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
AUGUST 23, 2010
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: STEVE COOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: DAVID WALGREN, DEPUTY
DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
FOR THE 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
1156 N. BRAND BOULEVARD
GLENDALE, CA 91202-2582
REPORTED BY: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
VOLUME OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
PAGES 1-15
1
1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01
2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY
3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2010
4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
6 TIME: 12:20 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: LET ME CALL THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS
17 CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY. HE IS PRESENT IN CASE NO. SA073164
18 WITH HIS THREE COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
19 TWO COUNSEL.
20 WOULD COUNSEL STATE THEIR APPEARANCE FOR THE
21 RECORD. FIRST, FOR THE PEOPLE.
22 MR. WALGREN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. DAVID
23 WALGREN FOR THE PEOPLE.
24 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN.
25 MS. BRAZIL: GOOD MORNING. DEBORAH BRAZIL FOR THE
26 PEOPLE.
27 THE COURT: FOR THE DEFENSE?
28 MR. CHERNOFF: ED CHERNOFF FOR DR. MURRAY.
2
1 THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. CHERNOFF.
2 MR. FLANAGAN: MICHAEL FLANAGAN APPEARING, YOUR
3 HONOR.
4 MR. LOW: GOOD MORNING, SIR. JOSEPH LOW.
5 THE COURT: DR. MURRAY, GOOD AFTERNOON.
6 THE DEFENDANT: GOOD AFTERNOON.
7 THE COURT: THIS MATTER IS ON CALENDAR FOR FURTHER
8 PROCEEDINGS. YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, MS. BRAZIL AND MR.
9 WALGREN APPEARED IN CHAMBERS, AND I CONTACTED BY
10 TELEPHONE MR. CHERNOFF IN HOUSTON AND WE HAD A TELEPHONE
11 CONVERSATION THROUGH THE SPEAKER PHONE.
12 IS THAT CORRECT, PEOPLE?
13 MR. WALGREN: YES. IT WAS FRIDAY, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE COURT: FRIDAY.
15 DEFENSE?
16 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
17 THE COURT: WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE STATUS OF
18 THE CASE AND REALISTIC START TIMES. WHAT IS THE PEOPLE’S
19 POSITION ON THIS, MR. WALGREN?
20 MR. WALGREN: I THINK IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MR.
21 CHERNOFF AND THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, BASED ON WITNESS
22 AVAILABILITY ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES, ONGOING INVESTIGATION
23 AND DISCOVERY ISSUES, AND SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE
24 DISCUSSED WITH THE COURT THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED PRIOR
25 TO PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WE HAD
26 WAS THAT AN OCTOBER 26 RETURN DATE WITH A FIRM DATE FOR
27 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO START THE BEGINNING OF
28 JANUARY.
3
1 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
2 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
3 THE COURT: I INDICATED TO COUNSEL MY CONCERN. I
4 WANTED THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING TO BEGIN AS EXPEDITIOUSLY
5 AS POSSIBLE. I ALSO INDICATED TO COUNSEL I RECOGNIZE
6 THERE IS STILL ONGOING DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE AND THE
7 NEED FOR FURTHER PREPARATION AND INVESTIGATION BY ALL THE
8 PARTIES IN THIS CASE.
9 AND THE PEOPLE ARE STILL FULFILLING THEIR
10 DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES BY PROVIDING TO THE DEFENSE
11 ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DISCOVERY THAT THE DEFENSE
12 REALISTICALLY NEEDS IN THIS CASE.
13 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE COURT: THAT IS STILL AN ONGOING PROCESS?
