206
1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN 3 CHAMBERS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY) 4 MR. BUCHANAN: Judge, if I might, 5 basically, I think -- so we have 18 photographs from the 6 medical examiner’s photographs taken during the autopsy 7 that were agreed upon as are depicted in those photographs 8 that Mr. Corgan’s handed you. 9 And we have a copy of also the six that we are 10 in disagreement over. 11 Four of those are pictures of what is 12 represented to be Sandra Allen’s brain removed from her 13 skull sitting on a table. 14 One of those is a picture of the skull cap or 15 top of the skull cut away, the brain removed, showing the 16 bottom portion or the base of the skull. 17 And those, of course, we are -- it would be our 18 contention that those pictures are so shocking -- I mean, 19 there isn’t a picture in here that isn’t somewhat 20 gruesome. 21 But these are so gruesome and shocking that -- 22 and any probative value that they may have to the State’s 23 case is so minimal that there’s no purpose in showing 24 these to the jury to shock them any further than they’re 25 already going to be.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
207
1 There obviously is some bruising indicated on 2 the brain, and Dr. Hemphill can testify there’s bruising 3 on the brain without having to have the brain sitting 4 outside of the head laying on a table to show that there’s 5 bruising. We’re not contending there’s not bruising on 6 the brain. 7 As to the shot where the skull has been opened 8 and the brain removed, I think Dr. Hemphill would testify 9 that it shows some fractures at the base of the skull, 10 which, as I recall from the preliminary hearing, was an 11 indication of the force of the blow. 12 That there was the blow from the top of the head 13 forcing down through the brain and then was hard enough to 14 break or to fracture some of the bone structure around 15 behind the eyes. 16 The force of the blow, obviously, is not in 17 contention either. I mean, there’s no question that the 18 blows delivered to Mrs. Allen were pretty hard. 19 And he can testify as to that without having to 20 show them a picture of the head cut open and the brain 21 removed. 22 We’re not contending it’s not broken, that that 23 fracture doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t exist as a 24 result of the blow she received in this assault. 25 The last picture is maybe a little different.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
208
1 This one is one -- it isn’t numbered -- but it is one 2 showing a shot of Sandra Allen prior to any, from what I 3 can tell, any of her hair being shaved showing the right 4 side of her head where most of the injury to her head was. 5 Now, the medical examiner went through and then 6 shaved her head so that the nature and extent of the 7 various wounds could be more clear without the hair 8 interfering. 9 There are two more photographs that we’ve 10 already agreed to into evidence. 11 This one clearly showing the right side of her 12 head with the hair shaved showing the wound more clearly 13 without interference from the hair. 14 This one showing a view from the top of her head 15 and her head tilted somewhat to again see the injury to 16 the right side of her head and also more of the top of her 17 head. 18 But, again, clearly showing the major injury to 19 her head on the right side. 20 So there’s two photographs already in evidence 21 much more clear than the one where her hair is covering it 22 up. 23 And we already have a picture of her face. I 24 think the very first picture, Your Honor, is going to be 25 one of her face.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
209
1 So we already know that this is the person we’re 2 talking about, and they can identify her face. There’s no 3 reason to have it in there for identification purposes. 4 And I think that this photograph prior to her 5 head being shaved -- it’s showing the wound with hair in 6 it and somewhat opened up -- is cumulative. 7 That’s going to be the third time they’ll get to 8 see -- maybe even the fourth time. 9 There’s other shots of the top of her head, I 10 believe, at least one other. It doesn’t show the right 11 side so well. 12 But I think that shot is cumulative and 13 certainly doesn’t add anything to the State’s case or to 14 Dr. Hemphill’s description of the wounds because he 15 already has two that clearly show it and show it better. 16 THE COURT: State? 17 MR. CORGAN: Judge, we’ve been bouncing a 18 lot of numbers around. 19 There are 20 photographs that the defense have 20 agreed upon. So I think we mentioned 18. Mr. Buchanan 21 can count those, if he’d like. 22 As far as the six that they’re objecting to, we 23 think that they are probative and relevant as to the 24 issues of degree of force, the injury occurring antemortem 25 as opposed to postmortem.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
