And giving counsel until tomorrow to file, your Honor, the court is indicating then that the People will not be able to present any witnesses before the jury today?
No. That is not what I'm indicating. All right. Other matter we have is the scope of discovery--excuse me. The scope of People's rebuttal case. That was the issue we had set today. Also, counsel, I have conducted the 1054.7 as to Dr. DeForest's notes, Mr. Neufeld, and the issue that I raised with Mr. Hodgman, he did not understand what Dr. DeForest--I asked him about--a question about a notation in Dr. DeForest's notes and he was not able to interpret that for me, so he is--I directed him to immediately call Dr. DeForest to get an explanation of what this note means or what he is addressing. So as soon as I get that information, I will conclude the 1054.7 as to Dr. DeForest's notes. All right. Scope of Prosecution rebuttal case.
Your Honor, just before we get to that, would the court--I think it would be more logical, if the court pleases, for the court to entertain Dean Uelmen in the Defense's motion to strike and request remedies for denial of constitutional rights and denial of cross-examination. I would ask the court to consider hearing that first. Dean Uelmen will handle that. And then Mr. Blasier will handle the other motion with regard to scope of the rebuttal.
We had no advance notice they were going to file it. We have just seen it. Could we have just a chance to read it? Perhaps we would like to file a responsive brief. Miss Lewis just had the cases brought down. They are on her lap right now.
I should mention we filed this morning an additional brief. We filed a brief last Friday with regard to admitting glove evidence. This morning I filed an additional brief on our behalf with regard to admitting the rarity of the Bronco fiber carpeting that the court had excluded from our case in chief.
Umm, it was my understanding that the Prosecution was supposed to also file some document stating when they received various pictures, and I haven't seen anything that has that information. I did prepare a chart for my own use, but I would be happy to provide it to court and to counsel.
And in that chart I attempted to--I attempted to list all of the various pictures and videos and correlate them to the games that were involved. And as you can see, there are nine different football games where they have stills or videos, and I have indicated for those reports which state when they got the pictures, I put those dates on there or when they did their first interview, and as you can see, many of them are before they rested. Now, the ones that don't have any date, I don't know what the date of receipt is because they didn't put that in their reports, but as you can see for most of the games, they had pictures long before or well before they rested in time to put those on.
Let me--and I would also point out, there is an additional argument that should this evidence be allowed we would argue that much of it is cumulative and irrelevant, particularly since most of these games or most of these individual photographs involve pictures where Mr. Simpson is wearing black gloves, not brown gloves. But I don't want to jump ahead. In response to the People's brief, as I understand their argument, they are saying that because we have put on a Defense that evidence may have been fabricated or there may be some sort of skullduggery involved with the evidence that therefore opens up the glove question when we didn't put on any evidence about the glove question, and I think that argument is very easy to destroy. What that in essence would mean is that anytime you put on a Defense, well, that opens up the Prosecution, they can put on anything that they held back on just because we put on a Defense. I would cite one of their cases that they have in their brief that they cited for a different proposition. This is the Carter case and the Contreras case which says that: "Redistributions on the introduction of rebuttal evidence were created to prevent the tactic of withholding crucial evidence from presentation during the case in chief in order to take advantage of the trauma and surprise inherent in confronting the Defendant for the first time at the end of the trial." Now, this evidence was readily available to them. I believe they even took a day at the end of their case because they were considering whether to put it on or not. I have been told just this morning that they have subpoenaed--Mr. Yochelson told me was a ton of videotapes, additional videotapes that they presumably intend to use. I don't know how much a ton is, but I suspect it is probably a lot, and I don't know whether there is any new games involved, anything other than what they have already listed. And I would argue that they knew about these pictures before, they knew about each of these games. If they wanted to subpoena the videotapes from those games, they could have done it then. They have got still photos from then. Mr. Rubin was here I think two or three times. It is my understanding that he is their expert and he is going to testify that he has looked at these pictures and he sees some similar characteristics.
