1
1 CASE NO: SA 073164-01
2 NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY
3 LOS ANGELES, CA MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010
4 DEPT. 107 MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
5 REPORTER: PATRICIA MCNEAL, CSR NO. 4458
6 TIME: 12:30 P.M.
7
8
9 APPEARANCES:
10 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT IN COURT
11 AND BEING REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, JOSEPH
12 LOW, STEVE FLANAGAN, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL;
13 AND DAVID WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY
14 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, PRESENT AND REPRESENTING THE
15 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
16
17 THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:
18
19 THE COURT: IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD
20 MURRAY, DOCTOR MURRAY IS PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR.
21 CHERNOFF, MR. LOW AND MR. FLANAGAN. THE PEOPLE ARE
22 REPRESENTED BY THEIR COUNSEL, MR. WALGREN AND MISS BRAZIL.
23 AND BY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
24 MISS SAUNDERS.
25 THE FIRST MATTER FOR THIS COURT TO CONSIDER
26 IS THE MOTION FILED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE TIME OF
27 THE ARRAIGNMENT ON THE 8TH OF FEBRUARY AND SUBSEQUENTLY
28 REFILED ON THE 9TH OF FEBRUARY AND THE 19TH OF MARCH. THE
2
1 RESPONSE THERETO FILED BY THE DEFENSE ON THE 1ST OF APRIL;
2 ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FILED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD BY THE
3 ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE 7TH OF JUNE; AND THE LATEST
4 RESPONSE BY THE DEFENSE ON THE 11TH OF JUNE.
5 I HAVE RECEIVED, REVIEWED, AND CONSIDERED
6 ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION FILED IN THIS CASE, AND
7 IMPORTANTLY, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
8 JUDGE SCHWARTZ AT THE ARRAIGNMENT ON THE 8TH OF FEBRUARY
9 OF THIS YEAR. AND WE SENT A COPY OF THAT TRANSCRIPT TO
10 THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE.
11 MISS SAUNDERS, DID YOU RECEIVE THAT?
12 MS. SAUNDERS: I DIDN’T RECEIVE THE ONE FROM THE
13 COURT, BUT I ORDERED MY OWN.
14 THE COURT: OKAY. MR. WALGREN?
15 MR. WALGREN: WE DID NOT, YOUR HONOR.
16 MR. CHERNOFF: WE DID NOT, JUDGE, NO.
17 MR. FLANAGAN: I RECEIVED IT.
18 THE COURT: WELL, THERE ARE VARIOUS COUNSEL IN THIS
19 CASE.
20 SO I AM PREPARED TO HEAR FROM THE PARTIES
21 RECOGNIZING THAT THERE MAY BE A DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER THE
22 ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MEDICAL BOARD IS EVEN IN
23 THE POSITION TO BE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUEST VISA
24 VIS BAIL AND THE SUSPENSION, IF ANY, OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S
25 MEDICAL LICENSE.
26 MISS SAUNDERS, I DON’T KNOW WHETHER YOU
27 WANTED TO ADDRESS VERBALLY THE ARGUMENTS AND PROPOSITIONS
28 YOU HAVE ADVANCED IN YOUR PAPERWORK.
3
1 MS. SAUNDERS: WELL, FIRST, YOUR HONOR, I WILL
2 ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE MAKING THIS
3 RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK THAT THE PAPERWORK SETS FORTH
4 THAT WE DO HAVE A RIGHT AND AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE
5 PUBLIC AND TO COME FORTH AND TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL
6 INFORMATION WE CAN TO THE COURT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
7 THAT ARE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTION AND
8 PUBLIC SAFETY.
9 THE COURT: MAY I ASK A FAVOR?
10 IF COUNSEL COULD SPEAK FROM THE PODIUM.
11 MS. SAUNDERS: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.
12 THE COURT: BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST IN THE CASE AND
13 THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE IN THIS COURTROOM, WE ARE
14 UTILIZING VIDEO FEED AND AUDIO FEED TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT
15 WHERE THERE ARE MEDIA AND PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES.
16 SO FOR JUST LOGISTICAL REASONS, I WOULD ASK
17 THAT COUNSEL SPEAK FROM THE PODIUM. THANK YOU. I’M SORRY
18 FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
19 MS. SAUNDERS: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.
20 IN ADDITION, I THINK ONE OF THE OVERRIDING
21 THEMES HAS BEEN IN SOME OF THE PAPERWORK THAT THE ATTORNEY
22 GENERAL’S OFFICE APPEARED IN FEBRUARY AND MADE A
23 RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.
24 THE TRANSCRIPT SETS FORTH THAT JUDGE
25 SCHWARTZ SPECIFICALLY ASKED AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
26 OFFICE SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THAT THEY WERE NOT ASKING
27 FOR A RULING SPECIFICALLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY
28 COULDN’T ASK FOR IT AT THAT TIME BASED ON GRAY VERSUS
4
1 SUPERIOR COURT AND GAVE NOTICE THAT THEY WOULD BE ASKING
2 FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION TO BE HEARD AT THE NEXT GIVEN
3 COURT DATE WHICH IS WHAT WE APPEARED AND DID DO.
4 I DON’T KNOW IF THE COURT HAS ANY SPECIFIC
5 QUESTIONS BECAUSE I KNOW THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN BRIEFED AD
6 NAUSEAM.
7 THE COURT: WELL, NOT AD NAUSEAM. IT HAS BEEN
8 BRIEFED PROFESSIONALLY AND APPROPRIATELY.
9 LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON
10 THE DECISION OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL IN GRAY
11 VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, A CASE WHICH YOU MENTIONED FROM THE
12 OUTSET?
13 AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
14 QUOTE “SECTION 23 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A LICENSING AGENCY TO
15 RECOMMEND BAIL CONDITIONS EXPRESSLY NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE
16 A TRIAL COURT TO SUSPEND A PROFESSIONAL LICENSE UPON THE
17 RECOMMENDATION OF A STATE LICENSING AGENCY,” GRAY VERSUS
18 SUPERIOR COURT, 125 CAL.APP. 4TH 629 AT 643.
19 WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OR VIEW OF THAT
20 LANGUAGE FROM THAT DECISION?
21 MS. SAUNDERS: I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT IT
22 DOES NOT EXPRESSLY, THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE DOESN’T
23 EXPRESSLY GIVE THAT. BUT IT DOES IN THE DISJUNCTIVE, AS
24 WE SAID, IT GIVES THE BOARD AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
25 OFFICE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR TO
26 APPEAR AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE IN PUBLIC
27 INTEREST.
28 IT DOESN’T LIMIT IT SPECIFICALLY TO
5
1 PROBATION OR THE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE CITED IN THAT
2 STATUTE. IT ACTUALLY GIVES A BROAD VIEW OF THE FACT THAT
3 PUBLIC PROTECTION IS IMPORTANT. IT GIVES THE A.G.’S
4 OFFICE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATION.
5 AND THE CASE ALSO STATES THAT WHAT WAS ASKED
6 FOR IN THE GRAY, IN THE GRAY CASE WAS NOT PER SE
7 UNREASONABLE; THAT HE DID NOT HAVE, THAT THE DEFENDANT
8 WASN’T GIVEN THE PROPER NOTICE, NOT THAT WHAT WAS BEING
9 ASKED WAS PER SE UNREASONABLE.
10 THE COURT: I NOTE, AS YOU DID AT THE BEGINNING OF
11 YOUR ARGUMENT, THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT JUDGE SCHWARTZ
12 SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AND JUDGE SCHWARTZ SAYS
13 AT PAGE 5 STARTING AT LINE 5 QUOTE, “ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT
14 ISSUE IN ORDER THAT WE NEED TO DECIDE WITH, THERE HAS BEEN
15 AN ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FILING. AND MISS BELL IS
16 REPRESENTING THE MEDICAL BOARD IN THIS CASE. DO YOU WANT
17 A RULING ON THIS TODAY, OR ARE YOU JUST FILING THIS AS A
18 MOTION?”
19 AND MISS SAUNDERS’ RESPONSE, “WE ARE JUST
20 FILING IT AS A MOTION AND GIVING NOTICE PURSUANT TO GRAY
21 VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, YOUR HONOR.”
22 THE COURT, “OKAY. HAS THE DEFENSE RECEIVED
23 ALL NOTICE THAT THE MEDICAL BOARD IS GOING TO SEEK TO
24 REVOKE DOCTOR MURRAY’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE?”
25 MR. CHERNOFF, “WE HAVE RECEIVED THE NOTICE.”
26 THE COURT, “OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THAT WILL BE
27 NOTED IN THE COURT FILE. AND SHOULD YOU WISH A HEARING ON
28 THIS, YOU WILL FILE ANY SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS YOU WANT?”
6
1 AND THEN MISS SAUNDERS SAYS, “THIS IS
2 CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. AND WE HAVE NOTIFIED COUNSEL THAT WE
3 INTEND TO EITHER MOVE ON THE NEXT COURT DATE OR THE FIRST
4 AVAILABLE COURT DATE WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE.”
5 SO THAT IS YOUR POSITION?
6 MS. SAUNDERS: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
7 THE COURT: NOW LET ME ASK YOU, IS THERE ANYTHING
8 TO BE MADE OF JUDGE’S — JUDGE SCHWARTZ’ DISCUSSION OF
9 BAIL CONDITIONS? AND SPECIFICALLY, ON PAGES 15 AND 16
10 STARTING PAGE 15, LINE 26, THE COURT, “NOW ONE OF THE
11 OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT I AM GOING TO PUT THAT I TOLD THE
12 ATTORNEYS I AM GOING TO LIMIT YOUR PRACTICE OF MEDICINE,
13 ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE I THINK THE ALLEGATIONS THE GOVERNMENT
