APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT IN COURT AND BEING REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF,PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL; J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL; NAREG GOURJIAN , PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL, NOT PRESENT IN COURT;
REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE DAVID WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS,
SPECIAL APPEARANCES:
PAUL S. MALINGAGIO, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL;
MARVIN S. PUTNAM, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL;
JESSICA STEBBINS, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL; AND
GARO GHAZARIAN, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. ON THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, DOCTOR MURRAY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL ARE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 977 OF THE PENAL CODE. MR. WALGREN AND MISS BRAZIL ARE PRESENT. MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN ARE PRESENT. GOOD MORNING. AND MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN, THIS IS A CONTINUED APPEARANCE WITH A WAIVER UNDER 977 OF THE PENAL CODE?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. FLANAGAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: IS MR. GOURJIAN GOING TO BE HERE TODAY?
MR. CHERNOFF: HE HAS A MOTION, PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING THIS MORNING. SO HE WON’T BE HERE.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WE HAVE TO DISCUSS. CAN COUNSEL GIVE ME AN UPDATE ON DISCOVERY ON HOW WE ARE DOING? I DON’T KNOW WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT FIRST.
MR. WALGREN: YOUR HONOR, I’LL ADDRESS THE COURT. WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME DISCOVERY FROM THE DEFENSE THIS MORNING. I HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT. WE HAVE MADE AN INFORMAL REQUEST FOR A COUPLE ITEMS, AND THE DEFENSE SAID THEY WILL GET THOSE TO US. WE SHOULD HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY I BELIEVE, AT THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK. AND I THINK THAT’S THE STATUS AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY YOU RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY, WHAT IS IT?
MR. WALGREN: WELL, IT’S THIS PACKET. I JUST HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH IT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF A VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AND THE SLIDE ISSUE FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE? IS THERE SOME UPDATE ON THAT?
MR. WALGREN: VIDEO SURVEILLANCE, AS I INDICATED LAST WEEK AND HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, YOUR HONOR, THE L.A.P.D. DOWNLOADED ABOUT 13, 14, 15 MINUTES OF IT. THAT’S WHAT EXISTS. DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS HAD THAT FOR QUITE SOMETIME. ANY OTHER VIDEO WOULD HAVE BEEN, WOULD HAVE ERASED ITSELF AND BEEN RECORDED OVER. SO THAT ALL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE THAT EXISTS IS IN POSSESSION OF THE DEFENDANTS.
I WILL POINT OUT, TOO, THAT THE — AND THIS WILL BE PART OF THE NEW DISCOVERY BECAUSE L.A.P.D. DID FOLLOW UP ON THAT ISSUE. THE VIDEO CAMERAS APPARENTLY WERE SET UP ON THE EXTERIOR ONLY. THEY WERE MEANT TO MONITOR BASICALLY THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE DOORS OF THE PROPERTY, BUT RATHER THE GATES AND THE WALL PERIMETERS AND WERE EXTERIOR ONLY. AND THE COVERAGE DEPENDED ON MOTION ACTIVATION AS TO HOW MUCH COVERAGE WAS TAKING PLACE. BUT AGAIN, THAT WILL BE COMMITTED TO A REPORT PROVIDED TO DEFENSE.
THE COURT: THOSE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SUBJECT AREAS IN WHICH I HAD SOME INTEREST, ONE, THE LOCATION OF THE CAMERAS AND, SECOND OF ALL, WHETHER THEY WERE MOTION ACTIVATED. AND YOU ARE SAYING OUTSIDE AND MOTION ACTIVATED.
MR. WALGREN: YES. I BELIEVE, AGAIN, I WANT TO GET THE REPORT TO THE DEFENSE. BUT I BELIEVE THE COVERAGE, THE AMOUNT OF FRAMES PER SECOND DEPENDED ON MOTION ACTIVATION.
THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN, YOU HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE OR MR. CHERNOFF.
MR. CHERNOFF: I PROBABLY KNOW MORE THAN MR. FLANAGAN. WE HAVE 4 MINUTES AND 7 MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US QUITE SOMETIME AGO BY THE PROSECUTION. IF IT WAS MOTION ACTIVATED, THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF IT WHERE NO MOTION IS TAKING PLACE. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WERE THREE CAMERAS. THE CAMERA THAT WE HAVE SHOWS, IT SHOWS WHAT’S GOING ON LITERALLY IN FRONT OF THE GATE. I AM TAKING THE PROSECUTION AT THEIR, AT FACE VALUE. THEY TOLD ME LAST WEEK THAT FROM THEIR UNDERSTANDING, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ERASED EXCEPT FOR THOSE 4 AND 7 MINUTES. AND THEY ALSO TOLD ME AND MR. WALGREN SAID HE WAS GOING TO GET ANOTHER REPORT TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT, AND WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR THAT REPORT.
