SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )
CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
VS. ) NO. SA073164-01
)
CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, )
)
DEFENDANT. )
)
___________________________________)
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
OCTOBER 26, 2010
APPEARANCES:
FOR PEOPLE: STEVE COOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: DAVID WALGREN, DEPUTY
DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
FOR DEFENDANT: STRADLEY, CHERNOFF & ALFORD
BY: EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, ESQ.
COMMERCIAL BANK BUILDING
917 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV
BY: JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ.
ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER, SUITE 2320
LONG BEACH, CA 90831
FLANAGAN, UNGER & GROVER
BY: J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, ESQ.
1156 N. BRAND BOULEVARD
GLENDALE, CA 91202-2582
REPORTED BY: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
VOLUME OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
PAGES 1-46
1
1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01
2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY
3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2010
4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
6 TIME: 12:30 P.M.
7 APPEARANCES:
8 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT,
9 REPRESENTED BY EDWARD CHERNOFF, ESQ.,
10 JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ., AND J. MICHAEL
11 FLANAGAN, ESQ.; PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID
12 WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT
13 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
14 CALIFORNIA.
15
16 THE COURT: IN THE CONRAD MURRAY CASE, DR. MURRAY
17 IS PRESENT WITH HIS THREE COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE
18 REPRESENTED BY THEIR TWO COUNSEL.
19 GOOD AFTERNOON.
20 MR. CHERNOFF: GOOD AFTERNOON.
21 MR. WALGREN: GOOD AFTERNOON.
22 THE COURT: MAY I ASK COUNSEL TO PLEASE STATE THEIR
23 APPEARANCE FOR THE RECORD. FIRST, FOR THE PEOPLE.
24 MR. WALGREN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. DAVID
25 WALGREN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE.
26 MS. BRAZIL: DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY DISTRICT
27 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE.
28 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
2
1 FOR THE DEFENSE?
2 MR. CHERNOFF: ED CHERNOFF FOR DR. MURRAY.
3 MR. FLANAGAN: MICHAEL FLANAGAN FOR DR. MURRAY.
4 MR. LOW: JOSEPH LOW FOR DR. MURRAY.
5 THE COURT: WE ARE HERE FOR A STATUS UPDATE. MS.
6 BENSON, THE COURT CLERK, TOLD ME THAT COUNSEL WANTED TO
7 DISCUSS SOMETHING ABOUT DISCOVERY. IS IT SOMETHING WE
8 CAN DISCUSS HERE AND NOW?
9 MR. FLANAGAN: I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT
10 IN CHAMBERS, YOUR HONOR.
11 THE COURT: ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE ISSUE?
12 MR. WALGREN: I WAS MADE AWARE BY MR. CHERNOFF, HE
13 WISHED TO DISCUSS IT IN CHAMBERS.
14 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE SOMETHING WE
15 SHOULD DISCUSS IN OPEN COURT BEFORE THAT, OR SHOULD WE
16 REPAIR TO CHAMBERS FOR A FEW MOMENTS?
17 MR. FLANAGAN: IT IS MORE PRODUCTIVE TO GO INTO
18 CHAMBERS FOR A FEW MOMENTS.
19 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE.
20 THE COURT: SHOULD WE BE ON THE RECORD IN CHAMBERS?
21 MR. FLANAGAN: YES, IN CHAMBERS.
22 THE COURT: EXCUSE US FOR A FEW MOMENTS, LADIES AND
23 GENTLEMEN.
24
25 (WHEREUPON, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
26 HELD IN CAMERA, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF
27 THE DEFENDANT.)
28 ///
3
1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD
2 IN CHAMBERS, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE
3 DEFENDANT, AND WERE NOT SEALED BY THE
4 COURT:)
5
6 MR. FLANAGAN: YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I GATHERED US
7 HERE?
8 THE COURT: LET ME CALL IT. WE ARE IN CHAMBERS ON
9 DR. MURRAY’S CASE WITH ALL COUNSEL PRESENT.
10 MR. FLANAGAN?
11 MR. FLANAGAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
12 I HAVE AN ORDER FOR RELEASE OF THE FLUID,
13 AUTHORIZATION TO DO SOME MORE ANALYSIS ON THE FLUIDS THAT
14 ARE INVOLVED HERE, AND I DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO BRING A
15 FORMAL MOTION. I DON’T THINK A FORMAL MOTION IS
16 WARRANTED. I THINK THE PROSECUTION PROBABLY WOULD AGREE.
17 BUT AFTER MICHAEL JACKSON DIED, THEY SEARCHED
18 THE HOUSE. THERE WAS A COUPLE THINGS FOUND IN THE
19 PREMISES. THERE WAS A BROKEN SYRINGE ON THE FLOOR.
20 THERE WAS A SYRINGE STICKING IN AN IV, AN IV LINE.
21 THE CORONER’S OFFICE, WHEN THEY GATHERED THIS
22 EVIDENCE, THEY DID A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT WAS IN
23 THE CONTENT OF EACH OF THESE OBJECTS. AT THE SAME TIME
24 THEY WERE DOING THE FLUID ANALYSIS ON THE BODY FLUIDS OF
25 MICHAEL JACKSON, THEY QUANTIFIED THAT. AND AS A RESULT
26 OF THAT QUANTIFICATION, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE LIKELY
27 CAUSE OF DEATH WAS ACUTE PROPOFOL INTOXICATION.
28 I ASKED THE CORONER ABOUT LAST APRIL WHY THEY
4
1 DIDN’T QUANTIFY THE CONTENT OF THE TWO SYRINGES AND THE
2 IV. THEY SAID, “WELL, WE ONLY DO THE QUANTIFICATION FOR
3 PURPOSES OF DETERMINING CAUSE OF DEATH.”
4 WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE
5 QUANTIFICATION DONE ON THE SYRINGES AND THE IV FLUIDS
6 BECAUSE IF THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS ACUTE PROPOFOL
7 INTOXICATION, THE MEANS OF GETTING PROPOFOL INTO THE
8 BODY, THE SYRINGE THAT WAS USED, WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL
9 INFORMATION PERHAPS FOR BOTH SIDES.
10 THEY DID GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHY AND SPECTROMETRY
11 ON THE SOLUTIONS. I WENT TO FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY
12 ASSOCIATES AND ASKED THEM IF THEY CAN DETERMINE
13 QUANTITATION BASED ON THE QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION DONE BY
14 THE CORONER’S OFFICE. HE SAID, “NO, YOU CAN’T. IT IS A
15 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.”
