All right. We are again on the record in the case of people v. Simpson in chambers, without the defendant. Both lawyers for the people are here, and Mr. Uelmen and Mr. Shapiro are here for the defense. Miss Clark.
It's about time you did something. The L.A. TIMES was getting a bit nervous about your involvement.
Your Honor, the nature of the objection is that what counsel is calling for is hearsay evidence; and pursuant to evidence code section 1220 -- that is their client's statement, and they cannot be legally the proponent of that statement. We legally, under 1220, can introduce that statement. At present we don't intend to introduce that statement at the preliminary hearing.
What about Prop. 115? Has that affected the ability of the defense to present what traditionally -- and I agree with you -- is classic hearsay, the exception being an admission offered against a party And, traditionally, it is only offered by the prosecution and not by the defense? But what about Prop. 115 at a preliminary hearing? Has that changed that? I mean, presumably hearsay evidence is admissible.
I would submit not, your Honor; We have a statement of a party opponent, and only the opposing party can be the proponent of that statement. We are not seeking to introduce that statement. And we will do some research, if you wish, to satisfy you on this issue. My understanding of the law, it is not admissible; it is hearsay.
it is conceded it is hearsay, but Prop. 115 makes hearsay admissible at a preliminary hearing if it is offered through the testimony of a police officer with five years experience. We have an officer with five years experience on the stand. Hearsay is admissible.
KEY QUOTEYou know, that is my general understanding; and that has been my ruling in other cases that nobody cares about, but -- in other cases that has kind of been my ruling, and I have not seen anybody cite a case to the contrary. If you wish some time, we are taking our noon break. you know. I will certainly take the issue up again at 1:30 in chambers and listen to what everybody has to say. (proceedings were had which were transcribed in volume 11-a and ordered sealed by the court.)
KEY QUOTECertainly. After detective Vannatter concludes his testimony, I will present the nurse who took the blood from the defendant, unless you want to stipulate; and then I will present Dennis Fung, and then I will bring greg Matheson and then the coroner.
At present we have Dr. Irwin golden, who is the deputy medical examiner, who performed the autopsies, scheduled to testify tomorrow.
I mean, if we really push today, I think we should finish tomorrow unless you are going to go into serology to any great -- are you just going into blood typing?
Have a good lunch. We will meet in here at 1:30, then. (at 12:02 p.m., a recess was Taken until 1:30 p.m.)
it is conceded it is hearsay, but Prop. 115 makes hearsay admissible at a preliminary hearing if it is offered through the testimony of a police officer with five years experience.
You know, that is my general understanding; and that has been my ruling in other cases that nobody cares about, but -- in other cases that has kind of been my ruling, and I have not seen anybody cite a case to the contrary.
Enzyme, typing and ABO; but there is no d.n.a.
We should finish tomorrow, then.