THE COURT: OKAY. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE INVOLVING SLIDES FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE AND MS. FLEET AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES, MR. FLANAGAN?
MR. FLANAGAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I TALKED WITH MISS FLEET ON MONDAY. AND I FAXED TO THEIR INVESTIGATION CONTROL A COPY OF THE COURT’S ORDER. MRS. FLEET IS TRYING TO SET UP A TIME FOR US TO COME DOWN. SHE HAS TO ASSESS WHAT EXACTLY THE CORONER HAS BUT THEY HAVEN’T GIVEN BACK TO L.A.P.D. AND I HAVE TOLD HER THAT WE NEED SLIDES TO SHOW ONE OF OUR EXPERTS. AND SHE’S MAKING ARRANGEMENTS TO DO THAT. WE DON’T HAVE THEM YET.
I ANTICIPATED SHE WOULD CALL YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WITH A TIME AND PLACE AND THE LOGISTICS INVOLVED, BUT SHE DID NOT. BUT I DO THINK THE CORONER’S OFFICE IS ENDEAVORING TO COOPERATE. AND WE THAT AT LEAST THE TIME DESIGNATED SOMETIME THIS WEEK. WE HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE AS TO — I CALLED THE S.I.D. WE WANTED TO GET SOME BETTER FINGERPRINT EXEMPLARS AND FINGERPRINTS OF INDIVIDUALS. AND THE FBI HAS CERTAIN STANDARDS. AND SO WE HAVE PREPARED AN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO SIGN. THEY WANT A COURT ORDER BEFORE THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE US ANYTHING MORE IN THE WAY OF FINGERPRINTS.
THE COURT: WHO IS “THEY?”
MR. FLANAGAN: S.I.D. AND SO RATHER THAN ARGUE WITH THEM ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE A COURT ORDER, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC COURT ORDER THAT SETS FORTH THE TYPE AND QUALITY OF PRINTS THAT WE NEED BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A FINGERPRINT EXPERT THAT IS TAKING A LOOK AT THE FINGERPRINTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. AND HE NEEDS A LITTLE BIT BETTER COPY. HE NEEDS COPY SIMILAR TO THE COPIES, NOT SIMILAR, BUT IDENTICAL TO THE COPIES THAT WERE SENT BY L.A.P.D. TO THE FBI, WHAT THEY CALL FIRST GENERATION. AND I HAVE GIVEN THE PEOPLE A COPY OF THE ORDER. I DO NOT THINK — AND S.I.D. FOR SOME REASON WANTS IT. THE PEOPLE COULD PROBABLY CALL THEM UP AND JUST TELL THEM TO GIVE IT TO US. BUT WE ARE JUST ACCOMMODATING THEM BY TRYING TO GET THE COURT TO SIGNING AN ORDER WHEREBY WE CAN GET IT.
THE COURT: SO THESE AREN’T THE ORIGINALS. THESE ARE WHAT YOU CALL FIRST GENERATION COPIES?
MR. CHERNOFF: THE PROBLEM WAS, JUDGE, THAT WHEN WE WENT THERE, WE DIDN’T GO GET OUR FINGERPRINTS LAST TIME. LAST TIME WHEN YOU ORDERED THE FINGERPRINTS TO BE PRODUCED, THEY WERE PICKED UP BY OFFICER MARTINEZ WHO THEN INFORMED US THAT HE HAD OUR COPIES. SO WE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY GET THESE FIRST GENERATION PRINTS. WE SENT WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US TO OUR CONSULTING EXPERT WHO EXPLAINED THAT WITHOUT THE W.S.Q. FIRST GENERATION FINGERPRINTS, THE FINGERPRINTS THAT THEY HAVE OVER THERE, YOU CAN’T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. SO WE CALLED OVER TO S.I.D, AND THEN THEY SAID, “WELL, WE NEED FURTHER ORDER.” SO THAT’S WHY WE HAVE THIS PRESENTED TO YOU JUST TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF. WE’LL GO OVER. WE’LL PICK IT UP AND DETERMINE WHAT THE FINGERPRINTS ARE.
