|
does is it takes away any element of surprise, and it means that it gives your -, whoever is going
<br />to be cross-examining your witness, weeks rather than minutes to decide what to ask in cross-
<br />examination. It also means that our direct testimony is limited to what they say in the written
<br />testimony. And so it's like a cross-examiner's dream, you know, where you know the full content
<br />of what the witness is going to testify on direct, and you have weeks to prepare your cross-
<br />examination. So it's hardly something you do to sneak up on so
<br />doing it is to allow a full opportunity, is to streamline the process by submitting the written
<br />testimony in advance.
<br />I think there may also be some confusion because, you know, when
<br />testimony and it's accepted by, into evidence, that doesn't mean that it has to be treated as true. I
<br />mean, that's the difference, you know. It's still subject to cross-examination, and it's still subject
<br />to the Hearing Officers' weighing the testimony. They can decide that it's not true or that it's
<br />outweighed by other evidence. In other words, just because it's
<br />something is on the record, doesn't mean it has to be accepted as true and accurate and
<br />dispositive. So -. Thank you.
<br />GIFFIN:Hearings Officers, any questions of Mr. Vitousek? Mr. Togashi.
<br />TOGASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. What would you say to a argumen
<br />having, allowing parties to submit written testimony in advance that it precludes the public from,
<br />I guess, fully participating in the proceedings?
<br />VITOUSEK:Well, the -, I mean the Planning Commission records and files are open to
<br />the public, for one, and so any, you know, so anything that is in the record is open to the public.
<br />The public has no, the public has a right to come and give testimony relative to an application,
<br />but doesn't have a right to cross-examine witnesses, and so that's why the Rule 4 contested case
<br />rule, contested case hearing procedures, that's why the submissi
<br />in that rule, I think, as opposed to the Rule 9 SMA application. So I think that -. And I'd also
<br />point out in response to your question, Mr. Togashi, that we were all here when these witnesses
<br />were cross-examined for hours. In other words, we were here -,
<br />on the stand for six hours, and that was after his written testimony. So the idea that, you know,
<br />there was an inadequate opportunity to cross-examine him or an inadequate opportunity for his
<br />opinions to be exposed to the public is not well taken.
<br />GIFFIN:Any other questions?
<br />TOGASHI:Thank you.
<br />GIFFIN:You're welcome. The County, any questions, statements?
<br />O'TOOLE:Yes, we believe that the witnesses have been called, the testimony
<br />submitted, and they were subject to cross-examination. I understand that perhaps there's some
<br />confusion here, but when you cross-examine someone, I don't think anyone ever feels that, gee, I
<br />did a perfect job, and I hear some of that in what Ms., you know, Roy is saying. But the
<br />8
<br />
<br />
|