Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

More shitposting by Deckard.

He was doing his deed in front of the courthouse. It matters not that he moved as far as the sidewalk in front of the courthouse. His intent to reach jurors was manifest by this and prior behavior.

http://fox17online.com/2017/06/01/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-by-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets/

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

He was convicted of ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JURY.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-73/sec.-1504/

2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 73 - Obstruction of Justice (Sections 1501 - 1521)
Sec. 1504 - Influencing juror by writing

18 U.S.C. § 1504 (2015)

§1504. Influencing juror by writing

Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4h1vst4md522er2w1vdprirf))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-120a

Section 750.120a

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 328 of 1931

750.120a Willfully attempting to influence juror by intimidation or other improper means; retaliating against person for having performed duties as juror; penalties.

Sec. 120a.

(1) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by argument or persuasion, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

(2) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by intimidation, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(b) If the intimidation is committed in a criminal case for which the maximum term of imprisonment for the violation is more than 10 years, or the violation is punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

(c) If the intimidation involved committing or attempting to commit a crime or a threat to kill or injure any person or to cause property damage, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not prohibit any deliberating juror from attempting to influence other members of the same jury by any proper means.

(4) A person who retaliates, attempts to retaliate, or threatens to retaliate against another person for having performed his or her duties as a juror is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. As used in this subsection, “retaliate” means any of the following:

(a) Committing or attempting to commit a crime against any person.

(b) Threatening to kill or injure any person or threatening to cause property damage.

(5) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

(6) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed for violating subsection (2) or (4) to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

History: Add. 1955, Act 88, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 450, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 280, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2004

It matters not that he moved as far as the sidewalk in front of the courthouse.

Piss off spam-bot. It was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

All of his article headlines are like that -- the resident was merely "standing on the sidewalk", or "sitting in his car", or "walking down the street".

Yeah. Right.

"OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime."

And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man.

I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.

This does not affirm a right. Should the juror state his intent to vote based on nullification, a judge can properly remove him from the jury at ant point before the verdict is rendered, including during deliberations. His conscience prevents him from carrying out the oath he took, but he is not prosecuted criminally.

True enough. And good reason why any fully-informed juror should never confirm that was how he voted.

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

He was convicted of ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JURY.

He was, of his own admission, attempting to influence (educate) jurors with regard to a specific trial that was occurring, potentially both jurors and substitute jurors.

Had he merely been handing out brochures without a specific demonstrable (or confessed) intent to influence a particular jury trial, he would have been fine. If, for instance, he made a habit of handing out pamphlets constantly adjacent to the courthouse (but not on its sidewalk), it would be far harder to prosecute him. But he was trying to influence a specific jury and confessed to it as well as having considerable circumstantial evidence that that was his entire intent.

So, yes, this could be considered tampering but it is a narrow ruling on the law. People can still hand out FIJA literature, just not to try to influence specific juries to produce a particular trial outcome.

§1504. Influencing juror by writing

nolu chan, while you present a federal statute that would be most applicable to a set of jurors to remind them of what their official duties are, it is also the courts obligation to inform those same jurors of their rights. Jurors do have rights. They have a right to question the judge and even the prosecution when there is not sufficient evidence for them to make their votes. If this statute is to apply to jurors then it shall also equally apply to the prosecution team because as you noted in the OJ Simpson acquittal case, we all know how corrupt our courts can be.

Jurors are expected to abide by those laws as the prosecution and lawyers (including judges). Jurors are also a special people in that they are not officers of the courts but are serving in the capacity of those courts in doing official court business.

Piss off spam-bot. It was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

He broke the law on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. That does not change the sentence and it only took 30 minutes for a jury to render a unanimous verdict of guilty.

He moved to the sidewalk this time, thinking it made a difference. His clear intent was to hand out his information in that location because he believed he would reach his target of passing jurors or persons called to jury duty.

The intent to violate the law, and the actual violation, are present in that location. He could always try standing on a soapbox at Speaker's Corner, not near the entrance of a courthouse.

Following your imaginary law earns some poor guy a conviction.

The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.

Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died.

They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses.

The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal.

Had he merely been handing out brochures without a specific demonstrable (or confessed) intent to influence a particular jury trial, he would have been fine.