THE COURT: IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING S.I.D. DOES HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE THIS TO YOU?
MR. CHERNOFF: ABSOLUTELY. IN FACT, WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS WHAT THEY HAD TO — FINGERPRINT 1, FOR INSTANCE, WAS AN A.F.I.S. QUALITY PRINT. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY PRESENT IT TO THE FBI, AND THEY PRESENTED IT TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL AND RAN IT PRINT THAT WE, THE TYPE OF QUALITY PRINT THAT WE NEED. WHAT WE GOT WAS A DIFFERENT QUALITY. AND IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ANY KIND OF COMPARISON, WE NEED THE QUALITY THAT THEY HAVE.
THE COURT: DO THE PEOPLE HAVE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED ORDER?
MR. WALGREN: WE DO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DO THE PEOPLE HAVE A PARTICULAR POSITION?
MR. WALGREN: WE HAVE NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. BUT I WILL STATE FOR THE RECORD S.I.D. HAS ALWAYS AND I AM SURE WILL CONTINUE TO REQUIRE A COURT ORDER FOR THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION. AND THE PRIOR COURT ORDER DIDN’T SPECIFY THIS. SO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DETECTIVE MARTINEZ PICKING IT UP OR NOT PICKING IT UP. THEY NEED A COURT ORDER WHEN THESE TYPE OF SPECIFIC REQUESTS ARE MADE. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION.
THE COURT: I WILL BE HAPPY TO SIGN IT. I DON’T KNOW THE LINGO. IT’S VERY, VERY TECHNICAL. BUT AS LONG AS THE PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT AND AS LONG AS S.I.D FEELS THAT THEY CAN COMPLY —
MR. WALGREN: I ASSUME THIS LANGUAGE WAS PUT IN THERE AT THE REQUEST OF S.I.D. THAT THEY DO HAVE THIS EQUIPMENT.
MR. CHERNOFF: THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO SEND IT TO THE FBI. BUT IF THEY DON’T, THEY WILL SAY SO. AND WE WILL KNOW.
THE COURT: I AM SIGNING IT RIGHT NOW. IT’S SOMETHING WE CAN GET MOVING.
MR. WALGREN: YOUR HONOR, ON THE CORONER’S SLIDE ISSUE THE COURT BROUGHT UP, I DON’T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WERE EVER PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT ORDER. IF WE COULD GET A COPY.
MR. FLANAGAN: WELL, WE DIDN’T REALLY SPECIFY THE SLIDES. WE ASKED FOR AN INSPECTION OF THE ITEMS THAT THE CORONERS HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION. I DON’T THINK THE CORONER IS CONTESTING THE FACT THAT WE CAN HAVE A COPY OF THE SLIDES BECAUSE THE SLIDES, WE REALLY — IT DOESN’T DO ANY GOOD FOR ME TO INSPECT THE SLIDE. BUT WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET COPIES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE AN EXPERT INSPECT THE SLIDES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPLIED WITHIN THE ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW IF IT IS OR ISN’T. I JUST DON’T WANT THERE TO BE DELAYS WHERE SOMEONE SAYS, “WELL, IT’S NOT IN THE ORDER. NOW YOU GOT TO GO BACK, AND NOW WE WASTE MORE TIME.”
MR. FLANAGAN: IF THEY WANT A MORE SPECIFIC ORDER I WILL PREPARE THAT AND BRING IT DOWN FOR THE COURT TONSIGN OR ELSE ASK THEM TO — I THINK MR. WALGREN WOULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE IT, A COPY OF THE SLIDE.
MR. WALGREN: WELL, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION. MR. FLANAGAN INDICATED IT WAS A COURT ORDER, AND I JUST REALIZE WE DON’T HAVE A COPY OF THE COURT ORDER ORDERING THE SLIDES. I AM NOT SAYING THE CORONER IS REQUIRING AN
MR. FLANAGAN: IT’S A GENERAL COURT ORDER THAT JUST AUTHORIZED US TO INSPECT THE EVIDENCE THAT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CORONER.
THE COURT: WE JUST GOT TO GET MOVING BECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF LIKE GRINDING UP TO SPEED. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN MEETING ITS CONTINUING DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITY TO TURN OVER INFORMATION AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, JUDGE.
THE COURT: AND THE PEOPLE HAVE, MR. WALGREN?
MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SO ON THE DISCOVERY FRONT, ARE THERE ANY REVISED WITNESS LISTS?
MR. CHERNOFF: IF ONCE WE GET THESE FINGERPRINTS, IF SOME KIND OF IDENTIFICATION IS MADE AS A RESULT OF THESE FINGERPRINTS, THEN WE WILL IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE PROSECUTION AND PROVIDE A REPORT. WE ARE NOT — I AM NOT SAYING WE ANTICIPATE THAT. I AM JUST SAYING THAT IF IT OCCURS, WE WILL BE DOING THAT. THAT WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS. OTHER THAN THAT, NO.
MR. WALGREN: I HAVE ONE ISSUE REGARDING THE QUESTIONNAIRE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OH, WELL, THAT’S ITEM 2 ON THE AGENDA.
MR. WALGREN: OKAY.
THE COURT: WE ARE STILL AT ITEM 1, ALTHOUGH WE SEEM TO BE FINISHED WITH IT.IN TERMS OF EXPERTS, THAT ISSUE HAD ARISENBEFORE, BOTH ANOTHER OR OTHER POSSIBLE DEFENSE EXPERTS ANDANOTHER OR OTHER POSSIBLE PEOPLE’S EXPERTS. ANY NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON THAT FRONT FROM THE PEOPLE?
MR. WALGREN: NOT ON THE PEOPLE’S SIDE, YOUR HONOR. BUT WE WILL BE, IF THERE WILL BE ANYADDITIONAL EXPERT, WE EXPECT TO HAVE THOSE REPORTS. THAT IS WHAT I WAS REFERENCING THE EARLY PART OF NEXT WEEK. AND THOSE WILL BE PROVIDED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.
THE COURT: AND WHAT ABOUT THE DEFENSE?
MR. CHERNOFF: ANY EXPERT THAT WE WOULD HAVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FINGERPRINT EXPERT, THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PROSECUTION. SO WE DON’T EXPECTANY ADDITIONAL EXPERTS.
MR. WALGREN: ALTHOUGH ON THAT ISSUE, I DID INFORMALLY REQUEST A COUPLE DOCUMENTS FROM MR. FLANAGANAND MR. CHERNOFF THAT WERE ARE REFERENCED IN THEIR EXPERT
REPORTS, AND THEY INDICATED THEY WOULD GET THOSE TO ME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.SO ANYTHING ELSE IN THE DISCOVERY ISSUE COLUMN? NO?
MR. WALGREN: I DON’T BELIEVE SO TODAY, YOUR HONOR.
MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T BELIEVE SO.
THE COURT: OKAY. QUESTIONNAIRE, SOMETIME AGO, I RECEIVED A PROPOSED DEFENSE QUESTIONNAIRE IN WRITTEN FORM AND ALSO A CD. AND OUR LAW CLERK WHO IS A REAL TECHNO WIZARD INDICATES IT’S CORRUPTED. WE CAN’T — THE FILE IS CORRUPTED. WE HAVE THE — WE HAVE THE WRITTEN MATERIALS, AND I HAVE BEEN UTILIZING. BUT YOU MAY HAVE TO GIVE US ANOTHER FILE. I DON’T REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT CD’S AND DVD’S.
MR. CHERNOFF: I WILL IT BY THIS AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: MAYBE IT WAS A DIFFERENT FORMAT.
MR. CHERNOFF: IT WAS COPIED ON A MAC. YOU THINK
THE COURT: THE LAW CLERK SEEMS TO THINK SO. THAT THAT MAY HAVE SOMEHOW CORRUPTED IT. WE CAN’T USE IT AGAIN.
MR. CHERNOFF: ALL RIGHT. WE’LL CHECK.
THE COURT: AND WE DID RECEIVE YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, A SUBMISSION BY THE PEOPLE BOTH A CD AND A QUESTIONNAIRE. THROUGH OUT THIS PROCESS, I HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER MY OWN QUESTIONNAIRE UTILIZING QUESTIONNAIRES I HAVE USED IN THE PAST AS WELL AS QUESTIONNAIRES THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN OTHER CASES IN THIS BUILDING, INCLUDING, CASES THAT HAVE DEALT WITH OR AT LEAST ONE CASE WHICH HAS DEALT WITH SIMILAR TYPE OF ISSUES. AND I THINK THAT’S, THAT’S BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE. DID THE PEOPLE UTILIZE SOME MATERIALS THAT CAME FROM ANOTHER CASE THAT WAS JUST HEARD IN THIS BUILDING?