All of that was available before. They could have put that on in their case in chief. They chose not to. We maintain that the reason they chose not to is because they were sandbagging and holding back information that they thought they would put on at the end for dramatic effect. We have opened up nothing that allows this kind of evidence. We specifically did not put on some of our evidence because of that. And that was stated to the court. And as the court might recall, at one point when we were talking about our glove experiment you made the comment that that may open the door to these pictures. Partially because of that comment we did not put that evidence on. If they put--and they have I think 14 or 15 witnesses that they intend to call on this. If they put these people on, then we will be compelled to call back Mr. McDonnell and perhaps some other evidence that we have turned over to the Prosecution and perhaps some evidence from other glove experts and it is going to prolong the trial substantially. They could have done this before. We submit that they should not be permitted at this point to sandbag and introduce this evidence now when they had it perfectly available to them before they closed.
All right. Mr. Blasier, I'm going to mark your chart as Defense 1370 for the purpose of this motion.
I might indicate also I have indicated "Black" or "Brown" where you can determine what color the gloves are in the photographs or videos.
You can also see that many of these people are multiple witnesses on the same set of photographs.
First, your Honor, I urge the court not to rely on this chronology by Mr. Blasier. I know for a fact, just looking at it right now, that one is absolutely wrong. Ms. Guidera has the date of July 7th on her letter, but the actual thing did not arrive to us until a month later. I know because I saw when it arrived and when the envelope was opened. It wasn't until early August that we saw that, so--and she may indicate to you why it took so long to get to us, but she may have indicated on her letter she--
I don't know what she is going to say, your Honor. I know when we got it. That is all I can tell the court. I know there was a date I saw her letter. The letter had her handwritten date of July 7th on it. The postmark was not until I think July 30th or something like that, and we got it in the first week of August, so we didn't get it until a month after she had the letter dated.
So this is not accurate. That is no. 1. No. 2 there was no effort to sandbag. Obviously the Defense knew about these photographs. That is why they chose not to have McDonnell testify to the glove drying evidence. The fact that they indicate that withdrawing that glove drying experiment in order to avoid cross-examination with the use of these glove photographs does not mean that we don't get to use them in this case in rebuttal. That has nothing to do with anything. Apples and oranges. That just means we couldn't use them on cross-examination. At this point, your Honor, there is no sandbagging. That is clear. The Defense knew that these photographs were in existence. We also did not--we cannot be in a position to present such evidence until we have verified its authenticity. That means we've got to get the negatives, we have to interview the photographer, we have to examine the photographs and compare them to the negatives and the print that we prepared to make sure that there is nothing wrong with them, that they are as represented, they are as they have been represented to be authentic photographs of the Defendant in these gloves. After that we have to be able to show them to the expert who will tell us whether or not it indicates what we think it does. I mean, this is not something where you get a photograph and slap--you know, put the witness on the witness stand. That would be very cavalier and it would not be an appropriate practice for the Prosecution to do. We have to check this evidence out. We have to make sure it is proper before it comes before the court and before the jury. So the fact that they come into our hands at a given point means nothing in and of itself.
If the court can tell, even looking at the dates as--and they are not correct--it was very late in the case that we got these things because--that is because we put on the glove evidence that we had late in the People's case. By the time we rested, and I think it was in the first week of July, many of these photographs had not yet been received. Of those that had been received, they had not been checked out. The negatives had not been received. The fact that people sent us photographs didn't end the inquiry. We then had to recontact these people, get the negatives in, examine the negatives, have our own prints made and interview these people, and then have everything examined by an expert, by which time the People had to rest. Yes, we could have done as the Defense does and ask for a week to go and prepare and get things together and have the jury cool their heels outside, but we elected not to do that for the obvious reason, believing that if it was necessary, if the Defense went a certain way, as it did, it would be a proper rebuttal. As a matter of fact, our predictions proved to be true, more true than we could have imagined, because it was after we rested that we all found out about the McKinny tapes.