16 I ASKED, “CAN YOU DO A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
17 AND, IF SO, GET ME THE PROCEDURES. I HAVE TO RUN IT BY
18 THE D.A.’S OFFICE, GET THEM TO AGREE AND GET THE COURT TO
19 ORDER IT,” BECAUSE THESE TESTS ARE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
20 EVIDENCE. HE SAID, “WELL,” SO HE CALLED LINTEMOOT, THE
21 CORONER’S TOXICOLOGIST, AS SOON AS SHE RETURNED FROM
22 VACATION. SHE WAS IN CHINA FOR QUITE SOME TIME TOURING
23 CAVES. HE ASKED HER ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS.
24 WELL, THE SUBSTANCES IN THESE IV’S, THE TWO
25 SYRINGES, ARE DETERIORATING. ONE SYRINGE IS
26 DETERIORATED. THE ONE, THE BROKEN SYRINGE FOUND ON THE
27 FLOOR, HAS DETERIORATED DOWN TO JUST SALT. SALTS IN
28 THERE. THE OTHER SYRINGE HAS SOME FLUID STILL LEFT, AND
5
1 THE IV HAS FLUID.
2 AND HE ASKED HER IF THE CORONER’S OFFICE HAD
3 THE ABILITY TO ANALYZE THAT QUANTITATIVELY. THEY WEREN’T
4 SURE, BUT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD GIVE A TRY.
5 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES CAN’T. THEY
6 DON’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. THEY CHECKED INTO
7 SEEING WHAT OTHER LABS MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IT. THERE IS
8 A LAB, AMERICAN ANALYTICAL LABS IN COLORADO, THAT CAN DO
9 IT.
10 BUT THE DETERMINATION HAS KIND OF BEEN MADE
11 BETWEEN OUR TOXICOLOGIST, A GUY NAMED MICHAEL HENSON FROM
12 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES, AND LINTEMOOT THAT
13 PROBABLY —
14 THE COURT: COULD YOU SPELL THAT NAME.
15 MR. FLANAGAN: L-I-N-T-E-M-O-O-T.
16 SHE IS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS DONE MOST OF
17 THE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE.
18 MR. CHERNOFF: TOXICOLOGY.
19 MR. FLANAGAN: IF ANALYSIS IS DONE, IT IS PROBABLY
20 GOING TO BE DESTRUCTIVE. THERE IS PROBABLY ONLY ENOUGH
21 TO DO ONE ANALYSIS.
22 SO RATHER THAN HAVE THE SUBSTANCES
23 TRANSPORTED TO COLORADO, I’M THINKING THAT MR. WALGREN
24 AND MS. BRAZIL ARE GOING TO WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A
25 NEUTRAL AND INDEPENDENT LABORATORY THAT IS DOING THE
26 ANALYSIS.
27 IT HASN’T BEEN DONE YET. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
28 DONE A YEAR AGO WHEN THEY DID THE OTHER SOLUTIONS FOR
6
1 QUANTIFICATION. SO I’VE PREPARED AN ORDER WHICH
2 AUTHORIZES THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORONER
3 FORENSIC SERVICES TO DO THE ANALYSIS.
4 SHE ALSO WANTED ME TO GET RELEASED SOME OF
5 THE FLUIDS FROM THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE, OR ANALYSES,
6 THE ANALYZED FLUID OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S TISSUE THAT WERE
7 DONE A YEAR AGO BECAUSE SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE
8 THOSE FOR REFERENCE AND A STANDARD IN DOING THESE.
9 THEY HAVE QUANTIFIED PROPOFOL ON THE OTHER
10 FLUIDS. THE FLUIDS THAT ARE IN THESE SYRINGES HAVE ONLY
11 BEEN QUALITATIVELY ANALYZED. WE KNOW THERE IS PROPOFOL
12 AND LIDOCAINE. WE DON’T KNOW PROPORTIONS. PROBABLY
13 CAN’T QUANTIFY THEM, BUT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO
14 PROPORTIONALIZE EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE IS METHODS,
15 PROPER METHODS OF ADMINISTERING PROPOFOL AND IMPROPER
16 METHODS OF ADMINISTERING IT. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT
17 PERHAPS WHAT THESE SYRINGES WERE USED FOR.
18 AND DUE TO THE FACT I THINK WE CAN ONLY DO IT
19 ONCE, I THOUGHT WE BETTER PICK A LAB THAT MAYBE THE
20 DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WOULD THINK WAS TOTALLY
21 INDEPENDENT OF, AND WHO HAS STATED THAT THEY THINK THEY
22 CAN DO IT. IT WILL TAKE THEM ABOUT A MONTH TO A MONTH
23 AND A HALF TO GET THE ANALYSIS DONE.
24 SO I HAVE PRESENTED THE COURT WITH AN ORDER.
25 I HAVE GIVEN MR. WALGREN A COPY OF THE ORDER, AND ALL IT
26 ASKS FOR IS TO ALLOW THE CORONER TO FINISH THE ANALYSIS
27 ON THESE THREE SUBSTANCES AND ALSO HAVE A SUITABLE AMOUNT
28 OF REFERENCE MATERIAL PRODUCED FROM MICHAEL JACKSON’S
7
1 BODY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ANALYZED QUANTITATIVELY FOR
2 PROPOFOL.
3 THE COURT: I’M JUST WONDERING WHY, AT THE END OF
4 OCTOBER, WE ARE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE. HAVE COUNSEL
5 CHATTED ABOUT IT BEFORE?
6 MR. FLANAGAN: YES. I THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD GET
7 THESE RESULTS WHEN WE GOT DISCOVERY. WE WERE GIVEN
8 DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE BACK IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY. IT