As long as his intended target was actual jurors, or persons called for jury duty, he had a problem. His was a failed effort to circumvent the law.

it is also the courts obligation to inform those same jurors of their rights. Jurors do have rights. They have a right to question the judge and even the prosecution when there is not sufficient evidence for them to make their votes.

I wish you the best of luck in arguing your jury nullification to a judge.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

They had 10X more than they needed.

"For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses."

Pffft! All he did was intentionally confuse the jury. He didn't present anything to cause reasonable doubt.

"The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal."

That's the time it took to convince the three non-black jurors.

As long as his intended target was actual jurors, or persons called for jury duty, he had a problem. His was a failed effort to circumvent the law.

That's true.

But can a prosecutor be so certain that he can find a jury who won't nullify a conviction of a FIJA activist?

I'm not sure how often it comes up but the prosecutors have to consider this in deciding to bring a case.

This guy trying to help the Amish with their whole milk customers did target the jurors of that trial and admitted it. And that is probably the only reason they got a conviction on him.

I wish you the best of luck in arguing your jury nullification to a judge.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

We have a corrupt judiciary exercising power they were never given by the constitution.

That is why you cannot cite from the constitution the supreme courts authority.

You can only cite the authority they gave themselves. That doesn't make it legitimate. It makes it color of law not real law.

Color of law is a legal term in blacks law dictionary.

You may disagree with me but that is ok.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

They pulled a stunt, and in doing so they violated one of the key rules of presenting a case: never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

It was the dramatic high point of their case, when the prosecution stood up and demanded OJ to put on the glove. Everything built up to that, all of the exhausting and overdone lessons on DNA evidence, it was all built up to this staged stunt, wherein OJ would slide on the glove, linking him to everything.

It didn't fit.

And with that, the wings were off the plane and the case was going down like a lawn dart.

Johnny Cochrane understood theater too, repeating over and over in his closing argument the mantra "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up.

Bullshit only a moron was fooled by OJ opening his hands up and pretending.

It didn't fit.

Bullshit. You are very gullible.

The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

I never thought you stupid. But anyone who thinks OJ is not guilty is capital S STUPID!

"or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence"

After all that handling, do you think OJ's defense team would ever let that glove be used as evidence in the future? Me neither.

Therefore, the prosecution should have conceded that and told OJ to try it on without the latex glove. What have they got to lose?

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

After all that handling, do you think OJ's defense team would ever let that glove be used as evidence in the future? Me neither.

Therefore, the prosecution should have conceded that and told OJ to try it on without the latex glove. What have they got to lose?

Yep. But they didn't. They foolishly staged a grandstanding event, but did not set it up properly, and ran their own case up on the rocks.

And defense counsel seized on the error and pounded it over the prosecution's head.

Our legal system is a game. It has rules. It has well-paid gladiators. It has winners and losers. It amuses me that people get mad at ME because our legal system is crappy.

I never thought you stupid. But anyone who thinks OJ is not guilty is capital S STUPID!

I didn't say what I personally think about his innocence. I merely recounted why the prosecutors lost the case. Apparently that distinction was lost on you. Obviously OJ Simpson is guilty as sin. He won his case in spite of that because the prosecution was weak and the defense team was strong.

Yep. But they didn't. They foolishly staged a grandstanding event, but did not set it up properly, and ran their own case up on the rocks.

51. The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

52. Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought for Simpson at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year.

53. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.

------------------ -----------------------------------------------

Plus, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go? The gloves in evidence were his.

As for trying them on? As a juror I would have looked at the contortions OJ went through to make it look like they didn't fit and concluded they were his. They didn't have to fit.

In retrospect it was a bad move. But only because it gave jurors an excuse to acquit.

Bullshit. You are very gullible.

No, the prosecutors were very stupid. They put themselves in a position where O.J. himself could put on the show he did and torpedo their case, which he did.

I merely recounted what they did, what he did, and how that lost them their case.

If you yourself were on trial for your life, and you could hire Darden or hire me, given all of your comments about my intelligence you'd no doubt hire Darden.

In the bigger picture of things, that would have been for the best, because justice very probably would have been served. Were you to hire me instead, justice would have a much lower probability of being served, because you would have a better chance of getting away with it.

So by all means be sure to hire Dudley Do-right as your defense attorney if you ever get picked up for a DUI. That way you'll be sure to pay society every penny for your crime, as you should, of course. You will also pay Dudley (in advance, no doubt - even Dudley Do-right isn't stupid).

If you want to, you can hire a defense attorney who will make sure justice is served. That's your prerogative.

Most people hire defense attorneys to avoid punishment, whether they are innocent or guilty.

It is always your call as the client.

In retrospect it was a bad move. But only because it gave jurors an excuse to acquit.

In retrospect?

You have a black jury in LA. You don't give them the excuse. You don't give the perp the opportunity to weasel out.

Plus, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go? The gloves in evidence were his.

But the LAPD put on cops who perjured themselves, and had a bad chain of evidence.

And the prosecution took six months to present the case, hammered away on domestic violence instead of the DNA evidence, and then had a disaster in the chain of evidence.

The crime occurred in Simi Valley, a white suburb. The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

They didn't start with their strongest evidence: the DNA, but with weeks of domestic violence evidence. Domestic violence is not probative of murder, particular not before a black jury pool where domestic violence is probably the NORM, but where it hardly ever leads to murder.

The cops broke all sorts of rules, and the prosecution sought to cover it up. Remember: Mark Furhman was later convicted of PERJURY.

Relying on a black inner city jury's faith in the integrity of the police is an error, and putting a dirty cop before them who gets caught in a lie was devastating.

The prosecution blew the case. The defense team played the game brilliantly.

"You don't give them the excuse."

The excuse wasn't given. It was taken by those wanting to acquit.

How did the matching glove get on OJ's property? Why, the racist Mark Fuhrman planted it! Where's the evidence of that? Nowhere. None. Zip.

There's excuse #2. And the list goes on.

"Remember: Mark Furhman was later convicted of PERJURY."

He said on the stand that he had not used a racial epithet in the prior ten years. Turns out he did. THAT'S the perjury charge. Who in the f**k was on trial?

It had nothing to do with the case and doesn't mean he hates blacks -- his minority co-workers supported him. And there was zero evidence he planted or manufactured evidence in the OJ case.

The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

I agree. Two huge mistakes from the get-go.

But, if you think you have an open and shut case -- and it was -- perhaps the prosecution felt safe in doing this. Trying the case in Simi Valley with an all-white jury could lead to riots in LA with blacks believing THAT was the reason OJ was convicted.

Got it. You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries. In a court, you will not be permitted to argue otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion. The Court is empowered to order youk not to attempt to argue such a thing, and to hold you in contempt if you try.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

It sure isn't perfect. As they say, you can't unring a bell. A judge's instruction cannot make one forget what one has heard, but that is the cure available. The alternative is to have every trial a party is losing, to have that party relate something inadmissible as evidence, cause a mistrial. A mistrial is other alternative.

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

You are welcome to present the evidence, or even start another thread on the OJ criminal case. I believe it was possible that two people were there, possibly O.J. and another. I know that the criminal prosecution failed to prove its case against O.J.

What you may "know" is not the relevant issue. What did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

There were massive failures.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.

Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything.

Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.

"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."

Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones.

But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching.

Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.

You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify.

Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there.

Correct. Our legal system is a game. The winner plays the game the best. It's a hard game, so if one has a great deal at stake, one hires the best gladiators to fight on one's behalf.

I was in law school at the time and watched quite a bit of the trial. I agree with your assessment. The prosecution really did not put on a persuasive case. They spent oceans of time giving a mini- course on DNA evidence that was excessive.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

I got to watch it all in real time, except for one day. Except for that day, I also had it all on videotape, long since discarded. However, I have a full transcript.

After watching what happened during the day, watching the fake news at night was like entering the twilight zone.

They quickly brought charges. Simpson quickly invoked a California speedy trial provision. The prosecution was forced to begin months before they had the RFLP DNA results back. They spent months with repetitive and nonsense testimony, just stalling.