MR. WALGREN: YES, AND OTHER CASES.
THE COURT: OKAY. SO I AM GOING OVER THEM. THERE
ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I THINK WE ARE HOVERING AROUND 160 QUESTIONS OR SO SPANNING 30 PLUS PAGES. THIS IS A WEALTH OF INFORMATION. MY FEELING IS I WOULD JUST AS SOON HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. IT PUTS THE ATTORNEYS IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW WHO IS A PERSPECTIVE JUROR, GIVES A CHANCE FOR JURORS TO CONTEMPLATE QUESTIONS AND TO ANSWER THEM IN PRIVATE .IT’S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS, ALTHOUGH I THINK I WILL BE DONE BY THE END OF THE WEEK AND HAVE, I THINK, BY FRIDAY A PRETTY GOOD DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE TO GIVE TO YOU SO YOU CAN REVIEW THEM OVER THE WEEKEND SO THAT WHEN WE COME BACK NEXT WEEK AT THE BEGINNING-ISH OF NEXT WEEK, WE CAN ADDRESS THIS SO THAT WE HAVE TIME TO PHOTOCOPY THEM. AND THAT’S GOING TO BE THE D.A.’S RESPONSIBILITY, IF YOU WILL ACCEPT IT.
MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. WALGREN: AND ON THAT POINT, YOUR HONOR, PEOPLE REALIZED THIS MORNING THAT WE HAD INADVERTENTLY OMITTED JUST A HANDFUL OF QUESTIONS THAT WE DO FEEL WERE IMPORTANT. SO WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THOSE QUESTIONS TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL TODAY.
THE COURT: YOU CAN. AND I WILL BE DEALING WITH THEM BETWEEN NOW AND FRIDAY AS LONG AS EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE. I AM IN TRIAL ON A CASE. IN THE CRIMINAL COURT BUILDING, ONE DOES NOT HAVE MUCH DOWN TIME. SO I ACTUALLY HAVE A JURY, AND THEY ARE IN THE JURY ROOM WAITING FOR US TO GET THROUGH. SO I AM TRYING TO DO ALL OF THIS AND AT THE SAME TIME DO THIS JURY TRIAL. BUT I WANT YOU TO GO OVER THE PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE. AS YOU KNOW, JURY SELECTION IS SET FOR NEXT THURSDAY, THE 24TH, AND NEXT FRIDAY, THE 25TH. WE ARE GOING TO GET TOGETHER SOMETIME NEXT WEEK, AND I WILL GIVE YOU MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AS WE INTEND TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT PROCESS IN THIS BUILDING. I WANT TO GIVE YOU MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, BUT I WANT TO HOLD OFF ON THAT. WE HAVE MOTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT. AND IN VIEW OF THE TIME, I REALLY DON’T THINK I CAN GET TO THEM. THERE HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE. AND I HAVE COUNSEL HERE ON BEHALF OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SEEKING TO QUASH SUBPOEN AS.I HAVE IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER AND WITHOUT ANY DISRESPECT A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR TOHME OR TOHME FILED BY THE DEFENSE. AND REPRESENTING THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS SEEKING TO QUASH IS?
MR. MALINGAGIO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. PAUL MALINGAGIO FROM SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER, AND HAMPTON. AND MY COCOUNSEL PAUL TAKAKJIAN WAS HERE EARLIER BUT WAS CALLED TO EL MONTE FOR AN APPEARANCE. AND WE CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM IF NEED BE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. TAKAKJIAN WAS HERE, AND I THINK COUNSEL UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS AN 8:30 APPEARANCE. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT BECAUSE IT WASN’T.
MR. MALINGAGIO: PROBABLY OUR MISTAKE.
THE COURT: AND MR. TAKAKJIAN INDICATED HE HAD ANOTHER APPEARANCE, AND I TOLD HIM HE COULD FEEL FREE TO GO AND MR. MALINGAGIO WOULD STAND IN FOR HIM. SO WE HAVE THAT MOTION TO QUASH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO QUASH. WE HAVE A MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM FOR BRANDON RANDY PHILLIPS AND SHAWN TRELL.
MR. PUTNAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. MARVIN PUTNAM OF O’MELVENY AND MYERS FOR BOTH.
MR. STEBBINS: JESSICA STEBBINS FROM O’MELVENY AND MYERS.