9 WASN’T IN THE INITIAL DISCOVERY.
10 THEN BACK IN, I THINK IT WAS, MARCH OR APRIL,
11 I WAS GIVEN ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WHICH INCLUDED
12 GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHS AND GRAPH RESULTS OF THEIR TESTS ON
13 THESE THINGS.
14 I WENT IN APRIL TO MEET WITH THE CORONER’S
15 OFFICE, WENT DOWN THERE AND ASKED THEM IF, IN ADDITION TO
16 THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS THEY HAVE DONE, BY VIRTUE OF
17 WHAT THEY HAVE DONE CAN THEY QUANTIFY OR AT LEAST RATIO
18 IT. LINTEMOOT SAID, “NO.”
19 WE CAME BACK HERE TO COURT, I GUESS IT WAS
20 PROBABLY IN JUNE, AND I WANTED TO GET A COURT ORDER
21 SIGNED TO ALLOW US TO DO IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT
22 THAT ENDED UP GETTING PUT OFF BECAUSE I’M NOT SURE BUT I
23 THINK MR. WALGREN DIDN’T KNOW HOW MUCH WAS LEFT, WHETHER
24 IT WAS GOING TO BE TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE OR WHATEVER.
25 SO AS A COMPROMISE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, I
26 ASKED THE COURT TO PLEASE SIGN AN ORDER NOT ALLOWING THE
27 CORONER TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO DESTROY ANY
28 EVIDENCE UNTIL THE PARTIES HERE CAN DECIDE ON HOW TO GET
8
1 IT DONE IN CASE IT CAN ONLY BE DONE ONCE.
2 AND THEN DURING SEPTEMBER AND END OF OCTOBER,
3 I THINK, MS. LINTEMOOT WAS GONE. SO I WENT AND HIRED A
4 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGIST TO GO OVER HER GRAPHS TO SEE IF
5 BASED ON THOSE GRAPHS HE COULD QUANTIFY IT. HE SAID, “I
6 REALLY CAN’T UNLESS I KNOW WHAT KIND OF STANDARD THEY
7 WERE USING. I’LL HAVE TO TALK TO LINTEMOOT.”
8 HE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL SHE GOT BACK FROM CHINA.
9 HE TALKED TO HER AND FOUND OUT WHAT WAS LEFT IN THE
10 SAMPLES. AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH LEFT, THAT
11 IT IS DETERIORATING AND IT IS PROBABLY IN A FORM THAT
12 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES CAN’T ANALYZE, ESPECIALLY
13 THE SYRINGE THAT IS KIND OF DRIED UP BECAUSE ALL THERE IS
14 IS RESIDUE. IT IS DRY RESIDUE NOW.
15 SO HE AND LINTEMOOT TALKED TOGETHER IF THERE
16 WAS A PROCEDURE WHEREBY IT COULD BE DONE. WELL, MY
17 TOXICOLOGIST SAID THERE IS A LAB IN COLORADO THAT CAN
18 PROBABLY DO IT, BUT LINTEMOOT THOUGHT SHE WOULD BE ABLE
19 TO DO IT.
20 SO AS A RESULT OF ALL THIS, IT HAS JUST TAKEN
21 TIME. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A YEAR AGO. THERE IS
22 NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, AND NOW ALL WE CAN DO IS HOPE FOR
23 A RESULT. BUT IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND I THINK IT
24 IS IMPORTANT TO BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE.
25 THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED COUNSEL TO
26 HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER AT LENGTH. I WOULD HAVE
27 EXPECTED A FORMALLY NOTICED MOTION IF THERE IS ANY KIND
28 OF DISPUTE.
9
1 I’LL TURN TO THE PEOPLE, EITHER MS. BRAZIL OR
2 MR. WALGREN, AND ASK FOR YOUR POSITION.
3 MR. WALGREN?
4 MR. WALGREN: FIRST, IN REGARD TO THIS ORDER, I
5 THINK IT IS TOTALLY PREMATURE BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING
6 REPRESENTED RIGHT HERE, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO TALK TO THE
7 ANALYST ABOUT THIS PERSONALLY. I LITERALLY GOT THIS A
8 FEW MINUTES AGO.
9 WHEN I TALKED TO MR. CHERNOFF LAST WEEK, MR.
10 CHERNOFF TOLD ME THEY WERE STILL LOOKING. I DON’T WANT
11 TO MISSTATE, BUT HE INDICATED THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN
12 EXPERT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND WOULD WE BE AMENABLE
13 TO MAYBE HAVING THE CORONER’S OFFICE DO IT. THAT IS THE
14 FIRST I WAS INFORMED OF ANYTHING.
15 THEN I HAVE THIS ORDER HANDED TO ME MOMENTS
16 AGO WHERE MR. FLANAGAN SAYS HE WILL ASK THE COURT TO SIGN
17 IT.
18 THERE ARE VERY TECHNICAL, COMPLEX ISSUES.
19 AGAIN, I RAISED THIS LAST TIME. I DON’T KNOW WHY
20 MR. FLANAGAN WOULD THINK THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE ANY ISSUES
21 TO RAISE. LAST TIME, I SAID THERE IS CHAIN OF CUSTODY
22 ISSUES. THERE IS DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE ISSUES.
23 YOU KNOW, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT,
24 AND I AM OPTIMISTIC WE CAN WORK IT OUT.
25 I THINK SIGNING THIS ORDER IS ABSOLUTELY
26 PREMATURE AND, QUITE HONESTLY, I DON’T KNOW THAT AN ORDER
27 NEEDS TO BE SIGNED TO HAVE THE CORONER DO SOMETHING. IF
28 THEY THINK IT IS A RELIABLE TEST, THEY CAN DO IT.
10
1 THE COURT: IT GETS TRICKY IN TERMS OF BEING
2 DESTRUCTIVE.
3 MR. FLANAGAN: THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED NOT TO DO
4 ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE. I DIDN’T TALK TO
5 LINTEMOOT UNTIL LAST NIGHT. IT TOOK ME TEN DAYS TO GET
6 AHOLD OF HER. I WASN’T ABLE TO GIVE FURTHER NOTICE, BUT
7 ALL WE ARE DOING IS ASKING FOR THE CORONER.
8 THERE IS NO CHAIN OF EVIDENCE PROBLEM WITH
9 THE CORONER. THE CORONER HAS GOT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE
10 ARE ASKING TO BE ANALYZED. THE CORONER ONLY NEEDS LAPD
11 EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF A REFERENCE SAMPLE BECAUSE THEY
12 HAVE ALREADY QUANTIFIED PROPOFOL IN THAT, AND THEY CAN
13 MAYBE GET SOME INFORMATION FROM THAT.
14 SHE CALLED ME LAST NIGHT AND TOLD ME WHAT SHE
15 NEEDED. WHAT SHE NEEDS IS PERMISSION FROM THE COURT TO
16 DO THE ANALYSIS.
17 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF
18 THIS MOTION AND THE NEED FOR BOTH PARTIES TO EVALUATE ITS
19 MERITS AND OTHER FACTORS, I SIMPLY AM NOT GOING TO SIGN
20 ANY ORDER AT THIS JUNCTURE WITHOUT GIVING THE PROSECUTION
21 THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO EVALUATE ALL THAT AND
22 HAVE ME EVALUATE ALL OF IT.
23 MR. WALGREN: YOUR HONOR, I DON’T EXPECT ANY
24 SUBSTANTIAL DELAY. I THINK MS. BRAZIL AND I CAN SET UP A
25 MEETING WITH THE ANALYST AND MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL ON THE
26 SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT SHE FEELS CAN BE DONE OR WHAT IS
27 RELIABLE OR APPROPRIATE TO BE DONE. I THINK WE CAN
28 DISCUSS THIS WITH COUNSEL.
11
1 I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN, QUITE FRANKLY, WITH MR.
2 FLANAGAN ABOUT THIS. I HAVE SPOKEN TO MR. CHERNOFF
3 BRIEFLY. SO THIS IS ALL, YOU KNOW, A BIT OF A SURPRISE.
4 MR. FLANAGAN: MY CONVERSATION WAS WITH MS. BRAZIL.
5 THE COURT: WE HAVE COUNTER-CONVERSATIONS.
6 THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I’M GOING TO LEAVE IT UP
7 TO THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. IF THERE APPEARS
8 TO BE NO RESOLUTION, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO COME BACK, BUT
9 WE WILL DO THE PRELIM AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY. SO WE
10 ARE GOING TO ACT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN IN TERMS OF
11 ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
12 IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO COME BACK IN A SHORT
13 PERIOD OF TIME, WE WILL DO IT, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO DELAY
14 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
15 MR. CHERNOFF: LET ME SAY THIS. WE ARE NOT TRYING
16 TO DELAY THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.
17 THE COURT: I’M NOT SAYING YOU ARE.
18 MR. CHERNOFF: THIS IS WHY WE BROUGHT THIS UP IN
19 JUNE. WHEN, UPON OBJECTION FROM THE PEOPLE, YOU SAID YOU
20 WOULD NOT ORDER TRANSFER OF THAT EVIDENCE TO OUR EXPERT,
21 IT WAS LIQUID. IT COULD HAVE BEEN QUANTIFIED. IT IS NOW
