Dan Myers
(LAPD Robbery/Homicide Detective)
GOOD AFTERNOON. THE PEOPLE CALL DETECTIVE DAN MYERS.
DAN MYERS, CALLED ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED. PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME FOR THE RECORD. SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES.
THE WITNESS: DAN MYERS. D-A-N, M-Y-E-R-S.
THE COURT: DETECTIVE MYERS, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
THE COURT: HAVE YOU HEARD THE PREVIOUS ADMONITIONS
TO THE WITNESSES?
THE WITNESS: MULTIPLE TIMES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU ACCEPT THEM?
Q WHERE ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A I’M EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD, AND I CURRENTLY WORK IN THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION, HOMICIDE SPECIAL.
Q YOUR POSITION IN THAT?
A I’M A SENIOR HOMICIDE DETECTIVE.
Q ARE YOU ONE OF THE LEAD INVESTIGATORS IN THE CASE INVOLVING THE DEATH OF MICHAEL JACKSON?
A YES.
Q DID PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION CONCERN THE EXAMINATION OF CELL PHONE CALLS PLACED FROM DR. MURRAY’S CELL PHONE?
A YES, IT DID.
Q IN FACT, YOUR INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT IN JUNE OF 2009, CONRAD MURRAY HAD TWO CELL PHONES THAT WERE ACTIVATED IN HIS NAME. ONE FROM SPRINT NEXTEL, AND ONE FROM AT&T; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AFTER YOU OBTAINED INFORMATION THAT DR. MURRAY, IN FACT, HAD THOSE TWO OPERABLE CELL PHONES, DID YOU EXAMINE THE CELL PHONE RECORDS PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE VENDORS?
A YES.
Q DID YOU FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON THE TELEPHONE ACTIVITY ON BOTH OF THOSE CELL PHONE RECORDS FOR THE TIME PERIOD ON JUNE 25, 2009 FROM THE TIME PERIOD OF MIDNIGHT ON JUNE 24TH THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF JUNE 25, 2009?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU CONTACT THE NUMBERS PRESENTED ON THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF DR. MURRAY’S TELEPHONE RECORDS?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR CONTACTING THE PHONE NUMBERS OTHER THAN, OF COURSE, DR. MURRAY’S NUMBERS ON THE CELL PHONE RECORDS?
A TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO WERE DIALED AND SPOKEN WITH TO IDENTIFY THE CALL.
Q DETECTIVE MYERS, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT 20. ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT EXHIBIT CLEARLY FROM WHERE YOU SIT, OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BRING IT TO YOU?
A I CAN SEE IT.
Q DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST LINE OF THIS EXHIBIT. TIME OF CALL, 7:01 A.M., YOU SEE THE SECOND COLUMN SAYS “CALL FROM,” AND THERE IS A NUMBER ENDING IN 3747. THAT IS CONRAD MURRAY’S PHONE, CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q THE NEXT COLUMN SAYS “CALL TO.” DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT HAS A NUMBER (702) 240-0266?
A YES, I SEE THAT NUMBER.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE THE WITNESS WITH THE HARD COPY. DETECTIVE MEYERS, CAN YOU SEE THAT?
THE WITNESS: SO FAR, I CAN SEE THOSE NUMBERS PRETTY WELL.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: I’LL PROVIDE HIM THE COPY, YOUR HONOR. DO YOU HAVE IN IT FRONT OF YOU NOW?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q THE FIRST ENTRY, 7:01, SHOWS A CALL FROM DR. MURRAY’S PHONE AND A CALL TO A (702) 240-0266 NUMBER, CORRECT?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q DID YOU CONTACT THAT NUMBER (702) 240-0266?
A YES, I DID.
Q ON WHAT DATE DID YOU CONTACT THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER THE 17TH OF 2009.
Q WHO DOES THAT NUMBER BELONG TO?
A IT BELONGS TO A MR. ANDREW BUTLER.
Q DID ANDREW BUTLER CONFIRM TO YOU THAT HE RECEIVED A CALL FROM –
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION TO LEADING.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. AND IF YOU ARE PROCEEDING UNDER 872(B) OF THE PENAL CODE, I NEED A FOUNDATION FOR DETECTIVE MYERS. I DON’T KNOW HOW LONG HE HAS BEEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THANK YOU.
MS. BRAZIL: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q DETECTIVE MYERS, I NEGLECTED TO ASK YOU, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD?
A A LITTLE OVER 23 YEARS.
Q YOU TOLD US THAT YOU CONTACTED MR. BUTLER IN NOVEMBER OF 2009?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU CONTACTED MR. BUTLER, DID HE VERIFY THAT NUMBER ENDING IN 0266 WAS, IN FACT, HIS RESIDENCE PHONE NUMBER?
A YES, HE DID.
Q DID YOU ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE KNEW CONRAD MURRAY?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER?
A THAT HE IDENTIFIED MR. MURRAY AS HIS FRIEND AND PHYSICIAN.
Q DID MR. BUTLER INDICATE TO YOU WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH HIM THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A CALL?
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: DID YOU ASK MR. BUTLER IF HE RECEIVED A CALL FROM CONRAD MURRAY ON JUNE 25 OF 2009 IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT DID MR. BUTLER SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION?
A HE DID NOT RECALL RECEIVING A CALL FROM DR. MURRAY.
Q BUT HE CONFIRMED THAT IS HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER AND DR. MURRAY IS HIS PERSONAL PHYSICIAN?
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REASK IT, PLEASE.
Q BY MS. BUTLER: DID MR. BUTLER CONFIRM WITH YOU THAT IN JUNE OF 2009 CONRAD MURRAY WAS HIS PERSONAL PHYSICIAN?
MR. CHERNOFF: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE DIDN’T SAY I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION, AND IT IS LEADING. SHE IS STILL LEADING.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: YES, HE DID.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO PEOPLE’S 20, I’D LIKE TO MOVE TO THE NEXT TELEPHONE CALL, PLEASE. DO YOU SEE THAT TIME OF CALL 8:49 A.M. AND AGAIN THIS IS ON JUNE 25, 2009. IT SHOWS THAT THERE IS A CALL FROM (702) 683-5217. THAT CALL WAS PLACED TO CONRAD MURRAY’S NUMBER ENDING 3747. DO YOU SEE THAT ON THE CHART?
A YES, I DO.
