We're over at sidebar. Mr. Neufeld.

I thought we were done with this. You asked me before, you wanted a proffer, was there any other issue besides the glove shrinkage, and I said yes, there was one matter that he may respond to Bodziak, and there's one brief point I intend to use him for surrebuttal on Bodziak.

What's that?

That is, Bodziak said that heavy globs of blood will turn dark and turn black, that if the blood drop is light, it will get fainter and fainter, and he will rebut that based on his expertise in the area of bloodstains.

It's not relevant. Mr. Bodziak was testifying to shoeprints and to blood that was deposited by a shoe, and that's not his field of expertise. Whether a blood drop will get lighter or darker is different, is different, and agent Bodziak specifically limited his testimony to that. That's not relevant impeachment.

He will testify that a bloody instrument on--a bloody hand print, a bloody--any print, okay, whether it's faint or a ton of blood, it doesn't make a difference. It's the same biochemical properties and it goes red to dark brown to black period. It doesn't matter what--whether it's caused by a shoeprint or anything else.

Hold on. All right.

Blood spatter analysis is not the same as shoeprint analysis, your Honor.

He's not going to testify about blood. He's not going to get into specifics. I'm simply going to limit him to the point of rebutting the statements that Bodziak made, that it would make a difference if it was a very faint print. He said it would just get lighter, would not turn darker unless it was a glob of blood. And he's certainly qualified by everything we went through on his qualifications last time he was here to give that testimony, and that's it. It will only take 30 seconds.

That will not take only 30 seconds, I guarantee you, not on direct and not on cross.

Three questions.

That's not true.

I'll do it in three questions.

Hold on.

I don't really think he's qualified to testify to that. You know, talking about blood spatter analysis is one thing. That's what he's here for. We're already way beyond rebuttal. He testified to glove shrinkage, but now he's going to--we're talking about him testifying to age of bloody shoeprints, which is a whole different thing and we are going to have to lay a foundation for that because how they appear, how bloody shoeprints appear offer time is something that requires a great fund of experience to know.

Let me just ask you this. As a practical matter, is there any dispute that latent blood prints over time are going to eventually fade away? They go through some initial drying over the first day, they'll turn from red, you know, to brown to black.

Not to black.

No. He's going to testify--

Hold on. Hold on.

And then once they hit the black or brown to a dark color, then they start to fade with age. That's not in dispute, is it?

Bodziak did not say that. Bodziak testified to the contrary. He says if you have a glob of blood--those were his words, glob, g-l-o-b--that that would go from red to dark brown to black, but it was his experience that if you have a light stain of blood, it never goes to dark brown or black. It simply fades, gets lighter and lighter. He will say that is absolutely wrong as a matter of science, and he will explain very briefly biochemical properties, which is actually the same whether a light stain or heavy stain. No difference.

You know what the problem we have here is a misinterpretation of Mr. Bodziak's testimony because what this goes to is the shoeprint photograph two weeks later. And if Mr. MacDonell is going to testify that the shoeprint viewed two weeks after it's been made in blood is going to be darker, you know, then we have a real problem. I can't believe he's going to say something like that, and what we're trying to infer from his testimony is totally the opposite of what the true point is, which is that a shoeprint two weeks later is going to be fainter than it was on the day it was made.

I think if you look at--you remember Bodziak's testimony, it is absolutely unambiguous. He said there's a different process that occurs with globs of blood as opposed to light stains. That's what he said.

Not a different process. He just said his experience was different.

Fine.

I think we are talking about some very misleading testimony.

He said different color globs turn dark brown.

He's not a serologist either, right?

No. He's an expert qualified on everything about blood after it leaves the body. That's what he testified--

I would also--while we are here, your Honor, I would like to ask that the jury be--I would like to ask that the jury be admonished as to Mr. Neufeld's bad faith attempts to get in testimony what was previously ruled inadmissible. There is repeated effort on the part of these lawyers to go against the court's ruling after the court rules.

We'll take that up in a bit.

Okay.