22 TOO LATE PERHAPS TO QUANTIFY ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THE
23 LONGER WE WAIT, IT IS TOO LATE TO QUANTIFY OTHER PIECES
24 OF EVIDENCE.
25 WE ARE BRINGING IT UP NOT BECAUSE WE ARE
26 TRYING TO DELAY. THIS WON’T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE
27 PRELIMINARY HEARING.
28 THE COURT: FINE.
12
1 MR. CHERNOFF: WE ARE DOING IT BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS
2 ON FIRE. WE NEED A HOSE.
3 THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW THAT. YOU ARE MAKING
4 REPRESENTATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC —
5 MR. CHERNOFF: ONLY WHAT THE CORONER TOLD US.
6 THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW, AND I THINK THE
7 PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH
8 THE DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER, AN ANALYST, OR ANY OTHER
9 PROFESSIONALS, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE, BEFORE WE GO TO A NEXT
10 STEP. IF THAT NEXT STEP IS NOT JUSTIFIED, YOU ARE SAYING
11 IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHAT
12 WE DO IS KEEP THE PRELIMINARY HEARING SET AND IN THE
13 INTERIM WE DO OTHER MATTERS.
14 RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A NO TAMPER/DESTRUCTIVE
15 ORDER, EXCEPT FOR THE MATTER I ALREADY HAD RELEASED. I
16 THINK YOU AGREED TO AND I SIGNED AN ORDER.
17 MR. FLANAGAN: THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING RELEASED.
18 THE COURT: YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT TO COME BACK
19 OR WHEN YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS OTHER ISSUE BECAUSE FROM
20 WHAT MR. CHERNOFF IS SAYING, HE IS TALKING ABOUT A HOUSE
21 ON FIRE. YOU KNOW, WE ARE QUITE A WAYS INTO THIS. I
22 WANT TO ACT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
23 MR. WALGREN: IF THERE IS A HOUSE ON FIRE, WE COULD
24 HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY THE DEFENSE DURING THE MONTHS
25 SINCE THE LAST APPEARANCE. I WAS NOT CONTACTED. MR.
26 FLANAGAN SPOKE TO MS. BRAZIL ABOUT THE PRESERVATION
27 ORDER.
28 MR. CHERNOFF: HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE CORONER’S
13
1 OFFICE AT ALL, THE TOXICOLOGIST AT ALL?
2 MR. WALGREN: YES.
3 MR. CHERNOFF: THEN YOU WOULD KNOW. WE GOT THE
4 EXACT SAME INFORMATION YOU GOT.
5 THE COURT: I’LL NOT HAVE COUNSEL ARGUING WITH EACH
6 OTHER.
7 TELL ME WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS. I’M
8 SUGGESTING WE SET SOME SORT OF DATE WHEN YOU CAN EITHER
9 HAVE SOME STIPULATION OR WE COME BACK INTO COURT.
10 MR. WALGREN: I CAN SET UP A MEETING. MS. BRAZIL
11 AND I CAN SET UP A MEETING OR CONVERSATION WITH THE
12 ANALYST IN THE COMING DAYS AS SOON AS SHE IS AVAILABLE.
13 MR. FLANAGAN: SHE IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW.
14 YESTERDAY WAS THE FIRST TIME I ACTUALLY GOT HER TO COMMIT
15 THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE COULD DO IT, THAT SHE WOULD DO IT.
16 I’VE BEEN WANTING THIS EVIDENCE FOR THE LAST NINE OR TEN
17 MONTHS. I KEPT THINKING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT IN THE
18 NATURAL COURSE.
19 THE COURT: BUT, MR. FLANAGAN, YOU ARE AN
20 EXPERIENCED, EXTRAORDINARILY TALENTED LAWYER. I’M SURE
21 IN YOUR WORK HISTORY, YOU HAVE RUN ACROSS INSTANCES WHERE
22 YOU MAY EXPECT SOMETHING, AND OTHERS DON’T REACH THAT
23 LEVEL. SO, YOU KNOW, TO SAY, WELL, YOU WERE EXPECTING
24 THE PEOPLE TO DO IT IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
25 MR. FLANAGAN: I’VE TRIED TO DO IT WITHOUT THE
26 PEOPLE, THEN I TRIED TO DO IT WITH THE PEOPLE LAST JUNE.
27 AND DUE TO MS. LINTEMOOT’S BEING OUT AND GONE, I WASN’T
28 ABLE TO RESOLVE ANYTHING WITH HER.
14
1 I GOT ANOTHER CRIMINALIST/TOXICOLOGIST TO
2 TELL ME WHAT I’VE GOT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT. HE TALKED
3 TO MS. LINTEMOOT, FOUND OUT WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE WERE,
4 AND THIS IS THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.
5 I COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS ORDER HERE. NOW, I
6 THINK PEOPLE WANT TO CHECK IT OUT WITH LINTEMOOT. THEY
7 WOULD FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT SHE TOLD ME YESTERDAY, AND WE
8 SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THIS ORDER SIGNED WITHIN THE WEEK.
9 THE COURT: YOU KNOW WHAT. IF THERE IS
10 JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUING IT, BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR
11 FURTHER EVALUATION, WE DO IT. BUT I CAN SET THE MATTER
12 FOR A NONAPPEARANCE, SUBMISSION OF PAPERWORK, IF THE
13 PARTIES CAN AGREE.
14 IF NOT, WE COME BACK TO COURT. I WANT TO
15 ADDRESS IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I DON’T WANT EITHER
16 PARTY TO BE PREJUDICED BY THE PASSAGE OF TIME.
17 CERTAINLY, IT DOESN’T HELP A PARTY WHEN ITEMS NO LONGER
18 CAN BE TESTED OR ARE DETERIORATING OR DESTROYED.
19 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WILL REMAIN SET FOR
20 THE 4TH OF JANUARY.
21 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
22 THE COURT: STILL ON?
23 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
24 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
25 THE COURT: IF YOU WANT TO PICK A DAY A WEEK FROM
26 THURSDAY, OR WEEK FROM FRIDAY, OR WEEK FROM TODAY, I
27 COULD PUT IT ON A NONAPPEARANCE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF ANY
28 PAPERWORK.
15
1 IF IT DOESN’T APPEAR AS THOUGH THE PARTIES
2 CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT, THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO COURT.