THE COURT: WE HAVE — I HAVE JUST GOT FILED THIS MORNING A MOTION FILED ON BEHALF OF ARNOLD KLEIN, M.D.
MR. GHAZARIAN: GOOD MORNING. GARO GHAZARIAN. HOW ARE YOU?
THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I DIDN’T EVEN GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT BECAUSE IT JUST WAS FILED RIGHT AS I WAS STILL ON THE BENCH. IS THIS IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO QUASH, OR JUST IT SAYS “CONDUCT A HEARING TO DETERMINE OBLIGATIONS?”
MR. GHAZARIAN: YOUR HONOR, IT’S TWOFOLD. I RECOGNIZE THAT IT’S SHORT NOTICE. I FAXED TO ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES MY RESPONSIVE DECLARATION YESTERDAY EVENING. PRIMARILY, THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON IN OUR OPINION AND THE OPINION OF THE PHYSICIAN WHO I REPRESENT IS THE HOLDER OF THE PRIVILEGE. UPON RECEIVING THE SUBPOENA, I CONTACTED THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MR. HOWARD WEITZMAN, WHO THEN RESPONDED TO ME BY LETTER WHICH I HAVE ATTACHED TO MY RESPONSIVE PLEADING REFUSING TO WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE THUS LEAVING MY CLIENT AND I UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA SEEKING THE COURT’S INTERVENTION. I AM HAPPY TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH. IN FACT, I WOULD BE ENTERTAINING SUCH A MOTION. HOWEVER, IN OF THE SHORTNESS OF THE TIMEFRAME AND THE COURT’S INDICATED JURY SELECTION OR JURY QUESTIONNAIRES BEING COMMENCING NEXT WEEK, I HAVE STATED IN MY DECLARATION, YOUR HONOR, DUE TO PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENTS, I WILL BE IN FEDERAL COURTS IN OHIO AND NEW YORK STARTING, LEAVING THIS GREAT STATE OF OURS NEXT WEDNESDAY. AND THE COMPLIANCE DATE IS NEXT WEDNESDAY. THAT IS WHY I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT TO THE PARTIES AND THE COURT’S ATTENTION EITHER TO ADVANCE THE MATTER PRIOR TO NEXT WEDNESDAY OR PERHAPS CONTINUE THE MATTER. RESPECTFULLY TO THE PARTIES, I DON’T KNOW THAT IT IS RIPE. I THINK IT IS PREMATURE BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONCE TRIAL HAS COMMENCED, PERHAPS THE PARTIES CAN THEN SEEK DISCLOSURE. BUT I CONSIDER IT RESPECTFULLY THAT THIS REQUEST IS SOMEWHAT PREMATURE TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE IT IS PRIOR TO TRIAL NOT DURING TRIAL.
THE COURT: WELL, THE LAST THING I NEED TO DO IS DEAL WITH ISSUES AS WE HAVE WITNESSES WAITING IN THE MIDDLE OF A LENGTHY TRIAL. WE’LL HAVE TO DISCUSS WHEN NEXT WE ARE GOING TO GET TOGETHER BECAUSE COUNSEL, I CAN’T ADDRESS THESE MOTIONS RIGHT NOW. ALSO, I WANT TO INDICATE, THE COURT RECEIVED A NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED TO ALBERTO ALVAREZ, FAHEEM MUHAMMAD, AND MICHAEL AMIR WILLIAMS. THAT MOTION WAS FILED BY THE LAW OFFICES OF CARL DOUGLAS WHICH WAS UNAVAILABLE. SO I HAVE SEVERAL MOTIONS TO QUASH. I HAVE A RESPONSE BY MR. CHERNOFF ON THE MOTION TO QUASH AS TO BRANDON RANDY PHILLIPS AND SHAWN TRELL, AND I JUST RECEIVED THAT. SO THE BOTTOM LINE WITH ALL THIS, COUNSEL, IS MANANA.
MR. PUTNAM: LITERALLY MANANA?
THE COURT: TOMORROW MANANA. BUT AT SOME LATER DATE, AT THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK WHEN WE ARE ALL BACK HERE. I WOULD HOPE THAT I AM GOING TO BE THROUGH WITH THIS JURY TRIAL ON MONDAY. SO, YOU KNOW, AND JURY SELECTION STARTS ON THURSDAY. SO I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE REGROUP NEXT TUESDAY. I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT WILL AFFECT COUNSEL’S SCHEDULE IF YOU ARE LEAVING WEDNESDAY.
