All right. We are over at the side bar. Counsel, do you have a case cite in California Evidentiary Law that states that that question, or the one before it, posed by Mr. Harmon is a leading question under the laws of evidence here in California?

Your Honor, I think a leading question is a question that suggests the answer, and I think that ordinarily, and I think the Court has noted that it has been my conduct during the course of this trial that on areas that are foundational and that are not of in dispute or not of great importance, I don't make objections to leading and permit the kind of foundational leading that one would ordinarily expect. The fact is that the way that this analyst handled the reference tubes and what he knew to be the correct procedures I think is an important issue, and I think that what is going on here is that Mr. Harmon is asking questions that suggest answers that he did it the same way he did the other one, et cetera, instead of asking the witness how did you do it, which would be the non-leading way of doing it. He doesn't ask the witness the non-leading form of the question in what I consider an important area because he is afraid the witness won't on his own do it correctly, so that is the only--I mean, I understand the Court's concern that I seem to be objecting when he is saying, well, did you do it the same way you did it before, et cetera.

Uh-huh.

But in this particular area with this witness on this issue it seems to me that the form of these questions are ones which are suggesting an answer.

Mr. Harmon.

Well, I mean when you say "Did you," there is two possibilities, yes or no, so you know, I'm just trying to move this along and get to the results to give Barry the floor so he can do whatever he wants with Mr. Yamauchi, but it is clear that those are ambivalent questions, ambiguous questions.

These aren't close.

Thanks.