Michelle Gamble — Cross/Redirect/Recross (Part 2) - Day 41 - 2015 Federal Trial

The government rested after medical testimony about Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard and examination of bombing-scene imagery. The defense presented search evidence and digital-record analysis, with witnesses acknowledging limits on timing and location conclusions. The Rule 29 motion and proposed defense evidence remained unresolved.

← Day 40Day 42 →

.transcript-viewer .proc-meta-panel { position: static; } .transcript-viewer .proc-meta-panel .proc-meta-list[hidden] { display: block; position: static; box-shadow: none; } .transcript-viewer .proc-current-row { display: none; } .transcript-viewer .proc-divider-first { height: auto; padding: var(--cd-krt-s8) 0; overflow: visible; }

CrossCrossCross-Examination - Michelle Gamble

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CONRAD:

MS. CONRAD: Good morning.

MICHELLE GAMBLE: Good morning.

MS. CONRAD: I'm Miriam Conrad. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. In addition to your duties with respect to photography at the scene, you also participated in some of the searches that were conducted in this case, correct?

MICHELLE GAMBLE: I did, yes.

MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. Outside the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: Sounds it.

MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: All right.

sidebarsidebarSearch Evidence Beyond Direct Examination

(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the jury:)

MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, I thought we had an agreement with the government that we would be able to offer exhibits seized at 410 Norfolk on May 5, 2013, by this witness. You know, we'll have to call them back, I guess, if the government has changed its mind about that, but I thought we had an agreement. I had asked Mr. Chakravarty to make a number of exhibits available; he indicated that he would do so. You know, we determined this was the appropriate witness.

THE COURT: What are the exhibits?

MS. CONRAD: They're a number of items that were found during the May 5th search. One is a wiring book that was found under the living room couch. We have photographs of that and we asked the government to produce it. It was tested for fingerprints at the FBI lab and found to bear the fingerprints of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. We also -- there were a number of boxes of plastic gloves and I believe also some face masks.

Those are the only items I was going to go into. It was going to be very brief.

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So Ms. Conrad did ask for those items to be available. We made them available. She proposed whether they could come in through Ms. Gamble. We did not agree to have Ms. Gamble necessarily be the witness to have them come in. She is competent to testify about what happened during that search however.

THE COURT: Was she present?

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: She was present. She was the photographer on the subsequent search, which I believe was a week and a half after the initial search.

The parties are in the process of crafting a stipulation, I think, with regards to a number of fingerprints all throughout 410 Norfolk Street. A fingerprint on a wiring book would somehow suggest -- which this witness could not testify to. She could just testify to seeing the wiring book. The fingerprint itself would not come in through this witness. So the relevance of the wiring book seems to be lacking absent having the fingerprint.

To the extent that we offered the fact that the volume of fingerprints -- of Tamerlan Tsarnaev's fingerprints were found on a variety of objects around the house, that is not going to be controversial. It's selecting this book to be introduced, especially through this witness who could not testify to the fingerprint, and then also to suggest that there are gloves and masks in there, somehow suggesting Tamerlan was either donning these without any fingerprints at all, as opposed to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- those also don't seem to be particularly relevant and could confuse the jury into thinking somehow this is -- they need to be figuring out why there are fingerprints or other evidence available.

MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, first of all, it's a link in the chain. First we put in the book and then we put in the fingerprints. The other thing I was going to ask about --

THE COURT: Where would the fingerprint evidence come from? From whom?

MS. CONRAD: It would either be a stipulation or we would offer the lab report of Elena Graff. It's more Ms. Clarke's department than it's my department. We're trying to work out a stipulation with the government. The first step is just, "You found this?" and where it was. It was sent to the lab. That's all I was going to ask about the book.

The second thing is, I was going to ask her about -- she participated in the search of Mr. Tsarnaev's property down at UMass Dartmouth in which she was also one of the searching agents and she kept a log, and there were vacuum samples taken at some point.

THE COURT: Okay. So it seems to me that is all admissible by the defense. The question is does it come now or do we have the witness re-called to do it?

MR. WEINREB: It is completely outside the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: You're right. It is.

MR. WEINREB: We would prefer them to directly examine their own witness.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CONRAD: I thought we had --

CrossCrossCross-Examination - Michelle Gamble

(In open court:)

MS. CONRAD: May I just get organized for a minute? I also seem to have lost Mr. Watkins, who I'm relying on for some of these exhibits.

Actually, may I have on the screen, please -- is it 1580, whichever the chalk was.

BY MS. CONRAD:

MS. CONRAD: Now, you said that you were asked to determine where certain individuals were, correct?

3.Michelle Gamble — Cross/Redirect/Recross (Part 2)