The mess started to go south at a pretrial procedure where the autopsy doctor was destroyed. Dr. Golden, who performed the autopsy, testified at a pre-trial procedure, and he was utterly destroyed. He was so bad that when the trial came about, the prosecution kept him off the stand and had the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan (aka Dr. Lucky) testify about the autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan was not at the autopsy. He never examined the victims other than by looking at photographs after the bodies had been released.

Prosecutor Brian Kelberg wasted 8 days on direct examination. Defense Counsel Robert Shapiro ripped it to shreds in a few hours. This monumental waste of time was an object lesson in how to lose a sequestered jury. Remember, this jury was sequestered as the trial dragged on and on and on. That was just the prosecution case.

Long before the glove fiasco, who can forget Barry Scheck, time after time, showing pictures demonstrating that the testimony of criminalist Dennis Fung was in error, punctuated with, "What about that, Mr. Fung?"

A likely answer as to why the glove did not fit was that it got wet. Get leather wet and it shrinks. The case was in dire straights by then and the glove stunt was a desperation move.

AS Prosecutor Kelberg made up one ridiculous hypothetical after another, the direct testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan seemed like it would never end.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach?

THE COURT: No. Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

To see what horsecrap that was, we can visit what else was brought out.

That was from transcript page 11504. The below excerpts are in chronological order, starting on page 11392.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11392]

06/14/1995, Cross Examination by Robert Shapiro

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30.

MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--

MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?

MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a doubleedged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused--

MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Compound as well.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.

MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: It's argumentative.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again?

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11404]

MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that asgood a job as is medically possible be done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean?

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I--

MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer.

THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have notissued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over.

MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11434]

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

06/15/95 Lakshmanan Day Nine, Direct Examination by Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16506

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the height of the assailant or assailants in this case?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the weight of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the physique of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say you would have as much chance as determining whether or not somebody had a mustache from observing ashes in a cremation as you could of coming up with whether -- what the size, weight and height was of the perpetrators in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear the answer to this one.

[16507]

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the timing of injuries, can this be based on the appearance of injuries in a photograph?

DR. BADEN: Very dangerous to do it that way.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why?

DR. BADEN: Because part of the--of the timing of injuries, how long an injury has been present, is based on color changes, and that is very dependent on the color film, the speed, the flash and how it is developed. The naked eye direct visualization is very helpful and looking at the tissue under the microscope is the best means of determining how long an injury has been present in general.

MR. SHAPIRO: And so that I understand you correctly, and the jury does, that when we are talking about timing of injuries, we are talking about whether it occurred before death, at the time of death or after death?

DR. BADEN: Okay. That--I was going--how long before death an injury occurs and also the same applies for distinguishing whether--or trying to distinguish whether an injury occurred after death or before death, but that also is very difficult and often impossible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[16559]

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?

DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger whose righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify."

Correct. OJ cannot be compelled to testify. He could present his shoes and gloves, however.

The prosecution will simply leave it out there that OJ's rare and expensive shoes and gloves, evidence of which was found at a murder scene, cannot be produced by the defendant.

Could a Martian have done this? Could he have used a scalpel? Will you stake your reputation on your answer?

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries.

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You know that is what they did that is why you called it a "law".

If it is good or bad is irrelevant to the fact that it was a usurption of power never ever granted by congress or signed by any President.

I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

I agree with White on this one. It was legal mumbo jumbo meant to trip up dumb people.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

I would argue that the prosecutor is the one who "broke their oath" when they acted contrary to the constitution and interfere with the rights of the jury as John Jay made very clear.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

I disagree. All we both have is our opinions.

given all of your comments about my intelligence

There is nothing wrong with your intelligence. You're smart. But you are also wrong on things.

if you ever get picked up for a DUI

That will never happen.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism. As for the jury determining those facts, let's us hope they are actually receiving those facts and that the prosecution is not intentionally withholding some of those facts. We have seen this happen is many cases.

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

At the time that this OJ Simpson case was going on I was also studying law and do understand the basics about evidence. The defense team was effective because the LAPD botched up the forensics procedure on the blood evidence. In essence the LAPD had much to do with the acquital process. Even Mark Furman was disgusted with how the LAPD handled the investigation and tainting of evidence. They knew something and I believe they deliberately botched it up so as to prevent another Rodney King riot like what we endured in '92.