Q DID YOU, DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION, DIAL THAT (702) 683-5217 NUMBER?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SPEAK WITH SOMEONE ON THE OTHER END OF THAT PHONE?
A I DID.
Q WHAT WAS THAT PERSON’S NAME?
A ANTOINETTE GILL.
Q ON WHAT DATE DID YOU SPEAK WITH MS. GILL?
A NOVEMBER 17, I BELIEVE.
Q 2009?
A CORRECT.
Q WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH MS. GILL, DID SHE VERIFY THAT HER PHONE NUMBER IS (702) 683-5217?
A SHE DID.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. GILL WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH HER IF SHE KNEW A CONRAD MURRAY?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION?
A THAT HE WAS A FRIEND AND HER DOCTOR.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. GILL IF SHE HAD A CONVERSATION TELEPHONICALLY WITH CONRAD MURRAY ON JUNE 25 OF 2009?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER IN THE MAIL INDICATING THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE IN THE OFFICE. SOMEONE ELSE WOULD BE SEEING HER, AND THAT SHE CALLED THE DOCTOR TO ASK, TO INQUIRE.
Q DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT PHONE CALL, THE TIME OF CALL 9:23 A.M. IT IS IN YELLOW. THE PHONE NUMBER INDICATES A CALL FROM (702) 290-2909, AND THE CALL WAS PLACED TO CONRAD MURRAY’S TELEPHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 0973. DID YOU, THROUGH YOUR INVESTIGATION, DETERMINE WHO USES THE TELEPHONE NUMBER ENDING 2909?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO TO DETERMINE WHO USES THAT PHONE NUMBER?
A I SPOKE TO A MARISSA. I’LL SPELL HER LAST NAME, B-O-N-I. SHE IS A GIRL FRIEND OR A FRIEND OF DR. MURRAY’S DAUGHTER WHOSE NAME IS CHANNEL.
Q DID YOU CALL MS. BONI ON THE TELEPHONE NUMBER THAT IS INDICATED ON PEOPLE’S 21 ENDING — WELL, YOU CALLED MS. BONI ON HER PHONE NUMBER?
A I DID THAT FROM THE PHONE RECORDS ON THE PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 2909.
Q SO FROM THAT TELEPHONE RECORD 2909, YOU OBTAINED MS. BONI’S PHONE NUMBER, PLACED A CALL TO HER, AND ASKED HER QUESTIONS CONCERNING HER KNOWLEDGE OF A PERSON WHO SHE HAD CONTACTED ON THE TELEPHONE NUMBER ENDING 2909?
A I CALLED AND ASKED HER IF SHE KNEW CONRAD MURRAY. SHE SAID, “YES, THAT IS MY FRIEND’S FATHER.”
Q DID YOU ASK MS. BONI IF SHE HAS REGULARLY CALLED AREA CODE (702) 290-2909, AND DID SHE PLACE CALLS TO THAT NUMBER IN JUNE OF 2009?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A “YES.” SHE SAID, “YES, THAT IS MY GIRL FRIEND, CHANNEL. THAT IS HER TELEPHONE NUMBER.”
Q MOVING NOW TO THE NEXT ENTRY, 10:14 A.M., DO YOU SEE THE SECOND COLUMN REFLECTS A CALL FROM (713) 699-4955, PLACED A CALL TO CONRAD MURRAY’S PHONE ENDING 0973 ON JUNE 25, 2009 AT 10:14 A.M.?
A YES.
Q DID YOU CONTACT THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER ENDING 4955?
A YES.
Q WHEN DID YOU CALL THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER?
A IT WOULD BE, I BELIEVE, AROUND THE SAME TIME FRAME, NOVEMBER 2009.
Q WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN DIALING THAT NUMBER?
A AGAIN, TO IDENTIFY THE OWNER OF THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER.
Q WHAT DID YOUR TELEPHONE CALL REVEAL?
A THAT IT BELONGED TO ACRES HOME AND CARDIAC CARE.
Q IS ACRES CARDIOLOGY CLINIC IN ANY WAY RELATED TO DR. CONRAD MURRAY?
A YES.
Q IN WHAT WAY?
A IT IS WHERE HE PRACTICED.
Q THAT WOULD BE IN TEXAS, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q THE NEXT CALL, 10:22 A.M., A CALL PLACED TO CONRAD MURRAY ON HIS PHONE NUMBER ENDING 3747, AND THAT CALL WAS FROM TELEPHONE NUMBER (713) 857-0124. DID YOU CALL THAT NUMBER?
A YES, I DID.
Q WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN IN JANUARY OF 2010?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU DIALED THAT NUMBER, WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH?
A A DR. JOANNE PRASHAD.
Q DID MS. PRASHAD OR DR. PRASHAD VERIFY IN JUNE OF 2009, SPECIFICALLY ON JUNE 25, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER WAS (713) 857-0124?
A YES, SHE DID.
Q DID YOU ASK DR. PRASHAD IF SHE PLACED A TELEPHONE CALL TO DR. CONRAD MURRAY ON JUNE 25, 2009 AT 10:52 OR IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS ON JUNE 25?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A SHE INDICATED SHE WAS IN THE POST-OPERATIVE ROOM OR CLINICAL ROOM IN THE HOSPITAL. SHE WAS GETTING READY TO PERFORM A PROCEDURE ON ONE OF DR. MURRAY’S PATIENTS. SHE NEEDED TO KNOW THE CURRENT MEDICATION THIS PATIENT WAS CURRENTLY TAKING AND THAT IF SHE SHOULD CONTINUE THAT MEDICATION AFTER HER PROCEDURE. SO SHE CONTACTED DR. MURRAY’S OFFICE IN HOUSTON AND TOLD THEM HER NEED TO CONTACT THE DOCTOR, AND THEY GAVE DR. PRASHAD DR. MURRAY’S CELLULAR TELEPHONE NUMBER.
Q DR. PRASHAD’S PURPOSE IN CONTACTING DR. MURRAY THAT MORNING WAS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION CONCERNING ONE OF HIS PATIENTS THAT SHE WAS ABOUT TO TREAT, CORRECT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q DID YOU ASK DR. PRASHAD WHETHER OR NOT SHE SPOKE WITH DR. MURRAY THAT MORNING?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A SHE, IN FACT, DID SPEAK WITH DR. MURRAY AND THEY DISCUSSED THE CARE FOR THIS PATIENT THAT SHE WAS CURRENTLY TREATING.
