Jb wants to clarify for the record that 9.06 am he did object and in March they also objected.
Judge: Your previous objections dealt with Frye and we had a hearing on Frye issue. They were cumulative, prejudice and improper bolster. The court's ruling was based on an 6th amendment issue based on an exhibit that you had not seen, the color items that were provided in black and white, it would be unfair so the court struck that particular item. You have had an opportunity to take a deposition and look at the study and you have had numerous opportunities to do that. You have not outlined anything that Shaw has testified to that you did not know in deposition or that you could not deal with postmortem hairbanding issue. This court felt that this exhibit did put the defense at a severe disadvantage by not having an advantage to view it ahead of time. I overrule the objection about the testimony but dissallowed the use of the exhibit. You did not say that you didn't have an opportunity to take his deposition.
JB: The only issue is that we could not depose him after we had got that..
Judge: What information you would have hoped to glean from an additional deposition that you didn't already have?
JB: we wanted to inquire on the basis of what we're observing and ask him questions about the study.
Judge: There is a vast universe of things we don't know. Brady vs Maryland, you must be able to show prejudice because I don't know translates to nothing.
JB: We are not able to replicate anything.
Judge: It's not a basis that you weren't able to duplicate or if you know a case I'm all ears.