Summary taken from Official Court Transcripts
DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,
PRESENT: EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, NAREG GOURJIAN,
DAVID WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND GOURJIAN. THE PEOPLE BY MR. WALGREN AND MS.
THE COURT: I GAVE COUNSEL A FEW EXTRA MINUTES THIS MORNING BECAUSE I SAW YOU TALKING. AN UPDATE FROM THE PEOPLE, MR. WALGREN?
MR. WALGREN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. A COUPLE MATTERS I THINK WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET CLARITY ON. INITIALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE THE PEOPLE RAISED ON MONDAY REGARDING PRESCRIPTION HISTORY OF CONRAD MURRAY. AND TO BE CLEAR, THIS WASN’T SOMETHING THE PEOPLE WERE SEEKING TO USE IN EVIDENCE. IT WAS SOMETHING WE WERE SEEKING GUIDANCE ON DISCLOSING TO THE DEFENSE, NOT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE INTEND ON USING IT. I HAVE SPOKEN TO MR. CHERNOFF THIS MORNING, AND A SUMMARY OF THOSE RECORDS THAT DOCUMENTS THE PRESCRIPTIONS AS IT RELATES TO MICHAEL JACKSON HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN BATES STAMPED PAGES 5653 AND 5654. I HAVE REVIEWED THAT SUMMARY AND THE RECORDS WITH MR. CHERNOFF THIS MORNING, AND HE CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT I THINK THEY ARE SATISFIED THAT THEY HAVE THE DISCOVERY AS IT RELATES TO ANY RELEVANT RECORDS OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND WE WON’T NEED TO GO ANY FURTHER WITH THAT ISSUE. IS THAT ACCURATE, MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND I WOULD TAKE IT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD WANT A PROTECTIVE ORDER ON THIS?
MR. CHERNOFF: WE DON’T HAVE ANY NEED, EVEN AS IT RELATES TO THE SUMMARY REPORT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN.
THE COURT: YES?
MR. WALGREN: RIGHT. IT CERTAINLY WOULDN’T HURT, BUT THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE PREVIOUSLY FOR THE RECORD.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I’M GOING TO ORDER THAT IT BE SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER, THAT NEITHER PARTY IN THIS CASE DISCLOSE ANY OF THE INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE RESPECTIVE TEAMS UNLESS AND UNTIL IT BECOMES NECESSARY. SO YOU HAD MENTIONED THERE MIGHT BE SOME RECORDS HAVING TO DO WITH THIRD PARTY PATIENTS?
MR. WALGREN: CORRECT.
THE COURT: THAT IS NOT ON THE TABLE ANYMORE.
MR. WALGREN: CORRECT. I THINK IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN INFORMED, AND WE HAVE COME TO AGREEMENT ON THAT.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. WALGREN: THERE ARE SOME OTHER MATTERS REGARDING SCHEDULING AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH I ASSUME THE COURT WOULD PREFER TO DO IN CHAMBERS. IN REGARD TO THE FORMAL DISCOVERY MOTION THE PEOPLE HAD FILED, WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM MR. CHERNOFF OFFERING MUCH GREATER LEVEL OF DETAIL AS TO THE STATUS OF THE WITNESSES. AND I DON’T KNOW IF THE COURT RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR FILING, IF THE FILING WAS PRESENTED TO COURT OR NOT.
MR. CHERNOFF: NO, WE DIDN’T PRESENT IT TO THE COURT.
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE IT.
MR. CHERNOFF: SURE.
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW WHAT ALL THAT MEANS. PEOPLE HAVE A VERY DETAILED FORMAL DISCOVERY MOTION WITH DIFFERENT FONTS, WITH DIFFERENT COLORS. I MENTIONED THOSE A FEW DAYS AGO, AND THE PEOPLE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE COURT GET INVOLVED. I DON’T WANT TO KEEP ON REVISITING THIS ISSUE. SO WHERE ARE WE IN TERMS OF THE BLUE, THE BLACK, AND THE RED THAT IS LISTED?
