Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. All right. Mr. Scheck, are you ready to proceed to a new area?
Yes. Your Honor, are we--just before we do that, we did a chart last night summarizing the answers that Mr. Sims gave in terms of approximations based on the hypothetical, and I would like both Mr. Harmon and--it is going to take ten minutes to print out, but we can project it on the screen.
Looks great to me, but I'm not sure what it is designed to represent. It would be helpful if we had some transcript references so we can confirm it. I don't think I'm as agreeable as Mr. Sims. I don't take their word for anything unless it is in there, your Honor, and a timely presentation of this. They had it calculated ahead of time. I don't think it is appropriate to present argumentative material in this way, somewhat like the redundancy. Kind of like doing your taxes yesterday, your Honor, and I think the information is in there, and if they want to have somebody else come in at a later point and explain how this graph was derived from Mr. Sims' explicit answers to these raw hypotheticals that were based on some wildly varying considerations, I think that would be appropriate. But right now on a Friday morning at five after 9:00 to present this graphic when they could have done this ahead of time, I don't think it is appropriate.
It is irrelevant, under 352, it is misleading. It is argumentative. It is cumulative, that is for sure. I think you intimated as much by your question to Mr. Scheck, "are you ready to move on?" and his answer was "yes," but that is not moving on, your Honor.
Your Honor, the--one first must get the answers from the witness. I think we established the basis of the hypothetical clearly enough through the witness, that these are the kind of calculations he makes based on the one simple assumption that we gave him with respect to random distribution of the biological specimens. The point is, is that this is complex material and until one gets the answers from the witness and lays everything out, I can't create a chart because it is not in evidence yesterday. All that I'm trying to do here, is this is--this is can be reviewed, but these are the numbers he gave yesterday.
They are just put in the form of a graph. Very clearly labeled approximations based on the Defense hypothetical. I think it is very hard for people, when you elicit over a thirty-minute period different amounts in this fashion, to absorb it just hearing it. They need one simple pictorial representation of exactly what the testimony was, and the difference between direct and cross is that I can't create this until I get the answers from the witness. Now that I've got the answers from the witness, this is an accurate summary in very simple terms of exactly what he said. They are perfectly free on redirect examination to challenge the assumptions in the hypothetical, but this is not non-argumentative and factual representation of what was said yesterday, so just so they can be seen.
As presentation as a piece of evidence, I'm going to sustain the objection. I find the numbers to be not to my recollection.
If you want to remake the graph to conform with the precise numbers--also, I think that the gradations on it are not sufficiently precise.
There is a brief thing at side bar, if I could take it up. It relates to where we are right now. We can do this in two minutes at the side bar, your Honor.
I have no secrets, your Honor. I just--the Prosecution has reason to believe that the Defense visited the crime scene shortly after the crime, has removed part of stain 115, and I would like the Court to--I know there have been in camera discussions about discovery that was provided to you to review and that has been held back in--and I'm not here to quarrel about that, but I think if--
115 is one of these rear gate stains. It is the one that is clearly seen--there was made a big deal at the time of processing. It is clearly seen on the June 13th photograph. It is the only one that is clearly visible in the series of photographs at the crime scene. And the reason there is reason to believe--you know because you have reviewed the discovery that they have provided to you, and you have seen the little bit of information that we have been provided by Defense experts like Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee. In fact, some of these things clearly have been chopped up and segments taken out of it, and if you look and compare the June 13th photograph with the July 3rd photograph--I would be happy to provide these to you--on July 3rd the stain on 115 that you can see on June 13th, it appears--and I'm only looking at this and we've had experts look at this from enhancements--that there is something missing in the July 3rd photograph that was not there on the June 13th photograph. And this Court is well aware of the authority of People versus Meredith that has been affirmed throughout this state, that is 29 Cal.3D 682 at 694, that if the Defense takes possession of physical evidence--I mean that is what this whole thing with the mystery knife was that was played out over many months--they have an affirmative obligation to turn that over. Now, I don't know that that happened, because so much has been withheld from us, but we know they were at the crime scene because we have these scanty notes to that effect. But I would like the Court very simply to assure itself, through in camera discussions or whatever, perhaps rereviewing that, that if they took that evidence, they have an affirmative obligation, and they had it the day they took it, if they took it--I don't know if they took it--but now is the time to start fessing up if they did, and it is clear the implications of that, your Honor.
The photographs that the Prosecution took on two different days indicates that bloodstain 116, that is there on July 3rd, isn't there on June 13th? Now, everything he said has the fact that there is something on that rear gate.
Mr. Scheck, the issue is, is the Defense in possession of any physical evidence from the crime scene at Bundy?
Is the Defense in possession of any physical evidence? No, not to my knowledge. I--I have no idea what this man is talking about.
KEY QUOTEAll right. Well, then I will ask Mr. Douglas to--because under Meredith if do you have possession of physical evidence, you are obligated to turn that over to the Court.
Your Honor, could the Court review--I mean, there are clear things that were chopped up out of order when--I can't remember the date, I think it was June 17th, when they visited the crime scene. They were clearly there. And I would like the Court to make its own inquiry and rereview that material, and I will clearly abide by that, but it is clear we do not have everything that was in those notes and the sequence of the chopping is very intriguing.
Well, Mr. Douglas is the person in charge of the discovery matters for the Defense. Mr. Douglas, I will direct you to make an inquiry, search of your records, and report back to the Court on Monday.
the Prosecution has reason to believe that the Defense visited the crime scene shortly after the crime, has removed part of stain 115
Unless it is a secret.
Is the Defense in possession of any physical evidence? No, not to my knowledge. I have no idea what this man is talking about.
now is the time to start fessing up if they did, and it is clear the implications of that, your Honor.
It doesn't look like a 150 to me.