DR. ESMOND A. FATTER, a witness for the State, after being duly sworn, did testify as follows:
* * * DIRECT EXAMINATION * * *
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Would you state your full name, please?
A. I am Dr. Esmond A. Fatter, F-A-T-T-E-R.
Q. What occupation or profession do you have?
A. I am a medical doctor.
Q. Do you have any specialty or are you a general practitioner?
A. I am a family doctor; I do general practice.
Q. Do you have an office located in the City of New Orleans?
A. My office is located at 3330 Canal Street.
Q. Dr. Fatter, in the course of your medical practice, have you used hypnotism?
A. Yes, I have, sir.
Q. Your Honor, at this time the State will attempt to qualify Dr. Fatter as an expert in the field of hypnotism and its use.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Dr. Fatter, do you have any special training in the field of hypnotism?
A. Yes, I have, sir.
Q. Will you please tell the Court what it is?
A. I was trained by the seminars in hypnosis, headed by Dr. Milton Erikson of Chicago. And I have been a faculty member of that institution. This institution is no longer in existence, but formed the nucleus for the educational and research foundation of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. I am a founder member of that group.
Q. When was this training, Doctor? When did you get this training?
A. I began training in '57 or '58, 1957 or 1958.
Q. Have you been using hypnosis from that time forward?
A. I have been using hypnosis as an adjunct in my practice of medicine since that time.
Q. Approximately how many people have you hypnotized over that period of time?
A. I have hypnotized hundreds of people.
Q. Did you do any teaching in the field of hypnosis?
A. I have been a guest lecturer at Loyola Dental School, Louisiana State Medical School; I have lectured to parish society meetings in Texas, Louisiana; I have lectured to parish society groups in Louisiana; I have taught and lectured to the nurses at Mercy Hospital. I have lectured to the nurses at DePaul Sanitarium.
[Page 383 is missing.]
[A. . . .] to represent them to the press, and as a result of that, these articles were published about a month ago in the States-Item. I should also say that I have represented the Orleans Parish Medical Society on hypnosis to the radio and to the television, also, as well as the press.
Q. Doctor, is hypnosis itself a specialty within the medical profession?
A. No, sir. It is part of the practice of medicine, sir.
Q. The State tenders the witness on his qualifications.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Dr. Fatter, to your knowledge, do the medical schools here in Louisiana or elsewhere offer courses in psychiatry? I mean, in hypnosis.
A. There are -- not that I know.
Q. You don't know of any medical school that does?
A. Not as yet here in Louisiana. Medical schools in this country, yes.
Q. What medical schools in this country do, sir?
A. I stand correction on this. I think the University of Tennessee offers a course and several -- Washington University in Chicago, I think, offers a course. I would have to look it up, sir. I don't have that at my fingers.
Q. Dr. Fatter, as a physician, would you say that the ability to hypnotize might well be analogized to the ability to administer anesthesia?
BY JUDGE O'HARA:
That doesn't relate to his qualifications.
BY MR. DYMOND:
I'll withdraw the question.
BY JUDGE O'HARA:
Do you submit it?
BY MR. DYMOND:
We'll submit it.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
His expertness in the field of hypnosis has been very amply demonstrated to us.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Dr. Fatter, do you know one Perry Russo?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you recall on what date you first met Perry Russo?
A. If I may refer to my records? I have a note here that I saw Perry Russo on March 1st, 1967.
Q. Do you recall where this meeting took place?
A. This meeting took place in the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office.
Q. Is that Dr. Chetta's office?
A. It is Dr. Chetta's office.
Q. Do you recall what time of day or night this was?
A. This meeting occurred 7:00 o'clock [sic] in the evening or thereabouts.
Q. Do you recall who was present?
A. At that meeting was Mr. Russo, a cousin or whom I found to be a cousin later on, which I thought was a brother at the time, of Mr. Russo [Steve Derby]. There was Dr. Chetta; there was Mr. Sciambra; there was a stenographer or secretary there, and there may have been one other person there that I don't recall at the present time.