Q DID YOU ASK HER WHETHER OR NOT DR. MURRAY WAS ABLE TO ASSIST HER WITH THE INFORMATION THAT SHE NEEDED?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A IN FACT, HE RECALLED THE PATIENT BY MEMORY. AND THAT THE PATIENT WAS, I WANT TO SAY, TWO MONTHS POST-OP FROM A STENT THAT HAD BEEN PLACED INTO THE PATIENT BY DR. MURRAY, AND THAT HE HAD PUT THE PATIENT ON A CERTAIN PRESCRIPTION. DR. MURRAY RECALLED THE PRESCRIPTION, THE AMOUNTS, AND THERE WAS, IN FACT, A NEED PER DR. MURRAY TO CONTINUE THAT PROCEDURE. DR. PRASHAD EXPLAINED TO ME SHE WAS PRETTY IMPRESSED THAT HE HAD A VERY GOOD RECALL OF HIS PATIENT AND THE PATIENT’S CURRENT TREATMENT.
Q SO DR. PRASHAD CONVEYED TO YOU THAT IN HER SHORT TELEPHONE CALL OF APPROXIMATELY LESS THAN TWO MINUTES, 111 SECONDS, DR. MURRAY WAS ABLE TO RECOLLECT THE PATIENT THAT SHE WAS REFERRING TO, PROVIDE HER WITH NECESSARY INFORMATION CONCERNING THAT PATIENT’S CURRENT PRESCRIPTION AND MEDICATION NEEDS, AS WELL AS A PREVIOUS PROCEDURE SOME TWO MONTHS EARLIER THAT DR. MURRAY HAD CONDUCTED ON THAT PATIENT. IS THAT ACCURATE?
A YES.
Q DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO A CALL AT 10:34 A.M., IT INDICATES A CALL FROM DR. MURRAY’S TELEPHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 3747 PLACED TO TELEPHONE NO. (619) 994-3233. DID YOU CALL THAT NUMBER AS WELL –
A YES.
Q — IN YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A YES.
Q WHEN DID YOU DIAL THAT NUMBER?
A ROUGHLY, I BELIEVE, THE SAME TIME FRAME. DON’T HAVE THE EXACT DATE.
Q WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO WHEN YOU CONTACTED THAT NUMBER?
A I SPOKE TO A MS. RUGGLES, R-U-G-G-L-E-S.
Q DID SHE CONFIRM HER TELEPHONE NUMBER WAS, IN FACT, (619) 994-3233?
A YES, SHE DID.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. HOWE-RUGGLES IF SHE KNEW A CONRAD MURRAY?
A I DID.
Q WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A SHE SAID THAT SHE DID, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS HIS PERSONAL ASSISTANT AND HAD WORKED WITH DR. MURRAY.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. HOWE-RUGGLES WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CONRAD MURRAY ON JUNE 25 OF 2009?
A I DID.
Q WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A SHE SAID SHE DID, IN FACT, REMEMBER THE PHONE CALL BECAUSE IT WAS THE ANNIVERSARY OF HER GRANDMOTHER’S DEATH. SHE CALLED DR. MURRAY, AND THEY DISCUSSED A DOCUMENT THAT WAS TO BE DRAFTED TO THE LONDON MEDICAL BOARDS INDICATING HIS PENDING ARRIVAL AND WHAT FACILITIES MAY BE AVAILABLE TO HIM, IF NEEDED.
Q SO DURING THIS CONVERSATION, MS. -RUGGLES, DR. CONRAD MURRAY’S PERSONAL ASSISTANT, TOLD YOU THAT DR. MURRAY WAS DIRECTING HER, REQUESTING OF HER TO DRAFT A LETTER CONCERNING HIS ACTIVITIES AT THE UPCOMING TOUR IN LONDON?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. HOWE-RUGGLES WHETHER OR NOT CONRAD MURRAY SEEMED DISTRACTED OR PREOCCUPIED AT ANY TIME DURING THE PHONE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD WITH HIM ON JUNE 25, 2009?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A SHE DID NOT INDICATE THAT HE APPEARED TO BE DISTRACTED OR TIRED.
Q IN FACT, DID SHE TELL YOU THAT HE DID NOT –
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: DID SHE TELL YOU —
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION. LEADING. OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. THE WAY IT BEGINS, IT IS LEADING.
THE COURT: I’LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: DID YOU ASK HER DIRECTLY DID CONRAD MURRAY APPEAR DISTRACTED DURING THE CONVERSATION?
A YES, I DID.
MR. CHERNOFF: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: AND WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A THAT HE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE DISTRACTED. THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DISCUSS THEIR CONVERSATION.
Q MOVING NOW TO THE CALL PLACED AT 11:18 A.M., A CALL FROM (702) 862-0973, PLACED — I’M TAKING UP THE ONE AT 11:07 A.M. THERE IS A SECOND CALL THAT SHOWS THE SAME STACEY HOWE-RUGGLES, TELEPHONE NO. (619) 994-3233. IS THAT ACCURATE?
A YES.
Q MOVING TO 11:18 A.M., A CALL FROM (702) 862-0973 PLACED TO (702) 866-6802. THAT CALL DURATION REFLECTS 32 MINUTES. DETECTIVE, DID YOU CONTACT THE (702) NUMBER THAT ENDS 6802 DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION TO MAKE DETERMINATION AS TO WHO THAT NUMBER BELONGS TO?
A YES, AND I WAS ACTUALLY AT THE LOCATION AS WELL.
Q WHAT IS THAT LOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER?
A IT WAS DR. MURRAY’S PRACTICE IN HOUSTON — IN VEGAS. I’M SORRY. IN LAS VEGAS.
Q THAT WOULD BE DR. MURRAY’S MEDICAL OFFICES LOCATED AT 6802 — EXCUSE ME — AT 2110 EAST FLAMINGO ROAD, NO. 301, IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
A YES, AND IT IS KNOWN AS GLOBAL CARDIOVASCULAR & ASSOCIATES.
Q YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE PHYSICALLY THERE AS WELL, CORRECT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q YOU VERIFIED THAT THAT MEDICAL PRACTICE HAS AS ITS NUMBER (702) 866-6802, CORRECT?
A YES.