Now, as the court knows, the Defense has shifted its primary focus of its Defense based on those tapes to Mark Fuhrman. This has now become a full out attack on the credibility of Mark Fuhrman to prove that he did what we know the evidence has proven he could not do. Reality is not important to the Defense. They are going to go ahead and try and prove it anyway, get the jury to ignore the evidence and let them think that Mark Fuhrman could have planted evidence that wasn't there.
All right. Miss Clark, what the court is most interested in in this situation, however, is the chronology of the People becoming aware of the existence of the information, the subsequent contacting of the individuals volunteering this information, what interviewing was done, what corroboration was done, the nature of the investigation, production of the evidence and the time frames during which all of this occurred. That is what I'm most interested in.
The issue being whether or not this information in the form it is to be presented at this point was available to the People prior to the People resting?
Well, let me ask the court something then. Why is that even a relevant inquiry at this point, because and I will allow--I ask leave of the court to allow Mr. Hodgman to address the issue because he was the one who received it. Assume for a moment that we got it all during our case in chief. First of all, the court knows that the Defense knew about it. That is not sandbagging. Second of all, more importantly, this is appropriate--if this is appropriate rebuttal, and the People submit it clearly is based on attack on credibility of Mark Fuhrman and the allegations that the Defense is making about planting of evidence, then why does it matter when we received it if it is proper rebuttal?
Okay. What the People are indicating to the court is this: That even should the court find that we received it soon enough to put it on in the People's case in chief, which we didn't, but even should the court so find, the People submit that it is clearly proper rebuttal based on the nature of the Defense case and the change that it took after the McKinny tapes were discovered and that was clearly after the People rested that that was discovered. Let me also indicate something else to the court. I have at this point interviewed these witnesses. I can tell this court that it is very brief testimony, extremely brief, as will be Richard Rubin's. I don't think that the cumulative amount of testimony, given all of these witnesses and Richard Rubin, is going to exceed three hours max. It is very brief. And I don't know how the Defense can try and drag it out to be more than that. Did you take this picture? Where did you take it? What did you see? When was it? End. That is all we are talking about here.
Good morning, your Honor. This will be sort of a bifurcated response to the court's inquiry about chronology. I have information with regard to the still photos. Mr. Yochelson has information with regard to video clips or videotapes that were obtained.
And your Honor, in response to the court's inquiry of last Friday, over the weekend we tried to put together a chronology so that the court would have some understanding of when these photos were received. With regard to photographer James Chegia, C-H-E-G-I-A, we received a photo on or about June 20th, 1995. On that date one of our investigators obtained a negative and some prints were made. Color copies were given to the Defense on September 1st.
No photo, actually; just a negative. On June 22nd, 1995, a photographer named Bill Renken, R-E-N-K-E-N, sent us a single enlarged photo.
June 22, 1995. Subsequent to the receipt of that photo there were a number of phone calls involving Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Renken in an effort to attempt to obtain the negative, and in the course of those conversations, and as I will relate in just a moment, and in July and August, additional photographs were obtained from Mr. Renken. On June 22nd, or shortly thereafter, we had obtained a single two-by-three foot enlargement which was shown to the Defense.
And to be even more specific about it, Mr. Renken retains the negatives in his possession right now. The People do not have possession of them. A photographer named Rob Seib, S-E-I-B, sent us a photograph on June 27, 1995. We received it some time after that.
And with regard to that, Mr. Seib sent us the photograph from a location on the east coast. On June 28th, 1995, Mr. Renken sent us some additional photographs. These photographs were of the same football game dated January the 6th, 1991.
On June 29, 1995, or thereabouts, we received a photograph--actually a number of photographs from a photographer named Kevin Schott. Last name, S-C-H-O-T-T. We received negatives from Mr. Schott on September 10, 1995, yesterday. Previously on September 1st of this year color copies of what we had were turned over to the Defense. On July 1st, 1995, we received a photograph from Michael Romano. A color copy of this photo was turned over to the Defense on September 1st, 1995. On September 6th negatives were made available to the Defense so that they could obtain a print to whatever size enlargement they wished. Then we have a photograph from Mark Krueger, K-R-U-E-G-E-R. This was received sometime prior to July the 3rd, 1995. Our records don't indicate a precise date that we received this photograph. We can infer, however, that it was received prior to July 3rd, 1995.
