Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:45477 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:209 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBAR - July 11, 1995 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 18:19:52 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 83 Sender: myra@netcom7.netcom.com Sidebar from July 11, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: OKAY. MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE SAME DOCUMENT. THIS IS THE SECOND PAGE. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHAT PART ARE YOU OBJECTING TO? THE LAST SENTENCE? MS. CLARK: RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: THE DOCUMENT -- THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN -- THIS IS PART OF HER STATEMENT. SHE DIDN'T SEND THE STATEMENT TO US, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: SO WHAT? MR. COCHRAN: IT'S ALSO A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT OF THE CONVERSATION WITH FENJVES. AND YOU CAN'T JUST PUT A DOCUMENT UP AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN WE SAW THE SECOND PAGE SAY SHE WANTS TO KEEP PART OF IT OUT. THE COURT: YOU ARE SAYING IT'S A 356 PROBLEM? MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY BE A 356 PROBLEM? THIS ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE BODY OF THE THING. THIS IS JUST AN ADDENDUM. AT THE VERY END IS A -- SHE CONTESTS SOMEBODY ELSE'S TESTIMONY. SO -- MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THAT. MS. CLARK: IT'S HIGHLY IMPROPER. MR. COCHRAN: JUST CUT OFF THAT PART OF IT. I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO HAVE IT IN THERE. MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT? IF HER OPINION OF ANOTHER WITNESS' CREDIBILITY IS RELEVANT, THEN I THINK THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT UP THE FACT THAT SHE TOLD DETECTIVE LANGE ON JULY THE 12TH THAT SHE THINKS O.J. IS GUILTY AS HELL. HER OPINION COMES IN. MR. COCHRAN: HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? MS. CLARK: IF HER OPINION IS RELEVANT AS TO THE CREDIBILITY OR ACCURACY OF A WITNESS' TESTIMONY, THEN IT'S EQUALLY AS RELEVANT AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT. MR. COCHRAN: CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? MS. CLARK: SHE IS NOT THE TRIER OF FACT. THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DOCUMENT COUNSEL PUT ON THE BOARD HERSELF, THEN WALKS AWAY AND LEAVES OUT HALF OF THE DOCUMENT. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK ABOUT THE OTHER PART OF THE DOCUMENT. SHE MARKED IT. THE JURY'S SEEN IT. THE OTHER PART IS A CONTIGUOUS STATEMENT OF WHAT SHE SAID, AND I DON'T OBJECT TO TAKING PART OF IT OUT, THE STATEMENT ABOUT HER BELIEF ABOUT O.J.'S GUILT. THE COURT: IS THERE ANY VALUE TO THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN THAT LAST SENTENCE WHERE SHE TELLS PABLO FENJVES SHE THINKS HE'S MISTAKEN IN HIS TIMES? MR. COCHRAN: SHE SAYS NO DOG WAS BARKING AT 10:15. MS. CLARK: SHE ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THAT. THE COURT: ARE YOU SAYING IT'S USEFUL, BUT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT? MR. COCHRAN: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY BACK. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IT'S NOT A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. NO. A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT HAS TO BE PRIOR TO THE TIME SHE MADE THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. THIS IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME SHE MADE THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. THIS CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS JUNE 30TH. THIS IS JANUARY THE 25TH. MR. COCHRAN: THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE TODAY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STATEMENTS MADE TODAY TO COUNSEL. MS. CLARK: SOMEBODY OUGHT TO GO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE CODE. MR. COCHRAN: WE ALL SHOULD LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE CODE, JUDGE. THIS IS THE DOCUMENT COUNSEL PUT UP ON THE ELMO. IT'S A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT TO THE DOG BARKING. IT'S VERY RELEVANT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO ALLOW ITS USE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST SENTENCE, TELLING PABLO FENJVES -- ACTUALLY THE LAST THREE SENTENCES. MR. COCHRAN: I'LL ASK THE CLERK -- CAN I ASK THE CLERK TO TAKE IT OUT NOW? THE COURT: YEAH. THAT'S IRRELEVANT. MS. CLARK: THEN CAN I USE -- THE COURT: NO. I JUST TOOK OUT THE OPINION THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS OFFENDING. I'M TAKING OUT THE OTHER OPINION AS WELL.