MR. GHAZARIAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY. WEDNESDAY IS MY DEPARTURE DATE.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I CAN GIVE YOU — I CAN GIVE TRIAL COUNSEL IN OUR CASE A CONFIDENTIAL COPY OF THE DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE ON FRIDAY. AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE OVER THE WEEKEND TO REVIEW IT. AND WE CAN FINALIZE IT ON TUESDAY. IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON YOUR OFFICE’S ABILITY O PRODUCE WAR AND PEACE, MR. WALGREN.
MR. WALGREN: WE CAN DO IT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY. SO HOW ABOUT TUESDAY FOR ANY OF THESE MOTIONS? I WILL HOLD IN ABEYANCE ANY ISSUES REGARDING APPEARANCE DATES OR COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM.
MR. FLANAGAN: WOULD THE AFTERNOON BE OKAY?
THE COURT: I’D RATHER, I’D RATHER DO IT IN THE MORNING BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW HOW LONG ALL THIS IS GOING TO TAKE. YOU HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM IN THE MORNING?
MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
MR. WALGREN: I THINK WE WOULD NEED THE MORNING JUST FOR THE TURNAROUND ON PHOTOCOPYING, YOUR HONOR.
MR. CHERNOFF: WE HAVE GOT TWO OUT OF THREE LAWYERS WILL BE AVAILABLE.
THE COURT: IF MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. GOURJIAN ARE COMFORTABLE, MR. FLANAGAN CAN’T QUITE MAKE IT AT THAT TIME AND YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITHOUT MR. FLANAGAN, THEN THAT IS FINE.
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS FINE.
THE COURT: AND YOU CAN BE IN TOUCH WITH HIM BY PHONE.
MR. FLANAGAN: I CAN BE HERE BY 10:30.
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO REGROUP MUCH EARLIER. HOW ABOUT OTHER COUNSEL?
MR. MALINGAGIO: WELL, TUESDAY IS GOING TO BE BAD FOR MR. TAKAKJIAN, AND I GOT HIS SCHEDULE. MONDAY, IF YOUR HONOR IS AVAILABLE, ANYTIME THAT DAY WOULD BE BETTER FOR US.
THE COURT: YEAH, THE PROBLEM I THINK I AM GOING TO HAVE, I STILL THINK I AM GOING TO BE IN THIS TRIAL.
MR. MALINGAGIO: UNDERSTOOD.
MR. PUTNAM: I BELIEVE I CAN BE HERE ON BOTH DAYS, YOUR HONOR. BUT I WILL CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT I AM. IT IS JUST ACROSS THE STREET.
THE COURT: IS MR. TAKAKJIAN GOING TO BE UNAVAILABLE THE ENTIRE DAY ON MONDAY?
MR. MALINGAGIO: THAT I DON’T KNOW, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I AM SORRY. THE ENTIRE DAY ON TUESDAY?
MR. MALINGAGIO: RIGHT. UNDERSTOOD.
MR. WALGREN: MONDAY WOULD CERTAINLY GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A WINDOW TO HAVE ALL THE PHOTOCOPYING DONE.
THE COURT: YEAH. MY PROBLEM IS I AM NOT SO SURE I AM GOING TO BE DONE WITH THIS TRIAL. SO I CAN HAVE EVERYBODY COME BACK. I SUPPOSE WE CAN CALL YOU OFF IF WE HAD TO. YOU KNOW WHAT, I CAN SET IT.
MR. CHERNOFF: MONDAY IS GOING TO BE — I AM FLYING IN MONDAY LITERALLY.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU KNOW, LET’S LEAVE IT ON TUESDAY. IF MR. TAKAKJIAN, WOULD HE BE AVAILABLE ON WEDNESDAY?
MR. MALINGAGIO: ACTUALLY, NO. NEXT WEEK IS A PROBLEM. SO WHAT YOUR HONOR MIGHT NEED TO DO IS SET IT AT YOUR CONVENIENCE, AND WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.
THE COURT: YEAH. I HAVE LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO, I DON’T REALLY MAKE THE RULES. SO I JUST SIT HERE. I THINK WE’LL DO IT TUESDAY, TUESDAY MORNING. IF WE HAVE TO WORK IT AROUND FURTHER SCHEDULING FOR MR. TAKAKJIAN, WE WILL DO IT THEN.
MR. MALINGAGIO: UNDERSTOOD.