He was interviewed on September 1st, your Honor, and on that date he stated that he still had the negative. A color copy of what we had was provided to the Defense on September 1st, 1995. On July the 3rd, 1995, Deputy District Attorney Alan Yochelson sent a letter to Mr. Richard Rubin containing some copies or prints of what we had available regarding the photos to see whether Mr. Rubin could shed any light with regard to these gloves depicted in the photos. By letter on July 6, 1995, Mr. Rubin made some preliminary observations with regard to the gloves we had sent him, the glove photos. As far as our date of the receipt of the letter, it was sent regular mail and Mr. Rubin's letter is dated July the 6th. The date we received it we can only infer was after July 6th. Photos continued to come in after the date of July the 6th. On July 27, 1995, we received a photograph from Karen Brown. On September 1st, 1995, color copies were turned over to the Defense and that photo was re-produced from a negative on September 8th and turned over to the Defense. On August 11, 1995, Bill Renken sent two more photos of the same game of which we had received photographs earlier. These were two eight-by-twelve photos. As of August 11th we still did not have negatives from Mr. Renken. On August 17, 1995, Mr. Renken sent us an additional photo of the same game. We still do not have negatives of what Mr. Renken had sent us. We did, in the latter part of August, make an effort to obtain a CD copy, that is to have the photos that he had sent us placed on a CD format so that that CD could be shared with the Defense. On August 26, 1995, Deborah Guidera, G-U-I-D-E-R-A, also provided us with a photograph. It had been mailed sometime prior to August 26, 1995. She indicated that she thought she had mailed it to us sometime in July. The People received the negatives regarding this photograph on September 1st, 1995. Color copies and copies made from the negative were available to the Defense on September 6th. And lastly, your Honor, we have a photographer named Stewart West and he has a photograph of a December 25, 1993, game and we simply do not have a record of when we received that photo from Mr. West.
We do know that on September 1st, 1995, color copies were turned over to the Defense. On September 6th negatives were made available to the Defense for copying. And then as well--actually, as the court may not recall, on August the 29th there was a telephonic interview with Mr. Rubin in Las Vegas. During this interview Mr. Rubin made further conclusions regarding various photos and video clips. There became a need to have Mr. Rubin present in Los Angeles in order to get a more definitive opinion. And on or about August 31, if I recall correctly, Mr. Rubin came to Los Angeles and viewed photographs, as well video clips. And notes of that meeting were provided to the Defense.
All right. You have indicated to the court that Mr. Yochelson sent a letter to Mr. Rubin who I take it is going to be your sole expert as to the identity of these gloves; is that correct?
That Mr. Rubin sent a response backdated July the 6th; however, sent United States Mail U.S. Postal Service, so--and he is back east, if I recollect, so we can assume two or three days mail time.
Okay. And to be entirely accurate, Mr. Yochelson, the letter was fed-ex'd, so I think we can presume that the letter was received July the 7th or thereabouts. And do you have a copy of that letter?
All right. Let's assume that this was a report from Mr. Rubin regarding his examination of these photos that Mr. Yochelson sent him.
Well, it was a preliminary report in the sense we wanted to get some idea of what we had, and Mr. Rubin responded that, you know, this is--this is with regard to certain style characteristics. And further, through the course of further investigation, we realized we had to refine even more what time characteristics we were looking for and what--and we made investigative efforts to see if photographs could be enhanced to further indicate those style characteristics.
Your Honor, the next contact I am aware of was on or about August 29 when Mr. Rubin was in Las Vegas, and we have--we had an interview done by telephone in which Mr. Yochelson and an investigator participated. It was realized that we needed to have Mr. Rubin here to be more definitive and arrangements were made to fly him from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.