THE COURT: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, PLEASE. (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
THE COURT: I JUST ASKED MS. THEODOROU IF SHE NEEDED PEOPLE TO SLOW DOWN. SHE SAID, “NO.” SO NOW YOU CAN SPEED IT UP. SLOW DOWN JUST A TAD, PLEASE.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. AND THAT CALL DURATION TO GLOBAL CARDIOVASCULAR WAS 32 MINUTES ACCORDING TO THE CHART, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q MOVING NOW TO 11:26 A.M., A CALL FROM (310) 590-9566, PLACED TO CONRAD MURRAY’S PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 3747, DID YOU MAKE A CALL TO THAT (310) NUMBER?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SPEAK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THAT NUMBER?
A A MS. BRIDGETTE MORGAN.
Q WHEN DID YOU SPEAK WITH MS. MORGAN?
A THAT I CAN’T RECALL THE DATE.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. MORGAN IF SHE KNEW CONRAD MURRAY?
A I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A THAT SHE KNEW HIM.
Q DID MS. MORGAN VERIFY HER NUMBER, IN FACT, IN JUNE OF 2009 WAS (310) 590-9566?
A SHE DID.
Q THE NEXT IS 11:49 A.M., A CALL FROM CONRAD MURRAY’S NUMBER ENDING IN 0973, PLACED TO (702) 808-4989, A THREE-MINUTE CALL. DID YOU CALL THAT NUMBER ENDING IN 4989 DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SPEAK WITH SOMEONE AT THAT POINT IN TIME?
A I DID.
Q WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH?
A I SPOKE TO ROBERT RUSSELL.
Q DID YOU ASK ROBERT RUSSELL TO VERIFY THAT HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER IN JUNE OF 2009 WAS, IN FACT, (702) 808-4989?
A I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE?
A THAT IT WAS.
Q DID YOU ASK MR. RUSSELL IF HE KNEW CONRAD MURRAY?
A I DID.
Q WHAT DID HE SAY?
A HE IDENTIFIED DR. MURRAY AS HIS CARDIOLOGIST.
Q MOVING NOW TO A CALL AT 11:51 A.M., A CALL FROM CONRAD MURRAY’S NUMBER ENDING 0973 TO TELEPHONE NUMBER (562) 881-2570. DID YOU CONTACT THAT (562) NUMBER DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHO THAT NUMBER BELONGED TO IN JUNE OF 2009?
A YES.
Q WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH?
A MS. SADE ANDING.
Q WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH MS. ANDING, DID SHE VERIFY THAT WAS, IN FACT, HER TELEPHONE NUMBER IN JUNE, SPECIFICALLY JUNE 25 OF 2009?
A YES, SHE DID.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. ANDING DURING YOU CONVERSATION WITH HER WHETHER OR NOT SHE KNEW CONRAD MURRAY?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A THAT SHE DID KNOW CONRAD MURRAY.
Q DID YOU ASK MS. ANDING WHETHER OR NOT, IN FACT, SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CONRAD MURRAY ON JUNE 25 OF 2009?
A I DID.
Q DID SHE — I’M SORRY. WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A THAT SHE RECEIVED –
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION. NONRESPONSIVE AND RELEVANCE. IF HE HAS TO GO INTO THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD WITH HIM, IT IS ONE THING THEY HAD A CONVERSATION. I UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THAT. WHAT IT WAS ABOUT IS NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: DETECTIVE, I’M SIMPLY ASKING YOU DID YOU ASK HER IF SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CONRAD MURRAY ON JUNE 25 OF 2009?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?
A THAT SHE DID, IN FACT, RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM CONRAD MURRAY, AND SHE SPOKE TO HIM ON THE TELEPHONE.
Q MOVING NOW TO 12:12 P.M., WE HAVE A CALL FROM CONRAD MURRAY’S 0973 NUMBER TO (562) 881-2570. YOU VERIFIED THAT MICHAEL AMIR WILLIAMS, THAT WAS HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER IN 2009, CORRECT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q THE LAST ENTRY AT 1:08 P.M., A CALL FROM CONRAD MURRAY’S 3747 TELEPHONE NUMBER TO (310) 310-8070. DID YOU CALL THAT NUMBER DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A YES.
Q DID YOU DETERMINE WHOSE NUMBER IN JUNE OF 2009, WHO THAT NUMBER BELONGED TO?
A YES, MS. NICOLE ALVAREZ.
Q DID YOU CONTACT NICOLE ALVAREZ SOMETIME DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A YES.
Q DID YOU ASK OR ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT NICOLE ALVAREZ KNOWS CONRAD MURRAY?
A YES.
Q AND HOW DOES SHE KNOW HIM?
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION TO RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: CONRAD MURRAY IS THE FATHER OF HER CHILD.
Q BY MS. BRAZIL: IN JUNE OF 2009, HOW OLD WAS THE CHILD THAT NICOLE ALVAREZ HAD IN COMMON WITH CONRAD MURRAY?
A I THINK SHE WAS PREGNANT.
MR. CHERNOFF: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: I’LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. THE ANSWER IS STRICKEN.
MS. BRAZIL: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DETECTIVE MYERS, HOW ARE YOU?
A I’M GOOD, SIR. HOW ARE YOU? WOULD HAVE BEEN IN HOUSTON, RIGHT?
Q GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I THINK THE LAST TIME WE SAW EACH OTHER YOU CAME OUT TO HOUSTON?
A YES.
Q LET’S TALK ABOUT YOUR — WHEN THIS WHOLE CASE ERUPTED WHEN MICHAEL JACKSON DIED, YOU WERE OUT OF TOWN; IS THAT RIGHT?
YES. I WAS ON ANOTHER INVESTIGATION.
Q OKAY. AND WHEN DID YOU COME BACK INTO TOWN?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
MR. CHERNOFF: I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE HIS INVOLVEMENT WAS IN THIS CASE.
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK YOU CAN ASK IT MORE SPECIFICALLY RATHER THAN HIS TRAVEL PLANS.
THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q WHAT DAY DID YOU COME BACK FROM OUT OF TOWN?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: I WILL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. WITHIN THE LIMITS OF 352. YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: JUNE 29. ACTUALLY, I RETURNED ON THE 28TH ON SUNDAY.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q HAD YOU BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE BEFORE YOU CAME BACK INTO TOWN?
A MY PARTNER, DETECTIVE SCOTT SMITH, HE AND I ARE ASSIGNED PARTNERS.