15 MR. WALGREN: IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.
16 THE COURT: AND THE PEOPLE, IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING,
17 HAVE SOME WITNESS AVAILABILITY ISSUES AS WELL; IS THAT
18 CORRECT?
19 MR. WALGREN: THAT’S CORRECT.
20 THE COURT: SO REALISTICALLY, FROM THE PEOPLE’S
21 STANDPOINT, THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT A BEGINNING OF
22 JANUARY DATE FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS AN
23 APPROPRIATE REALISTIC START DATE.
24 MR. WALGREN: BASED ON OUR SCHEDULING CONCERNS AS
25 WELL AS THE DEFENSE.
26 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF, THAT IS A FAIR
27 REPRESENTATION?
28 MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS FAIR, JUDGE.
4
1 THE COURT: FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, YOU ARE STILL
2 RECEIVING AND PROCESSING ONGOING DISCOVERY WHICH YOU
3 BELIEVE YOU NEED IN ORDER TO FULFILL YOUR
4 RESPONSIBILITIES.
5 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, JUDGE.
6 THE COURT: THERE IS ALSO SCHEDULING ISSUES AS
7 WELL?
8 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, THERE ARE.
9 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
10 NOW, WE HAVE DISCUSSED A STATUS DATE SO WE
11 ALL CAN COME BACK AND GET A FIRMER IDEA ABOUT THE PROCESS
12 OF DISCOVERY, ANY LEGAL MOTIONS OR OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY
13 ARISE. AND WE DECIDED ON TUESDAY, THE 26TH OF OCTOBER AT
14 12:30. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MR. WALGREN?
15 MR. WALGREN: IT IS, YOUR HONOR.
16 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
17 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
18 THE COURT: IS THAT YOURS AS WELL, DR. MURRAY?
19 THE DEFENDANT: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR.
20 THE COURT: AND WE ALSO DECIDED THAT WE WOULD SET A
21 PRELIM DATE, AND I SAID I WANTED IT DURING THE FIRST WEEK
22 OF JANUARY AS LIKE A ZERO OF THREE PRELIM DATE WITH A
23 CLEAR DIRECTIVE THIS CASE IS GOING TO GO ON THAT DATE.
24 WAS IT THE 4TH OR THE 5TH THAT WAS BEST?
25 MR. WALGREN: I THINK ANY DATE THAT WORKS FOR THE
26 COURT WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE.
27 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE 4TH. TUESDAY, THE 4TH OF
28 JANUARY, MR. CHERNOFF?
5
1 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS AS GOOD AS ANY, JUDGE.
2 THE COURT: WE WILL CALL THAT ZERO OF THREE FOR
3 PRELIM, AND THAT IS THE DATE WHEN WE INTEND TO HAVE THE
4 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE.
