Davis: Those two sides, did y'all put that in a special place or -
The Court: Barbara has 'em.
Fogleman: You are the same Kermit Channel who testified yesterday?
Channel: Yes I am.
Fogleman: I believe it was yesterday.
Channel: Uh - Thursday, I believe.
Fogleman: Thursday. I hadn't been a long time ago. Uh - did you participate in the execution of the search warrant at the homes of - at the particular home of Damien Echols?
Channel: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: I want to show you what's been marked for identification as state's exhibit 83 and ask if you can identify that.
Channel: Yes I can.
Fogleman: And how can you identify it?
Channel: By - it has my serology case number on the bag, my initials, and my Q item.
Fogleman: I want to also show you what is marked for identification as state's exhibit 117 and ask if you recognize that?
Channel: Yes, I do.
Fogleman: And does that photograph fairly and accurately portray the item as it appeared to you that night?
Channel: Yes, it does.
Fogleman: Alright. your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 117.
Davidson: No objection, Your Honor, for state's exhibit 117.
The Court: Alright, it may be recieved without objection.
Fogleman: And does this - is this a photograph of the location at where you recovered marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 83?
Channel: Uh - yes, it is.
Fogleman: And did you recover state's exhibit 83 at this location at the home of Damien Echols?
Channel: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 83.
Price: Judge, we would at this time object to relevancy. Let me see - the name of this book is 'Never On A Broomstick', it's a book about the history of witches. I don't think this is relevant to any issues about the case. In addition, it has marked on here (reading) Crittenden County Library. My client bought this at a library book sale. We certainly don't want the jury to confer that he stole the book from the library.
Fogleman: your Honor, are we gonna be able to cross examine Mr. Price about his testimony?
The Court: Do y'all want me to answer both of those exchanges or let's just go on and ignore it?
Price: Well, we object to the relevancy of this book, Judge.
The Court: Overrule, if your objection is to relevancy.
Davidson: Your Honor, we would ask that the uh - book then be read in evidence if it's gonna be recieved into -
The Court: The book's not being recieved for the truth of the contents contained therein, but it's merely being recieved to show that a book of that title was found at the defendant's residence and ladies and gentlemen, in that regard, these two items of evidence should be considered by you only as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Damien Echols.
Price: Well Judge, it's our position that not only is the importance of the book based on the title but the contents of the book. The jury should be entitled to know what are the contents of the book.
Fogleman: They can read it.
Davidson: Your Honor, do you want us to read it on - in our case?
The Court: Well, if you think you need to. Do whatever you think you need to do, I'm allowing it simply as being found on his residence - a book of that title.
Fogleman: Can I exhibit to the jury?
The Court: Yes.
The Court: I think that would fall under a heading of a fillebuster, but uh - go ahead if you think you need to.
Fogleman: Your Honor, I don't have any further questions.
Price: Mr. Channel, on June the 3rd when you were uh - executed the search warrant at my client's house, did you seize a copy of the Holy Bible?
Channel: Uh - no, I did not.
Price: Ok. Nothing further.
The Court: Did you see one?
Channel: Uh - not to my recollection.
The Court: Anything else?
The Court: Alright, is that all you want him for?
Fogleman: Yes sir.
The Court: Alright, you're free to go. Thank you. Call your next witness.