14 HAS RAISED IN THIS CASE ARE SIGNIFICANT. AND I ALREADY
15 DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE ATTORNEYS. SO THEY ARE AWARE OF
16 WHAT I AM GOING TO DO.
17 “I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE A LICENSE TO
18 PRACTICE BASED” — AND AGAIN, I AM READING WHAT’S WRITTEN,
19 AND IT MAY NOT BE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT.
20 “BASED, I HAVE ENTIRELY READ THE ATTORNEY
21 GENERAL’S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
22 WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
23 MS. SAUNDERS: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, THE
24 ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WASN’T PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS
25 WITH COUNSEL. THOSE HAPPENED APPARENTLY IN CHAMBERS, AND
26 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WAS NOT IN CHAMBERS WHEN
27 THOSE DISCUSSIONS TOOK PLACE. SO I WAS NOT A PART OF
28 THAT. I WAS NOT SETTING FORTH MY POSITION IN THAT
7
1 DISCUSSION.
2 AND I THINK IF YOU CONTINUE TO READ THE
3 TRANSCRIPT — I DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. BUT JUDGE
4 SCHWARTZ GOES ON TO SAY THAT HE READ THE MOTION, AND,
5 THEREFORE, HE REALIZES THAT DOCTOR MURRAY HAS A VALID
6 CALIFORNIA LICENSE.
7 THE ONLY THING I CAN MAKE OF THAT WAS THAT
8 HE THEN ASKED — OR HE WAS THEN GIVEN OTHER INFORMATION
9 ABOUT OTHER LICENSES. BUT HE SAID FROM THE ATTORNEY
10 GENERAL’S MOTION, HE WAS AWARE THAT DOCTOR MURRAY HAD A
11 VALID CALIFORNIA LICENSE. AND THEN HE IMPOSED CERTAIN
12 RESTRICTIONS SUA SPONTE.
13 THE COURT: JUDGE SCHWARTZ SAYS, “I HAVE ALREADY
14 READ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
15 NOW THE MOTION IS SIMPLY A NOTICE MOTION, BUT IT CONTAINS
16 A DECLARATION.
17 MS. SAUNDERS: CORRECT.
18 THE COURT: THERE IS INFORMATION IN THERE REGARDING
19 THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. AND THAT
20 INFORMATION IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE MOTION FILED BY THE
21 DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR BAIL DEVIATION.
22 SO I WANTED TO FIND OUT — AND YOU’VE
23 ALREADY TOLD ME THAT YOU WEREN’T PRESENT DURING ANY
24 MEETING IN CHAMBERS. AND I AM GOING TO FIND OUT A LITTLE
25 MORE FROM THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THIS REGARD.
26 MS. SAUNDERS: IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, I DID NOT
27 MAKE ANY ARGUMENT OR PARTICIPATE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS
28 HELD REGARDING THE BAIL DEVIATION.
8
1 THE COURT: MISS SAUNDERS, IF THIS COURT WERE TO
2 CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF THE REQUEST FOR A
3 SUSPENSION OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S MEDICAL LICENSE IN
4 CALIFORNIA, WHO WOULD CONDUCT THE HEARING?
5 MS. SAUNDERS: I’M SORRY? I DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT.
6 THE COURT: IF THERE WERE TO BE A FORMAL HEARING —
7 AND YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
8 THAT ATTACH TO THE REQUEST TO SUSPEND DOCTOR MURRAY’S
9 MEDICAL LICENSE IN CALIFORNIA?
10 MS. SAUNDERS: YES, YOUR HONOR. AND —
11 THE COURT: WHO WOULD CONDUCT THE HEARING ON BEHALF
12 OF THE PROPONENT?
13 MS. SAUNDERS: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE NOT
14 CHARACTERIZING THIS AS A SUSPENSION OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S
15 LICENSE BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT’S WHAT THE MEDICAL
16 BOARD DOES. WE ARE ASKING THAT IT BE CONSIDERED AS A
17 CONDITION OF BAIL, NOT THAT IT BE A SUSPENSION. WE ARE
18 NOT ASKING THIS AS A DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF THE MEDICAL
19 BOARD. WE ARE ASKING THAT HIS LICENSE BE — HE BE
20 PROHIBITED FROM PRACTICING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS
21 CASE AS A BAIL RESTRICTION, NOT THAT WE ARE ASKING THAT
22 HIS LICENSE BE SUSPENDED AS A DISCIPLINARY MATTER.
23 THE COURT: WELL, ONE CAN PARSE OUT LANGUAGE.
24 ISN’T THE NET EFFECT THE SAME, THAT DURING THE PENDENCY OF
25 PROCEEDINGS UP UNTIL A CERTAIN POINT DOCTOR MURRAY WOULD
26 HAVE TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN THE
27 STATE?
28 MS. SAUNDERS: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
9
1 THE COURT: WHO WOULD CONDUCT THE HEARING ON BEHALF
2 OF THE SIDE THAT WANTS THAT AS A BAIL CONDITION?
3 MS. SAUNDERS: WE ARE ASKING THAT OF THIS COURT,
4 YOUR HONOR.
5 THE COURT: WELL, I KNOW THE HEARING, AT LEAST WHAT
6 I HEAR YOU SAY, WOULD BE BEFORE THE COURT.
7 BUT WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AT SUCH A
8 HEARING? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE WAY SUCH A HEARING
9 WOULD PROGRESS? I MEAN, TELL ME ABOUT IT.
10 WE HAVE A HEARING, AND THE COURT SAYS, “IT’S
11 NOW GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF THE BAIL
12 CONDITION.”
13 WHO ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF THAT REQUEST?
14 MS. SAUNDERS: I — ARE YOU ASKING WHAT WE ARE
15 DOING HERE? QUITE FRANKLY —
16 THE COURT: I AM GOING A STEP FURTHER IN SAYING
17 THAT YOU HAVE THIS REQUEST FOR A HEARING.
18 MS. SAUNDERS: UH-HUH.
19 THE COURT: CEASE AND DESIST TYPE HEARING. I DON’T
20 HEAR IT COMING FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
21 THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE. I HEAR IT COMING FROM THE
22 MEDICAL BOARD.
23 MS. SAUNDERS: THAT IS CORRECT.
24 THE COURT: REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
25 MS. SAUNDERS: THAT IS CORRECT.
26 THE COURT: SO WHO WOULD BE CONDUCTING THIS
27 HEARING, AND WHAT WOULD IT INVOLVE?
28 MS. SAUNDERS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, TYPICALLY, I HAVE
10
1 APPEARED IN THESE TYPES OF CASES BEFORE, AND OUR OFFICE
2 HAS ON MANY OCCASIONS. AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING SOMEWHAT
3 SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE HAVING RIGHT NOW.
4 THE COURT: WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE WITNESSES WOULD BE
5 CALLED?
6 MS. SAUNDERS: NO, YOUR HONOR.
7 THE COURT: HOW WOULD THE COURT HAVE INFORMATION
8 REGARDING THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGED
9 VIOLATION?
10 MS. SAUNDERS: WELL, YOUR HONOR, IT’S WELL-SETTLED
11 THAT CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AND OTHER FACTS THAT ARE SET
12 FORTH AS HAVE BEEN SET FORTH IN THIS CASE ESTABLISH AN
13 EVIDENTIARY, AN EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR BAIL CONDITIONS.
14 AND SINCE WE ARE ASKING OF THIS AS A BAIL
15 CONDITION, WE ARE FOLLOWING UNDER THE SAME AMBIT. IT’S
16 UNDISPUTED THAT COURT’S ROUTINELY RESTRICT THE DEFENDANT’S
17 LIBERTY BY PLACING OR INCARCERATING THEM DURING THE
18 PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS. AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE
19 ASKING FOR AND WHAT THE MEDICAL BOARD IS ASKING FOR HERE
20 IS MUCH LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THAT.
21 AND IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A
22 PROFESSIONAL USES HIS TOOLS OF HIS PROFESSION,
23 SPECIFICALLY HIS MEDICAL LICENSE, TO CARRY OUT THE ACTS
24 THAT HE HAS THAT ARE EXTREMELY EGREGIOUS THAT WE ARE
25 ASKING FOR AN APPROPRIATE CONDITION THAT’S NO MORE
26 RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT A COURT IS ALLOWED TO GIVE PURSUANT
27 TO RESTRICTING SOMEBODY’S FREEDOM AND LIBERTIES FROM EVEN
28 PARTICIPATING IN BEING FREE IN THE PUBLIC.
11
1 THE COURT: DID JUDGE SCHWARTZ ON THE 8TH OF
2 FEBRUARY AS PART OF HIS BAIL REVIEW IN THIS CASE CONSIDER
3 AND DISCUSS — EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PART OF
4 IT — AND RULE UPON THE ISSUE OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S ABILITY
5 TO FULLY PRACTICE MEDICINE?
6 MS. SAUNDERS: YES, HE DID DISCUSS IT. HE DID MAKE
7 SOME RULINGS REGARDING THAT.
8 BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT AT THAT TIME,
9 ALTHOUGH WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I APPRECIATE AND I RESPECT
10 THE RULINGS THAT HE MADE, BUT I DO THINK THAT HE WAS ALSO
11 LIMITED IN THAT HE DID NOT HAVE, DID NOT HEAR FROM THE
12 MEDICAL BOARD OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ON BEHALF
13 OF THE MEDICAL BOARD, AN AGENCY THAT ROUTINELY ON AN
14 EVERYDAY BASIS MONITORS WHAT PHYSICIANS DO, DON’T DO,
15 MONITORS WHAT THEY SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO, MONITORS WHAT
16 THE STANDARDS OF CARE ARE, AND DID NOT HEAR WHETHER OR NOT
17 OR HEAR FROM THE BOARD AND THE BOARD’S POSITION REGARDING
18 WHAT THESE ACTIONS WERE AND HOW EGREGIOUS THEY WERE.
19 THE COURT: WHETHER THIS COURT AGREES OR DISAGREES
20 WITH WHAT JUDGE SCHWARTZ MAY HAVE DONE, DOESN’T THE
21 ALBERTO CASE STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT ONCE HE HAS
22 ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE THAT ABSENT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES —
23 AND I WOULD SUBMIT MORE THAN JUST THE COURT MOVING
24 LOCATIONS — THAT ABSENT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, ANOTHER
25 COURT OF EQUAL JURISDICTION, NAMELY, ME, SIMPLY DOES NOT
26 HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT THE ISSUE ADDRESSED BY JUDGE
27 SCHWARTZ?
28 MS. SAUNDERS: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR.
12
1 BUT I THINK THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED, IN
2 EFFECT, TO SAY THAT THE MEDICAL BOARD NOW CANNOT MAKE THIS
3 RECOMMENDATION AND THIS COURT CAN’T CONSIDER ITS
4 RECOMMENDATION WHEN IT WASN’T IN A POSITION TO MAKE OR
5 HAVE IT CONSIDERED AT THE OUTSET WOULD, IN EFFECT, MAKE
6 THIS, MAKE THE, MAKE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE MEDICAL
7 BOARD’S POSITION THAT AT WHAT POINT WOULD THEY EVER BE
8 ABLE TO MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS?
9 THE COURT: WELL, I AM GOING TO BE ASKING THE
10 DEFENSE THAT QUESTION IN JUST A MOMENT.
11 BUT WOULDN’T YOU AGREE WITH THE CASE OF IN
12 RE: ALBERTO, QUOTE, “FOR ONE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE NO
13 MATTER HOW WELL-INTENTIONED EVEN IF CORRECT AS A MATTER OF
14 LAW TO NULLIFY A DULY MADE ERRONEOUS RULING OF ANOTHER
15 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE PLACES THE SECOND JUDGE IN A ROLE OF
16 A ONE-JUDGE APPELLATE COURT.
17 “THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
18 THOUGH COMPRISED OF A NUMBER OF JUDGES IS A SINGLE COURT,
19 AND ONE MEMBER OF THAT COURT CANNOT SIT IN REVIEW ON THE
20 ACTIONS OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THAT SAME COURT STATED
21 SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE A SUPERIOR COURT IS BUT ONE
22 TRIBUNAL.
23 “AN ORDER MADE IN ONE DEPARTMENT DURING THE
24 PROGRESS OF A CAUSE CAN NEITHER BE IGNORED NOR OVER LOOKED
25 IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.”
26 ISN’T THAT, IN ESSENCE, WHAT YOU ARE ASKING
27 ME TO DO?
28 MS. SAUNDERS: I DON’T AGREE, YOUR HONOR. I THINK
13
1 THAT THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES — I THINK THAT THE FACT
2 THAT WE ARE AT A TIME IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE MEDICAL
3 BOARD HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IS A CHANGED
4 CIRCUMSTANCE. AND I DON’T THINK THAT IN RE: ALBERTO EVEN
5 CONSIDERED THAT CONSIDERING THAT THE GRAY CASE HADN’T EVEN
6 BEEN DECIDED AT THAT TIME. AND IT DIDN’T ANTICIPATE THE
7 TWO-STEP PROCESS THAT GRAY WAS GOING TO SET FORTH THAT THE
8 MEDICAL BOARD HAD TO FIRST GIVE NOTICE BEFORE IT COULD
9 MAKE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION.
10 SO I THINK THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE
11 PROCEDURALLY CHANGED.
12 THE COURT: WOULD IT HAVE MATTERED AT ALL IF IN HIS
13 RULING AS TO BAIL JUDGE SCHWARTZ HAD NOT INDICATED IN ANY
14 WAY THAT HE CONSIDERED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MOTION AND
15 WAS NOT GOING TO CONSIDER AT THAT TIME ANY RESTRICTION ON
16 DOCTOR MURRAY’S ABILITY TO PRACTICE MEDICINE?
17 WOULD THAT BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAPPENED?
18 MS. SAUNDERS: I AM SURE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, YOUR
19 HONOR. BUT —
20 THE COURT: I AM REFERRING TO WHAT HE SAID.
21 MS. SAUNDERS: RIGHT.
22 AND FROM WHAT HE SAID, I DON’T, I DIDN’T SEE
23 HIM SAY THAT HE CONSIDERED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MOTION.
24 AND WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DISCUSSED THIS
25 WITH COUNSEL, AGAIN, THE MEDICAL BOARD AND THE ATTORNEY
26 GENERAL’S OFFICE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR SUCH A DISCUSSION.
27 AND WHEN HE SAID THAT HE READ THE ATTORNEY
28 GENERAL’S PAPERS, THE ONLY THING HE INDICATES THAT HE GOT
14
1 OUT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PAPERS WAS THAT DOCTOR,
2 DOCTOR MURRAY HAD A VALID CALIFORNIA LICENSE.
3 HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF THE ATTORNEY
4 GENERAL WAS LOOKING FOR A RULING ON ITS MOTION WHICH THE
5 ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT BECAUSE IT COULD NOT PURSUANT,
6 PURSUANT TO THE LAW AT HAND.
7 SO I CAN’T ASSUME THAT JUDGE SCHWARTZ WAS,
8 WAS IGNORING THE LAW AND CONSIDERING AND MAKING A RULING
9 ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE MEDICAL BOARD’S PAPER.
10 THE COURT: OKAY. I AM GOING TO BE ASKING SOME
11 QUESTIONS OF THE DEFENSE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE
12 WAS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD, MISS SAUNDERS.
13 MS. SAUNDERS: NO, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE COURT: THANK YOU, MISS SAUNDERS.
15 MS. SAUNDERS: NO, YOUR HONOR.
16 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN OR MISS BRAZIL, DO YOU HAVE
17 ANY PARTICULAR POINT YOU WANT TO RAISE?
18 YOU HAVEN’T BEEN ADDRESSING THE ISSUES
19 RAISED IN THE LAST SERIES OF PAPERWORK. BUT MR. WALGREN
20 WAS HEARD AT THE TIME OF THE ARRAIGNMENT REGARDING THE
21 CONDITIONS THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
22 WANTED TO BE IMPOSED.
23 AND I DIDN’T HEAR OR READ ANYTHING ABOUT
24 CONDITIONS RELATED TO DOCTOR MURRAY’S PRACTICE OF
25 MEDICINE. SO I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON
26 THIS, MR. WALGREN.
27 MR. WALGREN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
28 ONLY TO SAY THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INFORMED
15
1 EARLY ON THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE APPROPRIATE
2 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDICAL BOARD, WOULD BE DEALING WITH