Q OKAY.
A IT WAS OUR ROTATION. HOWEVER, BECAUSE I WAS TRAVELING ON ANOTHER INVESTIGATION, DETECTIVE ORLANDO MARTINEZ WAS FILLING IN.
Q OKAY. SO YOU CAME BACK ON THE 29TH. THIS WAS AFTER THE FIRST TWO TRIPS THROUGH
CAROLWOOD; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS AFTER DOCTOR MURRAY HAD ALREADY MADE A STATEMENT?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING. THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q WHAT DOCUMENTS, DETECTIVE MYERS, HAVE YOU REVIEWED PRIOR TO TESTIFYING?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DID YOU REVIEW DOCUMENTS LIKE –
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q — LIKE DID YOU REVIEW YOUR NOTES? DID YOU REVIEW OFFENSE REPORTS? DID YOU LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE’S OFFENSE REPORT? WHAT DOCUMENTS HAVE YOU REVIEWED?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION. THE QUESTION CAN CERTAINLY BE NARROWED TO –
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. CHERNOFF: WHICH ONE? VAGUE OR BEYOND THE SCOPE?
THE COURT: BOTH.
MR. CHERNOFF: BOTH.
Q PRIOR TO TESTIFYING TODAY, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT DOCUMENTS WAS IT?
A WELL, I HAVE CONTINUED TO UPDATE MYSELF AND REVIEW THE CASE IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. SPECIFICALLY, TO THE WITNESSES THAT I TESTIFIED UNDER 115, I REFRESHED MY MEMORY BY RECALLING THEIR STATEMENTS.
Q AND YOU REVIEWED YOUR NOTES; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q OKAY. AND YOU ALSO REVIEWED THEIR PARTICULAR WITNESS STATEMENTS?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q AND THESE ARE WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT YOU TYPED UP YOURSELF?
A YES.
Q YOU PREPARED THAT YOURSELF FROM YOUR NOTES?
A YES.
Q IS THAT RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU PRESENT, DETECTIVE MYERS, WHEN CAROLWOOD HOUSE WAS SEARCHED ON THE 29TH?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. CHERNOFF: MAY I APPROACH, JUDGE?
THE COURT: PLEASE. SHOW THE PEOPLE FIRST SO WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING.
MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THESE DOCUMENTS.
MR. CHERNOFF: I HAVEN’T EVEN SHOWN THEM TO THE WITNESS.
WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?
MS. BRAZIL: THAT IS WHY YOU SHOWED THEM TO ME FIRST.
THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. LET’S START. I DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING.
MS. BRAZIL: YES, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL HAS SHOWN ME FOUR DOCUMENTS THAT HE INDICATED HE WANTED TO SHOW THE WITNESS FOR PURPOSES OF PERHAPS REFRESHING HIS RECOLLECTION. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT RELATE TO THE SCOPE OF DETECTIVE MYER’S DIRECT EXAMINATION YESTERDAY. SO MY OBJECTION IS THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED AND ANSWERED BY DETECTIVE MYERS YESTERDAY.
THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR OFFER OF PROOF?
MR. CHERNOFF: DETECTIVE MYERS SAYS HE REVIEWED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO TESTIFYING. I AM JUST GOING TO ASK HIM ARE THESE SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS HE REVIEWED, AND DID HE PREPARE THESE DOCUMENTS? THAT IS ALL I AM GOING TO ASK HIM.
THE COURT: DO THEY RELATE TO THE TESTIMONY FROM YET?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, YES.
MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE AN OBJECTION. I DISAGREE WITH COUNSEL. ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE’S HANDED ME IS A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD WITH SEVERAL ENTRIES THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. THE SECOND, THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT, ALSO, DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YESTERDAY. THE THIRD DOCUMENT, BOTTOM PARAGRAPH ONLY, THE TOP OF THE SECOND PAGE RELATES TO TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. THE THIRD DOCUMENT OR RATHER THE FOURTH DOCUMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE QUESTIONS YESTERDAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF — OH, ACTUALLY, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE QUESTIONS YESTERDAY.
THE COURT: WITH REGARD TO DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST, THE SECOND, AND THE FOURTH, MR. CHERNOFF, HOW DO THEY RELATE TO ANY PRIOR TESTIMONY?
MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T KNOW UNTIL HE TELLS ME WHETHER HE ACTUALLY PREPARED THEM. IF HE DIDN’T PREPARE ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT’S IRRELEVANT. BUT I DON’T KNOW YET UNLESS I ASK HIM. AND WHEN WE WERE PROVIDED THESE DOCUMENTS, IT’S NOT AS IF THEY HAD A SIGNATURE ATTACHED TO THEM. HE TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, AS YOU RECALL, TO A LOT OF PHONE RECORDS AND PHONE CALLS THAT HE MADE. AND I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER HE MADE THESE NOTES WITH REGARD TO THESE PHONE CALLS AND WITH REGARD TO THESE TIMELINES SO THAT I KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS I CAN ASK HIM ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: DO THE DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE REFERENCE PHONE CALLS?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, THE ONE DOCUMENT THAT I DESCRIBED FOR THE COURT DOES REFERENCE TELEPHONE CALLS.
THE COURT: THAT WAS DOCUMENT NUMBER 2 OR 3?
MS. BRAZIL: THERE’S TWO DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE TO TELEPHONE CALLS. I WILL CALL THEM DOCUMENT –
THE COURT: WELL, I DON’T KNOW. RIGHT NOW, THE DEFENSE WANTED TO MARK SOME DOCUMENTS. SO I THINK WE ARE JUST GOING TO MARK THEM SO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THEM BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN SHOWN. SO THAT’S C, D, E, AND F; IS THAT RIGHT, MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, JUDGE.
THE COURT: YOU CAN MARK THEM.
MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, MAY HE MARK THEM, AND I WILL ADDRESS THEM IN MY ARGUMENTS?
THE COURT: YES.
MS. BRAZIL: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: YOU PUT WHAT MARKINGS YOU WANT ON THEM, PLEASE.
MR. CHERNOFF: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: CHARLIE, DELTA, ECHO, AND FOXTROT.
MR. CHERNOFF: OKAY. WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS NOW, JUDGE?
