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 • Utterances: 12

Barry Scheck objected at sidebar that the prosecution 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's core objection — that Clark was overstating Lee's prior testimony to make it more damaging to the defense.

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 invokes Evidence Code 352 (prejudicial/misleading evidence), signaling this is a substantive legal challenge, not just a quibble.

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's flat refusal to extend the session, with a slightly exasperated reminder that this had already been discussed — a glimpse of judicial housekeeping.

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). Both claim to have been in the courtroom.

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)

⚔ Henry Lee

mischaracterization dispute

The sidebar itself centers on whether prosecution is accurately representing Lee's prior testimony — Scheck argues Clark is inflating the specificity of Lee's conclusions about the tile imprint to make his findings seem more damaging to the defense.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7694 • 12 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103