OBJECTION. NO. 1 THING IS THAT THE PROCEDURE IS TO SEE IF HE AGREES OR NOT WITH THE PASSAGE IS TO LET HIM READ IT TO HIMSELF; NOT TO DRAG IN ALL THE HEARSAY FROM THIS ARTICLE.
I WASN'T GOING TO READ. I WAS GOING TO SUMMARIZE -- I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO SUMMARIZE. HE RELIED UPON THIS, JUDGE, AND THE PROBLEM IS --
PUT THIS TACTFULLY. IF YOU NEVER TRIED A CIVIL CASE AND DEALT WITH DOCTORS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT. IN THESE KIND OF CASES YOU ARE PERMITTED TO GO INTO WHAT THIS MAN HAS RELIED UPON AND WHAT HE HAS LOOKED AT IN THE PAST AND WHAT -- HE IS THE ONE WHO TOLD US ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION, SO I WANT TO ASK HIM IF HE SAYS HE RELIED UPON THIS. I CAN THEN ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT -- NOT HEARSAY -- WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT STOMACH CONTENTS ARE PRESENT, THAT A PATHOLOGIST WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY CAN LOOK AT THAT AND DETERMINE WHEN THE LAST MEAL WAS -- WHAT IT CONSISTED OF AND WHEN IT WAS AND THE TIME OF DEATH. HE SAID HE GENERALLY AGREES WITH THIS, SO I CAN'T BE PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF THAT AND THAT IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO GET. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL FULLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I WILL BE PERMITTED TO DO ONCE HE RELIES UPON A PUBLICATION.
KEY QUOTETHE PROBLEM IS THAT COUNSEL DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A CIVIL CASE, THIS IS A MURDER CASE. NO. 2, THE WITNESS DID NOT RELY ON IT.
KEY QUOTETHAT IS VERY EASY AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT AGAIN THAT IF -- EITHER SIDE DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP IN THIS CASE. THE PROBLEM IS IF HE SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, HE IS GOING TO MAKE ME BRING HIM BACK. HE SAID HE DIDN'T RELY UPON IT. HE SAID A READ A LATER EDITION MAYBE TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AND I ASKED TO HIM LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE CERTAIN PASSAGES DON'T CHANGE. ARE WE PLAYING GAMES OR ARE TRYING TO GET AT THE TRUTH?
WELL, MR. COCHRAN, AT THE RISK OF HELPING ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER, WE ARE MISSING ONE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION. YOU HAVE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS IN THE EDITION YOU READ? AND HE SAID YES. IS THIS THE INFORMATION THAT YOU -- SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RELIED UPON IN FORMING YOUR OPINION? HE HASN'T SAID YES OR NO TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE NOBODY HAS ASKED HIM. YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT HE READ. YOU HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED --
-- THAT THIS IS WHAT HE RELIED UPON, SO THERE IS A GOOD FOUNDATION OBJECTION AT THIS POINT.
OKAY. IF HE DOES, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK UP HERE, THREE OR FOUR ALREADY, IF HE DOES, IF HE DID RELY UPON THIS AS PART OF THE PUBLICATION, THEN I AM THEN PERMITTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS CONTAINED HEREIN; AM I NOT?
LET ME GET EVERYBODY'S CLEAR UNDERSTANDING NOW. IT IS OBJECTION AND THEN STATE THE GROUNDS; NOT ARGUE IT. STATE THE GROUNDS. ALL RIGHT.
KEY QUOTEPUT THIS TACTFULLY. IF YOU NEVER TRIED A CIVIL CASE AND DEALT WITH DOCTORS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT COUNSEL DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A CIVIL CASE, THIS IS A MURDER CASE.
YOU ARE MISSING A STEP AND A HALF.
IT IS A TECHNICALITY, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE CODE SAYS.
LET ME GET EVERYBODY'S CLEAR UNDERSTANDING NOW. IT IS OBJECTION AND THEN STATE THE GROUNDS; NOT ARGUE IT.