Did he come then and sit down and actually sit down and look and all of these photographs and the videotape?
He was interviewed, a report was made, an investigator from our office was present, as well as various attorney personnel.
All right. What is the conclusion that Mr. Rubin has come to that you wish to offer?
Well, Mr. Rubin is prepared to testify with regard to various still photographs and video clips that there are style characteristics present in the gloves that he observes depicted in these various stills and video clips which are identical to the Aris Light style of glove which gloves--which comprise the crime scene gloves.
Well, his opinion is a little stronger than that, your Honor. There--he is a better expert than I with regard to the gloves; however, there are a number of unique style characteristics which apply to these particular--this particular style of glove. These unique style characteristics are present in various of the still photos and video clips which we intend to present.
Before Mr. Yochelson addresses the court, may I interject this? I spoke to Mr. Rubin around 7:30 or eight o'clock last night. We were looking at photographs and some of the videotape and there appears to be some type of defect in one of the gloves the Defendant was wearing during one of the football games, and so Mr. Rubin asked that he be allowed to look at the crime scene gloves again to see if that defect is also on the crime scene gloves, just to keep you up-to-date with what was happening.
All right. I'm sorry, let me just ask Mr. Hodgman one last question. The first photograph that you had available was from Miss Guidera and that was on June 20th, correct?
Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, following the arrival of some of the still photographs, we began investigating the possibility that there might be videotaped evidence of some of these games wherein the Defendant was wearing these types of gloves.
This was approximately the 20th of June, 1995, when we received the telephone call from some personnel at a local network. They have provided us with some videotape which actually we do not intend to offer in this case. However, on June 23, 1995, we issued six subpoenas, three of which are relevant to this inquiry. These are for three games. One is--was dated January 6, 1991, between Cincinnati Bengals and the Houston Oilers. The second subpoena issued June 23, 1995, was for videotape of a game between the Buffalo Bills and the Kansas City Chiefs dated or played on January 5th, 1992. And the third is a game played on January 23, 1994, also between Buffalo and Kansas City. Those subpoenas were issued on the 23rd. Their return dates were for the 26th of June, 1995, and we received the actual videotape from NBC on or about the 28th of June, 1995. Based on the evidence of the still photograph which Mr. Hodgman referred to from Miss Guidera, Debra Guidera, we have also issued a subpoena for a game played in 1993 between the Indianapolis Colts and the New York Giants. That subpoena is returnable today and I have not yet heard from NBC. I would also add, parenthetically, that NBC wishes to be heard on some of these issues and Miss Egerton from NBC will be here shortly.
I would also indicate that the copies of a videotape that we intend to offer into evidence was provided to the Defense on or about September 1, 1995.
Yes. And there is a possibility of some more videotape if it arrives. It has not yet arrived.
All right. So just so we are clear, you have had these videotapes since June of--June 26th, correct?
Excuse me, your Honor, and excuse me, Mr. Blasier. However, Richard Rubin did not get to see these videotapes until much later.
Because we had to arrange to send this material to him after the 28th of June and it is my recollection that he did not see these videotapes--it is my belief he did not see these videotapes until after the People's case ended.
He saw the actual three quarter-inch videotape when we had him here in Los Angeles last week at the end of--at the end of August, 1995, in the meeting that Mr. Hodgman referred to.
It seems that everything on the list of things they got before they rested, with the possible exception of Guidera and their letter to the court, says that the letter was dated July 7. I don't know what day they got it, but I can tell you that the Guidera picture Mr. Rubin has never said, at least not in the interviews that I have been provided, that he can identify the glove in that particular picture. The primary pictures that he has said in his interview that he thinks looks like Aris Lights are from the Renken pictures and that the Bengals game of January 6th, 1991, when they received the first picture on June 22nd, three weeks before they rested. Mr. Renken is a professional photographer. He has got a big stamp on the back and they know exactly where he was. They knew about that. It is no secret that Mr. Simpson is a commentator on television. They know about that. They knew about these pictures. They could have gotten the videotapes. They did get the videotapes but chose not to present them then, and the reason they chose not to present them then is because they wanted to hold something back for a big dramatic issue. I think the dates you have got demonstrates exactly what I'm arguing. They had this. They could have developed this. The fact that they interviewed people is not our problem, it is not the court's problem. They should have the people to do this investigation and it is not fair to say, well, we can't get to this stuff, we will get to it, later and put it on in rebuttal. And I submit that they should not be allowed to present any of this evidence now at this time.