3 THE ISSUE OF THE MEDICAL LICENSE.
4 AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE PEOPLE CERTAINLY FEEL THAT PUBLIC
6 SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE WELL SERVED BY
7 DOCTOR MURRAY’S MEDICAL LICENSE BEING SUSPENDED AS A
8 CONDITION OF BAIL.
9 BUT AS THE PARTY LITIGATING THE SPECIFIC
10 ISSUE HAS BEEN AND WILL REMAIN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
11 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
12 MR. WALGREN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
13 WHO IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSING ANY CONCERNS?
14 MR. CHERNOFF.
15 MR. CHERNOFF: IT’S GOING TO BE MR. LOW, JUDGE.
16 THE COURT: MR. LOW.
17 MR. LOW: SIR.
18 THE COURT: ISN’T THERE A DILEMMA HERE?
19 THE PEOPLE BELIEVE — SORRY — THE ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MEDICAL BOARD BELIEVES IT HAS A
21 DUE PROCESS OBLIGATION TO THE DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE AND
22 AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
23 SEEMINGLY, THEY ARE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH BY
24 PROVIDING THAT TO YOU THE VERY FIRST OPPORTUNITY IF THE
25 CASE COMES TO COURT.
26 WHY SHOULD THEY BE PRECLUDED THEN OR
27 PUNISHED FROM GIVING YOU THAT TIME TO PREPARE?
28 MR. LOW: SIR, I DON’T AGREE. I DON’T THINK THAT
16
1 THEY SHOULD EVER BE PUNISHED FOR WANTING TO DO THE RIGHT
2 THING. SO I CAN’T SAY THAT THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON HERE.
3 BUT I NEED TO BACK UP. I CAN’T ANSWER YOUR
4 QUESTION DIRECTLY ON FIRST NOTICE.
5 NOW THEY HAVE REPRESENTED AT THEIR VERY
6 FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US ANY KIND OF NOTICE IS WHEN WE
7 APPEAR IN COURT. AND IF I CAN ALSO MAKE SURE I AM CLEAR,
8 IT IS NOTICE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
9 NOW WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY CAN’T SUSPEND HIS
10 LICENSE HERE. AND QUIBBLING OVER IT IS SAME THING AS
11 ARGUING WHAT’S REVOKING A D.M.V. LICENSE OR SUSPENDING IT.
12 YOU ARE RIGHT, JUDGE, AND THE GRAY CASE SAID
13 IT RIGHT ON THE POINT. I KNOW THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE
14 REFERRING TO. IT’S, IN EFFECT, THE SAME THING. AND TO
15 ARGUE THAT WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR BAIL MODIFICATION SKIPS
16 RIGHT OVER THAT IMPORTANT POINT.
17 SO WHAT IS IT THEY ARE REALLY GIVING NOTICE
18 TO? THEY ARE GIVING NOTICE OF THE FACT THEY WANT TO STOP
19 THIS MAN FROM HELPING PEOPLE, FROM DOING HIS JOB THAT HE’S
20 WORKED VERY HARD HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO
21 DOING.
22 AND SHOULD THEY BE PRECLUDED FROM DOING
23 THAT? I DO NOT THINK THEY SHOULD BE. I THINK YOU NEED TO
24 BE ABLE TO HEAR THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS OR ANOTHER JUDGE.
25 AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
26 BUT ON THE NOTICE ISSUE, WERE THEY LIMITED
27 TO ONLY GIVING US NOTICE THE DAY OF COURT?
28 THE BOARD, THE BOARD OF LICENSING HAS NO
17
1 ABILITY TO NOTIFY LAWYERS OR THE D.A. OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT
2 THEY WISH TO DO THIS MONTHS BEFORE? I MEAN, THE
3 ALLEGATION HAD BEEN STEMMING SINCE THE SUMMER BEFORE.
4 SO I MEAN, REALLY, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR
5 THEM TO NOTICE US? BECAUSE THEY CONDUCT THESE HEARINGS
6 ALL THE TIME, OUTSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM AS A MATTER OF
7 FACT. IT’S AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. THEY HAVE GOT A
8 WHOLE PROCESS IN ORDER TO DO IT.
9 SO IS IT REALLY TRUE THEY HAD ABSOLUTELY,
10 POSITIVELY NO WAY TO NOTICE ANYBODY AS TO WHAT THEY WANTED
11 TO DO? OF COURSE NOT.
12 AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT PUNISHING THEM, YOU
13 ARE NOT GOING TO PUNISH THEM TODAY. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO
14 MAKE THEM FOLLOW THE RULES BECAUSE WHAT IS LEFT FOR THEM
15 DO TODAY IF THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES LIKE EVERYBODY
16 ELSE?
17 WHAT IS LEFT FOR THEM TO HAVE TO DO TODAY IS
18 TO GO OUT AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY BY HAVING THE BOARD
19 HEARING IF THEY WANT TO HEAR IT THE WAY IT’S SUPPOSED TO
20 BE CONDUCTED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL 14TH AMENDMENT DUE
21 PROCESS RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN BE
22 HEARD PROPERLY.
23 THE COURT: WELL, WHY CAN’T THAT BE DONE IN THIS
24 COURT?
25 MR. LOW: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT CAN BE DONE IN
26 THIS COURT. YOU ARE RIGHT. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD
27 LIKE TO DO, YOU ARE RIGHT. IT CAN BE DONE IN THIS COURT.
28 BUT IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE DONE PROPERLY IN THIS COURT, WE
18
1 HAVE TO HAVE — JUST LIKE YOU ASKED HER ABOUT — WE HAVE
2 TO HAVE EVIDENCE.
3 SEE, AN ACCUSATION IS NOT GOING TO GET IT
4 DONE. THAT IS NOT RIGHT.
5 AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW
6 THAT’S IN THEIR MOTION? YOU HAVE AN ACCUSATION ONLY. I
7 PUT A QUESTION MARK TO IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT IT
8 WAS SIGNIFICANT. ON PAGE 3 OF THEIR MOVING PAPERS, IT’S
9 THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH, LINE 22. I WILL GIVE YOU A SECOND,
10 JUDGE. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE READY, AND I WILL READ IT
11 IF YOU’D LIKE.
12 THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
13 MR. LOW: SIR, I AM READING FROM PAGE 3 OF THEIR
14 MOVING PAPERS. AND IT’S LINE 22. IT SAYS, “DEFENDANT
15 MURRAY ADMINISTERED A LETHAL DOSE OF PROPOFOL AS WELL AS
16 OTHER DRUGS OF PATIENT MICHAEL JACKSON.”
17 DO YOU SEE ANY DECLARATIONS, ANY SUPPORT
18 WHATSOEVER, ANY WITNESS TESTIMONY, ANYTHING AT ALL TO
19 SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION THAT HE GAVE THE LETHAL DOSE OR
20 THAT IS WHAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS? BECAUSE I DIDN’T SEE
21 IT, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THOSE
22 HEARINGS.
23 BECAUSE JUST SAYING IT DON’T GET IT DONE.
24 YOU HAVE GOT TO ACTUALLY PROVE IT UP IF YOU ARE GOING TO
25 MAKE THOSE ALLEGATIONS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED
26 TO BE DOING.
27 SO THAT AGAIN, BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT,
28 THEY ARE HERE FOR A RECOMMENDATION ONLY ON BAIL. AND
19
1 THERE IS ARGUMENT AS TO WHETHER THEY CAN EVEN DO THAT. I
2 AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT. YOU KNOW THAT BETTER THAN
3 ME.
4 BUT IF THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR, THEN
5 JUDGE SCHWARTZ CONSIDERED THAT. AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY,
6 AND I KNOW MISS SAUNDERS WAS THERE THAT DAY. AND I GOT TO
7 ADMIT. I DON’T REMEMBER HER NOT BEING IN THE BACK ROOM.
8 MY MEMORY IS NOT PERFECT. I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE THINGS
9 THAN I CAN REMEMBER.
10 MY MEMORY IS THAT SHE WAS SURELY BACK THERE
11 BECAUSE I KNOW MR. WALGREN WASN’T MAKING THOSE ARGUMENTS
12 THAT HE CONSIDERED THAT HE PUT ON THE RECORD THAT DID
13 CAUSE A MODIFICATION OF THIS MAN’S LICENSE, WHICH WE HAD A
14 RIGHT TO OPPOSE. BUT IN GOOD FAITH, WE SAID, YOU KNOW
15 WHAT, WE WILL ACCEPT THOSE TERMS OF BAIL AND ABIDE BY
16 THEM. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE
17 LETTER.
18 THE COURT: DID JUDGE SCHWARTZ DISCUSS IN CHAMBERS
19 HIS PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S MEDICAL
20 LICENSE?
21 MR. LOW: YES. LET ME BE EXACT ON THAT BECAUSE I
22 WANT TO BE FAIR TO JUDGE SCHWARTZ.
23 HE ASKED US TO DISCUSS IT, AND HE
24 ENTERTAINED OUR BELIEFS AND OUR UNDERSTANDINGS, WHAT WE
25 THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE. HE DIDN’T DISCUSS WHAT HIS
26 RULING WAS GOING TO BE. BUT HE CERTAINLY ASKED US FOR
27 COMMENTS MUCH LIKE YOU ARE DOING. HE ASKED QUESTIONS, AND
28 WE MADE COMMENTS. AND THEN HE SAID HE WOULD GIVE US HIS
20
1 RULING, WHICH HE THEN CAME OUT OF COURT. AND HE DID DO,
2 AND THAT IS THE PART YOU READ ON THE RECORD.
3 THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. LOW, DO YOU
4 THINK THAT JUDGE SCHWARTZ’ RESTRICTION OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S
5 MEDICAL PRIVILEGES, HIS TAILORED RESTRICTION, DO YOU THINK
6 THAT VIOLATED GRAY?
7 MR. LOW: NO, SIR. I DON’T BELIEVE JUDGE SCHWARTZ
8 VIOLATED GRAY. I BELIEVE JUDGE SCHWARTZ DID WHAT HE
9 THOUGHT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I AM GLAD YOU BROUGHT
10 IT UP.
11 WHAT HAS CHANGED? YOU HEARD MISS SAUNDERS
12 SAY, “WELL, WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE
13 CHANGED.”
14 I BEG TO DIFFER. THINK ABOUT IT. THE EXACT
15 SAME THING THAT THEY BRIEFED JUDGE SCHWARTZ ON — AND THEY
16 GAVE HIM DECLARATION, MEMORANDUM IS THE EXACT SAME ONE YOU
17 GOT BEFORE YOU. THERE IS NO CHANGE OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
18 OR FACTS.
19 EVERY SINGLE TIME A JUDGE IS ASKED TO
20 RECONSIDER BAIL IS BECAUSE USUALLY ALMOST ALWAYS THE
21 DEFENDANT HAS DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR HAS NOT COMPLIED
22 IN SOME WAY OR HAS CHANGED HIS STANDING IN SOME WAY.
23 THE JUDGE HAS TO RECONSIDER THE TERMS THAT ALLOW HIM TO
24 REMAIN FREE. NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED, NONE.
25 IN FACT, I WILL SAY TO YOU THIS, THAT THERE
26 WAS A CIRCUMSTANCE RECENTLY WHERE A GENTLEMAN ON THE PLANE
27 AS A RESULT OF HAVING A MEDICAL PROBLEM BENEFITTED
28 DIRECTLY FROM THIS GENTLEMAN’S INTERACTION.
21
1 CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WE MAY BE HERE
2 LISTENING TO IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID, “OH, WELL, YOU
3 KNOW, HE WASN’T ACTING AS A GOOD SAMARITAN ON THE PLANE
4 THAT DAY. IN FACT, HE WAS ACTING AS A DOCTOR. NOW WE
5 WANT HIS BAIL REVOKED BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING NICE TO
6 HELP SOMEBODY OUT MEDICALLY.”
7 IF ANYTHING HAS CHANGED, IT’S FOR THE
8 POSITIVE. HE’S DEMONSTRATED ABSOLUTE COMPLIANCE. HE HAS
9 DEMONSTRATED HE’S DONE EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN ASKED OF HIM
10 BY NOT USING PROPOFOL AND NOT EVEN PRACTICING IN
11 CALIFORNIA.
12 SO AGAIN, WHAT IS IT THAT THEY ARE ASKING
13 FOR NEW THAT HAS CHANGED FACTUALLY? THERE IS NOTHING.
14 THE COURT: COULD THIS COURT DISAGREE WITH JUDGE
15 SCHWARTZ’ RULING REGARDING THE RESTRICTION OF DOCTOR
16 MURRAY’S MEDICAL PRIVILEGES AND COME TO A SEPARATE
17 CONCLUSION THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY RESTRICTION?
