Sidebar: evidence report

📄 Sidebar: evidence report — Thursday, May 4, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\4\SIDEBAR-EVIDENCE-REPORT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 67 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Gregory Matheson (part 3) Cross-examination of Gregory Matheson (part 4) ▶

Date: Thursday, May 4, 1995 • Utterances: 15

At the bench, the prosecution objected to defense counsel Blasier introducing a full serology evidence report on scope grounds, arguing it contained many results the jury had not heard about and went beyond direct examination. Blasier argued the report was necessary to challenge the witness's classification of certain blood type results as inconclusive, specifically to undermine the reliability of a 'B' blood type finding. Judge Ito split the difference, allowing testimony about items 42 and 84 but refusing to admit the document itself.

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

# 2 MR. GOLDBERG:

Your Honor, this document presents the results on many items or lack of results on many items. We did not go into it at all, present any evidence. Some of them are just straight inconclusives. So it does go beyond the scope of the direct under 352.

# 3 THE COURT:

Mr. Blasier.

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

The whole point of this--first of all, he did not introduce this. It was misleading to introduce just the third page of this report. In any event, the--one of his main arguments is that because the B that he found might be something other than a B, because item 42, for instance, looks like a B, he rated it as inconclusive, and all these other things that he's found inconclusive cannot be used to bolster or to change the results he's reported down here, a BA, are all relevant to the argument he's making that a B is anything other than a B and inadmissible for those purposes. This is the same kind of chart we have up there. That's where the information came from.

# 5 MR. GOLDBERG:

I don't know that that's the same kind of chart we have up there. The witness did testify on his chart, all of these were reported as inconclusive and at some length described the difference and distinction why they're inconclusive on his report and why he calls them that on the serology work sheets, and that's the point. You know, he went into it at some length, that's true.

# 6 THE COURT:

How many of these are you going into, Mr. Blasier?

# 7 MR. BLASIER:

Primarily 42.

# 8 MR. GOLDBERG:

But the issue is that in order to get into it, he doesn't need this report.

# 9 THE COURT:

Uh-huh.

# 10 MR. GOLDBERG:

And it contains many results here that the jurors are never going to hear anything about.

KEY QUOTE

# 11 THE COURT:

All right. You can use the results as to 42 and 84, but the rest of it, there's just--I mean, we've got 20 other results there that I don't want to get into.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

Can I show the document and just talk about those two?

# 13 THE COURT:

No.

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

Not show the document?

# 15 THE COURT:

Not show the document, but you can go into 42 and 84.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (5)

Robert Blasier

It was misleading to introduce just the third page of this report.

Defense argues prosecution cherry-picked a single page of a larger report, framing the evidentiary dispute as one of completeness and fairness.

Robert Blasier

one of his main arguments is that because the B that he found might be something other than a B, because item 42, for instance, looks like a B, he rated it as inconclusive, and all these other things that he's found inconclusive cannot be used to bolster or to change the results he's reported down here

Core defense argument: the witness's pattern of calling results 'inconclusive' undermines his confident identification of a blood type B elsewhere.

Hank Goldberg

it contains many results here that the jurors are never going to hear anything about.

Prosecution's concern that admitting the full document would introduce extraneous, unexplained serology data that could confuse the jury.

Lance A. Ito

You can use the results as to 42 and 84, but the rest of it, there's just--I mean, we've got 20 other results there that I don't want to get into.

Ruling that narrows the defense's use of the report to two specific items, limiting but not eliminating their cross-examination strategy.

Lance A. Ito

No.

Blunt denial of Blasier's request to at least show the document to the jury while limiting discussion — document stays out entirely.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Multi-page serology evidence report containing results (and inconclusives) for numerous items; defense sought to introduce it to challenge blood type 'B' findings

discussed, partially restricted — judge allows reference to items 42 and 84 only, document itself excluded

Informal

Serology worksheets referenced by witness during direct testimony, containing inconclusive ratings

referenced in argument

Informal

Item 42 — serology result rated inconclusive, central to defense argument about reliability of 'B' blood type identification

discussed, permitted for cross-examination

Informal

Item 84 — serology result, permitted alongside item 42

discussed, permitted for cross-examination

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Blasier•Hank Goldberg

Blasier argues the full report is needed to show a pattern of inconclusive ratings that undermines the witness's blood type identification; Goldberg counters that the report contains ~20 results the jury has never heard about and that item 42 can be explored without admitting the document.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Lance A. Ito

After the judge rules items 42 and 84 are fair game, Blasier asks if he can at least show the document while limiting discussion to those items — the judge declines with a flat 'No.'

matter-of-fact

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ serology expert witness (unnamed in transcript)

prior inconsistent classifications / pattern impeachment

Defense sought to use the witness's own pattern of rating items as 'inconclusive' across multiple samples to argue that his confident 'B' blood type finding on a specific item was unreliable — i.e., if so many results look like B but get called inconclusive, how can this one B be certain?

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 5911 • 15 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103