5 WITH REGARD TO THE SCHEDULING OF THE
6 PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHEN I ASKED JUST PRELIMINARILY WHEN
7 WE WERE HERE IN APRIL, I ASKED FOR A VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE
8 AS TO THE PEOPLE’S TIME ESTIMATE ON THIS CASE, AND MR.
9 WALGREN INDICATED APPROXIMATELY A WEEK.
10 MY UNDERSTANDING IS BECAUSE OF FURTHER
11 INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION AND ALSO DISCUSSING THE
12 MATTER WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, THAT PERHAPS THE PRELIMINARY
13 HEARING TIME ESTIMATE IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
14 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
15 THE COURT: WHAT ARE WE REALISTICALLY EXPECTING
16 NOW?
17 MR. WALGREN: TWO TO THREE WEEKS, YOUR HONOR, WITH
18 THE CAVEAT THAT AS WE GET CLOSER, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE
19 PEOPLE WILL BE DISCUSSING ANY POTENTIAL STIPULATIONS WE
20 MAY BE ABLE TO REACH. BUT I THINK TWO TO THREE WEEKS IS
21 A FAIR ESTIMATE.
22 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
23 MR. CHERNOFF: I HAVE NO IDEA.
24 THE COURT: OKAY. I THINK WHEN THE PEOPLE SAID TWO
25 WEEKS, YOU SAID, WELL, MAYBE THREE WEEKS.
26 MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, WHENEVER A LAWYER SAYS TWO
27 WEEKS, THAT USUALLY MEANS THREE. WHEN THEY SAY THREE,
28 THAT MEANS FOUR. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL PRESENT.
6
1 THEY HAVEN’T TOLD ME, SO I DON’T KNOW.
2 THE COURT: I HOPE BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER, WE HAVE
3 FURTHER DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES SO THAT I HAVE A
4 BETTER IDEA. I DO HAVE A CALENDAR, AND I HAVE A
5 SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TRIALS THAT HAVE BEEN AGING IN THIS
6 COURTROOM BECAUSE THEY TAKE SO LONG TO TRY.
7 AND SO SETTING A REALISTIC AMOUNT OF TIME TO
8 DO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE TAKES SOME
9 MANEUVERING ON MY PART. I NEED ALL THE HELP I CAN GET
10 FROM THE PARTIES.
11 WOULD THERE BE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS
12 PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN WE START?
13 MR. CHERNOFF: JUDGE, PROBABLY. PROBABLY.
14 THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW?
15 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. I DON’T KNOW RIGHT NOW. I
16 CAN’T MAKE THAT ASSERTION.
17 THE COURT: HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL GIVE ME A BETTER
18 IDEA WHEN WE COME BACK IN OCTOBER. THAT MAY IMPACT HOW
19 MY SCHEDULE IS.
20 MR. CHERNOFF: I THINK IF I CAN GET SOME IDEA BY
21 THEN ABOUT THE WITNESSES, THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES, AND
22 WHAT THE PRESENTATION WILL BE, I CAN GIVE YOU THAT
23 ANSWER.
24 THE COURT: OKAY.
25 MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T KNOW WHETHER MR. WALGREN
26 WILL BE AT THAT POINT OR NOT, BUT HOPEFULLY BY THEN I CAN
27 GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER.
28 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE I TAKE THE TIME
7
1 WAIVER, IS THERE SOME OTHER ISSUE I SHOULD BE ADDRESSING?
2 MR. WALGREN?
3 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: LET ME ASK THE PEOPLE FIRST, THEN I’LL
5 ASK THE DEFENSE.
6 MR. WALGREN?
7 MR. WALGREN: JUST A COUPLE ISSUES, YOUR HONOR.
8 NUMBER ONE, SOMETIME BACK WE HAD AN SDT HAD
9 GONE OUT FOR MR. SOME DOCUMENTS. I UNDERSTAND, FROM
10 SPEAKING TO THE COURT CLERK, THOSE HAVE ARRIVED. I’D ASK
11 THAT THEY, IF IT IS AGREEABLE WITH THE DEFENSE, THEY BE
12 RELEASED TO US. WE CAN PHOTOCOPY THEM AND BATES STAMP
13 THEM AND PROVIDE COPIES TO THE DEFENSE, BUT AT THIS POINT
14 THEY ARE IN THE CLERK’S CUSTODY.
15 THE COURT: WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE WORD SDT, THAT
16 STANDS FOR —
17 MR. WALGREN: IT IS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.
18 THE COURT: SO YOU SUBPOENAED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
19 FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. AND AS A MATTER OF COURT POLICY
20 AND RULE, THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE DELIVERED SPECIFICALLY TO
21 THE COURT. AND WE HAVE THEM, MS. BENSON?
22 THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
23 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
24 IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PROCESS, MR.
25 CHERNOFF?
26 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. THERE IS NO OBJECTION.
27 THE COURT: WOULD COUNSEL STIPULATE TO A CHAIN OF
28 CUSTODY UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 1270, AND 1271, OR
8
1 1272 REGARDING ANY CHAIN OF CUSTODY ISSUES. WOULD THE
2 PEOPLE?
3 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: WOULD THE DEFENSE?
5 MR. CHERNOFF: WE WILL.
6 THE COURT: I’M ACCEPTING THE STIPULATION. SO THE
7 COURT WILL REQUEST THAT THE COURT CLERK, MS. BENSON,
8 PROVIDE TO MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL THE APPROPRIATE
9 DOCUMENTATION SO THEY CAN PHOTOCOPY IT FOR THEMSELVES AND
10 ALSO FOR THE DEFENSE, AND THEN RETURN TO THE COURT FILE
11 THE ORIGINALS.
12 MR. WALGREN: YES.
13 THE COURT: WHAT I’D LIKE YOU TO DO IS BEFORE YOU
14 LEAVE TODAY, IF BOTH OF YOU CAN INITIAL AND DATE THE
15 DOCUMENTATION.
16 NOW, WITH REGARD TO ANY SUCH DOCUMENTATION,
17 IS THERE ANY REQUEST FOR ANY TYPE OF PROTECTIVE ORDER?
18 MR. WALGREN: THERE IS A GENERAL REQUEST OF THE
19 PEOPLE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AS IT RELATES TO ALL
20 DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR. IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE DISCOVERY
21 WE ARE TURNING OVER TODAY, IT HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED.
22 WE WOULD LIKE A GENERAL PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT
23 THE DISCOVERY NOT BE DISSEMINATED IN ANY MANNER OUTSIDE
24 THE DEFENSE TEAM AS IS NECESSARY FOR TRIAL PREPARATION.
25 THE COURT: AND ALSO OUTSIDE THE PEOPLE’S TEAM.
26 MR. WALGREN: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR.
27 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
28 MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS IN IT, JUDGE.
9
1 I HAVE NO REASON TO OBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
2 THE COURT: RIGHT NOW, I WILL GRANT THAT ORDER. IT
3 IS CALLED A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND WHAT IT MEANS IS ALL OF
4 THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS DR. MURRAY AND
5 THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS, WHICH INCLUDES ANY INVESTIGATORS
6 OR ANY PARALEGALS EMPLOYED BY EITHER TEAM IN THIS CASE,
7 ARE ORDERED NOT TO DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE TEAM ANY OF
8 THE MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROVIDED AS PART OF DISCOVERY OR
9 AS PART OF ANY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTATION IN THIS CASE. IT
10 IS TO REMAIN EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
11 TEAMS UNDER PENALTY OF CONTEMPT SHOULD IT GO ANY FURTHER.
12 DO THE PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORDER?
13 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE COURT: DOES THE DEFENSE?
15 MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO.
16 THE COURT: MAY I TAKE THE TIME WAIVER THEN?
17 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
18 THE COURT: OKAY. DR. MURRAY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO
19 A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THAT
20 SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING TODAY OR WITHIN 60 DAYS OF
21 TODAY’S DATE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SPEEDY RIGHT?
22 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.
23 THE COURT: DO YOU GIVE UP THAT SPEEDY RIGHT?
24 THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.
25 THE COURT: SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU GIVE UP THE RIGHT
26 TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL TUESDAY, THE 4TH OF
27 JANUARY 2011, OR WITHIN THREE DAYS THEREAFTER?
28 THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.
10
1 THE COURT: DO DEFENSE COUNSEL JOIN, MR. CHERNOFF?
2 MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO.
3 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN?
4 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
5 THE COURT: MR. LOW?
6 MR. LOW: YES, SIR.
7 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
8 THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT, FREE AND
9 VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING WAIVER BY DR. MURRAY
10 OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING. THERE IS
11 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS CASE. IT IS A
12 MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE RAISED BY BOTH THE PEOPLE OF THE
13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE DEFENSE. THE JUSTIFICATION
14 IS NEED FOR FURTHER PREPARATION AND INVESTIGATION AND
15 SERIOUS WITNESS AVAILABILITY ISSUES.
16 THAT IS WHY I AM FINDING GOOD CAUSE FOR A
17 CONTINUANCE, AND I AM GRANTING THE CONTINUANCE IN THIS
18 CASE UNTIL THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011. I EXPECT THIS CASE
19 IS GOING TO GO TO PRELIM ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011. THE
20 DEFENDANT AND ALL ATTORNEYS ARE ORDERED BACK AT THAT TIME
21 ON THAT DATE.
22 AND ADDITIONALLY, THE DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL
23 ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK TO THIS COURT ON THE 26TH OF
24 OCTOBER 2010 AT 12:30 P.M. ON THAT DAY. SO THAT WILL BE
25 FOR ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, ANY MOTIONS, AND A STATUS
26 UPDATE.
27 SO IF THERE ARE ANY MOTIONS TO BE FILED,
28 COUNSEL MUST AND SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA RULES
11
1 OF COURT AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT RULES OF
2 COURT IN TERMS OF FILING ANY MOTIONS AND PROVIDING ANY
3 AND ALL APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION.
4 IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. WALGREN?
5 MR. WALGREN: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
6 THE COURT: MS. BRAZIL?
7 MS. BRAZIL: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
8 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
9 MR. CHERNOFF: YES. WE HAVE ONE BIT OF
10 HOUSEKEEPING. MR. FLANAGAN HAS A MOTION WE DISCUSSED IN
11 OUR TELECONFERENCE ON FRIDAY.
12 MR. FLANAGAN: NOT REALLY A MOTION, YOUR HONOR.
13 JUST ORDER FOR DISCOVERY. THE CORONER’S OFFICE HAS DONE
14 SOME TOXICOLOGY STUDIES ON CERTAIN FLUIDS, THREE FLUIDS,
15 WHERE THEY HAD POSITIVE RESULTS.
16 WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO REEXAMINE THOSE RESULTS
17 AND HAVE THE COURT SIGN AN ORDER ALLOWING PACIFIC
18 TOXICOLOGY LABORATORIES TO REEXAMINE THE TOXICOLOGY
19 RESULTS. IT DEALS WITH A COUPLE OF SYRINGES AND IV-TUBE.
20 THE COURT: THE ISSUE WAS RAISED ON THURSDAY. AND
21 AT THE TIME WHEN MR. CHERNOFF RAISED THE ISSUE, MR.
22 WALGREN WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHETHER THE
23 DEPARTMENT OF CORONER HAD SUFFICIENT AVAILABLE MATERIAL
24 TO BE ANALYZED.
25 I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, MR.
26 WALGREN.
27 MR. WALGREN: NO, YOUR HONOR. IN FACT, WE ARE
28 WAITING TO SEE THE MOTION TO SEE. WE DIDN’T KNOW AT THAT
12
1 TIME SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.
2 SO THERE APPARENTLY IS NO MOTION. NO P&A.
3 JUST SIMPLY AN ORDER HERE. WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO
4 RESPOND AT THIS TIME.
5 MR. FLANAGAN: NORMALLY, FOR REEXAMINATION, WE JUST
6 PROVIDE THE COURT WITH AN ORDER. I THINK THERE IS NO
7 QUESTION BUT THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO REEXAMINE THE
8 FLUIDS. I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE ORDER, THE
9 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES REPORT. THEY FOUND
10 CHEMICALS IN THREE SEPARATE FLUIDS THAT THEY EXAMINED.
11 WE JUST WANT TO TAKE A LOOK.
12 THE CORONER — I’VE TALKED WITH THE CORONER.
13 THERE IS A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT FOR REEXAMINATION.
14 LINTERMOOT, THE CORONER’S EXAMINER, HAS ONLY DONE
15 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR
16 QUANTITATIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LAB QUANTIFY WHAT
17 IS IN THESE SAMPLES.
18 THE COURT: THE ABSENCE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
19 I THINK THE COURT CAN ADDRESS IT.
20 THE ISSUE THAT CONCERNS ME IS CHAIN OF
21 CUSTODY AND WHETHER THERE REALISTICALLY IS ENOUGH
22 MATERIAL TO EXAMINE. DO YOU THINK COUNSEL CAN CONFER
23 ABOUT THIS AND LET ME KNOW BY SOME SORT OF FAX WHETHER
24 YOU HAVE AGREED TO THIS. I RATHER NOT SCHEDULE AN
25 INTERVENING APPEARANCE DATE, BUT I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT
26 TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER TO DEAL WITH THIS.
27 SO YOU HAVE GOT THE REQUEST, MR. WALGREN. I
28 THINK YOU CAN ADDRESS IT WITHOUT POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.
13
1 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN
2 DISCUSS IT AMONG OURSELVES, BUT IT IS MUCH MORE
3 COMPLICATED THAN MR. FLANAGAN IS REPRESENTING.
4 THERE ARE CUSTODY, CHAIN OF CUSTODY, ISSUES,
5 PROCEDURAL ISSUES, ISSUES AS TO WHETHER THE SAMPLE WOULD
6 BE DESTROYED BY TESTING, WHETHER WE HAVE A CHANCE TO
7 REANALYZE. THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED.
8 THE COURT: I DON’T DOUBT IT. I THINK THAT IS
9 SOMETHING FOR THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS. WE HAVE COMPETENT,
10 VERY PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED LAWYERS, AND I THINK THEY
11 ARE AWARE OF ALL THESE ISSUES.
12 I’M GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO SET FORTH
13 THE PARAMETERS AND PUT IT IN WRITING. AND THEN IF YOU
14 HAVE MADE AN AGREEMENT, RUN IT BY ME AND I’LL SEE IF I
15 CAN WRITE IT OFF. IF NOT, WE WILL GET EVERYBODY BACK IN
16 HERE AND HAVE FORMAL ARGUMENT.
17 I DON’T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER IF THE
18 DEFENSE NEEDS TO ANALYZE IT, SO I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.
19 ANYTHING ELSE, MR. FLANAGAN, MR. LOW, OR MR.
20 CHERNOFF?
21 MR. CHERNOFF: JUDGE, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THEN
22 THAT YOU WERE SAYING THAT NEITHER THE PROSECUTION NOR THE
23 DEFENSE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT FLUID UNTIL OR IF WE
24 COME TO EITHER AN AGREEMENT OR A RULING ON YOUR PART. IT
25 HAS BEEN 14 MONTHS. I HATE FOR THAT FLUID TO DISAPPEAR
26 ON US.
27 CAN WE HAVE AN ORDER TO PRESERVE THAT
28 EVIDENCE, AN ORAL ORDER TO PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE?
14
1 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN?
2 MR. WALGREN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT, BUT I DO
3 THINK THE SMART THING TO DO WOULD BE TO HAVE A WRITTEN
4 ORDER TO CONVEY THAT TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES.
5 THE COURT: WE ARE DEALING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
6 CORONER, NOT DEALING WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
7 CALIFORNIA, SO IT IS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY. I AM HAPPY
8 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE REQUEST, AND I’M
9 ISSUING AN ORDER ORAL ORDER RIGHT NOW THAT THE PEOPLE AND
10 THE DEPARTMENT OF CORONER ARE NOT TO DESTROY OR OTHERWISE
11 AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF WHATEVER IS REMAINING.
12 I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THE DEFENSE WOULD
13 FILE A FORMAL REQUEST FOR AN ORDER THAT I CAN SIGN TO
14 THAT EFFECT, THEN PROVIDE ME, AFTER BOTH SIDES HAVE HAD
15 THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT, WITH A
16 WRITTEN ORDER REGARDING THE STIPULATION, ANY STIPULATION
17 YOU HAVE.
18 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
19 THE COURT: CHAIN OF CUSTODY ISSUES AND INTEGRITY
20 ISSUES ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN CASES. SO WE WANT TO MAKE
21 SURE THAT THE DEFENSE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT IT
22 HAS TO DO, BUT AT THE SAME TIME DOESN’T IMPACT THE
23 INTEGRITY OF THE PROSECUTION IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE’S
24 EVIDENCE. SO I’M ISSUING THE ORAL ORDER RIGHT NOW.
25 FOLLOW UP, MR. FLANAGAN. YOU CAN FAX OR
26 DELIVER A WRITTEN ORDER FOR ME TO SIGN. RUN IT BY THE
27 PEOPLE FIRST. THEY CAN SIGN OFF ON IT, THEN I’LL BE
28 HAPPY TO SIGN OFF. THEN WE GET TO THE NEXT STEP.
15
1 ANYTHING ELSE?
2 MR. CHERNOFF: NO.
3 MR. WALGREN: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: SO WE WILL SEE COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY
5 AT 12:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, THE 26TH OF OCTOBER 2010. IN
6 THE INTERIM, BOND TO STAND.
7 THERE IS SOME FURTHER MATTERS COUNSEL MAY
8 WANT TO ADDRESS. WE WILL BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE COURTROOM.
9 THANK YOU.
10
11 (THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED
12 TO 12:30 P.M., OCTOBER 26, 2010.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28