18 WOULD THIS COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER
19 GRAY AND ALBERTO TO DO THAT?
20 MR. LOW: WELL, THAT WOULD BE NICE FOR THE DEFENSE,
21 SIR. BUT I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS WE ARE GOING TO
22 OBJECTIVELY ANALYZE THAT CASE LAW THAT THE ANSWER WOULD BE
23 NO. I DON’T BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT
24 EITHER.
25 I AM NOT GOING TO LIE TO YOU. SOMETIMES I
26 FEEL A LITTLE HESITANT TELLING A JUDGE HE DOESN’T HAVE THE
27 AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY DON’T USUALLY LIKE
28 TO HEAR THAT. BUT I AM FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
22
1 AND I READ ALBERTO. IT SAYS THAT HAVING A
2 JUDGE CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BAIL — AND USUALLY,
3 IT’S IN THE NEGATIVE FOR THE DEFENDANT — IS SOMETHING
4 THAT GETS INTO FORUM SHOPPING, WHICH APPARENTLY MAY BE
5 GOING ON HERE.
6 IF THEY REALLY WANT JUDGE SCHWARTZ TO THINK
7 ABOUT THAT, WHY CAN’T THEY ASK FOR IT TO GO BACK TO JUDGE
8 SCHWARTZ AS OPPOSED TO YOU BECAUSE THAT PUTS YOU IN A
9 TOUGH SPOT. THAT IS NOT FAIR TO YOU. IF WE ARE GOING TO
10 BE FAIR TO YOU, WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU TO FOLLOW THE LAW
11 WHICH YOU ARE BOUND TO DO. AND ALBERTO SAYS YOU ARE NOT
12 SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
13 THE COURT: WELL, TELL ME ABOUT CHANGED
14 CIRCUMSTANCES AND HOW THIS COURT WOULD BE ABLE TO CONDUCT
15 SUCH A HEARING?
16 I KNOW IT’S PROBABLY A QUESTION YOU WOULD
17 RATHER PASS.
18 MR. LOW: NO.
19 THE COURT: BUT YOU RAISE IT YOURSELF.
20 YOU SAID YOU THINK THERE IS AUTHORITY FOR
21 THE PROPOSITION THAT THE COURT COULD CONDUCT SUCH A
22 HEARING.
23 MR. LOW: THE HEARING THAT I AM SUGGESTING IS ONE
24 IN WHICH YOU CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE OR SUSPEND
25 HIS LICENSE, NOT IN A BAIL REVIEW HEARING. I DON’T AGREE
26 WITH THAT.
27 THE HEARING I AM TALKING ABOUT IS THE ONES
28 YOU USUALLY SEE AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHERE THEN
23
1 THE BOARD WILL COME IN AND AT THAT POINT ASK A JUDGE TO
2 CONSIDER IT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL CASE. I
3 HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THOSE, AND THOSE HAPPEN QUITE
4 FRANKLY.
5 BUT THAT IS NOT A BAIL REVIEW CIRCUMSTANCE
6 WE ARE AT NOW. AND THERE IS NO CASE LAW PROHIBITING A
7 JUDGE FROM DOING THAT. THAT IS WHAT I AM REFERRING TO.
8 THE COURT: IF AND WHEN THERE IS A PRELIMINARY
9 HEARING IN THIS CASE, BASED UPON WHAT IS PRESENTED DURING
10 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, IS THIS COURT IN A POSITION THEN
11 TO REVISIT THE ISSUE BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
12 THEY ARE PRESENTED IN A FORMAL COURT PROCEEDING?
13 MR. LOW: IN MY OPINION, SIR, WE WOULD BE OBJECTING
14 TO IT THEN BECAUSE I NEED TO PRESERVE THOSE RIGHTS. BUT
15 I, ALSO, BELIEVE THAT IS A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS OCCURRING
16 HERE BECAUSE, LIKE I START OFF BY SAYING, THAT THIS IS
17 ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS.
18 AT THAT TYPE OF HEARING, NOW WE ARE HEARING
19 FACTS, AND WE ARE HEARING SUPPORT FOR ACCUSATIONS. AND WE
20 ARE HAVING A PROPER HEARING THAT IS NOT ON A BAIL REVIEW.
21 BUT IT IS ON A LICENSING ISSUE, AND THAT IS WHY I WANT TO
22 PREFACE MY STATEMENT EARLY BY SAYING WHAT IS IT WE ARE
23 HERE FOR EXACTLY. AND I AM GOING TO STAY AND STICK TO
24 THAT.
25 BUT I AM NOT TELLING YOU I DON’T WANT TO
26 ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I THINK YES, THAT AT THAT POINT, IF
27 THE JUDGE WANTS TO HAVE A HEARING BECAUSE SOMEONE FILED A
28 PROPER MOTION WITH THE PROPER AUTHORITY, WHICH I HAVE SEEN
24
1 BEFORE, THEN HE WOULD BE WITHIN HIS PURVIEW TO BE ABLE TO
2 DO THAT, SIR.
3 THE COURT: IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE
4 TO ADD?
5 MR. LOW: SIR, NO, SIR. I AM JUST HERE TO ANSWER
6 YOUR QUESTIONS.
7 THE COURT: AND YOU HAVE.
8 MR. LOW: THANK YOU.
9 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
10 DO OTHER COUNSEL DEFENSE COUNSEL WANT TO BE
11 HEARD?
12 MR. CHERNOFF, MR. FLANAGAN.
13 MR. CHERNOFF: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE THING, IF
14 YOU DON’T MIND.
15 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF.
16 MR. CHERNOFF: BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER
17 JUDGE SCHWARTZ HAD THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT HE DID, UNDER
18 GRAY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT HE DID NOT. BUT WE DID NOT
19 OBJECT TO IT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN HE MADE, WHEN HE MADE
20 THAT RECOMMENDATION, WHEN HE SAID THAT, THAT DOCTOR MURRAY
21 COULD NOT USE PROPOFOL, THE DEFENSE, IN ORDER TO PROCEED
22 THROUGH THE PROCESS AND AFTER DISCUSSION WITH DOCTOR
23 MURRAY, AGREED TO THAT PROPOSITION.
24 NOW HE DIDN’T DO THAT BECAUSE WE AGREED TO
25 IT. BUT I AM SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT WE DID NOT OBJECT TO
26 IT UNDER GRAY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT WHICH ALLOWED HIM AT
27 THAT POINT, I SUPPOSE, TO PUT IN THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
28 AT THE TIME THAT THE JUDGE HAD THE
25
1 INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DECISION, KEEP IN MIND THAT HE
2 DIDN’T JUST HAVE A NOTICE. HE HAD ARGUMENT. HE HAD
3 EVIDENCE. HE HAD A DECLARATION BY THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF
4 THE MEDICAL BOARD DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT DOCTOR MURRAY
5 WAS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. HE CONSIDERED ALL OF THAT
6 WHEN HE MADE HIS DECISION.
7 WE JUST — BUT ALL OF THAT IS BY GRAY VERSUS
8 SUPERIOR COURT STANDARDS NOT ENOUGH. SO WE DIDN’T OBJECT
9 TO IT, AND THAT’S WHY IT WENT THROUGH. AND WE STILL DON’T
10 OBJECT TO IT. WE STILL DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
11 THE COURT: WELL, THAT IS WHY I RAISED THE ISSUE
12 THAT IS THIS COURT AUTHORIZED TO SAY “I DON’T AGREE WITH
13 JUDGE SCHWARTZ; JUDGE SCHWARTZ DID NOT COMPLY WITH GRAY,
14 AND I AM GOING TO REMOVE IT?” DO I HAVE THAT AUTHORITY?
15 MR. CHERNOFF: YOU DO NOT.
16 THE COURT: WHY NOT?
17 MR. CHERNOFF: BECAUSE HE CONSIDERED ALL OF THE
18 EVIDENCE AND THE NOTICE AND THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED
19 BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THAT TIME IN MAKING HIS
20 DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE BAIL ISSUES.
21 THE — THE ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN HAVE
22 THE AUTHORITY UNDER GRAY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT BASED ON
23 WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PROVIDED YOU IS A DIFFERENT
24 ISSUE ALTOGETHER. THAT ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE IS,
25 EVEN IF YOU ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROCEED WITH
26 THIS MOTION, THE QUESTION IS UNDER GRAY, CAN YOU REALLY
27 TAKE AWAY THE DOCTOR’S MEDICAL LICENSE BASED ON AN
28 AFFIDAVIT, NO WITNESSES, AND ONLY ARGUMENT?
26
1 AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT’S NOT
2 POSSIBLE. I AM NOT SAYING THAT’S WHAT THE ATTORNEY
3 GENERAL INTENDS TO DO. BUT IF THEY WERE TO DO IT THAT
4 WAY, I DON’T BELIEVE UNDER GRAY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT YOU
5 COULD DO THAT. AND I DON’T THINK JUDGE SCHWARTZ COULD
6 THE COURT: CAN I DEFER THE ISSUE UNTIL A LATER
7 POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS, SPECIFICALLY AFTER I HAVE HAD
8 THE CHANCE TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE?
9 MR. CHERNOFF: ONLY UNDER THE LIMITATION YOU CAN DO
10 WHATEVER YOU — YOU ARE ONLY LIMITED BY ALBERTO.
11 THE COURT: WELL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGED
12 CIRCUMSTANCES.
13 MR. CHERNOFF: RIGHT.
14 THE COURT: AND ARGUABLY, IF AND WHEN THERE IS
15 EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, THAT PUTS US IN A VERY
16 DIFFERENT POSTURE, DOES IT NOT, THAN THE POSTURE WHERE WE
17 ARE LOCATED RIGHT NOW?
18 MR. CHERNOFF: I WILL SUBMIT TO YOU FROM A
19 PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT’S
20 PROVIDED TO YOU AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE
21 WITNESSES, EVIDENCE THAT RELATES DIRECTLY TO WHAT THE
22 MEDICAL EXAMINER — MEDICAL BOARD IS ARGUING THROUGH THE
23 ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY UNDER GRAY
24 VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT.
25 BUT GRAY VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT SAID, AS YOU
26 RECALLED, IT HINTED THAT THE TYPE OF ANALYSIS THAT IT
27 WOULD BE LOOKING FOR WASN’T JUST WHAT YOU WOULD BE, WHAT
28 WOULD BE PRESENTED TO YOU AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING BUT THE
27
1 ANALYSIS THAT THE MEDICAL BOARD ITSELF WOULD HAVE TO GO
2 THROUGH TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
3 AND THAT WOULD BE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
4 STANDARD. AND IT WOULD BE BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PROOF
5 AND A TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE MEDICAL BOARD WOULD HAVE
6 TO PRESENT FOR TO YOU DO THAT. BECAUSE SUPERIOR — GRAY
7 SAID, THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
8 SUSPENSION OF A MEDICAL LICENSE AND A BAIL CONDITION
9 PROHIBITING A DOCTOR FROM PRACTICING.
10 THE COURT: DOES ANY OF THIS PRECLUDE THE MEDICAL
11 BOARD FROM PROCEEDING ADMINISTRATIVELY AGAINST DOCTOR
12 MURRAY?
13 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT FOUR
14 MONTHS AGO, SIX MONTHS AGO, A YEAR AGO. THEY CAN DO THAT
15 TOMORROW. THEY CAN DO IT THROUGH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
16 THEY CAN DO IT THROUGH A FULL-BLOWN HEARING. THEY HAD
17 THAT OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO THEM. THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT
18 TO ACCEPT THAT.
19 AND SO THE PROTECTION THAT THE ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL IS ARGUING FOR COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL MONTHS AGO, AND IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT
22 YOU MONTHS FROM NOW. THEY JUST HAVEN’T DONE IT.
23 THE COURT: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CHERNOFF?
24 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. THAT IS ALL, JUDGE.
25 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN, YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN?
