Sidebar: photograph evidence objection

📄 Sidebar: photograph evidence objection — Thursday, July 7, 1994

Address:

C:\DEPT103\PRELIMINARY\1994\JUL\7\SIDEBAR-PHOTOGRAPH-EVIDENCE-OB.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 5 of 6

◀ Direct examination of Philip Vannatter (part 1) Direct examination of Philip Vannatter (part 2) ▶

Date: Thursday, July 7, 1994 • Utterances: 10

Defense attorneys objected in chambers to the prosecution displaying three photographs together on a single board — one of Simpson's cut index finger and two of the gloves — arguing the juxtaposition was unduly prejudicial. Shapiro's deeper concern was not the judge being influenced, but that photographers in the courtroom were transmitting the image worldwide to potential future jurors. Judge Kennedy-Powell overruled the objection, finding the photos were not comparable to the more inflammatory crime scene photos handled separately.

# 1 THE COURT:

Sure. Bring the exhibit back. Mr. Reporter. (the following proceedings were Held in chambers: )

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. The record should reflect that we are in chambers, equivalent to side bar; We have Mr. Hodgman and Miss Clark, Mr. Uelmen and Mr. Shapiro, the court reporter and myself.

# 3 MR. SHAPIRO:

Yes, your Honor. We are going to object as being unduly prejudicial putting three photographs together that are not related. One is a photograph of Mr. Simpson taken on the 13th, of his index finger; and right next to it are the two gloves. I think the inference is more than clear and the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. Were the three photographs to be introduced individually, we have no objection to that; But to do it on this board is, to me, outrageous.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

Well, "outrageous" is hardly the term, but I would remind the court we don't have a jury; This is a preliminary hearing --

# 5 THE COURT:

I am well aware of that.

# 6 MS. CLARK:

-- Number one. And number two, if counsel has no objection to them individually, then he certainly cannot legally object to having them all together, collectively, on one board. It simply -- I don't think I have heard a legal objection that would appropriately be made at a preliminary hearing. I don't think the court is going to be unduly prejudiced by seeing three photographs in one spot as opposed to having them shown singly.

# 7 THE COURT:

I don't believe that the photos --

# 8 MR. SHAPIRO:

May I be heard just briefly? I don't believe the court is going to be prejudiced at all, but there is a group of photographers out there. My information is they are sending this transmission worldwide to potential members of this jury, if there ever should be a jury, and that by doing this, there is no other purpose than to unduly influence them by having this picture on the front page of some type of magazine.

# 9 THE COURT:

The court was very concerned with regard to photographs of the crime scene. We handled that in a way I thought was appropriate for both sides. I do not find that these particular photos depicted in the manner that they are depicted are the same nature and type as those other photos that we handled in another way. the mere fact that there is a picture of the hand and a picture of the gloves on one board I do not feel is of such a nature that we would prejudice the defendant's ability to get a fair trial should at some point he go to trial. So, therefore, your objection is overruled. Let's go back out.

# 10 MR. SHAPIRO:

Thank you. (the following proceedings were Held in open court:)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Robert Shapiro

to do it on this board is, to me, outrageous.

Unusually strong language for a chambers argument, signaling the defense recognized how damaging the visual connection between Simpson's cut finger and the gloves could be.

Robert Shapiro

My information is they are sending this transmission worldwide to potential members of this jury, if there ever should be a jury, and that by doing this, there is no other purpose than to unduly influence them by having this picture on the front page of some type of magazine.

Reveals the defense's real concern: not the judge's impartiality but the media's transmission of a damning visual to potential jurors globally.

Marcia Clark

if counsel has no objection to them individually, then he certainly cannot legally object to having them all together, collectively, on one board.

Sharp legal counter — if each photo is individually admissible, their combination on a board creates no new legal objection at a preliminary hearing with no jury.

Kathleen Kennedy-Powell

the mere fact that there is a picture of the hand and a picture of the gloves on one board I do not feel is of such a nature that we would prejudice the defendant's ability to get a fair trial

The ruling, distinguishing these photos from the more graphic crime scene photographs handled separately.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Photograph of Simpson's cut index finger, taken July 13

challenged as prejudicially combined with glove photos

Informal

Two photographs of the gloves

challenged as prejudicially combined with finger photo on one board

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Marcia Clark

Shapiro calls the photo board 'outrageous'; Clark immediately reframes his language and points out no valid legal objection exists at a preliminary hearing without a jury.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Kathleen Kennedy-Powell

Shapiro pivots from judicial prejudice (conceding the judge won't be influenced) to jury pool contamination via worldwide media transmission, revealing the objection was never really about the judge.

revealing

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8978 • 10 utterances

Preliminary Trial

Department 103