Next witness for the State, please.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, as part of the formal presentation of the State's case, we would ask that the jury be allowed to review each of the items of evidence and the videotape. We don't necessarily want that done at this point. And that would be the State's -- the case for the State.

MR. LLOYD: Well, Your Honor, we'd ask to be heard.

THE COURT: Well, members of the jury, at this point, you may take your afternoon recess. It'll be a 15-minute recess. At the end of the 15-minute period, please report back to the jury room. If court's in session, do not come into the courtroom (sic) until the Court allows you to. (The jury left the courtroom at 3:12 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right, sir. I'll hear you.

MR. LLOYD: Well, Your Honor, of course, at the

1689

close of all of the evidence, we'd move for a nonsuit at this time, do not ask to be heard.

I did want, Judge, to bring up, on the issue of publishing all of the evidence to the jury, once again -- of course, we raised all our initial objections that we raised at the time that the evidence was admitted. But specifically -- and I don't ask to be heard on all of it -­but specifically, Your Honor, with respect to the so-called corroborating statements -- and I believe there are corroborating statements from Patrick Pardee and Rob Nicholes in that -- I would ask once again, Your Honor, that -- and I know Your Honor gave the instruction about that they're -- you know, they're to consider them only if you do find that they corroborate. Well, there are statements in there which don't corroborate what the witness said on the stand. And my concern, Your Honor, is, we've heard the testimony from the witnesses. It's been presented on direct, redirect. There's been extensive cross-examination. We, of course, don't have a chance to cross-examine the statements themselves.

And also, the problem is, when you give someone a written statement, it makes it seem much more official. There's much more credibility attached to it. And I'm afraid, Your Honor, that even though we instruct the jury that you're only to consider this as corroborating the

1690

witness's testimony, they don't -- they can't understand the distinction between substantive evidence that they hear from the witness stand and corroborative evidence in the form of a statement. And they're liable to take those statements, and since it's been a long trial, they're liable to put more credence in that written word. And as Your Honor has already instructed them on their own notes, they can't even do that on their own notes.

And that, Your Honor, is the basic problem I have with this.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh, do you wish to be heard?

MR. PANOSH: First of all, I don't believe there are statements of Pardee. There are statements of Nicholes, and solely because there are four separate statements. And I believe Mr. Hatfield cross-examined, I believe, but whichever counsel was cross-examining, they went through them in great detail and pointed out specific points and asked why there were four statements and why one was terminated and the other began on a separate date. And that's why they were admitted, because they have essentially plowed through all that evidence. And we would only submit that since it's in evidence, the jury is entitled to see that evidence.

Now, there's one statement in there we agreed to redact, and I believe it was Ms. Jackson, and we haven't

1691

done that, but I would agree to do that, prior to presenting them to the jury, and probably to the satisfaction of counsel, unless I don't understand the issue.

THE COURT: The Court's already ruled. Some have been included into evidence. Some have been excluded. The one statement that needs to be redacted, that's not going to be shown to the jury until it is redacted.

THE COURT  's not going to allow the jury to look at them at this particular point in the trial, anyway, reserve it to a point in time when they can review all the evidence, and give them sufficient time to do that.

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. The defense evidence, are you ready to proceed this afternoon, sir?

MR. LLOYD: Yes, sir, Your Honor. We're ready to begin.

THE COURT: All right, sir. We'll take about a 10-minute break and then we'll begin.