26 MR. FLANAGAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. I AM GOING TO
27 SUBMIT ON WHAT MY COLLEAGUES SAID.
28 THE COURT: MISS SAUNDERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
28
1 RESPOND TO ANYTHING THAT’S BEEN RAISED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL?
2 MS. SAUNDERS: I THINK THAT ALL OF THOSE ISSUES
3 HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE BRIEFING UNLESS YOUR HONOR
4 WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ANYTHING SPECIFIC.
5 THE COURT: I WOULDN’T.
6 IS IT SUBMITTED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD?
7 MS. SAUNDERS: IT IS SUBMITTED, YOUR HONOR.
8 THE COURT: BY THE DEFENSE?
9 MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS, JUDGE.
10 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
11 THERE IS OFTENTIMES IN THE REAL WORLD A
12 BELIEF THAT JUDGES CAN MAKE UP THE RULES AS THEY GO
13 THROUGH A CASE. AND IF THEY DON’T LIKE THE RULES, THEY
14 CAN CHANGE THEM.
15 AND WHAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT MAY
16 DO, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CHANGE. WHAT A TRIAL COURT OF
17 THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT IS ENTITLED TO DO AND WHAT
18 IS MANDATED TO DO IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW. AND THAT MEANS
19 FOLLOWING THE LAW AS THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE ARTICULATED
20 AND ENUNCIATED THE LAW, NOT THE WAY NECESSARILY A TRIAL
21 COURT MAY WANT IT TO BE.
22 AND EVERYDAY, WE ASK OF JURORS THAT TYPE OF
23 QUESTION. WE ASK THEM WHETHER THEY HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS
24 AND PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS ON A WHOLE HOST OF SUBJECTS AND
25 ACTUAL BELIEFS AND BIASES AND PREJUDICES ABOUT THE LAW.
26 AND WHAT WE POSE TO THEM IS THE QUESTION OF
27 WHETHER RECOGNIZING THOSE BIASES, BELIEFS, AND VIEWPOINTS
28 ABOUT EVIDENCE AND LAW, THEY NEVERTHELESS ARE PREPARED AND
29
1 PROMISED TO FOLLOW THE LAW DESPITE THEIR OWN OPINIONS.
2 THIS COURT, AS A TRIAL COURT, IS IN EXACTLY
3 THAT SAME POSITION. I AM A MEMBER OF A TRIBUNAL OF THE
4 L.A. SUPERIOR COURT. THERE ARE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF
5 JUDGES OF THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT.
6 AND THE QUESTION PRESENTED TO ME IS WHETHER
7 THIS COURT HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY AND LEGAL JURISDICTION TO
8 ADDRESS THE MOTION PRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
9 GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MEDICAL BOARD. NOT WHAT IT
10 THINKS PERSONALLY ABOUT THE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THIS CASE
11 BECAUSE MY OPINIONS ARE OF NO CONCERN.
12 THE ISSUE FIRST WAS RAISED ON THE 8TH OF
13 FEBRUARY. IT WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF BAIL REVIEW
14 CONDITIONS. MISS SAUNDERS IS CORRECT. THE OFFICE OF THE
15 ATTORNEY GENERAL MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THAT OFFICE
16 WAS APPEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING NOTICE.
17 THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT IS ENOUGH TO
18 ALLOW THIS COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY
19 OVER THE ISSUE PRESENTED OR WHETHER IT IS PRECLUDED FROM
20 DOING SO.
21 JUDGE SCHWARTZ ACCEPTED THE REPRESENTATION
22 OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT JUDGE SCHWARTZ ADDRESSED THE
23 ISSUE OF BAIL IN GREAT DETAIL. HE ADDRESSED THE VARIOUS
24 ISSUES OF BAIL THAT WERE RAISED BY THE PROSECUTION ON
25 BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NAMELY,
26 THE AMOUNT OF BAIL AND THE ISSUE OF RESTRICTING DOCTOR
27 MURRAY’S TRAVEL.
28 AND JUDGE SCHWARTZ RULED ON THE AMOUNT OF
30
1 BAIL. HE FOUND JUSTIFICATION FOR A BAIL DEVIATION UPWARDS
2 FROM THE BAIL SCHEDULE, ALBEIT NOT TO THE AMOUNT THAT THE
3 PEOPLE REQUESTED. BUT JUDGE SCHWARTZ MADE AN INDEPENDENT
4 DECISION BASED UPON THE OVERALL FACTS, AND HE ARTICULATED
5 REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE SAME.
6 JUDGE SCHWARTZ ALSO CONFISCATED DOCTOR
7 MURRAY’S PASSPORT AND IMPOSED OTHER RESTRICTIONS. AND
8 SPECIFICALLY, JUDGE SCHWARTZ TAILORED BAIL TO ADDRESS THE
9 ISSUE OF DOCTOR MURRAY’S MEDICAL PRIVILEGES BECAUSE
10 WITHOUT SUCH A TAILORING, DOCTOR MURRAY WOULD BE ALLOWED
11 AND ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS TO CONTINUE THE
12 PRACTICE OF MEDICINE UNABATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 BECAUSE HE’S VALIDLY LICENSED.
14 JUDGE SCHWARTZ ADDRESSED THAT. I DON’T
15 THINK THERE IS ANYWAY AROUND IT. JUDGE SCHWARTZ MADE
16 REFERENCE TO THE POSTURE OF THIS CASE, ALLEGATIONS. AND
17 SPECIFICALLY, HE SAID, “I HAVE ALREADY READ THE ATTORNEY
18 GENERAL’S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
19 AND THEN JUDGE SCHWARTZ WENT ON ONLY AFTER
20 THAT POINT TO ARTICULATE THE VERY SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS ON
21 DOCTOR MURRAY’S ABILITY TO PRACTICE MEDICINE. WHETHER
22 THERE IS JURISDICTION FOR SUCH AN ORDER OR NOT IS
23 SOMETHING BEYOND MY AUTHORITY BECAUSE I SIMPLY DON’T HAVE
24 THE ABILITY TO REVISIT THE ACTIONS OF ONE OF MY
25 COLLEAGUES.
26 AND I READ TO YOU AT THE BEGINNING AND I
27 WILL REREAD TO YOU THE LAW WHICH I MUST FOLLOW.
28 “FOR ONE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE NO MATTER HOW
31
1 WELL INTENTIONED EVEN IF CORRECT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO
2 NULLIFY A DULY MADE ERRONEOUS RULING OF ANOTHER SUPERIOR
3 COURT JUDGE PLACES THE SECOND JUDGE IN THE ROLE OF A ONE
4 JUDGE APPELLATE COURT.
5 “THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
6 THOUGH COMPRISED OF A NUMBER OF JUDGES, IS A SINGLE COURT.
7 AND ONE MEMBER OF THAT COURT CANNOT SIT IN REVIEW ON THE
8 ACTIONS OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THAT SAME COURT.”
9 STATED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE A
10 SUPERIOR COURT IS BUT ONE TRIBUNAL, AN ORDER MADE IN ONE
11 DEPARTMENT DURING THE PROGRESS OF A CAUSE CAN NEITHER BE
12 IGNORED NOR OVERLOOKED IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.
13 SO IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT THIS COURT
14 FEELS IT COULD NOT REVISIT THE ISSUE OF THE AMOUNT OF
15 BAIL, IF THE PEOPLE SAID “WE DON’T LIKE $75,000, WE WANT
16 PASTOR TO UP THE BAIL OR WE WANT DIFFERENT CONDITIONS” OR
17 FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SAY THAT OR FOR THE DEFENSE,
18 IN FACT, TO SAY, “YOUR HONOR, DOCTOR MURRAY’S BEEN OUT ON
19 BAIL, WE DON’T AGREE WITH JUDGE SCHWARTZ. WE THINK THE
20 BAIL SHOULD BE SET AT THE BAIL SCHEDULE,” I DO NOT HAVE
21 JURISDICTION TO REVISIT THIS TYPE OF ISSUE.
22 IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER I AGREE
23 WHOLEHEARTEDLY OR DISAGREE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IT
24 DOESN’T MATTER AT ALL. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LAW AND WITH
25 THIS COURT’S OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
26 SO I AM NOT GOING TO DECIDE THIS CASE ON ITS
27 MERITS OR THE MOTION FILED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD ON ITS
28 MERITS.
32
1 JUDGE SCHWARTZ ISSUED A SPECIFICALLY
2 TAILORED SET OF BAIL CONDITIONS. WHETHER THE DEFENSE, THE
3 PEOPLE, OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGREED OR DISAGREED AT
4 THAT POINT DOES NOT MATTER.
5 ARE THERE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES? THERE ARE
6 NOT. THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THIS COURT MAY HAVE FOUND ITS
7 WAY FROM AIRPORT TO DEPARTMENT 100 TO DEPARTMENT 107, AND
8 THAT IN GOOD FAITH, THE MEDICAL BOARD WANTED TO GIVE
9 DOCTOR MURRAY AND HIS COUNSEL MORE OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT
10 CONSTITUTE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN, AS FAR AS THIS
11 COURT IS CONCERNED, JUDGE SCHWARTZ EVALUATED ALL OF THAT
12 AT THE TIME OF THE ARRAIGNMENT IN THIS CASE.
13 THERE ARE NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR GOOD
14 CAUSE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY OR ENABLE THIS COURT TO MAKE UP
15 ITS OWN DECISION. I DON’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY. I CAN’T
16 EXERCISE JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OVER A MATTER WHICH
17 THIS COURT LEGALLY IS UNABLE TO DO.
18 THAT PARTICULAR OPINION OF MINE DOES NOT
19 MEAN THAT THIS COURT IS FOREVER BARRED FROM ADDRESSING THE
20 ISSUE. IF THERE SHOULD BE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE,
21 DURING, OR AFTER ANY FORMAL LEGAL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IN
22 THIS CASE, MOST SPECIFICALLY AT THE TIME OF THE
23 PRELIMINARY HEARING AND/OR BEFORE THE FILING OF ANY
24 INFORMATION, SHOULD THAT BE THE CASE, THE COURT CERTAINLY
25 WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE, FROM THE DEFENSE.
26 AND I WOULD GIVE THE MEDICAL BOARD PURSUANT
27 TO PENAL CODE SECTION 23 THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS
28 POSITION IN THIS MATTER.
33
1 ABSENT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, ABSENT GOOD
2 CAUSE FOR THE COURT TO REEVALUATE THE MATTER, I DO NOT
3 HAVE AUTHORITY. SO WHETHER I AM DENYING THE MOTION
4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR WHETHER I SIMPLY AM DEFERRING IT