210
1 I think they make a -- they aid the jury in 2 making a determination as to the issues they have to 3 resolve. 4 MR. BUCHANAN: Your Honor, there are 20 5 photographs that we’ve agreed upon. 6 THE COURT: Well, what are the issues that 7 you’re trying to pinpoint; or what are the issues that are 8 in dispute or trying to anticipate are in dispute that you 9 think those go to -- the contested photographs? 10 MR. CORGAN: Well, I think, for example, 11 this picture before it’s shaved gives a better indication 12 to the jury as to the location of the injury and where 13 exactly the injury is. 14 You can’t really tell that well with her head 15 shaved -- one of those other two. 16 I think it gives somewhat of an idea of how she 17 was when she was found. 18 As to the pictures of the brain, I think it 19 should be pointed out that those are four separate shots 20 of the brain. 21 They’re not shots -- it’s not the same shot. 22 One is from the left side. One is from the right side. 23 One is from the top, and one is from the bottom. 24 And that would go to the issue of degree of 25 force. That would show the issue that these wounds were
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
211
1 antemortem. Go, I think, to the number of blows, those 2 type issues. 3 The same with the open skull showing the 4 fractures. Go to those same issues. 5 THE COURT: Aren’t those issues more 6 appropriate for second stage, if there were one? 7 MR. CORGAN: Well, it could to some extent. 8 I certainly won’t exclude that. But as far as relevance 9 for the second stage -- 10 MR. BUCHANAN: Judge, I guess my point is 11 here are the two, the one on the bottom with her hair not 12 shaved and then the one on the top with the hair already 13 shaved -- the one on the top being one of the ones we’ve 14 agreed to already. 15 The one with her hair not shaved, you can’t even 16 see the full wound. 17 Certainly, you can see that the wound in both 18 pictures is above and towards the back of her head on the 19 right side in both photographs. There’s no question. 20 There’s nothing concealed in the photograph with 21 her hair shaved, and there’s a lot of concealment in the 22 other one. 23 And I think the third photograph showing the 24 same wound is just too much. 25 THE COURT: Well, isn’t your allegation
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
212
1 heinous and cruel? 2 MR. CORGAN: Heinous, atrocious, and cruel, 3 yes, sir. 4 THE COURT: Probably fits more to that 5 evidence question than does the guilt. 6 May remain to be seen based on what develops in 7 cross whether they’ll also have their expert. May open 8 back up. 9 For the time being, I sustain the motion with 10 the understanding it may -- could change based on what 11 cross gets into, what your experts, if any, get into. 12 It might raise up -- raise questions that’ll -- 13 may be in contention. 14 MR. BUCHANAN: If I might, Your Honor, Dr. 15 Hemphill, when he provided us these photographs -- but I 16 don’t see the numbers on the back of Craig’s 17 photographs -- has numbered these as to his slides. 18 He numbered his slides at the preliminary 19 hearing and numbered our photographs with the same 20 numbers. 21 If we could have an opportunity with Dr. 22 Hemphill shortly before he testifies, maybe go through and 23 show him the numbers or if you want the three of us to get 24 together and do that. 25 MR. CORGAN: Let me tell you what I plan to
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
213
1 do in that regard. I do not plan to introduce the slides 2 as far as exhibits. 3 I do plan to introduce the pictures, the 20 4 pictures. I do plan to show the slides. 5 What I was going to do is once I got an idea of 6 what we’ve agreed upon, I would return -- plan to return 7 these 20 pictures to my office so that when Dr. Hemphill 8 gets here, he can pull the 20 slides that match with these 9 pictures. 10 Then when we get into with his testimony, I will 11 ask him as he looks at the slide on the screen to refer to 12 the photograph exhibit number that corresponds with that 13 slide. 14 And then we will offer the photographs as 15 exhibits as opposed to the slides. 16 In regard to the six photographs that Your Honor 17 is excluding at this time, I intend to go ahead and have 18 those marked and question Dr. Hemphill as to what they 19 show because I think as far as what they show is relevant. 20 And then, obviously, they will not be admitted 21 at least at this point. 22 And then we would offer them or we can argue 23 then in the second stage as to their admissibility. 24 But I would like to go ahead and establish what 25 the photographs show and have them identified by the
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
214
1 doctor at this time. 2 MR. CARLSON: Without describing what the 3 photograph shows, he’ll -- The photographs that the Judge 4 has excluded, you will not have the doctor describe what 5 the photograph shows. 6 MR. CORGAN: No. I will. I would just not 7 have him display that to the jury. I mean, I think he can 8 describe what the photograph show. 9 MR. CARLSON: I think he can describe the 10 injury. He can say that the injury was enough force that 11 it broke these particular bones and particular thing. 12 We would object to describing that it shows the 13 top of the head cut away or the skull cap cut of f. 14 THE COURT: I mean, necessarily he’s going 15 to have to tell how he saw the fractures, is he not? You 16 can’t see it unless you cut away, I assume. 17 MR. CORGAN: I mean, the purpose of the 18 testimony is not -- you know, so that he can describe it 19 now and then he doesn’t have to come back a second time. 20 If the Court will not allow us to get into the 21 description of the pictures, then we’ll just -wait and go 22 into that later. 23 MR. CARLSON: What’s he going to -- from 24 those six photographs, do you know what he’s going to say 25 other than what we’ve described? Is he going to say that
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
215
1 there’s fractures that -- 2 MR. CORGAN: Well, I anticipate that he 3 will say as to the one it shows the injury to her head 4 before its shaved. 5 And then the picture of the brain, he’ll say 6 this will show the injury to the brain and the darker 7 areas on it indicating that injury. You know, same thing 8 he said at prelim. I don’t have any reason -- 9 THE COURT: Well, I anticipate that will be 10 all right. You can think about it, but I anticipate that 11 will be all right so we might avoid having to have him 12 back. 13 MR. CARLSON: I may have a way to solve it 14 when we get to that point. 15 MR. BUCHANAN: If we could only have him do 16 one other thing because I think if he can number the 17 photographs that you give him in the same fashion that he 18 numbered these because those will correspond to the 19 numbers he assigned to them at preliminary hearing. 20 So if we talk about them from the preliminary 21 hearing transcript, if we get back to the transcript, he’s 22 going to say this is slide number 3, this is slide number 23 8, this is slide number 10. 24 And we’ll have a picture and a number on the 25 back, and you can have your State’s exhibit number
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
216
1 whatever. 2 MR. CORGAN: Well, we’ll put the exhibit 3 number. I’m not going to have him go through and number 4 the photographs. 5 THE COURT: Okay. You had something else? 6 MR. BUCHANAN: Right. 7 MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, we need to -- 8 MR. BUCHANAN: Wait, if I can do one thing 9 so we’ll be clear. Judge, there were four other 10 photographs that neither the State nor us offered. 11 So there’s really a total of 10 photographs that 12 Dr. Hemphill has, 20 of which we’re going to agree on, six 13 of which you’ve excluded for the time being anyway. 14 And there were four others that neither us nor 15 the State offered. 16 MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, we would object 17 to -- we’ve been handed a technical report as of yesterday 18 about four o’clock, plus a couple of photographs. 19 We would object to the introduction of the 20 photographs and to the technical report. 21 The technical report, both of which, from my 22 understanding, are from Mr. Perkins. 23 And the photographs are dated 5-13-91, and the 24 technical report says date reported 7-25-91, which would 25 have been yesterday.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
217