3 MR. CHERNOFF: OKAY.
4 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE, YOUR
5 HONOR.
6 THE COURT: I NEED SOME IDEA, COUNSEL, OF HOW THIS
7 PRELIMINARY HEARING IS GOING TO UNFOLD AND THE TIME
8 ESTIMATE. I DON’T KNOW IF I HAVE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS
9 PRELIM. I’M IN THE DARK, AND I THINK I REALLY NEED TO
10 HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AN ESTIMATE.
11 WHERE ARE WE GOING? DO WE KNOW?
12 MR. WALGREN: AGAIN, THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE WE WILL
13 BE DISCUSSING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL. IT RELATES TO THE
14 TIMING.
15 THE COURT: I JUST AS SOON DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT
16 IN OPEN COURT. I’M NOT SEALING ANY RECORDS IN THIS CASE.
17 WHILE THIS IS BEING REPORTED IN CHAMBERS, I’M NOT SEALING
18 THIS.
19 MR. FLANAGAN: I THOUGHT THIS IS BEST TALKED ABOUT
20 OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESS AND THE FAMILY.
21 THE COURT: THE BOTTOM LINE IS I CAN UNDERSTAND
22 YOUR CONCERN AND CONSIDERATION. BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS A
23 COPY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, SOMEBODY GETS IT. I’M NOT
24 SEALING IT. IT IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS MORE
25 COMFORTABLE FOR US, BUT IT IS A MATTER FOR OPEN
26 DISCUSSION.
27 BUT IN TERMS OF THE STATUS OF THE PRELIM, I
28 JUST AS SOON DO THAT IN OPEN COURT.
16
1 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
2 MR. WALGREN: SO THE COURT KNOWS, ON TIMING, WE
3 HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT, AND MR. CHERNOFF AND I SPOKE
4 LAST WEEK.
5 THE COURT: LET’S DO THAT IN OPEN COURT.
6 MR. WALGREN: JUST RELATED TO WHAT STIPULATIONS WE
7 MAY BE ABLE TO AGREE ON IN THE COMING WEEKS, AND WE WOULD
8 INFORM THE COURT OF THAT IF WE REACH AGREEMENT. THERE
9 ARE STIPULATIONS THAT COULD SHORTEN THE PRELIM BY DAYS.
10 IT IS RELEVANT TO THE TIMING ISSUE.
11 THE COURT: BUT BOTTOM LINE, I JUST AS SOON DO THAT
12 IN OPEN COURT. YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT ME TO CALENDAR
13 IT FOR A NONAPPEARANCE, PERHAPS STATUS CONFERENCE BY
14 TELEPHONE, IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE. I JUST AS SOON DO IT AS
15 QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE URGENCY.
16 MR. FLANAGAN: I THINK MR. WALGREN AND I SHOULD BE
17 ABLE TO AGREE ON AN ORDER. MR. WALGREN WILL BRING THAT
18 DOWN FOR APPROVAL, AND I’LL BRING IT DOWN FOR SIGNATURE
19 IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.
20 MR. CHERNOFF: IS IT HELPFUL TO HAVE A MEETING WITH
21 LINTEMOOT?
22 MR. WALGREN: MAYBE, BUT WE WILL REACH OUT TO HER
23 IF EVERYTHING IS FINE AND THEN WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO DO
24 THAT IF THERE IS A CONFLICT. MAYBE WE ALL SIT DOWN
25 TOGETHER.
26 I THINK A WEEK FROM THURSDAY WITH THE HOPE AN
27 ORDER WOULD BE SUBMITTED. OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE IS AN
28 ISSUE, WE WILL BE CONVERSING.
17
1 THE COURT: WE WILL SET UP AN INTERMEDIATE STATUS
2 DATE WHEN WE ALL COME BACK. RIGHT NOW, I’LL LEAVE IT AT
3 THAT. I EXPECT TO HAVE SOME INDICATION OF STATUS A WEEK
4 FROM THURSDAY, AND WE WILL LEAVE THE PRELIM SET FOR THE
5 4TH OF JANUARY AND I’LL CHAT WITH YOU IN OPEN COURT ON
6 THE TIMING ISSUE.
7
8 (WHEREUPON, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
9 HELD IN CHAMBERS OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF
10 THE DEFENDANT.)
11
12 (THE IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 18-34,
13 HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,
14 BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT
15 HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A
16 SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY
17 NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35
1 (FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN
2 OPEN COURT, ALL PARTIES BEING PRESENT.)
3
4 THE COURT: IN DR. MURRAY’S CASE, DR. MURRAY AND
5 HIS COUNSEL, AND THE PEOPLE’S COUNSEL ARE PRESENT.
6 THE COURT HAS BEEN CONFERRING WITH COUNSEL IN
7 CHAMBERS FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES REGARDING SOME
8 ONGOING ISSUES. ONE OF THOSE ISSUES IS A DISCOVERY
9 REQUEST, AND COUNSEL ARE INDICATING TO ME THAT THEY ARE
10 PREPARED TO SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK ABOUT RESOLVING THIS
11 ISSUE BY NEXT THURSDAY.
12 IS THAT RIGHT, MR. WALGREN?
13 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
15 MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS CORRECT.
16 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
17 SO THAT WOULD BE NEXT THURSDAY, WHICH IS THE
18 4TH OF NOVEMBER 2010, BY 4:00 P.M. IN THIS DEPARTMENT,
19 AND COUNSEL TO SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT
20 WOULD INVOLVE A POTENTIAL STIPULATION OR AN AGREEMENT AS
21 TO THE HANDLING OF CERTAIN FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THIS
22 CASE, AND I’VE INDICATED TO COUNSEL I’M LEAVING IT TO
23 THEM TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
24 WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE PRELIMINARY
25 HEARING, THE PARTIES HAVE INDICATED, AND I HAPPEN TO
26 AGREE AND INSIST ON IT, THAT WE KEEP TO OUR SCHEDULE. SO
27 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING REMAINS SET FOR TUESDAY, THE 4TH
28 OF JANUARY 2011. WE WILL MAKE THAT AT NINE O’CLOCK A.M.
36
1 IN THIS DEPARTMENT.
2 IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MR. WALGREN?
3 MR. WALGREN: IT IS, YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
5 MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS, JUDGE.
6 THE COURT: NOW, I ASKED COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ABOUT
7 THE POSTURE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE
8 ANTICIPATED NATURE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ITS
9 LENGTH BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE GOING
10 HERE AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CERTAINTY ABOUT SOME
11 ESTIMATES. AND MR. WALGREN WANTED TO ADDRESS THOSE
12 MATTERS, AND I THINK MR. CHERNOFF DID AS WELL. I SAID
13 THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ADDRESS IN OPEN COURT.
14 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE ARE CONFERRING. DO
15 YOU NEED A MOMENT?
16 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. THANK YOU, JUDGE. I’VE GOT IT.
17 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
18 MR. WALGREN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
19 AT THIS TIME THE ESTIMATE REMAINS THE SAME,
20 WHICH WAS ABOUT A TWO TO THREE-WEEK ESTIMATE. HOWEVER,
21 MR. CHERNOFF, DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND THE PEOPLE ARE IN
22 DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL STIPULATIONS THAT COULD
23 SHORTEN THAT TIME ESTIMATE. I EXPECT THOSE DISCUSSIONS
24 WILL CONTINUE IN THE COMING WEEKS.
25 I KNOW WHEN I LAST SPOKE TO MR. CHERNOFF, HE
26 WANTED TO SPEAK TO CO-COUNSEL. SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL
27 CONTINUE AND WE WILL CERTAINLY APPRISE THE COURT OF ANY
28 STIPULATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WE REACH THAT WOULD LESSEN THE
37
1 NUMBER OF WITNESSES WE PLAN ON CALLING.
2 THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY TWO OR THREE WEEKS, YOU
3 ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TEN AND 15 COURT
4 DAYS?
5 MR. WALGREN: CORRECT.
6 THE COURT: AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, WHAT IS THE
7 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WITNESSES YOU MAY BE CALLING? I
