All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. I've had the opportunity to review the stack of reports, and I'm going to at this time sustain the objection first on the basis of foundation, secondly on the basis of evidence code section 352 given the, at this point, speculative nature as to where this particular item came from, how it was found, how it came to the police attention at a date significantly past the relevant dates where these locations were previously searched. I'll sustain the objection.
As to the exhibit, Mr. Blasier, the Court's concern is the initial assumption as to the initial amount. What I'm saying to you and what I've indicated to you is that at this point, I don't think you have the foundation for it. At some later point in time, I suspect you will.
What I wanted to do though and is do that subject to connection. And obviously I can make an offer of proof that the nurse testified at the prelim it was eight millimeters, and the People have been allowed to introduce test results from that blood vial subject to connection and I'm simply asking for the same.
My problem though with this one, Mr. Blasier, is that it is in the form of argument, and since it is demonstrative evidence--
Actually, your Honor, I have a plate to cover up that. I have a plate so there's no text on it at all. Can I use it under those circumstances?
No. Actually, I had a plate in case there was a problem with that particular entry.
Works for me. You know, if you anticipate these things to begin with, Mr. Blasier, I mean, why do we have these pitch battles over things that you--well, never mind. Never mind.
I said that that could not be used given the way it was marked because I didn't think it was factually correct. All right?
But there's still some factual inaccuracies that I mentioned to the Court yesterday which I don't think the Court felt that I could get to such as the fact that the dates are--
The amounts were approximations on the business records that have the little squiggly.
And on one of them, it indicated that Mr. Matheson had removed blood on the 25th when it was Mr. Yama--excuse me--Mr. Matheson had removed blood on the 25th when in fact it was Mr. Yamauchi.
I did have some tact. I only do what he agrees with, certainly. I won't do the one with--
Just out of curiosity, given the magnetic nature of that, how heavy is that?
KEY QUOTEWell, the amounts are--don't designate that they're approximates and there is no designation of the amount that Mr. Matheson used during his testing.
If Mr. Goldberg will tell me how to make an approximate blank for that, I'll be happy to do it. I don't know how.
Well, the problem with the amounts is that they're asserted to be definite. They're not approximations. And also, there's no foundation from the witnesses as to how they measured them. We heard from Mr. Matheson how he made his estimations when he came up with an approximation, but the blood vial contained two milliliters at a point in time that we know it had to have at least 3.8 milliliters. And from that, he concluded that he at least has a margin of error of greater than--equal to or greater than 1.3 milliliters. So to put before this jury what is at this point an argument asserting precise numbers when we don't know how the measurement was made, we don't know under what circumstances, we don't know what the margin of error was on the measurements is misleading. And also, this doesn't calculate the amount of blood that stuck to the pipetters and the micro centrifuge tubes, which can be fairly considerable when you add it all up.
Uh-huh. All right. Well, here's the thing though. The Court controls the order of proof. I'll allow this subject to a motion to strike. It's the same situation. The foundation for the blood itself, I've allowed subject to a motion to strike. I'll allow this, which is the same topic, subject to a motion to strike since all of this--excuse me--this particular exhibit has been completely modified to take away all of the other notations other than the amounts. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jurors, please.
Your Honor, we did check on the photographs--I'm sorry--and we did not get the particular photographs the Defense introduced in discovery.
All right. We'll take that up at the noon break. We'll take that up at the noon break.
I'll sustain the objection first on the basis of foundation, secondly on the basis of evidence code section 352 given the, at this point, speculative nature as to where this particular item came from, how it was found, how it came to the police attention at a date significantly past the relevant dates where these locations were previously searched.
The People have been allowed to introduce test results from that blood vial subject to connection and I'm simply asking for the same.
The blood vial contained two milliliters at a point in time that we know it had to have at least 3.8 milliliters. And from that, he concluded that he at least has a margin of error of greater than--equal to or greater than 1.3 milliliters.
Just out of curiosity, given the magnetic nature of that, how heavy is that?
If you anticipate these things to begin with, Mr. Blasier, I mean, why do we have these pitch battles over things that you--well, never mind. Never mind.