Q. Doctor, before proceeding on this line, would you give us a brief definition of hypnosis or hypnotism?
A. Hypnosis or hypnotism may be defined as a trance or trance-state, a state of relaxation, a state of altered awareness, in which the individual is more concerned with his internal feelings, and less concerned with his physical surroundings. He can receive suggestion with undue criticism and act accordingly. Now, if Your Honor would, I can elaborate on that further.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Sure, proceed, Doctor.
A. I think the understanding of the Court will evolve possibly around two words that . . .
BY MR. WEGMANN:
I can't understand the doctor.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
You're just a little bit too close to the mike, Doctor.
A. I think that an effort to clear some of the definitions to the Court [sic]. The definition will evolve around two terms. One term is trance or trance-state. What is a trance or trance-state? A trance-state is a constitutional endowment. Now, by constitutional endowment I am referring to those attributes, those characteristics, that all of us possess, that has been given to us by our creator. And these endowments are directed at primarily two purposes. One is to preserve ourselves, self-preservation. And the other is perpetuation of the race. For instance, the ability to see, the ability to hear, the ability to touch, the ability to feel. One of these endowments that is characteristic of all living material is the ability to obtain a state of dormancy. This ability can be traced to all living material. For instance, the bacteria go into spore formation. For what reason? To conserve, to preserve, to maintain and to protect itself in its environment. As a result of that, hospitals have to spend thousands of dollars with autoclaves to raise the temperature and the pressure in order to kill these bacteria. The amoeba goes into a cyst formation. This is its state of dormancy. Again to preserve, conserve, maintain and protect itself. We find that the fish estivate [sic] and the reason for it is that the streams dry up, and if they go into their state of dormancy and when the spring time comes along and the waters come back, we find that these little animals come out of their state of dormancy to carry out all of their physiological processes. We find the plant material does the same thing. It -- the so-called sap goes down or it dies back, only to come back in the spring to carry out all of its physiological processes. Up the scale into the animals, we find the lower animals do this very well, and we call it hibernation. And each species hibernates in a very different fashion. In the main, it's one thing, the state of dormancy. Man also possesses his ability to attain a state of dormancy and what we are calling a trance-state is man's ability to attain his particular state of dormancy. So here all of us possess this ability. Unlike the lower animals, man is primarily a spiritual and intellectual being. The lower animals are primarily instinctual beings. They must do it; they have to do it; they are compelled to do it. In much the same fashion, most of the lower animals know how to swim when they are born. Man has the ability to swim, but he must learn it. Man also has the ability to attain a state of dormancy, and this state of dormancy that is one of man's constitutional endowments is what we are talking about when we say trance-state. And one may take out, two if you will, constitutional endowments. Let's say, intelligence and the ability to go into the trance-state. Education is the utilization of an individual's intelligence. Hypnosis is the utilization or the deliberate utilization of an individual's ability to attain a trance-state. Now, in a trance-state, one's psychological processes can be sharpened, his ability to develop amnesia, which, by the way, is another constitutional endowment. We all have this ability to develop amnesia, and thank the Lord that we do have. Have you ever gone to introduce a very dear friend of yours to another dear friend of yours and forgotten both of their names? This is amnesia. Life would really be terrible if we did not
[Page 389 is missing.]
breakfast on his fifth birthday, immediately one would receive a very critical, negative approach on the part of this individual. How can you expect me to remember what I had for breakfast on my fifth birthday? The individual in the hypnotic state when one would present the idea, and by the way, another definition of, let's say, hypnosis has been called the presentation of ideas, the salesmanship of ideas. You present the idea to the individual as I wonder what you could have had for breakfast on your fifth birthday. And he immediately thinks in turns of his fifth birthday. And the thought chain may go something in this fashion. Oh, yes, I received my first two-wheel bicycle on my fifth birthday as a birthday present. Oh, yes, it had two stabilizing wheels in the back. And father gave it to me when I got up early in the morning and, yes, it was a Sunday. And we got in the automobile to go over to Grandmother's house. And, oh, yes, at Grandmother's house, she fixed my favorite meal, which was pancakes and syrup. So these individuals fixate their attention on an idea, and they let this idea become a reality, and this thought process of an individual typically in a hypnotic state or, let's say, it could be the thought process, or, let's say, we observe this thought process quite often or more often in the hypnotic state.
