All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Scheck, you wanted to bring something to my attention as we were closing?
Yes. I think that the next--I anticipate that the next few questions that Mr. Harmon is going to ask is that he's going to bring out the board which involves 47 and 50 being sent out to Defense experts and then being sent back, which is something we've already gone into with Greg Matheson. That point's already been established. And I think the Court made limiting rules with respect to that and I don't think it should be brought up again in this context. And one of the reasons that I have particular concerns about that is that we filed a letter yesterday that made more concrete my citation to the County of Los Angeles case, and we still have pending the whole issue of prosecutorial misconduct with respect to attempting to learn about privileged communications concerning those samples and what was done with them. And it seems to me that this testimony is already in and it shouldn't be brought up again at this time because, depending on how the Court rules with respect to that misconduct motion, there are certain remedies involved and remedies involving this particular Prosecutor. So it seems to me that at this point, Mr. Sims has testified as to what he cut, Mr. Matheson has already testified that a portion was taken from the swatches and returned. The chain of custody is complete. There's no objection with respect to that and there's no reason to trot out this board again because the only purpose in doing so is an attempt to raise the implication in front of the jury that the Defense received samples and did something with them, and the jury is not hearing the full truth about what was done, and it gets us into a whole can of worms that we should avoid.
I take that to be an objection in anticipation. Mr. Harmon, are we about to see that board?
I would like you to look at it and then I would like to respond to Mr. Scheck if I could.
My point is, your Honor, if you recall, Mr. Matheson already testified to this and he testified to the initials on the packaging and whose the initials were in a very limited way under a limiting instruction by the Court. It was established that swatches were given to Mr. Ragle, that some portions of the swatches were taken and then returned. So this is cumulative testimony. And the only reason it's being offered right now is that we had a whole examination through this witness about Defense reanalysis and how he had done it and it's just trying to raise the implication that something was done with these samples and the jury is not hearing about it. And the whole question of what was done and what they know about it and what they don't know about it, you know, should not be raised at this time. This is purely cumulative and it's done to just raise this other implication. It's already come out through Mr. Matheson. The Court's made a ruling on this. There's no reason to do it again.
Sometimes the truth is a can of worms and I'm happy that they want the truth to come out, but they don't want this truth to come out, Judge. You know, I love these letters that they keep filing that want to prevent the truth that they got these samples to analyze.
KEY QUOTEMr. Harmon, I'm only interested in two things. One, whether it's redundant since we already heard Mr. Matheson testify with regards to it; and, two, what is the scope of what you intend on asking Mr. Sims about with regards to this board.
Sure. It's not redundant. Mr. Sims took these pictures and he will say when--I'm sorry. He will say--I withdraw that. Mr. Sims did not take these pictures. They were taken by LAPD. Mr. Sims will say when I sent them back in October, they didn't have national medical services tape on them. They didn't have Kevin Ballard, K.D. Ballard on them. They didn't have those dates on them. Now, let's not forget something, your Honor. You ruled way back in February, and they're--they've been trying because this was a secret at that point that they had gotten these. They've been trying to get you to undo your ruling. Your ruling was perspectively, but it was based on the law and it was bound on--based on sound legal principles; that if you consume or alter our evidence in testing, we are entitled to explain that to the trier of fact. They do not want to allow us--to have you allow us to explain that to the jury. It's plain and simple. They want to pretend that this never happened. In fact, and we're about to get to this dilemma, when Mr. Sims sent something back tiny, you allowed us to say--
--to tell the jury--you allowed us to tell the jury that they consumed things in testing or--and I guess we're still up in the air about exactly what we're going to tell them. But one of the problems is, they've told us in chambers--and I'm not sure if they ever admitted it on the record. But way back when I kept pushing this in January and February, they admitted they consumed half of this tiny sample in testing. And somehow, in order to invoke the legal protection you afforded us in your order of February 8th, we're at that point where we need to explain that to this jury. And they want--they keep talking about sanctions and misconduct about me to prevent which--you know, whatever happens happens. I want to utilize the order that was based on sound legal principles and they want to--they want to hold me hostage, which is fine, for my alleged misconduct and tell the jury that this didn't happen or pretend that it didn't happen. We're at this point in the trial, we're about to demonstrate that those names and dates were not on there when Mr. Sims sent them back, and they want to stop the whole process. And, you know, that's why they filed that other scurrilous letter yesterday about me. So I'll take whatever you dish out in terms of whatever you feel about my conduct, but we're right at a point in this trial where we want to explain that to the jury, Judge.