THE COURT: WE ARE IN THE PROCESS THEY HAVE BEEN MARKED NOW SO I KNOW WHAT IT IS IN TERMS OF A DESIGNATION ALTHOUGH I DON’T KNOW THE SUBSTANCE. GO AHEAD, MISS BRAZIL.
MS. BRAZIL: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. DEFENSE EXHIBIT C. DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE TELEPHONE CALLS OR THE TESTIMONY THAT DETECTIVE MYERS PROVIDED YESTERDAY.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOUR POSITION, MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: MAY I SEE?
THE COURT: C.
MR. CHERNOFF: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. MAYBE I CAN MAKE THIS EASIER FOR EVERYBODY.
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE THAT.
MR. CHERNOFF: IS THIS A DOCUMENT, MISS BRAZIL, YOU FEEL DOES RELATE TO THE PHONE CALLS? IF THAT IS TRUE, THEN I WILL JUST USE THAT DOCUMENT.
MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS HAS NOT CLAIMED THAT HE HAS A FAILURE OF RECOLLECTION. DEFENSE COUNSEL CAN ASK HIM A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT OR SHOW HIM A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT. BUT I DON’T BELIEVE THAT’S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO POINT MR. CHERNOFF TO A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT IN OVER 7,000 PAGES OF THE DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, THE DEFENSE NEEDS TO MAKE A PROFFER. AND WITHOUT THE PARTICULAR PROFFER AS TO WHY THE WITNESS IS BEING SHOWN A DOCUMENT, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IT’S IRRELEVANT AND CALL FOR HEARSAY.
MR. CHERNOFF: I CAN’T REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.
THE COURT: ASSUMING IT NEEDS TO BE REFRESHED.
MR. CHERNOFF: NOR CAN I IMPEACH HIS TESTIMONY WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER THIS IS A DOCUMENT HE PRODUCED.
THE COURT: BUT YOU HAVE TO GET TO HIS POINT BY ASKING IF HIS MEMORY NEEDS TO BE REFRESHED AND SPECIFIC INCONSISTENCIES.
MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, I CAN’T IMPEACH HIM ON A DOCUMENT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE PREPARED. I CAN’T SET UP IMPEACHMENT BY SAYING “ISN’T IT TRUE THAT YOU SAID THIS” WHEN I DON’T EVEN KNOW HE CREATED IT. IF THE ODDS ARE HE DIDN’T EVEN CREATE IT, THEN I CAN GET ONTO THE NEXT TOPIC.
THE COURT: THEN THAT IS WHY WE ARE NOT ON A DISCOVERY MISSION HERE. I AM SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION UNLESS YOU CAN ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION.
MR. CHERNOFF: ON C., D., E. AND F, RIGHT?
THE COURT: YES. ON RELEVANCE, 352, AND CALLS FOR INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AT THIS JUNCTURE.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU THIS, DETECTIVE MYERS. HAVE YOU AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION PREPARED ANY TIMELINE OF EVENTS A CHRONOLOGY OF EITHER THE PHONE RECORDS OR ANY OTHER EVENT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU PREPARED THAT CHRONOLOGY OR THAT TIMELINE — BY THE WAY, WAS IT A CHRONOLOGY; OR WAS IT A TIMELINE? HOW DID YOU TITLE IT?
A WELL, I HAVE PREPARED NUMEROUS REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION. I INPUT IT IN CHRONOLOGICALLY.
Q I HAVE SEEN WHAT YOU HAVE PREPARED WITH YOUR NOTES. MY QUESTION IS: HAVE YOU PREPARED WHAT WOULD BE TITLED A TIMELINE OF EVENTS, INCLUDING PHONE CALLS?
A YOU’D HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, COUNSELOR, ON WHAT TIMELINE YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
MR. CHERNOFF: MAY I APPROACH?
Q SPECIFICALLY, DEFENSE EXHIBIT D, DID YOU PREPARE THAT TIMELINE —
MS. BRAZIL: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. MAY I SEE WHAT DOCUMENT?
MR. CHERNOFF: DEFENSE D.
MS. BRAZIL: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: GO AHEAD, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.
MS. BRAZIL: THANK YOU.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DID YOU PREPARE DEFENSE D?
A CAN I LOOK AT IT?
THE COURT: EVERYBODY HAS. YOU MAY.
THE WITNESS: YES. I HAD INPUT ON THAT TIMELINE.
MR. CHERNOFF: I AM ABOUT TO SHOW HIM DEFENSE E, DEBORAH.
MS. BRAZIL: YOUR HONOR, THE FIRST ISSUE IS DEFENSE E. CONTAINS THREE PAGES. ONLY THE FIRST PAGE RELATES TO ANY TYPE OF TIMELINE CONCERNING TELEPHONE CALLS OR PHONE RECORDS. I WOULD ASK THAT IF DEFENSE E. IS TO BE USED WITH THIS WITNESS IT WOULD BE THAT SINGLE PAGE AS OPPOSED TO THREE PAGES.
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS AN OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION AS OPPOSED TO JUST SHOWING THE DOCUMENT.
THE COURT: WE CAN MOVE ON. SO MR. CHERNOFF CAN SHOW DETECTIVE MYERS E, AND WE’LL GO FROM THERE. THANK YOU.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q ALL RIGHT. LET ME SHOW YOU DEFENSE E. DID YOU ALSO HAVE INPUT, OR WERE YOU THE AUTHOR OF THAT TIMELINE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. REFERRING TO DEFENSE E, DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU PREPARED OR HAD INPUT INTO THAT TIMELINE? DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT OCCURRED?
A ON DEFENSE E?
Q YES.
A THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EARLY IN THE INVESTIGATION. I COULDN’T GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC DAY, BUT I WOULD SAY THE FIRST WEEK OR TWO.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT ABOUT DEFENSE D? WHEN WAS THAT PREPARED?
A I BELIEVE DEFENSE E. WAS SOMETIME LATER. I DON’T HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHEN THIS ACTUALLY WAS CREATED. BUT AFTER DEFENSE D.
Q A MONTH LATER? TWO MONTHS LATER? FIVE MONTHS LATER?
A I DO NOT KNOW.
Q WAS THE PROGRESSION FROM DEFENSE D. OR E. TO D. RELATED TO INFORMATION THAT YOU OBTAINED THROUGHOUT YOUR INVESTIGATIONS AS THE PROCESS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, IS THAT WHY IT HAD BEEN REFINED OR CHANGED?