Your Honor, let me indicate to the court that Mr. Rubin saw the Guidera photograph on August 28th.
Oh, incidentally, I have never seen these Rubin letters. I didn't know that they sent stuff to him before they rested and they never got it back. I'm not saying we didn't get them, but I have never seen them and I would like to see them.
I'm sorry, I didn't--Mr. Yochelson was speaking to me and I didn't hear what Mr. Blasier said.
As I understand it, your Honor, the letter that we are speaking of was not turned over to the Defense because it was not a definitive letter. All that happened was preliminarily a finding was made. He saw a few photographs and he said looks like there may be a style characteristic here. I have got to see more, I have got to see it more clearly. And so we endeavored at that point, and by this time it must have been at least July 7th, to start getting the things to him in his hand and get him out here and have further contact. There was no final report or finding made by him until--
Don't you think that is something that the Defense is entitled to know, that your expert witness looked at these items and wasn't able to give a definitive opinion?
KEY QUOTEIf we decided--well, yes, at the point that we want to put him on, that is true; however, don't forget, your Honor, that we had already had the colloquy during MacDonnell's testimony about glove photographs and we went to side bar and I informed counsel that we had a preliminary indication at that time that we were--that they may have been the same glove. That is what I believe I indicated to you the finding of Richard Rubin at that time. I don't know--that was in August, wasn't it?
My recollection is that your--your impression of Mr. Rubin's opinion was a little more definitive than that.
My question is don't you think the Defense was entitled to a report or a letter from Mr. Rubin indicating that based upon his analysis of the materials that were submitted to him that he was not able to come up with a definitive answer? Don't you think they are entitled to that?
Yes, I certainly do. If we thought that we were going to present it in our case in chief they were entitled to it. We didn't even get it until after we rested, so I don't understand.
The question is now you propose to put on this evidence, yet you still haven't turned this over; is that correct?
The preliminary letter, no, we have not. The actual record and finding of Richard Rubin, yes, we have, but we don't have an obligation to turn over that letter which is a preliminary finding until we know that we are going to put it in our in our rebuttal case. We didn't have the letter until after we rested, so we obviously couldn't put it in in our case in chief. We didn't know where the Defense case was going to go until after we got it, and when we did get it, your Honor, and we started that, I indicate that we wanted to put it on in rebuttal. I have already indicated the legal argument in response to rebuttal and why it is relevant in rebuttal, but we gave them the final report by Richard Rubin.
August 31st we had our final interview with Richard Rubin in which he reviewed all the photographs, reviewed all the videos and gave us his final opinion on the gloves. We turned it over on September 1st.
Now, as I understand it, I think we called our first witness on July 10th. Now, is Miss Clark saying that on July 7th--the 20th--
The 12th, that when she got this letter on the 7th they are already planning their rebuttal case? I think that is very telling.
We didn't have it in time for our case in chief and we had to consider whether it was something that we could put on in rebuttal. We didn't have it in time to put on, so how can we consider putting it on in our case of chief? I don't get it. How can we say we are going to map this out and put it in?
Incidentally, Mr. Rubin was out here testifying on the 25th. They had a number of these pictures then. We are not entitled to their attorney's notes. I don't know how many conversations they had that weren't in writing about these gloves and what he can tell and what he can't tell, but there is a lot more going on before they rested than we are being told, I believe, and this is just unfair.