8 REALIZE THERE MAY BE SOME STIPULATIONS, BUT I NEED YOU TO
9 NARROW IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE, MR. WALGREN.
10 MR. WALGREN: IT WOULD BE VERY SPECULATIVE AT THIS
11 POINT. I THINK THE STIPULATION, IF AGREED UPON, COULD
12 LESSEN THAT NUMBER A GREAT DEAL. I HESITATE TO SAY A
13 NUMBER AT THIS POINT, BUT I CAN INFORM THE COURT IN THE
14 NEXT FEW WEEKS OF A MORE ACCURATE NUMBER, IF THAT IS
15 AGREEABLE WITH THE COURT.
16 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF, HOW DOES THAT TIME
17 ESTIMATE APPEAR TO YOU? I DON’T KNOW IF THE DEFENSE IS
18 GOING TO PRESENT ANY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OR THE NATURE OF
19 WHAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED, BUT GIVE ME YOUR THOUGHTS.
20 MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, JUDGE, ALTHOUGH MR. WALGREN
21 DOESN’T KNOW HOW MANY WITNESSES HE WILL BE CALLING, HOW
22 ABOUT THIS. I WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA IF
23 I WERE TO KNOW IF WE WERE TO STIPULATE TO ALL THE THINGS
24 THAT WE DISCUSSED ON THE PHONE.
25 THE COURT: THAT IS THE ATTORNEYS. I HAD NOTHING
26 TO DO WITH THIS.
27 MR. CHERNOFF: I’LL NOT GO INTO THOSE PARTICULARS.
28 BUT IF WE WERE TO STIPULATE TO THOSE, HOW MANY DAYS WOULD
38
1 BE CUT OFF OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND THEN THAT
2 WOULD GIVE ME A BETTER ESTIMATE OF HOW LONG IT WOULD
3 TAKE.
4 MR. WALGREN: I DON’T THINK MR. CHERNOFF AND I HAD
5 SUFFICIENT TIME TO HASH OUT THE PROPOSED STIPULATIONS.
6 THE CONVERSATION ENDED WITH MR. CHERNOFF SAYING HE WANTED
7 TO DISCUSS WITH CO-COUNSEL, BUT WE ARE HOPEFUL ANY
8 STIPULATIONS WOULD KNOCK OFF DAYS, NOT HOURS.
9 MR. CHERNOFF: PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE
10 HAD, JUDGE, WAS THAT MR. WALGREN WAS GOING TO PROVIDE ME
11 THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES AND THE ITEMS THAT HE WAS
12 GOING TO PRODUCE PRIOR TO, LONG BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY
13 HEARING, AND I ASSUME HE IS GOING TO DO THAT.
14 DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WE HAD THAT
15 DISCUSSION, HE IS GOING TO PROVIDE ME A LIST OF ALL THE
16 STIPULATIONS THAT HE WISHES US TO AGREE TO, AND I’M GOING
17 TO TELL HIM POINT BY POINT WHETHER WE WILL AGREE TO THOSE
18 STIPULATIONS ONCE WE GET THAT LIST.
19 I RECKON AT THAT POINT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
20 PERFECT IDEA ABOUT HOW LONG THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS
21 GOING TO TAKE. I REALIZE THAT DOESN’T HELP YOU RIGHT
22 NOW. BUT ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE WILL PROBABLY
23 HAVE A PERFECT IDEA. YOU HAD ASKED ME —
24 THE COURT: IN 28 YEARS, I NEVER HAD A PERFECT
25 IDEA, MR. CHERNOFF, SO I ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATIONS BUT
26 THINGS HAPPEN IN THE VOLATILE NATURE OF CRIMINAL
27 LITIGATION.
28 THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THE TIME ESTIMATE AND
39
1 THE ISSUE OF CONTINUOUS PRELIMINARY HEARING BECAUSE I
2 HAVE OTHER CASES ON MY DOCKET. THEY ARE ALL IMPORTANT.
3 THEY ALL INVOLVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VITAL INTEREST IN THE
4 CASE.
5 WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO JANUARY OF NEXT
6 YEAR, A LOT OF THE CASES WHICH DON’T GO BEFORE JANUARY
7 1ST ARE SET TO GO. SO I DON’T KNOW IF AT THIS JUNCTURE
8 WE WOULD HAVE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS PRELIM OR WHETHER I
9 SHOULD EXPECT TO START ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY AND GO
10 SOMETIME AFTER THAT WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF WHEN I’M GOING TO
11 BE OPEN TO DO TRIALS IN OTHER CASES.
12 MR. CHERNOFF: I ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE A WAIVER.
13 THE COURT: CAN I TAKE IT NOW?
14 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, YOU CAN.
15 THE COURT: IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH THE PEOPLE?
16 MR. WALGREN: FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.
17 THE COURT: HAVE YOU CONFERRED WITH DR. MURRAY
18 ABOUT THIS?
19 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
20 THE COURT: DR. MURRAY, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WHAT IS
21 CALLED A CONTINUOUS PRELIMINARY HEARING. THAT MEANS ONCE
22 WE HAVE BEGUN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE, AS WE
23 EXPECT TO DO ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR, YOU ARE
24 ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING CONTINUE UNTIL
25 ITS COMPLETION WITHOUT ANY KIND OF INTERRUPTION. SO YOU
26 START ON JANUARY 4TH AND JUST KEEP ON GOING.
27 I CAN’T DO ANY OTHER CASES EVEN THOUGH
28 COUNSEL MAY AND YOU MAY NOT BE READY ON A PARTICULAR DAY
40
1 OR WITNESSES MAY NOT BE READY. I CAN’T DO ANY OTHER
2 CASES WHILE THIS CASE IS PENDING BECAUSE YOU ARE ENTITLED
3 TO HAVE THAT CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY
4 HEARING.
5 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT, SIR?
6 THE DEFENDANT: BEFORE I ANSWER YOU, JUDGE, I’D
7 LIKE TO CONFER WITH MY ATTORNEYS TO GET A BETTER
8 CLARIFICATION.
9 THE COURT: TAKE A MOMENT, COUNSEL. MR. CHERNOFF
10 IS CONFERRING WITH DR. MURRAY.
11
12 (DEFENDANT MURRAY AND MR. CHERNOFF
13 CONFER.)
14
15 MR. CHERNOFF: WE ARE READY.
16 THE COURT: DR. MURRAY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO
17 CONFER WITH YOUR ATTORNEY?
18 THE DEFENDANT: YES.
19 THE COURT: YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT TO A CONTINUOUS,
20 UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY HEARING.
21 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?
22 THE DEFENDANT: YES.
23 THE COURT: DO YOU GIVE UP THAT RIGHT?
24 THE DEFENDANT: I DO.
25 THE COURT: DO YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT IF AND WHEN WE
26 COMMENCE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE, WE CAN
27 INTERRUPT THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
28 YOU, YOUR ATTORNEYS, OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES FOR THE
41
1 DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION, ANY PROSECUTION WITNESSES, AND
2 THE COURT ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO RESUME?
3 THE DEFENDANT: YES.
4 THE COURT: NOW, YOU HAVE A SEPARATE RIGHT TO A
5 CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT IS NOT
6 INTERRUPTED FOR MORE THAN TEN COURT DAYS. DO YOU
7 UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?
8 THAT MEANS EVEN THOUGH THERE COULD BE
9 INTERRUPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR ONE, TWO,
10 THREE, FOUR DAYS, UP UNTIL NINE, YOU HAVE A SEPARATE
11 RIGHT TO A CONTINUOUS, UNINTERPRETED PRELIMINARY HEARING
12 FOR NO MORE THAN TEN COURT DAYS.
13 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?
14 THE DEFENDANT: I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AGAIN WITH
15 MY ATTORNEY.
16 THE COURT: SURE.
17
18 (DEFENDANT MURRAY AND MESSRS. CHERNOFF
19 AND FLANAGAN CONFER.)
20
21 THE COURT: COUNSEL IS DOING SO.
22 WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, YOU MAY AS WELL TALK
23 ABOUT THE 60-DAY RULE AS WELL. THAT TAKES CARE OF ALL
24 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING RULES.
25 COUNSEL ARE CONFERRING.
26 MR. CHERNOFF: JUDGE —
27 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
28 MR. CHERNOFF: — BY CONSENSUS, WE ARE GOING TO
42
1 WAIVE, OF COURSE, CONTINUOUS HEARING, BUT WE CAN’T WAIVE
2 ANYTHING ELSE, THE TEN DAYS.
3 THE COURT: YOU DON’T WANT TO GET INTO THE TEN
4 COURT DAYS OR 60-DAY RULE.
5 MR. CHERNOFF: WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS AND TOO
6 MUCH TRAVELING.
7 THE COURT: I WANT TO KEEP THE CASE MOVING. IT IS
8 PERFECTLY OKAY WITH ME, BUT JUST A MINUTE. WE HAVE OUR
9 JURORS COMING IN. TIME OUT FOR JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE.
10
11 (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
12
13 THE COURT: THANK YOU. OUR DELIBERATING JURORS
14 HAVE RETIRED TO THE JURY ROOM. SERGEANT PARRA, THANK
15 YOU.
16 SO WE STILL HAVE THIS WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS
17 PRELIM UP TO TEN COURT DAYS. IS THAT CORRECT, MR.
18 CHERNOFF?
19 MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS, JUDGE.
20 THE COURT: AND, DR. MURRAY, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?
21 THE DEFENDANT: YES.
22 THE COURT: SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT
23 TO CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY HEARING ONCE THE
24 PRELIMINARY HEARING STARTS IN THIS CASE, AND YOU GIVE UP
25 THAT RIGHT FOR UP TO TEN COURT DAYS AFTER. WE MAY HAVE
26 TO BREAK.
27 THE DEFENDANT: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR.
28 THE COURT: JOIN IN THE WAIVER, MR. CHERNOFF?
43
1 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, WE ARE.