A I’M SURE IT WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND BOTH OF THOSE, THEY WERE AUTHORED BY YOU, OR YOU MERELY HAD INPUT INTO THEM?
A AS FAR AS DEFENSE E, I THINK I MAY HAVE OFFERED THIS, AUTHORED DEFENSE E. AND I THINK ONLY ON DEFENSE D. DID I HAVE INPUT ON.
Q OKAY. DETECTIVE MYERS, YOU CAME IN LATE IN THE GAME WHEN ORLANDO MARTINEZ AND SCOTT SMITH HAD ALREADY BEEN STARTING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS DEATH; IS THAT RIGHT?
A “LATE IN THE GAME,” I DON’T KNOW IF THAT REALLY STATES IT.
Q DETECTIVE SMITH AND ORLANDO MARTINEZ HAD ALREADY INTERVIEWED THE PEOPLE WHO WERE AT THE HOUSE WHEN MICHAEL JACKSON WAS FOUND, RIGHT?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. EXCEEDS THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. DETECTIVE MYER’S TESTIMONY IS NARROWLY TAILORED, AND THAT IS THE COURSE AND SCOPE ABOUT WHICH WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED. THANK YOU.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS INVESTIGATION? GENERALLY SPEAKING, WAS THERE ASSIGNMENTS? YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT YOU —
MS. BRAZIL: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, I SHOULD AT LEAST FIND OUT WHY HE ONLY KNOWS INFORMATION ABOUT THE PHONES.
THE COURT: THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS THE — THAT IS THE POINT OF ALL OF THIS. DETECTIVE MYERS IS BEING CALLED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE, AND THAT’S THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF HIS TESTIMONY AND THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF ANY CROSS. NOT A GENERALIZED INQUIRY.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DETECTIVE MYERS, WERE YOU ASSIGNED MERELY TO INVESTIGATE THESE PHONE CALLS THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION? WAS THERE A PARTICULAR DETECTIVE WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF MAKING THESE ASSIGNMENTS OR DISTRIBUTING RESPONSIBILITIES?
A THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATIVE TEAM CONSISTING OF MYSELF, DETECTIVE SCOTT SMITH, AND DETECTIVE ORLANDO MARTINEZ. AS FAR AS AN OFFICER IN CHARGE, THAT CAME AT A HIGHER LEVEL, ALTHOUGH DETECTIVE SMITH WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SENIOR.
Q OKAY. WAS IT DETECTIVE SMITH WHO DISTRIBUTED THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THESE PHONE CALLS?
A IT WAS A COLLECTIVE EFFORT.
Q WELL, DID THEY MAKE ANY OF THESE PHONE CALLS THAT YOU DID TO THESE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS THAT DOCTOR MURRAY HAD SPOKEN TO? DID ANYBODY MAKE ANY PHONE CALLS BUT YOU TO THESE INDIVIDUALS?
A WELL, THERE WERE MORE THAN JUST PHONE CALLS. THERE WAS ACTUALLY SOME WITNESSES THAT WERE INTERVIEWED IN PERSON.
Q AND WHICH OF THOSE INTERVIEWS WERE INTERVIEWED IN PERSON?
A SOME OF THE STAFF IN HOUSTON, IN FACT. YOU WERE PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
Q ANYBODY ELSE?
A NO. THAT IS ALL I CAN THINK OF.
Q ALL RIGHT. DID DETECTIVE SMITH OR DETECTIVE MARTINEZ INTERVIEW ANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVING THESE PHONE CALLS THAT WE HEARD ABOUT YESTERDAY?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CHERNOFF: YOU CALLED — WE LOOKED AT A SERIES OF PHONE CALLS. IT WAS ONE OF THE PROSECUTION’S EXHIBITS. AND YOU EXPLAINED SOME OF THE NUMBERS AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE, WHO WERE ATTACHED TO THOSE NUMBERS. DO YOU REMEMBER MAKING THAT TESTIMONY YESTERDAY?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND THESE WERE ALL OF THE PHONE CALLS WERE MADE ON ONE PARTICULAR DAY, THE MORNING OF THE 25TH; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. DID ANYBODY ELSE INVESTIGATE THAT ACTIVITY, THE PHONE CALLS MADE FROM AND TO DOCTOR MURRAY’S PHONE ON THE 25TH OTHER THAN YOU?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED YESTERDAY, IT’S COMPLETE AND TOTAL? THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION THAT HADN’T BEEN REPORTED IN YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY ABOUT THESE PHONE CALLS, OR WAS IT COMPLETE?
A AS FAR AS —
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
THE WITNESS: NO, I DO NOT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REFINE, PLEASE.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q IS THERE A PHONE CALL THAT WAS MADE ON THE 25TH YOU DID NOT INVESTIGATE?
A THE ENTIRE, THE ENTIRE DAY OF JUNE 25?
Q WHICH RANGE DID YOU FOCUS ON, DETECTIVE MYERS? WAS IT 6:00 IN THE MORNING UNTIL 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON? OR WAS IT 6:00 IN THE MORNING UNTIL 6:00 P.M.? WHAT WAS YOUR RANGE OF INVESTIGATION?
A MY TESTIMONY YESTERDAY WAS FROM, I BELIEVE, 7:00 IN THE MORNING UNTIL MID-AFTERNOON OF THE 25TH.
Q OKAY. AND YOU INVESTIGATED NO FURTHER THAN THE MID-AFTERNOON OF THE 25TH OF JUNE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A NO.
Q IT’S NOT RIGHT. YOU DID INVESTIGATE FURTHER?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. HOW MUCH FURTHER?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q WELL, WAS IT ONE? WAS IT FIVE MORE PHONE CALLS? TEN MORE PHONE CALLS? WAS IT THE TWO HOURS, TWO HOURS MORE? WAS IT UP UNTIL MIDNIGHT UP TO JUNE 26? HOW FAR DID YOU INVESTIGATE THOSE PHONE CALLS? HOW LONG, HOW MANY PHONE CALLS? HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU INVESTIGATE?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. COMPOUND.
THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
THE WITNESS: SOMEWHAT.
THE COURT: I AM HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE. SUSTAINED. REFINE, PLEASE.
MR. CHERNOFF: OKAY, JUDGE. SURE.
