1:19:00
...let's stop right there.
1:19:03
What is the relevance of who fired who?
1:19:06
Judge, it's our theory that Mr. Sabich
is being framed in this case.
1:19:11
-I don't believe it.
-Your response has been noted.
1:19:14
If Mr. Stern is truly going to endeavor
to prove...
1:19:18
...that the case against Mr. Sabich
has been manufactured...
1:19:21
...then this history of antagonism
is relevant for those purposes.
1:19:25
What about this missing B file?
1:19:27
We believe it's being withheld
because it contains evidence...
1:19:30
...that is necessary to the defense.
1:19:32
So, we intend to pursue this matter...
1:19:35
...until we have a full understanding
on how it bears on the truth.
1:19:39
I don't know where this will lead us,
but I'll tell you two things:
1:19:43
You'd better be prepared
for the prosecution's response...
1:19:46
...because he is going to be entitled
to a great deal of latitude in answering.
1:19:50
'Cause I am going to give him that.
1:19:57
Do you recall we spoke about a B file
that you assigned to Ms. Polhemus?
1:20:02
I'll remember it for quite some time.
1:20:04
-Was Mr. Molto involved in this case?
-Objection!
1:20:07
Objection sustained.
1:20:09
Mr. Stern, you're playing with fire.
1:20:13
Do you know what investigation, if any,
Mr. Molto pursued--
1:20:16
I'll answer that! He took no action.
1:20:18
He wasn't going to chase
Sabich's red herrings.
1:20:21
Mr. Della Guardia, you will remember
you're the prosecutor...
1:20:24
...not the witness.
1:20:31
Perhaps we can all learn something
about red herrings and scapegoats.
1:20:36
That is all.
1:20:38
This court is adjourned for the weekend.
1:20:42
I don't understand what you're doing.
1:20:45
You're alienating the judge.
1:20:47
When I said they manufactured a case,
you wanted nothing to do with it.
1:20:51
Clearly, I changed my mind.
1:20:54
On the basis of what?
1:20:55
Instinct.