Sidebar: testimony characterization

📄 Sidebar: testimony characterization — Friday, September 15, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\15\SIDEBAR-TESTIMONY-CHARACTERIZA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 155 of 167

◀ Direct examination of William Bodziak (part 1) Direct examination of William Bodziak (part 2) ▶

Date: Friday, September 15, 1995 • Lines: 12

Barry Scheck objected at sidebar that Clark was mischaracterizing Henry Lee's prior testimony about a bloody imprint on a tile, arguing Lee never testified the wavy line was a shoeprint — only that it could be a footprint impression in cement. Marcia Clark disputed this, insisting Lee testified to both a possible shoeprint pattern and the imprint. Ito overruled the objection. Robert Shapiro then briefly asked about extending the day's session, but Ito declined due to jurors having pre-scheduled appointments.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

We are over at the sidebar. What's your objection? What's the objection?

# 3 MR. SCHECK:

The objection is that Dr. Lee's testimony was, as to the bloody imprint that he presented previously tested--the bloody imprint or three lines in the corner, didn't testify that that wavy line was an imprint or bloody imprint, which is the whole point here.

# 4 THE COURT:

Miss Clark.

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

I think this is misleading.

# 6 MS. CLARK:

That's not correct at all, your Honor. Dr. Lee--I was here. Dr. Lee testified to that kind of chevron-looking lines with these other straight lines as being a possible shoeprint, not just an imprint, and that is what he testified to. So there were a number of defects in his testimony concerning that tile. That's one. The other one pertains to what Mr. Scheck has referred to, but he testified to both.

# 7 MR. SCHECK:

That's not what he's saying. He's saying the imprint in the tile could--one of the things, could be somebody stepping in that cement. So he's not saying--I just think this is extremely misleading and I object under 352.

# 8 THE COURT:

All right.

# 9 MR. SCHECK:

Mischaracterizes the testimony.

# 10 THE COURT:

Objection overruled.

# 11 MR. SHAPIRO:

Can I ask you something on scheduling? We would like to finish today. Could we go a little longer?

# 12 THE COURT:

No. The jurors have scheduled activities, doctor's appointments and things today. I checked. Remember we talked? We have to stop at 12:00.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Barry Scheck

Dr. Lee's testimony was, as to the bloody imprint that he presented previously tested--the bloody imprint or three lines in the corner, didn't testify that that wavy line was an imprint or bloody imprint, which is the whole point here.

Scheck objected that Clark overstated or mischaracterized Lee's prior testimony.

Marcia Clark

Dr. Lee testified to that kind of chevron-looking lines with these other straight lines as being a possible shoeprint, not just an imprint, and that is what he testified to.

Clark pushes back hard, reframing Lee's testimony as explicitly referencing a shoeprint pattern, not merely an ambiguous imprint.

Barry Scheck

He's saying the imprint in the tile could--one of the things, could be somebody stepping in that cement. So he's not saying--I just think this is extremely misleading and I object under 352.

Scheck called the characterization extremely misleading and expressly objected under 352.

Lance A. Ito

No. The jurors have scheduled activities, doctor's appointments and things today. I checked. Remember we talked? We have to stop at 12:00.

Ito refused to extend the session and reminded counsel of the previously discussed noon cutoff.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Tile with bloody imprint or wavy/chevron lines examined by Dr. Henry Lee — disputed as either a shoeprint or a cement footprint impression

discussed, disputed as to characterization

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Marcia Clark

Sharp dispute over what exactly Dr. Lee testified about the tile imprint — whether he identified it as a possible shoeprint (Clark's version) or merely as a possible foot impression in cement (Scheck's version).

heated

Robert Shapiro•Lance A. Ito

Shapiro asked to extend the session to finish testimony; Ito declined, citing pre-scheduled juror commitments and a prior discussion about the noon cutoff.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Marcia Clark

mischaracterization dispute

Scheck argued that Clark overstated or mischaracterized the specificity of Lee's prior testimony about the tile imprint.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7694 • 12 lines

Criminal Trial

Department 103