOR ANY SUGGESTIONS, WE DON'T NEED ANY HELP. AND I WOULD JUST ASK THE COURT NOT TO GIVE THEM ANY HELP EITHER. I THINK THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF DOING IT. JUDGE, WE HAVE MR. DARDEN ON NATIONAL T.V. SAYING THE JUDGE IS MY BUD.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE UP HERE FOR? MR. COCHRAN IS GOING OFF ON WILD TANGENTS.
MR. DARDEN IS SAYING ON NATIONAL T.V. THE JUDGE IS MY BUD AND THE COURT SUGGESTS TO HIM -- AND THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING. HE DID SAY THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO. COULD WE JUST DISCUSS THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE?
YOU KNOW, WE WANT -- DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT RIGHT HERE. ALL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE ISSUE RELEGATING FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE EVIDENCE IS COMING IN.
MY RESPONSE IS I'M OFFERING FOR A NON-HEARSAY PURPOSE FOR THE OFFICER'S STATE OF MIND TO REBUT THE INFERENCE CREATED BY COUNSEL ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THERE WAS A RUSH OF JUDGMENT. I'M NOT ASKING TO ADMIT THE RESULTS. I'M ASKING TO EXPLORE -- THAT THIS DETECTIVE WAS AWARE OF RESULTS OF CERTAIN THINGS AT THE TIME HE WENT TO FILE. THE RESULTS WILL COME IN. THE COURT COULD ALSO ALLOW THE RESULTS IN AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESULTS IN SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO STRIKE WHEN IT IS ULTIMATELY PROVEN UP, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IS COMING.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF IF; IT IS A QUESTION OF WHEN. AND TO HAVE THIS WITNESS HAVE TO BE RECALLED --
BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL THEN. HIS STATE OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT. THAT IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR. HE'S THE INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE. HE EITHER DID OR DIDN'T DO CERTAIN THINGS. THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO COME IN AS HEARSAY. THAT IS TRYING TO BACK DOOR WHAT SHE COULDN'T DO OTHERWISE BY THAT SAME ANALYSIS, JUDGE. I COULD HAVE LOOKED AT YOU AND SAID SINCE HE'S VANNATTER'S PARTNER AND WE KNOW VANNATTER IS GOING TO BE CALLED, I CAN GO INTO FAYE RESNICK RIGHT NOW. BUT WE HAVE THE RULES. AND THE QUESTION IS OUR WILLINGNESS TO ABIDE BY THE RULES. I THINK THAT IS THE POINT THAT THE PROSECUTION IS NOT DOING. AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO SUSTAIN THIS. THIS IS HEARSAY.
WELL, WE'VE GOT APPLES AND ORANGES. I AM GOING TO OVERRULE THE HEARSAY OBJECTION, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL THE JURY IT IS ONLY FOR HIS STATE OF MIND.
BY THE 17TH, WHEN WE FILED, WE HAD PCR RESULTS ON THE BLOOD TRAIL AT BUNDY, ON THE BRONCO, AND ON THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM.
WHICH WAY WOULD YOU LIKE IT? WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LET THIS STUFF IN AS A NON-HEARSAY STATE OF MIND OR DO YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THEM PUT THEM IN LATER? WHICH WOULD YOU LIKE, MR. COCHRAN?
JUDGE, WE HAVE MR. DARDEN ON NATIONAL T.V. SAYING THE JUDGE IS MY BUD.
BY THE WAY, I ALSO SAID I LOVED MR. COCHRAN.
I AM GOING TO OVERRULE THE HEARSAY OBJECTION, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL THE JURY IT IS ONLY FOR HIS STATE OF MIND.