Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' List of Trial Exhibits

    - 

CV 839-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al... : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

Ve : AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. . O'NEILL, et al., : 

Defendants. : NOVEMBER 23, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' LIST OF TRIAL EXHIBITS 
  

On November 17, 1992, the defendants were provided with a 

list of the plaintiffs' trial exhibits. Three and a half boxes 

of documents containing most, but not all, of the plaintiffs’ 

exhibits were made available to the defendants. Among the 

missing items were a number of reports, tables, photographs, and 

charts prepared or to be used by the plaintiffs' expert witnesses 

in this case. 

The vast majority of the documents which have been made 

available to the defendants are irrelevant to this case. if 

anything, the documents demonstrate the concern for and 

commitment to quality and integrated education which has made the 

  
 



      

State of Connecticut a leader in the nation in addressing these 

issues. 

Given that the vast majority of the exhibits the 

plaintiffs intena to offer are irrelevant to the issues raised by 

parties in their pleadings, the defendants see little reason, 

aside from relevance, to object to the admission of this material 

into evidence. 

The only real concern the defendants have with regard to the 

plaintiffs' exhibits 1s that the court not be misled by some of 

the documents. Before the court should attribute any 

significance to the documents which the plaintiffs propose as 

exhibits, the court should have a complete understanding of the 

context, validity, and background of each document. This can 

only be accomplished if the individual(s) responsible for 

preparing the document are made available for for 

1/ 
cross-—-examination. 

  

1/ This 1s not to say that the defendants will be unreasonable 
in insisting that the author of every proposed exhibit be 
called to the stand. Documents which are offered only for 
background purposes may be admitted by stipulation. The 
defendants' concern is with documents containing factual 
claims that the plaintiffs are holding out as material to 
the determination of the issues of this case. 

-2- 

  

 



      

A number of documents found in the plaintiffs' list of 

exhibits would suggest that the plaintiffs may be seeking to 

establish disputed factual claims based on documentary testimony 

alone; i.e., without affording the defendants the appropriate 

opportunity for cross-examination. Examples of such documents 

are the affidavit and deposition excerpts found as plaintiffs’ 

exhibits 479, 493, 494, 495, 496, and 497.°/ It is a basic rule 

of evidence that affidavits and excerpts from deposition 

transcripts are not admissible in lieu of live testimony when 

the person making the affidavit or giving a deposition is 

available to testify. It must be clear to the plaintiffs that 

they cannot substitute these exhibits for the live testimony of 

the individuals wnose opinions and assertions are contained in 

the exhibits. Similarly, it must be clear to the plaintiffs that 

any factual claims upon which they base their cause of action 

which are disputed, in whole or in part, cannot be offered 

through sterile documents with no opportunity for 

cross-examination. 

  

2/ The sheer volume of proposed documentary evidence submitted 
by the plaintiffs to the defendants on November 17, 1992 
prohibits us from providing, at this time, an inclusive list 
of documents to which we intend to object at trial. 

-3- 

  

 



    

The defendants ask that, throughout the trial, the court be 

mindful of the need for precise accuracy in regard to any facts 

which might be of consequence to this case. Most of the 

documents which the plaintiffs will be offering into evidence 

have been culled from decades of public discourse regarding 

complex social, demographic, socioeconomic, and educational 

problems that go far beyond the ambit of this case. Public 

discourse is a process which is critical to our democratic 

system, but it 1s also a process which accommodates hasty, 

speculative, and theoretical assertions. Undoubtedly, the court 

will want to rule in this matter only on facts which are fully 

substantiated, not theories or conjecture offered in the process 

of public discourse. The defendants can and will assist the 

court in the effort to separate fact from theory and conjecture, 

but tc do this the defendants need the opportunity to cross- 

examine the individuals whose factual claims the plaintiffs are 

relying on to support their case. The plaintiffs should not be 

allowed to shield from scrutiny the factual claims they believe 

are crucial to their case by offering those factual claims only 

through speechless documents. To the extent that the plaintiffs 

are attempting to offer exhibits in lieu of live testimony    



    

subject to cross-examiniation, 

particular exhibits. 

pr /A 7, Ws, 
artha M. Wat&s ~ 

the defendants object to those 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

0 Sherman Street 
artford, Connecticut 

Tel: 566-7173 
06105 

  

/ 

Juris 40687272 
fe Kiiodney General 

110 Sherman S reet 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel: 566-7173 

ew (rads) pp 
  

fred A. Lindseth, Eg4. 
Brey ir Asbill & Brennan 

999 Peachtree Street, NE 
Atlanta, GA 30309-3996 

   



CERTIFICATION 
  

This 1s to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed 

postage prepaid to the following counsel of record on fv. 73 

1992: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriquez, Esq. 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT "06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 

Connecticut Civil Fineberg, P.C. 
Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT : 06105 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense 
99 Hudson Street Education Fund, Inc. 
l4th Floor 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 / 7 yd 

we / J V4 
’ / Tl 

: R. Whelan 
/As/sistant Attorney General