HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
FOR THE PEOPLE: DAVID WALGREN, DEBORAH BRAZIL, AND DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
FOR THE DEFENDANT: EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, JOSEPH H. LOW IV, MICHAEL FLANAGAN,
DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROBERT MCKIM BELL, SUP. DEPUTY
TRINA L. SAUNDERS, DEPUTY
(AN IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 2-23,
HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,
BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT
HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A
SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY
NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)
THE COURT: THE MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO DEPARTMENT 107, AND SPECIFICALLY TO ME, AN ALL-PURPOSES ASSIGNMENT INSTANTLY PINPOINTS THE JUDGE WHO IS EXPECTED TO PROCESS THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND JUDGE ESPINOZA HAS SO ORDERED.
SPOKEN WITH COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ON THE RECORD, TO REPEAT MYSELF IN OPEN COURT.
CANON 2(B) SUB (3) OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZES JUDGES TO RESPOND TO JUDICIAL SELECTION INQUIRIES AND TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING CHARACTER REFERENCES, RELATING TO THE EVALUATION OF PERSONS BEING CONSIDERED FOR JUDGESHIPS, I HAVE, PROVIDED A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAVID WALGREN. MR. WALGREN HAS APPLIED TO BE A JUDGE OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS PROVIDED ONLY ON MY OBSERVATIONS IN COURT; I HAVE NEVER SEEN MR WALGREN OUTSIDE OF COURT. OR SPOKEN TO HIM, ONLY IN COURT SETTING.I HAVE PROVIDED THE SAME FOR MANY OTHERS.
I HAVE DETERMINED IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY EFFECT MY ABILITY TO BE FAIR IN ALL PROCEEDINGS; IF ANY PARTY SEEKS TO DISQUALIFY PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170.0 MUST DO SO AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY WITHIN 10 DAYS.
THAT IS THE REASON WHY SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE BEEN INCONVENIENCED BY HAVING TO DO THE ELEVATORS BETWEEN THE13TH FLOOR AND NINTH FLOOR TODAY. JUDGE ESPINOZA, A SUPERVISING JUDGE, AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER, AND WE WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE AS MUCH OPPORTUNITY AS POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
I WAS APPOINTED TO THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL COURT, BY THEN-GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN. IS NOW ATTORNEY GENERAL JERRY BROWN AND THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTING THE MEDICAL BOARD IN THIS CASE. SO I FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO DISCLOSE THAT TO COUNSEL. AS I HAVE ON PAST OCCASIONS. MY DISCLOSURE OF HAVING BEEN APPOINTED 27 YEARS AGO AS A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, BY NOW ATTORNEY GENERAL JERRY BROWN, IN NO WAY WILL AFFECT MY ABILITY TO BE A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL JUDGE IN THIS CASE. BUT, I WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH EVERYBODY.
I HAVE CHATTED WITH COUNSEL ABOUT SCHEDULING, AND ARE INTERESTED IN SCHEDULING THE MATTER FOR JUNE 14, FLAG DAY. SO WE THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO SET IT AT 12:30 P.M.
MR. BELL AND MS. SAUNDERS, YOU HAVE A POSITION REGARDING HAVING THE CASE PUT OVER UNTIL JUNE 14?
MS. SAUNDERS: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.IN THE INTERESTS OF THE MEDICAL BOARD, IN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC, THE PAPERS THAT WE FILED REGARDING DR. MURRAY’S LICENSE, IS A MATTER THAT SHOULDN’T BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL JUNE 14. SHOULD BE HEARD AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND POSSIBLE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. AND, MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: I THINK WE CAN PUT IT OFF, NO REASON TO ADDRESS SOMETHING YOU GOT TODAY
THE COURT: I AM NOT MINIMIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOTION FILED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD. IN READING THE DOCUMENTATION, I’M SATISFIED THAT THE DATE OF JUNE 14 IS AN APPROPRIATE DATE TO TRY TO RESOLVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ISSUES IF THIS COURT IS STILL GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CASE. WHEN I REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT A TIME OF WAIVER WAS TAKEN UNTIL TODAY. AS ZERO TO 90 DAYS, I THINK WE STICK WITH DAYS ON THIS CASE AND HAVE THE 14TH OF JUNE AS ZERO OF 90 DAYS OF PRELIMINARY HEARING SETTING, DEFENSE TEAM IS THIS ACCEPTABLE?
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS ACCEPTABLE
THE COURT: MR WALGREN?
MR. WALGREN: IT IS.
THE COURT: MS. SAUNDERS, DO YOU ACCEPT?
MS. SAUNDERS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DR. MURRAY, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE
THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: DR. MURRAY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING TODAY OR WITHIN 90 DAYS OF TODAY’S DATE.DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?
THE DEFENDANT: YES.
THE COURT: DO YOU GIVE UP EACH RIGHT?
THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE, DO YOU JOIN IN THE WAIVER, MR. CHERNOFF? MR. FLANAGAN AND MR. LOW
MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO, JUDGE.
MR. FLANAGAN: YES
MR. LOW: YES, THANK YOU
THE COURT: THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT, KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT, FREE AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY DR.MURRAY OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING.
ON MOTION OF THE PARTIES, GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE NEXT APPEARANCE WILL BE ON MONDAY, WHICH IS THE 14TH OF JUNE, 2010, AT 12:30 P.M. IN THIS COURTROOM, AT WHICH TIME DR. MURRAY IS, AS A CONDITION OF BOND WHICH STANDS,IS ORDERED TO APPEAR WITH ALL COUNSEL.
I HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT STAFF THAT AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE, THERE WILL BE NO AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDINGS. I HAVE AGREED THAT BECAUSE OF ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY, IF PEOPLE WANT TO USE OTHER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICES, AND I HESITATE TO TRY TO LIST ALLOF THEM BECAUSE THEY CHANGE BY THE MINUTE, THAT YOU CANUSE THOSE. I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEDIA MAY WANT TO BE TEXTING INFORMATION AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN. THAT IS PERFECTLYOKAY WITH THIS COURT, I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE TO GET TO THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS EITHER CONTEMPT OR PROHIBITING ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICES. SO WE CAN USE NON-AUDIO AND VIDEO DEVICES. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE?
MR. WALGREN: JUST THE ISSUE OF DISCOVER MOTION
THE COURT: YES, WAS A DISCOVERY MOTION FILED BY THE DEFENSE, PURSUANT TO 1054 OF THE PENAL CODE. MR LOWE INDICATED IN CHAMBERS THEY WANT TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION?
MR. LOW: YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT.
THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE,
ALL PARITES REPLIED NO
THE COURT: BOND TO STAND. SEE EVERYONE 25 12:30 P.M., MONDAY, THE 14TH OF JUNE 2010.