1 The photographs are the nature -- purport to 2 show, I assume, where glass was in the handle of the 3 hammer. 4 Is that what he’s going to say is that this is 5 where the glass was? 6 MR. CORGAN: Yes. There’s a 6x photograph 7 and a 12x photograph. 8 MR. CARLSON: Is he saying that this was 9 taken before the glass was removed, or is he saying it’s 10 taken after the glass was removed? 11 MR. CORGAN: Well, the dark spot that you 12 see in the back, that’s the hammer handle. 13 MR. CARLSON: I understand that. You’re 14 talking about this. 15 MR. CORGAN: Yes. 16 MR. CARLSON: Okay. But what is he saying 17 about this? Is he saying this is before the glass was 18 removed or after the glass was removed? 19 MR. CORGAN: It’s my understanding it’s 20 before. That’s taking a picture of the glass in the 21 handle. 22 MR. CARLSON: That’s what both of these are 23 representing -- 24 MR. CORGAN: Yes. 25 MR. CARLSON: -- he says? Okay. We would
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
218
1 object to the introduction of those photographs. 2 We also object to testimony in regard to a 3 report which, as I say, is dated 7-25-91. Says: 4 The shorts, now Exhibit 17, masking tape 5 arrows pointing to stained areas. 6 Presumptive testing of several of these 7 stained areas indicate a possible presence 8 of blood. Negative results were obtained 9 in utilizing a confirmatory test. The 10 spatter pattern in the crotch area of the 11 shorts indicates the wearer would be in a 12 legs-apart position. 13 If the Court wants to look at them. 14 THE COURT: Whose shorts? What shorts are 15 they? 16 MR. CARLSON: Those are Steve Allen’s 17 shorts. It’s the shorts Steve Allen had on. 18 Initially, Perkins never did test the shorts; 19 and these particular shorts came back to Mr. Perkins from 20 our experts. 21 And we assume that that’s the reason that he now 22 has decided to test them because we did. 23 MR. CORGAN: Well, that’s not entirely 24 correct, Judge. He did partial testing on the shorts. 25 I don’t know if Mr. Carlson is through.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
219
1 Whenever he’s through, I’ll respond. 2 MR. CARLSON: You know, we’ve previously 3 filed a motion to cease testing because we anticipated we 4 would get into this; and we have gotten into this. That’s 5 the problem. 6 You know, had we been given some time in regard 7 to this -- these particular items, then we’d probably be 8 in a different situation. 9 But we’re handed these the night before. That’s 10 pretty difficult, from our standpoint. 11 In other words, we have no time to get those 12 photographs in the hands of one of our experts and to have 13 them looked at before we question Mr. Perkins in regard to 14 them. 15 MR. CORGAN: Judge, I received the report 16 yesterday, the photographs yesterday. 17 I immediately -- I mean, we’re talking within 30 18 seconds of my receipt, a report was delivered to Mr. 19 Carlson the report. 20 The photographs, sometime after that before Mr. 21 Carlson left the courthouse, were delivered to him. 22 We have a concern, Judge. Mr. Perkins initially 23 tested these shorts and determined that there was blood 24 present on the shorts. That’s reflected in his first 25 report.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
220
1 When we received the shorts back, he tested 2 those same places; and he cannot confirm the blood 3 anymore. 4 So the shorts have been changed and altered. 5 There may have in fact even have been destructive testing 6 on the shorts. 7 In regard to the photographs, Mr. Carlson and 8 the defense have raised the allegation that this glass was 9 somehow planted, at least that’s the impression I got from 10 his opening statement. 11 We think those photographs are relevant as to 12 that particular issue and goes to the issue of how and why 13 possibly Miss Lee, upon a visual examination, did not find 14 the glass. 15 You can barely see that glass in a 6x and 12x 16 photograph of the handle. 17 In regard to testing, Your Honor did not sustain 18 the motion to cease testing. 19 If we’re getting into that, I believe that the 20 contact lens are still will Mr. Carlson’s expert; and 21 they’re continuing to do testing on that. 22 We’ve not been furnished any additional 23 information as to that. 24 MR. CARLSON: Are you done? 25 MR. CORGAN: Yes.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
221