Q WE FOUND OUT YESTERDAY THAT YOU INVESTIGATED A PHONE CALL THAT WAS MADE AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING, SOMEWHERE AROUND 6:00 IN THE MORNING AND AT NOON AND AT 1:00, AT 11:49, 11:18. BASICALLY, ALL THE WAY TO THE MORNING OF JUNE 25. YOU HAD TESTIFIED NOW IN CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU ALSO INVESTIGATED PHONE CALLS AFTER, AFTER MR. JACKSON’S DEATH AND INTO THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 25. THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, RIGHT?
A IT WAS?
Q WELL, WAS IT NOT? DID YOU NOT SAY THAT YESTERDAY THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO THE PHONE CALLS WERE MADE INTO THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 25. TODAY I ASKED YOU IF YOU INVESTIGATED PHONE CALLS AFTER THE TIME OF YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. AND YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD. IS THAT NOT TRUE?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: I WILL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. YOU MAY ANSWER, IF YOU ARE ABLE.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q IF IT’S NOT TRUE, IT’S NOT TRUE. THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT YOU SAID, DETECTIVE MYERS, THAT YOU INVESTIGATED MORE PHONE CALLS ON THE 25TH THAN WHAT WAS LISTED ON THAT CHRONOLOGY OF CALLS IN THE EXHIBIT YESTERDAY; IS THAT TRUE?
A IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT I INVESTIGATED OTHER PHONE CALLS OUTSIDE OF WHAT I TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY?
THE COURT: ON THAT SAME DATE?
THE WITNESS: CORRECT, ON THAT SAME DATE. HAVE I LOOKED AT OTHER CALLS OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY?
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OTHER CALLS AND HAVE YOU CALLED THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THOSE PHONE NUMBERS?
A THERE’S BEEN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THOSE PHONE CALLS, YES.
Q OUTSIDE OF THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY, RIGHT?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q HAVE YOU MADE NOTES OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS? DO YOU HAVE NOTES OF THAT INVESTIGATION?
A I DO NOT KNOW.
Q YOU DON’T KNOW IF YOU TOOK NOTES?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. THIS IS DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. IT’S IRRELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DO YOU TYPICALLY TAKE NOTES OF — WHEN YOU PERFORM INVESTIGATION?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YOU HAVE GOT TO FOCUS ON WHAT WE HAVE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT ELSE MAY BE OUT THERE WHICH IS A SUBJECT OF DISCOVERY.
MR. CHERNOFF: I UNDERSTAND, JUDGE. I AM SORRY. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU. I WILL TRY TO MOVE ON.
Q DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU FLEW DOWN TO HOUSTON TO SEARCH DOCTOR MURRAY’S OFFICES; IS THAT RIGHT?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
MR. CHERNOFF: I BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO BE RELEVANT IF YOU LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, JUDGE.
Q DURING THAT —
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: LET’S JUST SEE IF THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION BECAUSE I AM GETTING WRAPPED UP IN MINUTIA HERE WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT YOU FLEW DOWN TO HOUSTON, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO INTERVIEW ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE ON THOSE PHONE CALLS?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. BRAZIL: WHICH PHONE CALLS?
MR. LOW: MAY I PLEASE USE —
THE COURT: YOU HAD ASKED, CORRECT? THIS IS ANOTHER LEGAL MATTER YOU HAVE GOT, MR. LOW? OTHER RESPONSIBILITY?
MR. LOW: YES.
THE COURT: THAT IS FINE.
MR. LOW: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. CHERNOFF: MAY I?
Q DID YOU INTERVIEW, DID YOU INTERVIEW ANYBODY IN HOUSTON DURING THAT TRIP INVOLVING THESE PHONE CALLS YOU TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY?
A I WENT TO HOUSTON AT LEAST TWICE. AND I’M NOT CERTAIN OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THIS MORNING IF IT WAS ON THE FIRST TRIP TO HOUSTON OR THE SECOND TRIP TO HOUSTON. BUT WE DID INTERVIEW SOME STAFF IN HOUSTON.
Q DID YOU ALSO INTERVIEW AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF SADE ANDING WHILE IN HOUSTON?
A YES.
Q YOU TOOK A STATEMENT FROM HER; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU TOOK NOTES OF THAT STATEMENT?
MR. WALGREN: OBJECTION. GOES TO DISCOVERY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q DID YOU — IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR WAY FOR YOU TO REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH SADE ANDING?
A YES.
Q JUST YOUR MEMORY, OR IS IT RECORDED? DO WE HAVE A RECORDING OF HER INTERVIEW?
A I TAPE RECORDED IT, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW SADE ANDING?
MR. WALGREN: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
MR. CHERNOFF: THIS IS ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO MADE THE PHONE CALL. I AM ASKING SPECIFIC —
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S BEEN TESTIFIED TO THAT. SO THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. I THINK WE NEED TO REFINE, PLEASE.
MR. CHERNOFF: YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING TO SAY THAT.
THE COURT: WELL, I WASN’T EXPECTING TO, BUT IT’S REACHED THAT POINT.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q SADE ANDING IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU INTERVIEWED; IS THAT RIGHT? AND SHE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS ON THE PHONE WITH DOCTOR MURRAY DURING JUNE 25; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT IT WAS A PHONE CALL AT 11:51 ON JUNE 25. DO YOU RECALL THAT CONVERSATION?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND THAT PARTICULAR PERSON WHO MADE THAT PHONE CALL YOU SAID WAS SADE ANDING? THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY?
A CORRECT.
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE CALL WAS NOT FROM MISS ANDING. THE CALL WAS TO MISS ANDING.
THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. TO OR FROM?
THE WITNESS: IT WAS TO SADE ANDING.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS, SADE ANDING IS THE PERSON YOU INTERVIEWED WHILE YOU WERE IN HOUSTON? YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q HAD YOU INTERVIEWED HER OR SPOKEN TO HER SINCE THAT TIME?
MS. BRAZIL: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
BY MR. CHERNOFF:
Q AND WHEN WAS THAT?
A LAST NIGHT.
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS ALL I HAVE, JUDGE.
THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF, THANK YOU. MISS BRAZIL, REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
MS. BRAZIL: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MAY DETECTIVE MYERS STEP DOWN? YES? DETECTIVE, THANK YOU. YOU MAY RETAKE YOUR SEAT. YOU ARE DESIGNATED AS AN I.O. IN THE CASE.
You must be logged in to post a comment.