Q. Briefly then, Doctor, what is fixation of attention?
A. Fixation of attention is narrowing one's attention to think about only one particular thing. For instance, while I am talking to you now, you have forgotten all about the glasses that are on your eyes, those of you who are wearing glasses. And as I call your attention to it, then you begin to jiggle your glasses and pay attention to it. Up until that time, you had completely forgotten about it. This is fixation of attention, gentlemen.
Q. Doctor, going back to the first meeting that you had with Perry Russo, did you have a conversation with him at that time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you put him in a hypnotic trance at that time?
A. Let me say that if you are referring to putting him into a hypnotic as the structuring a situation to make it possible for Mr. Russo to attain a hypnotic trance, yes, I did.
Q. Prior to doing this, did you have an opportunity to talk to him about his background, or did you get any information about the individual, Perry Russo?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you get it from him or from others?
A. From Mr. Russo personally, because I will not work with anybody without first taking a history.
Q. Do you recall how long you spoke to him prior to attempting to put him in this trance state?
A. At least thirty-five or forty minutes, and then we left the room and went in private, so that we could finish our conversation. So I could take more history on more of a private basis, on a doctor-patient relationship basis, a confidant basis.
Q. Now, Doctor, will you tell the Court what procedure you took in placing Mr. Russo under this trance at this time, at this first meeting?
A. Immediately -- first I asked Mr. Russo if he had ever been hypnotized before. Mr. Russo said yes, that he had. I asked him in what way, and he told me that a silver coin was used. So, I removed a silver coin from my pocket . . .
BY MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, we are getting into the realm of hearsay, and we object to it.
BY MR. OSER:
Your Honor, Mr. Dymond asked Russo on the witness stand if he had ever been hypnotized before, and, in specific regards to the hypnotism by Dr. Fatter, how did Dr. Fatter do it, what did Dr. Fatter tell you, who can you remember, what did he say, what instructions did he give you, and numerous things.
BY MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, whether I asked him that or not, I don't know. The record will speak for itself. However, even if I did ask him that, even if he did answer, that is not any sort of questioning by which this Court from then on can admit hearsay evidence. I don't see how that can be argued.
BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
My recollection, Mr. Dymond, is that you asked Russo on at least a dozen occasions what instructions did Dr. Fatter give you before you went into a hypnotic state.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
We are not objecting to what Dr. Fatter told this man. This is not the objection; what Dr. Fatter himself did. As I understood it, Dr. Fatter was testifying as to what Russo told him somewhat else other than Dr. Fatter had done. Isn't that correct, Dr. Fatter? And this is what we are objecting to.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
All of this is preliminary matter prior to going into the hypnotic trance wherein there is some discussion as to the type -- the system that is going to be used. In general it is of a preliminary nature and part of the diagnostic theory. For that reason it is overruled.
BY MR. DYMOND:
To which ruling we would like to reserve a bill, making all of the testimony, all of the proceedings, the objection of counsel and the ruling of the Court parts of the bill.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Continue, Doctor.
A. I was told that a shiny object, a coin, was used. I immediately took a coin out of my pocket, placed it in front of Mr. Russo's face, and said to him, "Do you mean in this fashion?" He says, "I can see only one coin. The last time, it was two coins that I had seen." It was very obvious to me that the reason why he was seeing one coin is because the coin was at a distance from his face, far enough that he was using binocular vision. So, I immediately put the coin closer to his face, realizing that he would see the coin individually with each eye and, therefore, produce the double vision object that he had seen before. Mr. Russo felt himself going into a trance state, immediately shook his head and said, "I would like to talk with you further before we go any further." So we went in private and talked again. In private, Mr. Russo told me that he may resist me in this trance induction procedure. I told him that was his right, that was his privilege, and if he was going to resist me, I wanted . . .
BY MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor, we object again. This is hearsay -- a hearsay conversation going on between the witness, Russo, and Dr. Fatter outside the presence of this defendant.