5 ABSENT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN THAT EFFECT IS THE
6 SAME. AND THAT IS I CANNOT ALTER ANY OF THE CONDITIONS
7 IMPOSED BY JUDGE SCHWARTZ.
8 AND I SPECIFICALLY DO NOT HAVE LEGAL
9 AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND DOCTOR MURRAY’S MEDICAL LICENSE OR,
10 AS A CONDITION OF ANY BAIL IN THIS CASE, REQUIRE THAT
11 DOCTOR MURRAY CEASE AND/OR DESIST FROM THE PRACTICE OF
12 MEDICINE.
13 DOES THAT PRECLUDE THE MEDICAL BOARD FROM
14 PURSUING OTHER AVENUES ADMINISTRATIVELY? OF COURSE NOT.
15 THE MEDICAL BOARD IS AWARE THAT THERE ARE
16 OTHER PROCEDURES AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO IS THE DEFENSE. I
17 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE PROCEDURES OR PROTOCOLS. SO
18 IF THE MEDICAL BOARD WISHES TO PURSUE THOSE AVENUES, THEY
19 ARE ENTITLED TO DO SO.
20 IF THE MEDICAL BOARD THROUGH THE ATTORNEY
21 GENERAL’S OFFICE BELIEVE THAT I HAVE ERRED, IT WOULD NOT
22 BE THE FIRST TIME. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE ATTORNEY
23 GENERAL REPRESENTING THE MEDICAL BOARD TO SEEK A REVIEW OF
24 MY LEGAL DECISION BY WRIT OF MANDATE.
25 I AM NOT MAKING SPECIFIC FACTUAL
26 DETERMINATIONS IN THIS CASE. I AM MAKING LEGAL
27 DETERMINATIONS THAT I AM NOT EMPOWERED TO DO WHAT THE
28 MEDICAL BOARD WANTS. IF THE MEDICAL BOARD AND THE
34
1 ATTORNEY GENERAL FEEL THAT I HAVE ERRED, THEN A WRIT
2 PROCEEDING IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IS AN AUTHORIZED
3 PROCEEDING.
4 AND CERTAINLY CASE LAW AND GRAY AND ALBERTO
5 HAVE INDICATED THAT THAT IS AN AVENUE AVAILABLE TO THEM.
6 BUT THAT IS THE STATE OF THE CASE RIGHT NOW.
7 THANK YOU.
8 MS. SAUNDERS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
9 THE COURT: NOW.
10 MR. CHERNOFF: JUDGE, THANK YOU.
11 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF.
12 MR. CHERNOFF: WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE NOW?
13 WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS OF
14 THE CASE?
15 WE HAVE GOT AN AGREEMENT, MR. WALGREN AND I,
16 ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT NOW?
17 THE COURT: WELL, THERE WAS ONE ISSUE RAISED BY MR.
18 WALGREN WHEN LAST WE WERE IN COURT, AND THIS WAS IN
19 CHAMBERS. I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE
20 SHOULD BE ADDRESSING IN CHAMBERS, AT SIDEBAR, OR IN OPEN
21 COURT. BUT IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.
22 SO I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH
23 THAT NOW THAT I AM HOLDING UP THE APPLE TANTALUS.
24 MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T KNOW WHAT ISSUE YOU ARE
25 TALKING ABOUT.
26 THE COURT: I THINK MR. WALGREN DOES. SO IF YOU —
27 MR. CHERNOFF: ALL RIGHT.
28 OH, THAT ISSUE.
35
1 THE COURT: “OH, THAT ISSUE.”
2 MR. CHERNOFF: OH, OKAY.
3 THE COURT: THERE WAS AN ISSUE RAISED. I DON’T
4 KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME OR YOU WANT TO TALK
5 ABOUT SCHEDULING.
6 I NEED TO HAVE SOME IDEA WHERE WE HAVE BEEN
7 AND WHERE WE ARE GOING. I WOULD PREFER TO HEAR ISSUES
8 REGARDING DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE IN A MOTION TO CONTINUE OR
9 IN THIS COURTROOM AS OPPOSED TO FROM TMZ.
10 MR. CHERNOFF: YEAH. WELL, WE ARE NOT GOING TO
11 HAVE DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE ISSUES. BY THE WAY, I AM
12 ASSUMING YOU ARE REFERRING TO TMZ BECAUSE OF THE STORY
13 THAT WAS OUT IN THE PRESS RECENTLY?
14 THE COURT: YES.
15 MR. CHERNOFF: OKAY. WE NEVER SAID THAT, JUDGE.
16 THE COURT: FOR A MINUTE, I AM NOT SAYING YOU SAID
17 IT.
18 MR. CHERNOFF: YEAH. REMEMBER, THIS IS INTERNET
19 BLOG, RIGHT. IF THE A.P. SAID IT, I WOULD HAVE TO, I
20 WOULDN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BUT WE NEVER SAID THAT.
21 WE HAVE BEEN COOPERATING ON DISCOVERY. WE JUST HAVEN’T
22 GOTTEN IT YET. THAT IS NOT MR. WALGREN’S FAULT. HE’S
23 ABOUT TO CLEAN THAT UP TODAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. HE IS
24 GOING TO GIVE US ALL THE DISCOVERY THAT HE THINKS WE ARE
25 ENTITLED TO; IS THAT RIGHT?
26 MR. WALGREN: NO.
27 THE COURT: SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING FOR MR. WALGREN.
28 MR. CHERNOFF: AS OF THURSDAY, THAT’S WHAT WE ARE
36
1 GOING TO DO.
2 THE COURT: THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO SOMETHING
3 BEFORE A PRELIM. BUT UNDER OUR DISCOVERY STATUTES AND
4 UNDER CASE LAW, SPECIFICALLY UNDER UNITED STATES CASE LAW
5 DOCTRINE, I AM NOT SO SURE WHAT OBLIGATION THERE IS
6 PRE-PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR THE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THE
7 DEFENSE WITH DISCOVERY.
8 NOW IT GETS COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF WHETHER
9 THERE IS A FULL MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE IF
10 WE HAVE TO GET TO PRIOR STATEMENTS.
11 BUT I NEED TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO
12 LET ME HOLD OFF ON YOU FOR A SECOND MR. CHERNOFF.
13 MR. CHERNOFF: OKAY.
14 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN, WHAT IS THE STORY HERE?
15 MR. WALGREN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
16 THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS I DID — MR.
17 CHERNOFF DID GIVE ME CALL ON FRIDAY. WE DID DISCUSS
18 DISCOVERY, AND WE ARE GIVING HIM A LARGE AMOUNT OF
19 DISCOVERY TODAY. BUT I DID NOT REPRESENT THAT THAT’S
20 EVERYTHING. IN FACT, THE DISCOVERY PROCESS IS ONGOING.
21 THERE ARE REQUESTS TO THIRD PARTIES FOR DISCOVERY. WE ARE
22 WAITING TO GET THAT SO WE CAN COMPILE IT AND LOG IT AND
23 TURN IT OVER TO THE DEFENSE.
24 WE ARE TURNING OVER ABOUT 1,300 PLUS PAGES
25 TODAY AS WELL AS, I BELIEVE, 58 VARIOUS CD’S AND DVD’S.
26 I THINK WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER FINE IN THE
27 DISCOVERY, BUT IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. AND I JUST WANT
28 TO CLARIFY. I NEVER REPRESENTED THAT THIS WAS ALL THE
37
1 DISCOVERY.
2 THE COURT: WOULD YOU EXPECT THE DEFENSE TO BE
3 READY BASED UPON WHAT YOU HAVE TRANSMITTED TO THEM SO FAR?
4 MR. WALGREN: WELL, I DO KNOW, IN PARTICULAR, MR.
5 FLANAGAN MADE A REQUEST FOR CERTAIN RECORDS. WE HAVE IN
6 TURN MADE THE REQUEST OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES FOR
7 THOSE RECORDS. WE DON’T HAVE THEM YET. I WOULD THINK
8 THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD WANT THOSE BEFORE WE PROCEEDED.
9 SO I DO UNDERSTAND WHEN MR. CHERNOFF
10 REPRESENTED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE READY TO SET A DATE
11 TODAY IN REGARD TO THOSE PARTICULAR TOXICOLOGY RECORDS, I
12 UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD WANT THOSE. AND WE ARE COMPILING
13 THEM.
14 THE COURT: SO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
15 CALIFORNIA BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENSE IN GOOD FAITH IS
16 ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PREPARATION TIME BECAUSE THERE IS
17 GOOD CAUSE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS STILL ONGOING
18 DISCOVERY?
19 MR. WALGREN: I REPRESENTED TO MR. CHERNOFF WE
20 WOULD NOT BE OBJECTING TODAY IN LIGHT OF THOSE SPECIFIC
21 REQUESTS THAT THE PEOPLE FEEL THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE
22 THAT DISCOVERY. SO WE WILL NOT BE OBJECTING TO A BRIEF
23 CONTINUANCE TODAY.
24 OUR HOPE, HOWEVER, WAS NOT TO GO TOO FAR OUT
25 SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, PICK A REALISTIC DATE TO HOLD THE
26 PRELIMINARY HEARING. AND WE HAD NOT — SORRY, YOUR HONOR.
27 THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT A
28 REALISTIC START DATE FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS
38
1 CASE?
2 MR. WALGREN: WE ARE ZERO OF 90 TODAY, YOUR HONOR.
3 THAT WOULD GET US A REALISTIC START DATE OF SEPTEMBER.
4 THE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GO INTO OCTOBER AS A REALISTIC
5 START DATE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY
6 ANOTHER DELIVERY OF DISCOVERY IN THE COMING WEEKS.
7 THE COURT: THIS IS OCTOBER OF WHAT YEAR, PLEASE?
8 MR. WALGREN: THIS YEAR, YOUR HONOR.
9 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN, RECOGNIZING IT’S VERY
10 TOUGH TO ANTICIPATE THE FUTURE, DO YOU HAVE ANY REALISTIC
11 ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS
12 CASE?
13 MR. WALGREN: I THINK IT’S A BIT PREMATURE, YOUR
14 HONOR. DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH WE CHOOSE OR NOT CHOOSE TO
15 PURSUE VIA PROP. 115. I THINK CERTAINLY WITH —
16 THE COURT: AND PROP. 115 FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOME
17 OF US IS?
18 MR. WALGREN: TO HAVE WITNESSES, POLICE OFFICERS TO
19 COME IN AND TESTIFY BASED ON HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR, TO WHAT
20 OTHER WITNESSES MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SAID.
21 THE COURT: WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE AT A PRELIMINARY
22 HEARING.
23 MR. WALGREN: RIGHT.
24 THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME A RANGE?
25 MR. WALGREN: CERTAINLY A WEEK.
26 THE COURT: A WEEK?
27 MR. WALGREN: I WOULD THINK SO. BUT THESE ARE VERY
28 LOOSE NUMBERS AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. AND THIS IS AN
39
1 ONGOING INVESTIGATION WHERE WITNESSES CONTINUE TO BE
2 INTERVIEWED. SO IT’S VERY HARD TO GIVE A PRECISE ESTIMATE
3 TODAY.
4 THE COURT: SO YOU AND THE DEFENSE HAVE CONFERRED
5 ABOUT ANOTHER PRELIM SETTING DATE?
6 MR. WALGREN: WE DIDN’T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
7 SPEAK OF DATES, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVEN’T COMPARED
8 CALENDARS.
9 THE COURT: THAT ALWAYS TAKES LONGER THAN THE
10 ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE WHEN WE START TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
11 WHO IS AVAILABLE AND ON WHAT DATE. I AM HERE ALL THE
12 TIME. I HAVE GOT A FEW OTHER CASES THAT I HAVE TO DO, AND
13 THEY ARE VERY LENGTHY CASES.
14 ONE THING THAT’S ALWAYS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE
15 LONG CAUSE COURTROOMS IN THIS BUILDING IS THE ONLY THING
16 LONG ABOUT THEM IS HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THEM TO GET
17 GOING.
18 I WANT TO GIVE THIS CASE PRIORITY. IT’S A
19 VERY SERIOUS MATTER. IT’S A VERY SERIOUS MATTER FOR
20 DOCTOR MURRAY, VERY SERIOUS MATTER FOR THE JACKSON FAMILY,
21 FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AS WELL.
22 SO I AM MINDFUL OF THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND I
23 WANT TO MOVE THIS CASE AS QUICKLY AS I CAN. BUT AT THE
24 SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY AND HAVE
25 EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE.
26 SO WHY DON’T WE HEAR FROM MR. CHERNOFF, MR.
27 LOW, AND MR. FLANAGAN ABOUT THE NEXT APPEARANCE DATE AND
28 WHAT WE ARE THINKING REALISTICALLY.
40
1 MR. CHERNOFF: WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE PHONE — OF
2 COURSE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GOT THIS RIGHT BECAUSE I MAY
3 HAVE BEEN CONFUSED. BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
4 JULY WAS NOT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE FOR ME PERSONALLY. JULY
5 WAS CLOSED FOR ME PERSONALLY BECAUSE OF OTHER THINGS I
6 NEEDED TO DO, OTHER CASES, AND THE LIKE.
7 SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY AUGUST,
8 THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU COULD DO ON AN INTERIM SETTING
9 OF SOME SORT.
10 I SPOKE WITH MR. FLANAGAN AND MR. LOW ABOUT
11 THEIR SCHEDULES. I CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY THE WEEK THAT
12 EVERYBODY WILL BE AVAILABLE, THE WEEK OF THE 23RD.
13 THE COURT: OF AUGUST?
14 MR. CHERNOFF: OF AUGUST. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE
15 PROSECUTION WILL SAY ABOUT THAT.
16 THE COURT: I AM AVAILABLE ONLY ON THE 23RD AND
17 24TH.
18 MR. CHERNOFF: WE ARE AS WELL. WE ARE AVAILABLE ON
19 THOSE DAYS.
20 MR. WALGREN: THOSE DAYS ARE FINE FOR THE PEOPLE,
21 YOUR HONOR.
22 THE COURT: THAT’S GOING TO BE WHAT OF WHAT?
23 MR. LOW: IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR OCTOBER, ZERO OF
24 60.
25 THE COURT: ZERO OF 60?
26 MR. WALGREN: THAT WOULD BE FINE WITH THE PEOPLE,
27 YOUR HONOR.
28 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE DEFENSE?
41
1 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, THAT IS FINE, JUDGE.
2 THE COURT: I DO HAVE CASES LINED UP. IT JUST SO
3 HAPPENS A FEW OF THEM ARE CAPITAL CASES, AND THEY ARE VERY
4 OLD. SO I NEED A LITTLE BETTER IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE GOING
5 TO BE GOING AND A BETTER IDEA HOPEFULLY BETWEEN NOW AND
6 THE END OF AUGUST OF A REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATE.
7 MY HOPE — AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN
8 AUGUST — IS THAT IF WE DO HAVE A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT
9 BEGINS THAT THERE WOULD BE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS
10 PRELIMINARY HEARING SO I MIGHT BE IN A POSITION TO DO
11 SOMETHING BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
12 IF THE PRELIM IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN
13 THE ORDER OF 7 DAYS, THAT’S SOMETHING I CAN WORK IN. IF
14 IT’S GOING TO BE MUCH LONGER THAN THAT, IT CAN HAVE VERY
15 SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS IN TERMS OF MY TRIALS.
16 SO LET’S SET THIS FORTH 23RD OF AUGUST 2010.
17 MR. LOW, YOU ARE RAISING YOUR HAND.
18 MR. LOW: YES, SIR.
19 ALSO, JUST TO HELP YOU OUT WITH THAT, MAY WE
20 GO ZERO OF 90 AS OPPOSED TO ZERO OF 60. THAT GIVES YOU
21 MORE TIME IN NOVEMBER AND ACCOMMODATE YOUR CALENDAR.
22 THE COURT: NO. YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ME TIME. I
23 AM NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THAT. IF YOU WANT IT TO GO,
24 IT’S GOING TO GO. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I HOPE
25 EVERYONE WILL BE PROFESSIONAL, AS YOU HAVE BEEN.
26 SO LET’S TALK ABOUT THE 23RD OF AUGUST AS
27 ZERO OF 60. I THINK IT’S A GOOD IDEA THAT WE CONTINUE TO
28 HAVE APPEARANCES AT 12:30 IN THE AFTERNOON. IT AVOIDS THE
42
1 PROBLEMS OF THE COURTROOM CONGESTION IN THE EARLY MORNING
2 AND RIGHT AT NOON. IT GIVES THE SHERIFF A LITTLE BETTER
3 HANDLE ON HAVING EVERYBODY GET HERE AND AVOIDING TRAFFIC
4 PROBLEMS IN THE EARLY MORNING.
5 ARE THE PEOPLE OKAY WITH 12:30?
6 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
7 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE DEFENSE?
8 MR. CHERNOFF: WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT. THAT IS
9 FINE.
10 THE COURT: MAY I TAKE THE WAIVER, MR. CHERNOFF?
11 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
12 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
13 DOCTOR MURRAY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A SPEEDY
14 PRELIMINARY HEARING. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THAT SPEEDY
15 PRELIMINARY HEARING TODAY OR WITHIN 90 DAYS OF TODAY’S
16 DATE.
17 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT, SIR?
18 DEFENDANT MURRAY: YES, SIR.
19 THE COURT: DO YOU GIVE UP THAT RIGHT, SIR?
20 DEFENDANT MURRAY: YES, SIR.
21 THE COURT: DOCTOR MURRAY, DO YOU SPECIFICALLY GIVE
22 UP YOUR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL
23 MONDAY, THE 23RD OF AUGUST, 2010, OR WITHIN 60 DAYS
24 THEREAFTER?
25 DEFENDANT MURRAY: YES, SIR.
26 THE COURT: DO ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL JOIN, MR.
27 CHERNOFF?
28 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
43
1 THE COURT: MR. LOW?
2 MR. LOW: YES, SIR, I JOIN.
3 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN?
4 MR. FLANAGAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
5 THE COURT: THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT,
6 KNOWING, AND INTELLIGENT, FREE, AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY
7 DOCTOR MURRAY OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY
8 HEARING.
9 BEFORE I FORGET, MR. CHERNOFF, I BELIEVE YOU
10 WERE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE JUDGE ESPINOZA WITH SOME SPECIFIC
11 PROOF THAT THE $50 PRO HAC VICE FEE HAD BEEN PAID BECAUSE
12 I ACTUALLY SHOULD BE THE ONE TO JUST SIGN THE FORM.
13 SO CAN YOU GET ME A CANCELLED CHECK, PLEASE?
14 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
15 THE COURT: DID YOU PAY IT BY CREDIT CARD?
16 MR. CHERNOFF: JOSEPH DID IT.
17 MR. LOW: YES. I ACTUALLY HAD THAT PROOF LAST TIME
18 WE WERE IN COURT. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION WE WERE ALL
19 GOOD. I DOUBLE CHECKED.
20 THE COURT: FAX IT TO ME, PLEASE.
21 MR. LOW: YES, SIR.
22 THE COURT: BECAUSE I NEED TO SIGN THE ACTUAL
23 ORDER. I BELIEVE THE COURT DID FILE WITH THE COURT A
24 PROPOSED ORDER. JUDGE ESPINOZA ADDRESSED IT. BUT I NEED
25 TO ADDRESS IT. FAX A SEPARATE ORDER.
26 DO THE PEOPLE HAVE ANY OBJECTION?
27 MR. WALGREN: NO, YOUR HONOR.
28 MR. LOW: I WILL GET IT DONE TODAY, SIR.
44
1 THE COURT: WOULD YOU, PLEASE?
2 IS THERE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING
3 NOW IN CHAMBERS OR NOT? I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
4 ANYTHING OFF THE RECORD. SO THE QUESTION IS, IF THERE IS
5 SOME PENDING ISSUE, DO COUNSEL WANT TO DEFER IT UNTIL THE
6 23RD OF AUGUST OR ADDRESS IT NOW?
7 WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. WALGREN?
8 MR. WALGREN: I DON’T THINK THERE IS ANY PENDING
9 ISSUE.
10 MR. CHERNOFF: THERE IS NO PENDING ISSUE AT ALL.
11 THE COURT: THEN THAT IS THE WAY WE LEAVE IT.
12 ANYTHING ELSE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE?
13 MR. WALGREN: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE COURT: THANK YOU, MISS SAUNDERS.
15 MS. SAUNDERS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
16 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE?
17 MR. CHERNOFF: NO, YOUR HONOR.
18 THE COURT: THIS COURT IS IN RECESS.
19 THANK YOU, ALL. WE ARE IN RECESS.
20 BOND TO STAND.
21
22 (WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
23 AT 1:26 P.M. UNTIL AUGUST 23, 2010.)
24
25
26
27
28