1 MR. CARLSON: Let me address the contact 2 lens first. Mr. Corgan knows that I’ve advised him if he 3 wants the contact lens, it will be delivered to him at any 4 time. I advised him of that well before the trial 5 started. 6 We are not doing any additional testing on the 7 contact lens. There’s not been anything done on the 8 contact lens since the date of the report that he 9 received, which was June 21st of 1991. 10 With regard to the particular photographs in 11 question, they’re dated 5-13-91. 12 If it was a situation where they would not have 13 been available, that’s something else. 14 But they’re obviously dated 5-13-91, and that 15 sheds a new light on the situation. 16 With regard to Lynette Lee’ s situation, we’ll 17 have a chance to address that at the appropriate time. 18 But I think the Court knows what the point is. 19 The Court’s been involved in these kinds of cases before. 20 But from the standpoint of the photographs, we 21 object to their introduction and to the report in regard 22 to the shorts. 23 Now, there’s some allegation of destructive 24 testing. He certainly will have an opportunity to 25 question the experts when they come with regard to what
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
222
1 they did with regard to those shorts; and I hope he does 2 in that regard. 3 MR. BUCHANAN: One other point to be made, 4 Your Honor, Mr. Perkins’ handwritten notes that were 5 produced at the preliminary hearing concerning the shorts 6 and his testimony, he noted blood on the shorts. 7 But he also quit testing them. He didn’t even 8 completely try and identify, by his own testimony, all the 9 blood on the shorts. 10 He didn’t even continue to test them because 11 he’s got note lice observed microscopically. 12 His contention at preliminary hearing was they 13 were lice infected, so he didn’t test them anymore. 14 And now that he sees that testing’s been done on 15 them, he decides he better get something done. 16 THE COURT: Well, what he reports here 17 7-25, is that the date of his testing of the shorts? I 18 don’t know that it says that. 19 MR. CORGAN: I don’t believe so, Your 20 Honor. 21 MR. BUCHANAN: That’s yesterday. 22 MR. CORGAN: He may have done it before, 23 but that’s the day he wrote his report was yesterday. 24 I thought there was a date tested on there. Is 25 that not --
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
223
1 THE COURT: That’s kind of what I was 2 asking. I’m not sure if that’s -- 3 MR. CORGAN: Can I see that? I can’t 4 answer that right now. 5 THE COURT: Are these Mr. Perkins’ 6 photographs? 7 MR.CORGAN: Yes. 8 THE COURT: The hammer handle? 9 MR.CORGAN: He took those. 10 THE COURT: And he made these known to you 11 when? 12 MR. CORGAN: Known to me? 13 THE COURT: (The Court nodded his head up 14 and down). 15 MR. CORGAN: Judge, I think he may have 16 made those known to me last week that they were in 17 existence. 18 When he told me that, I told him to make copies 19 for me and the defense attorney and send them in the mail. 20 I have not received those photographs in the 21 mail. First time I saw those photographs were yesterday 22 when he got here. 23 I anticipate that I will get the photographs in 24 the mail today that show that same thing. 25 THE COURT: I assume from this that Mr.
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
224
1 Perkins is the one who’s going to testify that he found 2 some glass fragments in the handle, the ones that Mr. 3 Reimer testified about? 4 MR. CORGAN: Yes, Judge. 5 THE COURT: And I assume 5-13-91, is that 6 the date of Mr. Perkins’ examination -- 7 MR. CORGAN: Yes. 8 THE COURT: -- and finding those items? 9 MR. CORGAN: Yes. 10 THE COURT: And is that the date of the -- 11 was there an earlier report reflecting that fact? 12 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Judge, dated June 6, 13 1991. It’s a big paragraph at the bottom. 14 MR. CORGAN: That wouldn’t be earlier. 15 That would be later. 16 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, that’s the date -- 17 MR. CARLSON: That’s the report. That’s 18 the date of the report that he reflects that he found 19 glass. 20 MR. BUCHANAN: But he indicates in his 21 report the hammer was submitted to him on 5-13-91. 22 THE COURT: Is there somewhere in there 23 that you actually see glass? I don’t know if I can tell 24 in looking at them. 25 MR. CORGAN: Judge, as I understand it, see
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
225
