I ran across this while researching my new crime history book for Facts on File, and just about cracked up.
From CourtTV’s transcript of the O.J. Simpson civil trial–or Monty Python. Take your pick:
MR. PETROCELLI: Prior one is withdrawn also,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: The prior objection is also
withdrawn at line 14.
THE COURT: Okay.
136:24 through 137:24, withdrawn.
140:20 through 141:15, overruled.
[ . . . 10 pages of this stuff snipped . . . ]
214:14 through 215:09, sustained.
This next one I don’t quite understand
the pagination of the objection. It would appear to
me if there was going to be an objection it ought to
run from 354 through 357:18.
MR. BAKER: We need to — then we need to
object to more stuff.
THE COURT: Otherwise the objection makes no
sense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Through what line, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, the objection as posed runs
from 356:01 through 357:18 which looks like a non
sequitur on this is it starts as page 354, I don’t
understand the objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Actually, Your Honor, why
don’t you just omit that line.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. PETROCELLI: Just omit it.
We will withdraw the objection on line 6
of page 8, okay. The objection is to lines 1 through
19 on page 356, and I think that’s an error there
because it’s in relation to Mr. Medvene’s
cross-examination.
MR. GELBLUM: No, it’s not.
MR. PETROCELLI: According to mine it is.
THE COURT: On your — are you withdrawing the
entire objection on line 6 of your page 8?
MR. PETROCELLI: One second, Your Honor.
(Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Gelblum
converse sotto voce.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
Here’s the explanation, Your Honor.
Because of the direct exam on the new work which I
believe Your Honor has excluded on lines 1 through 19
on page 356, that’s the cross on that point, so that
would come out as well, that’s why it’s in there.
THE COURT: Well, what about — what’s the
material from 354 through —
MR. PETROCELLI: We don’t have any objection to
page 354. I don’t see it on here.
They didn’t designate that part of the
transcript to be played, so therefore —
THE COURT: Oh, is that what it is?
All right.
MR. GELBLUM: The left column is their
designated.
MR. P. BAKER: We designated all the direct.
MR. PETROCELLI: 354 is in cross.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: So that’s not included.
All right.
So what are you asking for a ruling on?
On your line 6 of page 8?
MR. PETROCELLI: That’s the new work on the —
on the imprint.
MR. GELBLUM: It’s on both. It starts out —
THE COURT: Well —
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we’re going to
withdraw that objection right there.
THE COURT: All right.
Withdrawn then. That’s 356:01 through
357:18.
MR. PETROCELLI: One second. We want to
make — are you intending there to designate our —
you’ve designated 19 lines of our cross-examination or
so.
MR. P. BAKER: We’re not going to play any of
your cross.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. So based on that
representation we’re omitting the objection to their
designation that appears on line 6, page 8.
THE COURT: Withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Picking up again at page 358,
358:15 – 24 is where we pick up.
THE COURT: 358, line 19 through — 358:19
through 358:24, sustained.
359:03 through 359:07, sustained.
359:10 through 359:15, sustained . . .