THE COURT: THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE JURY SELECTION EITHER. SO WE HAVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY. TUESDAY WOULD BE THE 22ND WHICH IS REMARKABLY JAMMED HERE. YOU KNOW, COUNSEL, IF YOU WANT TO START MONDAY AFTERNOON AND IF IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE WE ARE READY, WE CAN CALL YOU OFF AND THEN RESCHEDULE IT FOR TUESDAY. THAT IS THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE. I CAN SET IT FOR 1:30 ON MONDAY AFTERNOON WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE ARE GOING TO BE CALLING YOU AND TELLING YOU WE CAN’T DO IT.
MR. CHERNOFF: THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT TO US. I WOULD LIKE TO BE HERE.
THE COURT: THAT’S RIGHT. YOU ARE NOT EVEN GOING TO BE HERE, MR. CHERNOFF. THAT’S RIGHT.
MR. CHERNOFF: RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TUESDAY MORNING AT — LET ME SEE. I GOT A BUNCH OF CASES ON TUESDAY MORNING. I DON’T THINK IT’S GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG. 9:00 O’CLOCK A.M. BECAUSE WE NEED TIME TO HAVE THESE THINGS PHOTOCOPIED. SO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 9:00 A.M. TUESDAY, 22ND OF MARCH 2011. NOW IN THE MEANTIME, WE WILL GET TO COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY ONE COPY TO THE D.A.’S OFFICE AND ONE COPY TO THE DEFENSE OFFICE OF A PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE. IT’S WATERMARKED. I DO NOT WANT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FLOATING AROUND IN THE UNIVERSE. COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED AND ADMONISHED UNDER COURT ORDER THAT THEY ARE TO KEEP THIS PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE CONFIDENTIAL AND HAVE IT ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS. THEY ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE. AND THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. AGAIN, I DO NOT WANT ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON PROSPECTIVE JURORS. IS THAT BEING ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PEOPLE?
MR. WALGREN: IT IS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: BY THE DEFENSE?
MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. IS THAT IT THEN, TUESDAY?
MR. GHAZARIAN: YOUR HONOR, I’D ASK THE COURT TO INFORM ME IF THE ESTATE’S COUNSEL OUGHT TO BE HERE? DOES THE COURT DEEM IT NECESSARY OR NOT SO I CAN INFORM THEM?
THE COURT: IF WHO?
MR. GHAZARIAN: THE ESTATE, THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT’S COUNSEL.
THE COURT: WELL, MR. WEITZMAN ALREADY HAS INDICATED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THE ESTATE IS NOT WAIVING ANY PRIVILEGE. IF YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM MR. WEITZMAN TO THAT EFFECT, THAT’S FINE. HE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS A SPECIFIC LETTER TO THE COURT, AND THEN YOU COULD LET MR. WEITZMAN KNOW THAT IT’S UP TO HIM WHETHER HE WANTS TO APPEAR PERSONALLY. I WOULD ACCEPT THE LETTER AS AN INVOCATION OF ANY PRIVILEGE.
MR. GHAZARIAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. MALINGAGIO: AND, YOUR HONOR, FOR CLARIFICATION, I THINK YOU ALREADY SAID IT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THOSE WHO HAD SUBPOENAS ISSUED NEED NOT RESPOND UNTIL YOUR HONOR DECIDES?
THE COURT: THAT’S CORRECT.
MR. MALINGAGIO: VERY GOOD.
THE COURT: I AM FINDING GOOD CAUSE TO DEFER CONSIDERATION. I AM NOT ISSUING ANY BODY ATTACHMENTS. BUT JURISDICTION IS STILL GOING TO LIE, AND THE QUESTION WILL BE WHETHER I AM GOING TO BE QUASHING ANY SUBPOENAS OR ANY SDT’S PENDING MY RESOLUTION.
MR. MALINGAGIO: VERY GOOD.
MR. PUTNAM: I WOULD ASK, YOUR HONOR, IF THERE IS AN OPPOSITION ACTUALLY TO OUR SUBPOENAS, OUR MOTIONS TO QUASH, WE WOULD LOVE TO RECEIVE THEM AS WELL.
THE COURT: WELL, ABSOLUTELY. AND THE DEFENSE KNOWS HOW TO CONTACT YOU. ALL RIGHT.
MR. MALINGAGIO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
MR. GHAZARIAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: YOU’RE WELCOME.
(THE PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:30 A.M. UNTIL MARCH 22, 2011.)