BY MR. OSER:
If the Court please, Dr. Fatter is testifying as to the history of this particular subject, and that this is Dr. Fatter's technique, used by Dr. Fatter to place Russo under hypnosis.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection overruled.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Without going into what you said between yourself and Perry Russo, when you took him out of the room after showing him the coin, did you finally arrive at a technique that you were going to use in putting him in this trance state?
A. The whole procedure is a trance induction technique. Immediately upon meeting Mr. Russo, a relationship was immediately defined. I made sure that this relationship was defined, and it was a doctor-patient relationship. The trance induction began on meeting Mr. Russo. This is part of the whole trance induction technique. Remember, I am structuring a situation to permit Russo to attain a trance state. I do not make Russo go into a trance state. I cannot make anybody do anything. I can help Mr. Russo to use his constitutional endowments. Who uses it? Mr. Russo uses it. I do not. I help him. I act as teacher. This is another way of expressing hypnosis; it has been defined as a teacher-pupil relationship or a doctor-patient relationship. I teach and the patient learns. I was teaching Mr. Russo to attain a trance state. So it can be utilized. For whose benefit? Mr. Russo's benefit. Not for mine.
Q. Dr. Fatter, on this occasion, after this conversation, did you have occasion, or do you feel as an expert in the field of hypnotism, that he attained a trance state?
A. Yes, he attained a very good trance state. I would say he was in a moderately deep trance state.
Q. A moderately deep trance state?
A. Yes.
Q. What would be the exterior signs of this trance state?
A. The tone of the muscles of the face were loose and limp, putty-like in nature. His arms were as though they were inanimate. One could life up the arm and let it go, and it would just fall, just as though it were the arm of a doll of some kind. The eyelids were closed and had very, very fine movements. Levitation movements were elicited, that is, the levitation of the fingers. You ask somebody to lift up a finger, and he would do it voluntarily; the finger would go up in this fashion. The levitation of a finger or a hand or any part of the body in a hypnotic state would go up more or less in a little jerky fashion, as I am representing here, before it attains a height of some kind. So, these are all of the signs that Mr. Russo manifested which made me feel he was in a moderately deep trance state.
Q. During this trance state, do you feel he was able to regress sufficiently?
A. In my opinion, I think Mr. Russo regressed very beautifully.
Q. Was he able to verbalize these regressions?
A. He did verbalize these regressions, and he verbalized it in much the same fashion that you would feel that somebody would be talking in his sleep.
Q. Doctor, did you have occasion while he was in this trance state to ask him questions surrounding the year 1963?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Object to that, if the Court please. This testimony is supposed to be restricted to the question of sanity or insanity of this witness. We are now getting into the particulars of questions asked by this witness while he was under a state of hypnosis.
BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
I think that question calls for a yes or no answer. Let's let him answer one way or the other, and then see what the next question is before you make your objection. I think he can answer that yes or no.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Your Honor, I'm not trying to elicit any response given by Mr. Russo. These are the words of the doctor himself. He can certainly testify what he asked him, and as far as the sanity or insanity is concerned, I have not qualified this man as an expert in the field of psychiatry. I qualified this man as an expert in the field of hypnosis. Mr. Dymond yesterday was awfully anxious to find out all he could about these hypnotic trances and about the administration of hypnosis on Mr. Russo.
BY MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, if this witness isn't going to testify as to the sanity or insanity, I don't see the relevancy of his testimony at all, in view of the ruling of this Court.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
This man's name has been bantered about the newspapers. There has been some insinuations that some mumbo-jumbo has been present here. There's been some suggestions of some post-hypnotic suggestions. This man has a right to come on the witness stand and to testify as to the mechanical action that he took and the results of those actions. This was all introduced in this trial.
BY MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, we have nothing to do with what the newspapers do. We've even been restricted from talking to them, and whatever has been published there has no bearing on the admissibility of this evidence.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
We're going to overrule your objection as to one more question. Stand on your feet, please. The question can be answered yes or no.
BY MR. DYMOND:
We reserve a bill, making all the testimony, all the proceedings, counsel's objection based on the decision in the case of the United States versus Lindsay, 237 Federal (2d) 893, the ruling of the Court, counsel's objection, parts of the bill.
