Sidebar: evidence admissibility

📄 Sidebar: evidence admissibility — Tuesday, May 30, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\30\SIDEBAR-EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 84 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (morning, part 3) Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (morning, part 4) ▶

Date: Tuesday, May 30, 1995 • Utterances: 16

At the bench, Scheck attempts to display Dennis Fung's crime scene notes to the jury, believing they were already in evidence. Judge Ito informs him nothing has been formally moved into evidence, and that the notes are hearsay as to the current witness. Scheck argues they qualify as a business record, but Ito shuts the attempt down on procedural grounds.

# 1 THE COURT:

There's nothing in evidence, counsel.

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

No, no, no.

# 3 THE COURT:

Why don't you approach with the court reporter, please.

# 4 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 5 THE COURT:

What do you want to put in?

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

These are Mr. Fung's crime scene notes. I want to display them for the jury. I thought it was in evidence. It indicates he removed a hair from the glove 9:00 o'clock.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. HARMON:

Fine. It's a piece of paper. There's testimony. This is still a piece of paper. This is Fung's--this is a piece of paper by Fung.

# 8 THE COURT:

No. It's hearsay. The problem is, this is hearsay as to this witness unless he knows about this.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 MR. SCHECK:

It's a business record. Isn't this in evidence?

# 10 THE COURT:

Nothing is in.

# 11 MR. SCHECK:

It's a business record.

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

He can lay a foundation.

# 13 MR. HARMON:

Foundation for what? This is common sense. This is a piece of paper. We have this evidence code here that just--it is--I mean, we can put tea leaves up there or anything up there. I think--

# 14 THE COURT:

In any event, just procedurally, it's not in evidence.

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

I can quote two pieces of testimony, this being June 14th--

# 16 THE COURT:

I am just telling you as a matter of procedure, at any time, a party can move something in evidence. Nobody's moved anything in evidence.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Lance A. Ito

No. It's hearsay. The problem is, this is hearsay as to this witness unless he knows about this.

Core evidentiary ruling blocking display of Fung's notes to the jury.

Lance A. Ito

Nothing is in.

Blunt reminder that no exhibits have been formally admitted — a procedural trap the defense walked into.

Rockne Harmon

I mean, we can put tea leaves up there or anything up there.

Harmon's sarcastic dismissal of the defense attempt to shortcut the foundation requirement.

Barry Scheck

These are Mr. Fung's crime scene notes. I want to display them for the jury. I thought it was in evidence. It indicates he removed a hair from the glove 9:00 o'clock.

Reveals what Scheck was after — a specific notation about a hair removed from the glove, a detail relevant to evidence handling.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Dennis Fung's crime scene notes, including a notation that he removed a hair from the glove at 9:00

challenged — Scheck attempted to display to jury; blocked as hearsay and not in evidence

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Scheck repeatedly argues the notes are a business record and therefore admissible; Ito repeatedly redirects to the procedural point that no party has moved anything into evidence.

strategic

Rockne Harmon•Lance A. Ito

Harmon takes a surprisingly casual, dismissive stance on the notes — calling it 'a piece of paper' — while Ito does the heavy lifting of articulating the hearsay problem.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Rockne Harmon

Harmon's 'we can put tea leaves up there' quip while dismissing the defense's attempt to shortcut the foundation process.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 6221 • 16 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103