2 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN?
3 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
4 THE COURT: MR. LOW?
5 MR. LOW: YES, SIR.
6 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
7 THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT, KNOWING AND
8 INTELLIGENT, FREE AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY DR. MURRAY OF
9 HIS RIGHT TO A CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY
10 HEARING. THAT IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT CAN BE
11 INTERRUPTED FOR UP TO TEN COURT DAYS AT A PARTICULAR
12 TIME.
13 THERE IS NO WAIVER OF THE TEN COURT DAY RULE
14 OR THE 60-DAY RULE AS WELL.
15 COUNSEL, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO GIVE US A BETTER
16 TIME ESTIMATE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME PERIOD IN JANUARY,
17 PLEASE DO. SHOULD WE BE SETTING AN INTERIM DATE FOR
18 ANYTHING, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO REGROUP ON THE
19 PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011, OR SHOULD
20 WE GET TOGETHER IN A MONTH OR SO, OR WHAT?
21 MR. CHERNOFF: IS IT POSSIBLE FOR TO US DO THIS BY
22 TELEPHONE?
23 THE COURT: YES.
24 MR. CHERNOFF: REALLY, IT IS JUST HOUSEKEEPING
25 MATTERS, THE TWO ISSUES WE DISCUSSED. ALL RIGHT. AND IT
26 SEEMS LIKE WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT BY TELEPHONE.
27 I DON’T KNOW IF WE SET A DATE NOW, WHETHER THAT IS
28 HELPFUL.
44
1 THE COURT: I’LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU. I JUST DON’T
2 WANT TO BE SURPRISED ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY OF ISSUES WE
3 COULD HAVE ADDRESSED BEFORE. I WANT TO GO. I WANT TO
4 MOVE IT. DR. MURRAY HAS AN INTEREST IN A PRELIMINARY
5 HEARING. THE JACKSON FAMILY AND OTHERS HAVE AN INTEREST
6 IN IT AS WELL, AND THAT IS THE DATE WE CHOSE. SO I THINK
7 THAT IS A REASONABLE DATE UNLESS THE PEOPLE BELIEVE WE
8 SHOULD SET AN INTERIM APPEARANCE DATE.
9 MR. WALGREN: I DON’T THINK AT THIS TIME IT IS
10 NECESSARY, BUT I WOULD ASK WE SET AN ACTUAL MAYBE
11 TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE DATE, SCHEDULED DAY. I THINK THAT
12 WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE THINGS KEEP MOVING ALONG.
13 THE COURT: WE HAVE A SCHEDULED DATE OF POTENTIAL
14 DISCUSSION WHICH IS NEXT THURSDAY, BUT YOU WANT TO PICK A
15 DAY WHEN WE CAN HAVE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE?
16 MR. WALGREN: I THINK LIKE A ONE-MONTH DATE.
17 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS A GREAT IDEA.
18 THE COURT: THAT BRINGS US TO THE THANKSGIVING
19 TIME. I THINK WE SHOULD GO OVER TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF
20 DECEMBER AFTER THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY, IF YOU ARE
21 THINKING OF SOMETIME ON OR AFTER THE 1ST OF DECEMBER.
22 YOU LET ME KNOW.
23 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE.
24 THE COURT: FRIDAY, THE 3RD.
25 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.
26 MR. CHERNOFF: CAN I SEE FOR JUST A SECOND.
27 THE COURT: SURE. THIS IS A NON-APPEARANCE. THIS
28 IS BY TELEPHONE.
45
1 MR. CHERNOFF: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3RD.
2 THE COURT: NO. DECEMBER, UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING
3 ABOUT OCTOBER OF NEXT YEAR, AND I DON’T THINK SO. SO YOU
4 PICK A DAY. I MEAN, I’M AVAILABLE. WE WILL DO THIS
5 DURING THE LUNCHTIME.
6 MR. CHERNOFF: DECEMBER 3RD IS PERFECTLY OKAY.
7 THE COURT: THAT IS FRIDAY FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
8 CALL. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT AT NOON? THAT WOULD HELP
9 ME OUT. I WOULD ANTICIPATE BEING IN TRIAL. THAT WILL BE
10 12:00 O’CLOCK NOON, PACIFIC STANDARD TIME, PLEASE,
11 FRIDAY, THE 3RD OF DECEMBER 2010.
12 COUNSEL CAN MAKE ARRANGEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN
13 HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL AT THAT TIME. RIGHT NOW, THE
14 CONFERENCE CALL WON’T BE ON THE RECORD UNLESS THERE IS
15 SOME PARTICULAR ISSUE. THIS IS JUST AN INFORMAL
16 DISCUSSION TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ON THE SAME
17 PAGE.
18 DO YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO SPEEDY
19 PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 4TH, 2011 OR, IF
20 NECESSARY, WITHIN THREE DAYS THEREAFTER, SIR?
21 THE DEFENDANT: YES.
22 THE COURT: DO DEFENSE COUNSEL JOIN, MR. CHERNOFF?
23 MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO.
24 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN?
25 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
26 THE COURT: MR. LOW?
27 MR. LOW: YES, SIR.
28 THE COURT: ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND
46
1 EXPLICIT, FREE AND VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING
2 WAIVER BY DR. MURRAY OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY
3 HEARING.
4 THIS IS A MUST GO, COUNSEL, OF THE 3RD — I’M
5 SORRY — THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011. THAT WILL BE AT 9:00
6 A.M., PLEASE. WE TRY TO START AT 8:30, BUT COUNSEL CAN
7 GET HERE A LITTLE EARLY AND WE WILL BE READY TO GO AT
8 THAT POINT.
9 ANYTHING ELSE, MR. WALGREN?
10 MR. WALGREN: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
11 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
12 MR. CHERNOFF: NO, JUDGE.
13 THE COURT: THANK YOU. WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY AT
14 THE TIME.
15 MR. WALGREN: THANK YOU.
16
17 (PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28