(QUESTION READ TO THE WITNESS BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
A. Yes, I did.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Doctor, did you have occasion through questioning to attempt to assist Mr. Russo in regressing back in point of time to the year 1963?
A. I asked Mr. Russo to picture in his mind . . .
BY MR. DYMOND:
I object, Your Honor, now. He's going into details of what went on by way of conversation while this man was under hypnosis.
BY MR. WARD:
Your Honor, that case that Mr. Dymond cites deals only with the restating of what a witness has said. We are not attempting to do that. We are attempting to elicit from Dr. Fatter what he said, what he did, and what he observed. Any witness can testify as to that. That certainly isn't hearsay, and there's not a valid objection to it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, it is an attempt to rehabilitate a State's witness by testimony concerning what went on while the witness was under hypnosis. We object on that basis.
BY MR. WARD:
We are not rehabilitating a State's witness by asking anybody to say what the State's witness said. That's the only authority that Mr. Dymond has.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Well, we are going to sustain any objection, or we, ourselves, on our own initiative, are going to stop this physician if he goes into the area of what this man told him on the basis of hearsay and, perhaps, on the rehabilitation of the witness. But his technique and what he did and what this physician did, I think is relevant. Don't you?
BY MR. WEGMANN:
The question isn't as to technique, Your Honor. I don't want to put words in the doctor's mouth; I'm not trying to do that. I think when you describe a technique, you can say what you did without being specific, and this is what is being done here. They say specifically did you question him about such and such a thing. And when you do this, you are getting in the record precisely what the Court says he can't. I think the doctor has given us his technique, how he went about it and how he did it, and I am assuming he is a qualified hypnotist -- the Court has qualified him that his techniques were legitimate. Now, if the doctor was going to say, well, I asked him certain questions about certain periods in his life, this is something else. But not that he asked him what happened on a specific date. He would then be going into the precise thing that the Court said he cannot do. This is the subject of this law review article and what the law review article, as I recall, says is that it's a touch and go proposition and I don't know how the Court is going to resolve it. But it seems to be that you have to resolve it on the side of not letting it in the record than of letting it in. That's the whole tenor of this law review article.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Your Honor, we're not asking this man to evaluate the veracity or the truthfulness of statements made while under hypnosis. We are not even asking this doctor what was said under hypnosis. We are asking him what area he brought this man back to in point of time.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
All right, then. Just what areas of time he brought him back to. We'll limit it to that.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
May I make one more statement?
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Go ahead.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
The Court has talked about the rehabilitation of the witness. This is what we maintain this case, the Court in its decision, Judge, that Judge Bagert mentioned a little while ago is the subject of our exception. It seems to me when you permitted an expert, a hypnotist, or any expert in any of these fields of memory recall, to go back and testify as to specific questions that were asked, the only purpose for him to do it is to show that this ground was covered with this witness prior to the time that he came into this Court, and that the witness was aided by the medical treatment that was given to him in his mental recall.
BY JUDGE O'HARA:
I would like to make myself perfectly clear. Whatever Mr. Russo testified to on the witness stand is what I am relying on. I'm not excluding this testimony at all. I would be interested in what value hypnotism has; I would be interested in some hypothetical questions. But I don't think we can go into any data derived from this subject while he was hypnotized.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
I might add further that it is my observation that Dr. Chetta went into the area of what value can be obtained from hypnotism at great length and in great detail. And I am also convinced that Dr. Fatter is an expert in his field, as a physician and in the field of hypnosis as a therapy, too. But I feel that Dr. Fatter relates any of the testimony or any statements given to him by the witness in this case, it falls within the realm of law that we are guided by here, and it is, therefore, inadmissible.
BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
The junior member of this firm would like to put in his two cents. I think that since the defense in this case, by cross examination through innuendo, has led some people to believe that this witness, Russo, was under the influence of hypnosis when he was on the witness stand. I think the State has a right to remove that impression.
