4.Expert-Instruction Language Dispute — Further Argument Deferred
26 linesMR. LESKO: Your Honor, now would be a good time for a break.
THE COURT: All right. Let's take our morning break. All rise for the jury.
(Jury exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. You may stand down. We are going to take a 10-minute break.
DAWN HUGHES: Thank you.
(Witness steps down.)
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT: Just a minute. I have a question on the limiting instruction. Any problems with the limiting instruction?
MR. LESKO: Well, I mean --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LESKO: Is Your Honor still considering?
THE COURT: I thought I might just give it. It is plain vanilla, as far as I'm concerned. We give it all the time.
MS. PENZA: May we have a moment?
THE COURT: Yes. I am not going to give it before I hear from the parties.
MR. LESKO: If we could have one second.
THE COURT: Yes. Of course.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, this is fine with the exception of we do object to the second paragraph, second sentence. The sentence reads "It's offered for you to consider in evaluating the complainant's behavior before, during, or after the alleged commission of a crime. We actually think it would be appropriate to modify that sentence and have it include victims and perpetrators and not complainant because we're not in a situation where there is a single complainant here.
THE COURT: Why do we need that sentence at all? The witness has already indicated that she hasn't looked at any of the materials.
MR. LESKO: I agree. Actually, to be precise, I think the more appropriate -- I mean, I think it is appropriate to instruct the jury that they can consider Dr. Hughes' testimony in evaluating the behavior of victims and perpetrators in the context of sexual assaults. But you are right. She is not opining on the specific alleged crimes. She is not opining on any particular complainant's behavior. She is offering very general testimony.
So, Ms. Penza corrects me, and it shouldn't just be isolated or focused on sexual assault because the expert is opining on coercive relation and dynamics. That obviously is a technical term, so if we can make that into a layperson's term.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Judge, if I could be heard, but I would like to do it outside the witness' presence.
THE COURT: We will take it up at lunch time again. I am not going to do it now.
How long do you have for the witness?
MR. LESKO: Five, maybe ten more minutes.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
You may continue your examination of the witness.
I remind the witness that she is still under oath by.
MR. LESKO: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. LESKO: