Defense Attorney

You testified that you noted glass on the rear bumper of the SUV, correct?

You testified that you noted glass on the rear bumper of the SUV, correct?

And you said something about that glass coming from the cup. Correct.

And you said something about that glass coming from the cup. Correct.

You also said that you did not see anything on that SUV that could be the source of those glass pieces on the bumper, right?

You also said that you did not see anything on that SUV that could be the source of those glass pieces on the bumper, right?

When you did your reconstruction and your analysis, were you informed that none of the glass pieces, not one of them, could be matched to the cut?

When you did your reconstruction and your analysis, were you informed that none of the glass pieces, not one of them, could be matched to the cut?

So if you knew that the glass pieces on the bumper do not match the cup, that change your opinion?

So if you knew that the glass pieces on the bumper do not match the cup, that change your opinion?

Got it. By whom?

Got it. By whom?

Who told you?

Who told you?

That's not what you just said. You said that's what was told to me.

That's not what you just said. You said that's what was told to me.

Can you describe for the jurors exactly what calculations you would need to employ to determine how far a body at rest would travel, having been struck by an object in motion?

Can you describe for the jurors exactly what calculations you would need to employ to determine how far a body at rest would travel, having been struck by an object in motion?

Well...

Well...