Yes, your Honor. I made an objection maybe a beat late with respect to the answer that the witness gave on time constraints and asked to approach. Do you recall that question and answer?
And I didn't want to draw more attention to it than had already been done, but the problem I have here is that what Mr. Harmon has done is, he's--we--the Defense made a number of motions in this case both before Judge Kennedy and yourself for splits of the evidence and splits early before there was extensive processing by laboratories. Those motions were denied. Additional motions were made with respect to the pacing of the testing. By bringing out the questioning in the way that he's done and continually pushing with objections sustained, this whole issue of access and everything else, he puts us in the position now where we have to go into something that I thought we all agreed under 352 is really not for the jury--is a big problem for all of us, and that is to explain to the jury that the Defense asked for half the samples. The Defense on a number of occasions asked for portions of the samples early, that these requests were denied, that the testing process has gone in all the way through the trial, that there's been limited access, all kinds of things like that which I thought that we were going to keep out of bounds. And by asking that question about the time constraint in that fashion, he begins to open the door to this problem, puts us in a dilemma.
Well, I'd have to give that my thought. My real proposal is, is probably some kind of an instruction from the Court with respect--some general instruction on this issue. But I would again urge that they not be allowed to go back into this whole issue of--I mean, how many times can we do it now, you know, scathing on the edge? I think enough is enough and I think--and he really went over the line there by implicating all these issues of time constraints and explaining all that to the jury.
I understand that. And I tried not to bring undue attention to it and I did ask for a sidebar, but this is my concern. And I articulated it at the beginning and asked that before these kinds of things came up, that the Prosecutor indicate to us he was getting into this area, and I have a--this abiding concern.
Well, they're always necessary responses to Mr. Scheck. You know, how much longer do we have to pretend that those requests for splits were sincere when they never took advantage of them when we were done with it.
Mr. Harmon, no. Mr. Harmon, thank you. That's enough. The only issue there was the issue of timing and what kind of time constraints were there. That's really irrelevant at this point. So let's avoid the topic in the future. All right. Let's have the jury.
I understand that, counsel. I understand. I've indicated to Mr. Harmon I think it's irrelevant, the timing issues, under 3--it's also undue consumption of the Court's time to get into who got to do what when.
All right. And I've given Mr. Harmon fair warning now, we're not going into that. Let's have the jurors.
Your Honor, give me fair warning about what? He's talking about the potential for reanalysis.
No. I'm talking about--no. I--we're not going into the timing of who had access to what when.
by asking that question about the time constraint in that fashion, he begins to open the door to this problem, puts us in a dilemma.
how much longer do we have to pretend that those requests for splits were sincere when they never took advantage of them when we were done with it.
it's also undue consumption of the Court's time to get into who got to do what when.