Your Honor, this is precisely what I was worried about. And that is the worldwide--so-called study, worldwide study of the FBI where they went around and they collected frequency data from different laboratories from different parts of the world with different kinds of marker systems is not--was not turned over in discovery and was not part of the calculation that this witness made with respect to these frequencies, was not part of the offer that Mr. Harmon made when I pinned him down as to which databases he was relying upon and not relying upon. So it goes beyond the scope of what he said he was going to do and what they specifically indicated in discovery when they turned over databases to us when we specifically asked what databases they were relying upon.
Sure. And his presentation is not going to be based on it. It may be depending on the extent of cross-examination, but we've never had any intention of presenting that. I just wanted to--
No, no, no. Then it should be struck because the implication in here is that he's relying on it if he's familiar with the world-wide study, and that's more prejudicial than probative.
All right. Objection is overruled, if that's all it is, is he familiar with it.
KEY QUOTEthe worldwide--so-called study, worldwide study of the FBI where they went around and they collected frequency data from different laboratories from different parts of the world with different kinds of marker systems is not--was not turned over in discovery
the implication in here is that he's relying on it if he's familiar with the world-wide study, and that's more prejudicial than probative
Objection is overruled, if that's all it is, is he familiar with it.