1 the bright white spot in the middle of the picture and the 2 white spot in the lower part right here and right here, I 3 believe are the glass fragments. That’s on the 12x 4 photograph. 5 THE COURT: Do you know what portion of the 6 handle that is? 7 MR. CORGAN: Yes, Judge. 8 THE COURT: Where on the handle? 9 MR. CORGAN: Pardon me? 10 THE COURT: Where on the handle is that? 11 MR. CORGAN: As I recall, it’s up closer 12 towards the head; and there are a couple of scratch marks. 13 And glass fragments were inside embedded in those scratch 14 marks. 15 THE COURT: Anything else on those? 16 MR. CARLSON: We received a report Tuesday 17 reflecting some additional testing had been done. I 18 believe it was Tuesday. Is that the day you handed me the 19 report -- Tuesday? It’s on amylase. 20 THE COURT: Which report? 21 MR. CARLSON: Another report from Mr. 22 perkins. 23 THE COURT: What does that mean -- amylase? 24 MR. CARLSON: Amylase has to do with -- 25 it’s a particular substance that’s found in saliva,
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
226
1 perspiration, blood, body fluids. And it’s a report 2 from -- says date of report 7-16-91. 3 We also lodge an objection as testimony in 4 regard to the amylase in this particular matter. 5 MR. BUCHANAN: Judge, that’s a test that 6 they could have performed any time in the 11 months they 7 had the shorts, the shirt, and the shoes before we ever 8 saw them. 9 And they wait till they come back from our folks 10 and decide to do some new testing, different kind. 11 THE COURT: Is that all? 12 MR. CARLSON: That’s all. 13 THE COURT: I guess you’re making a motion 14 in limine, or I don’t know what you want to categorize it 15 as. 16 MR. CARLSON: Motion in limine basically. 17 Objection to any testimony in that regard. 18 THE COURT: Well, I’m going to overrule 19 your motion in limine and in regard to the testing of the 20 clothing. 21 I don’t think there’s anything brand new about 22 those. That’s in the general topic, subject matter that 23 would be expected in the realm of examinations already 24 made. 25 Sustain it as to the photos due to the length of
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
227
1 time that they’ve been available. 2 We’ll have oral testimony anyway, so I don’t 3 think it keeps critical information from the fact finders 4 since we’ll have oral testimony about it. 5 But, of course, should have been provided -- 6 they have been taken quite awhile ago. 7 And, you know, again, may be subject to how it’s 8 handled on cross or other experts that may open up it 9 depending on how it’s handled. Ready to go? 10 MR. CORGAN: I need just a second to take 11 the 20 photos down and leave -- 12 THE COURT: Is this yours? 13 MR. CORGAN: No, that’s not. 14 MR. CARLSON: Judge, I don’t know that 15 we’ve covered the one on the amylase by the Court’s 16 ruling. 17 THE COURT: Yeah. My denial covered those 18 two reports as far as the motion in limine within the 19 scope of the general subject matter at hand. 20 MR. CORGAN: Let me make sure I’m clear as 21 far as the photographs. 22 Are you not -- can I go into the fact that he 23 did photograph those, or am I not allowed to ask that 24 question? 25 THE COURT: You have a position on that?
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
228
1 MR. BUCHANAN: Wouldn’t it be better to 2 just have him describe what he did? He took the brain out 3 and looked and this, that, and the other. And we can mark 4 the exhibits as Craig wants to. 5 But I don’t think we need to tell the jury we’ve 6 got these photographs but you don’t need to see them right 7 now. 8 MR. CORGAN: No, I’m not talking about the 9 medical examiner photographs. I’m talking about the glass 10 photographs. 11 MR. CARLSON: On the glass photographs, if 12 we allow the State to bring up the photographs, you force 13 us in the position to have to bring them out to 14 cross-examine him on, which is what we’re trying to 15 prevent. Again, I’ll say -- 16 THE COURT: For the time being, we won’t 17 even mention that it was photographed. 18 MR. CARLSON: Again, I say it would be 19 different if we’d have had a couple of days or so; but we 20 didn’t have that. 21 MR. CORGAN: provided as soon as I had 22 them, Judge. 23 THE COURT: I understand. 24 (SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD, HAVING 25 BEEN TRANSCRIBED PREVIOUSLY AND ARE
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
229
1 CONTAINED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME WHICH INCLUDES 2 THE TESTIMONY OF J. DOUGLAS PERKINS) 3 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD SUBSEQUENT 4 TO THE TESTIMONY OF J. DOUGLAS PERKINS IN THE 5 PRESENCE AND HEARING OF THE JURY)
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
lh1998-99, 2000