YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE -- I ASKED TO COME FIRST. YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE, I ASKED YOUR HONOR TO ADMONISH DETECTIVE LANGE. AND THE JURY -- IF YOU WATCH THE JURY, THEY'RE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THIS. HE KEEPS VOLUNTEERING ANSWERS. THIS IS AN EXPERIENCED WITNESS. AND I ASKED YOU BEFORE TO ADMONISH HIM TO STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS THAT QUICKLY. THIS IS SOME KIND OF A ROUTINE THEY'VE ADOPTED. I THINK IT'S UNFAIR. HE'S DONE THAT THREE OR FOUR TIMES TODAY. IT'S NOT RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD ASK YOU TO ADMONISH HIM.
BUT, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS AN OBJECTION. AND THIS IS AN EXPERIENCED WITNESS. HE'S VOLUNTEERING -- BECAUSE HE KNOWS NOT TO ANSWER UNTIL THERE'S A RULING. HE'S BEEN AN OFFICER 28 YEARS. HE KNOWS NOT TO ANSWER UNTIL YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO RULE.
MISS CLARK, EXCUSE ME. LET ME JUST CUT TO THE CHASE. FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING. THE CHASE IS, YOU'RE ASKING HIM QUESTIONS CALLING FOR HIM TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT CORONERS DO AND TESTIFY TO, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT -- THAT'S BEYOND HIS EXPERTISE. TELLING US WHAT CORONERS TESTIFY TO IS HEARSAY AND IT'S SPECULATION.
I UNDERSTAND. AND THE ONLY REASON I'M EVEN GOING INTO IT -- I MEAN THERE'S NO ARGUMENT WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR. BUT HIS STATE OF MIND IN THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN CALLED INTO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE CORONER WAS CALLED. BUT HIS KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING --
NO. HOLD ON, MR. COCHRAN. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST HERE IS THAT. IF HE COULD HAVE CALLED HIM AT 4:30, HOW LONG WOULD IT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THEY COULD HAVE MOVED THE BODY? THE ONLY POINT IS, IF HE COULD HAVE CALLED HIM AT 4:30, WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD HAVE MORE EASILY DETERMINED CAUSE OF DEATH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BEYOND THIS WITNESS' SCOPE OF EXPERTISE.
LET ME -- I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS, HIS BELIEF. YOU KNOW, PART OF THE ISSUE IS WHAT THE COURT HAS POINTED OUT, THAT, YOU KNOW -- BUT THE OTHER PART OF THE ISSUE IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOMICIDE COP, THAT NO MATTER -- WHETHER IT'S ALREADY WHAT, FOUR HOURS, SINCE THE BODIES HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, NO MATTER WHETHER HE CALLS THEM NOW OR HE CALLS THEM AT THREE OR FOUR HOURS FROM NOW, THEY'RE STILL NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE A BETTER RANGE THAN TWO OR THREE HOURS.
ALL HE'S SAYING -- I'M NOT EVEN ASKING FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER HERE. I'M SAYING, WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND IS, HE KNOWS CERTAIN THINGS AND THAT BASED ON HIS KNOWLEDGE, HE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION A CERTAIN WAY. COUNSEL HAS GONE INTO GREAT LENGTH TO IMPEACH THAT STATE OF MIND AND HIS EXPERTISE, AND HE HAS A REASON FOR WHAT HE DID. WHETHER HE'S RIGHT OR WRONG DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT.
I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND THIS GUY'S EXPERTISE TO TESTIFY TO THIS.
KEY QUOTEHE'S BEEN AN OFFICER 28 YEARS. HE KNOWS NOT TO ANSWER UNTIL YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO RULE.
I THINK THE ANSWER WAS YES, WHICH HARDLY IS VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION.
WHETHER HE'S RIGHT OR WRONG DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT.
I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND THIS GUY'S EXPERTISE TO TESTIFY TO THIS.