Your Honor, I believe when the chart was out the last time, you ruled that they couldn't bring out--use the word testing or bring out the implication. Mr. Matheson's testimony was limited. He was--it was his lab that took the pictures before and after. His testimony came back about the consumption of the swatch. It's plain from Mr. Harmon's remarks that this is not only cumulative, but he just wants Mr. Sims to say again something about the initials of Kevin Ballard and Carl Slovka and get us right into the problem that has not yet been resolved. So this adds nothing except he's I think just admitting that he wants to do what this court has already ruled he can't do with respect to commenting on testing. And in addition, there is still pending, you know, a serious question as to what extent Mr. Harmon has invaded the Defense camp in trying to--
My point is simply this. It's cumulative. It's already come out through Mr. Matheson. There's no point in bringing it out through this witness except to raise the implication which this court's ruled already has to be limited.
Mr. Harmon, what do you intend on asking Mr. Sims about this other than, "when I packaged it up, sent it back to LAPD, this is the condition it was in and it didn't have all this other writing on it"?
He couldn't testify to that because he didn't send it back from DOJ to LAPD. I mean this is the point. Matheson did not--I invite them or I challenge them to show that a full explanation for this is in this record. It's not because Matheson could not testify to that. He can say that's what was on there when it came back, and I'm entitled to prove that's not what was on there when it went out, and that's how I do it through--
The thing that I'm worried about, Mr. Harmon, is any implication that testing was done by somebody else. That's what I'm worried about.
KEY QUOTEWell, your Honor, you've never addressed the clear--your clear language in your order. Now they want to--
Well, we may not have to address it now and I can't--Mr. Sims can't talk about testing. He can just describe the condition of it. I understand the restrictions--
--and it would be improper to ask that question or seek to comment on that at this point.
Your Honor, I think that there's no question that Mr. Matheson testified about the initials. He testified it went out to DOJ. He was--you allowed him to testify about the chain of custody without objection. In fact, we spent a lot of time hammering this out with you in chambers. You made a ruling in terms of a limiting instruction. You told them we're going to do it through this witness, we'll put it in this way, we'll get it over with, that will be it. He just wants to do the same thing again to bring out these foreign initials. That's all he said he wants to do.
All right. Can you cite me to a point in the record where Mr. Matheson talked about that?
It's--well, I think if we--in fact, if you give us a second, I'm sure with the computer, we can find it.
I think the point is, that's how it came back. But I need to prove that's not how it went out, your Honor.
I believe through the evidence custody board itself, they demonstrated it went to DOJ.
No. I just want to know, show me in the record where Matheson talked about the initials of these other people on the envelope. While we're looking for that, Mr. Harmon, do you have anything else you can go into at this point? I assume so.
All right. Let's have the jurors. And by the way, Mr. Cochran, the Sheriff's Department advises me that they were already aware of those signs already, were already aware of the locations of those signs.
Sometimes the truth is a can of worms and I'm happy that they want the truth to come out, but they don't want this truth to come out, Judge.
They want to hold me hostage, which is fine, for my alleged misconduct and tell the jury that this didn't happen or pretend that it didn't happen.
The thing that I'm worried about, Mr. Harmon, is any implication that testing was done by somebody else. That's what I'm worried about.
Mr. Sims can't talk about testing. He can just describe the condition of it. I understand the restrictions.