You know something, I will tell you what is unfair, your Honor. It is unfair to be attacked unfairly with no indication that anything underhanded occurred. The court has been given a full chronology of what happened. We had the letter from Richard Rubin that has a date on it from the east coast and that is the date we rested. I mean, it should be very clear to everyone what happened here. Now we are suppose to have prescience? We are supposed to know what Mr. Rubin is going to say when he gives his final opinion when all we have in our hand at the time we rest is a preliminary finding? He hadn't even seen all the photographs we got. He hadn't even seen the videotapes at all.
We cannot be everywhere at the same time, your Honor, and Mr. Rubin doesn't live here; he is on the east coast.
Your Honor, I believe Miss Clark just said this she didn't know until late in August of this final determination, but that was long after she made representations at side bar that they could now prove these are the gloves.
Counsel, counsel, I have heard the argument. I'm preparing to rule. Thank you. All right. The order in which evidence is presented at trial is governed by penal code section 1093, and specifically that code section says that: "The District Attorney shall offer evidence in support of the charge." In subsection (D) 1093 reads that: "The parties may then respectively offer rebutting testimony only, unless the court for good cause, for good reason in furtherance of justice, permits them to offer evidence upon their original case." And I think that the case law in dealing with whether or not the court can allow the Prosecution to reopen their case indicates that the court has wide discretion; however, there are several cases that deal with an abuse of that discretion. This is a situation where information regarding the Defendant's possession and wearing of these gloves was available to the Prosecution at a period in time prior to their resting their case. The Prosecution rested their case on July the 6th, 1995, and the court believes, from the chronology presented by the Prosecution, that the first photographs regarding Mr. Simpson wearing gloves that may or may not be these Aris Light gloves, was received by them on June the 20th. The court is also persuaded by the representations of counsel that the information from Mr. Rubin was reasonably not presented to them prior to the resting on July the 6th. The photographs submitted to the Prosecution by various persons prior to their resting their case are not usable, are not meaningful without expert testimony and analysis; that expert testimony and analysis coming from Mr. Rubin. The court therefore finds that since Mr. Rubin did not submit his findings in either preliminary or final form prior to the People's resting their case, that this information was not available to the Prosecution during their case in chief. And I will exercise my discretion and allow a limited number of these photographs to be offered. I agree with Mr. Blasier's observations that it appears that some of these may be cumulative and I'm going to ask that the Prosecution present their photos to the court and let's see what we have, because I am not interested in listening to twenty people testify about taking photographs. All right. That is the ruling on that, preliminarily. All right. Let's go to the other argument--I'm sorry.
Absolutely. Forthwith. All right. Let's go to the issue of--Miss Clark, have you had the opportunity to peruse the motion filed by the Defense--or Miss Lewis, motion to strike the testimony of Detective Fuhrman or alternative remedies?
Your Honor, I've been--I've been before the court, so obviously I haven't been able to read it. Miss Lewis has been doing some reading. The cases have been pulled and we are going to need a chance to confer, unless the court can give us a preliminary finding or narrow the focus.
All right. Let's take a 15-minute recess. Why don't you look at it, confer amongst yourselves. I would like to pursue this motion today.
Your Honor, prepared to go forward with the Mr. DeForest inquiry at your pleasure.
Your Honor, also I wanted to bring to the court's attention that we have an extremely important 1054.7 that I think will affect scheduling that will take ten minutes and we urge upon you an opportunity to present it.
All right. Well, as I indicated to you previously, I was doing the 1054.7's at 8:30.
All right. Well, let's take these things one thing at a time because I'm going to have to read this right now.
They could have gotten the videotapes. They did get the videotapes but chose not to present them then, and the reason they chose not to present them then is because they wanted to hold something back for a big dramatic issue.
The court therefore finds that since Mr. Rubin did not submit his findings in either preliminary or final form prior to the People's resting their case, that this information was not available to the Prosecution during their case in chief.
Obviously the Defense knew about these photographs. That is why they chose not to have McDonnell testify to the glove drying evidence.
These are the gloves. That is what she said.
Don't you think that is something that the Defense is entitled to know, that your expert witness looked at these items and wasn't able to give a definitive opinion?