BY MR. WARD:
We are not going to elicit from Dr. Fatter what was said by the witness. We have a right to find out what he did with the witness, Perry Russo. What date we are speaking about. We are not in the realm of speculation. That's what we are trying to do. We are not going to elicit from Dr. Fatter any of the testimony which Mr. Russo had previously given. The only authority Mr. Dymond possesses is the authority for the proposition that no one may restate what the witness has testified to or to rehabilitate that witness. We do not intend to do that. But we certainly have every right to get from Dr. Fatter what he did and what was done with Perry Russo in the process of having Mr. Russo go into a hypnotic trance.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Well, I, too, distinctly recall that the witness, Russo, was asked by Mr. Dymond on cross examination as to whether he was under a hypnotic seizure there, or whether he was in a hypnotic trance. This line of testimony, this line of questioning, is directed at rebutting that. I think it's admissible for that purpose only.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
My objection is not to the right for him to ask the question. As the Court often says, it's the manner in which it is being asked. I think the witness has a right to say that he questioned him about specific dates and specific times without naming those specific dates and specific times. This is my objection. Not what he's asking him about this. I'm objecting to the manner in which it is being asked. What difference does it say -- I can't say that Dr. Fatter can't testify, for instance, as to what Russo told him his birthday was as opposed to the district attorney asking him, "Well, did you ask him if his birthday was on July 3rd, 1928." This is my objection. The fact that this doctor made a detailed examination as a hypnotist. This is my objection. I am assuming that he did make a detailed examination, and I think, like any medical expert, he has a right to detail what his examination is without being specific as to the facts. We do have the problem that we have had since the very beginning of this hearing, is that unfortunately, the day may come when this testimony of Dr. Fatter -- I'm not choosing Dr. Fatter -- but unfortunately, where one of the witnesses may not be present, and that this evidence can be presented to a jury and not susceptible to the critical analysis or distinction that the Court is qualified to make. You all do this every day. I never worry -- I don't say I never worry -- but I worry less about what is said before a judge than I do with what is said before a jury. If this had no possibility of ever going before a jury, I would not be concerned, because the Court knows the lineation [sic] of the law, and the Court is capable and qualified to make that delineation.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Take all of that down, Mrs. Champagne.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
But the prospect of this getting before someone who is sitting there, who is a lay person, who doesn't read all these law articles and doesn't know what they say, and, my goodness, you've got a very different result. This is my objection. The specifics of it.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
After that piece of rhetoric, we have to agree with you. We sustain you.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
May I have a clarification of the ruling?
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
We sustain the objection.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
You sustain the objection? Will you read the question, please?
(QUESTION READ BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
BY MR. ALCOCK:
And the Court sustains the objection?
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Doctor, do you feel . . .
A. Before you ask a question, may I ask the Judge, do I have a -- the privilege of objecting?
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
This isn't your hospital, Doctor.
A. I would like to make something clear to Mr. Dymond and also to the district attorney's office. I am not a hypnotist. I am a physician who is psychologically and psychiatrically oriented, and I use psychological principles in my practice of medicine, of which hypnotic techniques happen to be one of the tools.
BY JUDGE O'HARA:
Everybody stands corrected.
A. I just want to put that into the record.
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
If you look at his shingle, it has MD and not hypnotist on it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q. Doctor, without saying what was said, did you have occasion to speak to any member of the District Attorney's staff prior to asking questions of Perry Russo under hypnosis?
A. Would you repeat the question, please?
Q. Without saying what was said, did you have occasion to speak to any member of the District Attorney's staff relative to questions to be posed to Mr. Russo while under hypnosis?
A. Yes.
Q. Without saying what was said, did you use essentially what was told to you by this member?
BY MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, this is a very obvious attempt to get around the ruling of this Court that has just been made. I don't think it takes any messiah to know just what questions are being referred to in counsel's question. I think the Court fully realizes that.
BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
I think you're premature there. He said, "Without saying what was said." That question can be answered yes or no.
BY MR. DYMOND:
That's correct, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
And I think that he has a right to ask that question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Does Your Honor have any doubt about what dates the district attorney would refer to?
BY JUDGE BAGERT:
I think it's time for lunch. We'll rule on that after lunch.