MR. WALGREN: WELL, AGAIN WE HAVE GOTTEN RESPONSES FROM THE DEFENSE IN REGARD TO THE 76. I BELIEVE THE 76 OUTSTANDING WITNESSES, WE HAVE RECEIVED A TIGHT RESPONSE FROM THE DEFENSE. WE ALSO ADDRESSED WITH THE DEFENSE ON SOME OF THE WITNESSES THAT HAD BEEN IN RED ON THE PEOPLE’S MOTION, FOR WHICH WE STATED THE DEFENSE HAD GIVEN US STATEMENTS, WE HAVE ASKED FOR CLARITY ON NO. 43, GRAHAM JONES, BECAUSE HE SIMPLY HAD SOME NOTES BUT NO REPORT. AND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE DEFENSE WILL NOT BE CALLING GRAHAM JONES. AND THEN WE HAVE ASKED FOR CLARITY ON JASON PHIFFER, NO. 71, AND COUNSEL INDICATED THEY EXPECT TO DO A FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW AND WILL GIVE US DISCOVERY ONCE THAT IS COMPLETED.
THE COURT: WHEN WILL THAT BE?
MR. CHERNOFF: THURSDAY OR FRIDAY.
THE COURT: OF THIS WEEK?
MR. CHERNOFF: OF THIS WEEK.
THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF EXPERTS THAT WAS RAISED IN ONE OF THE SECTIONS HERE.
MR. CHERNOFF: WE ANSWERED THAT AS WELL. JUDGE, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION, THOUGH?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. CHERNOFF: CAN WE NOT NAME THE PEOPLE IN THIS OPEN RECORD DISCUSSION, THE NAMES OF WITNESSES IN THIS OPEN RECORD DISCUSSION?
THE COURT: WHY NOT?
MR. CHERNOFF: I THOUGHT YOU HAD MADE THE WITNESS LIST — I THOUGHT YOU HAD SEALED THAT. IT WASN’T FILED. YOU DIDN’T WANT US TO FILE IT. WE DIDN’T DO IT. NOW WE HAVE THEM ALL LISTED.
THE COURT: I DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF THERE IS SOME OTHER ISSUES. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IN CAMERA IF IT IS A MATTER FOR IN CAMERA DISCUSSION. AT SOME POINT WE NEED A WITNESS LIST, OBVIOUSLY, TO INCORPORATE INTO THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE.
MR. CHERNOFF: IF YOU ARE OPENING IT UP, OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU HAD INSTRUCTED THAT TO REMAIN SECRET. BUT IF THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE DOING ANYMORE, THEN SO BE IT.
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW. WHAT IS THE PEOPLE’S POSITION ON THIS?
MR. WALGREN: WE DON’T HAVE A NEED TO NECESSARILY LIST BY NAME. AS LONG AS WE DO IT BY NUMBER, WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THE COURT: THAT IS FINE. BUT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT ONE ASPECT OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT, SECTION B, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE PEOPLE HAVE RECEIVED NO DISCOVERY REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEFENSE EXPERTS. IS IT DEFENSE POSITION THAT, IN FACT, ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND IT IS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH?
MR. CHERNOFF: WE TOLD THEM WHO OUR EXPERTS WILL BE. THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE OF THOSE EXPERTS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THAT.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE MET YOUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATION.
MR. CHERNOFF: I TOLD YOU ON TUESDAY, WE WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNEW WHAT WAS COMING. I MADE IT CLEAR TO THEM WHAT IS COMING, AND I DON’T INTEND TO DO ANY MORE THAN WHAT I TOLD THEM IN THE WRITTEN RESPONSE I FILED YESTERDAY. I HOPE THAT IT IS TO THEIR SATISFACTION. IF IT ISN’T, THEN CERTAINLY I’LL RESPOND TO ANY FURTHER ORDERS.
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON’T PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING MORE. THAT IS BECAUSE YOU FEEL WHAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED IS THOROUGH, AND COMPLETE, AND ACCURATE, AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THERE REALLY ISN’T ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE?
MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, LOOK, HERE WHAT IS I’M SAYING.
THE COURT: I’D LIKE TO LOOK, OKAY.
MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, OKAY. LET ME RESPOND. JUDGE, DON’T ASK ME IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT ANOTHER WITNESS WILL SHOW UP, ANOTHER EXPERT WILL SHOW UP. WHAT I’M TELLING YOU, I DON’T EXPECT IT TO EVER HAPPEN. I TOLD THEM WHO OUR EXPERT WITNESSES ARE. HERE WE ARE 30 DAYS PRIOR TO US QUALIFYING A JURY. I HAVE NO OTHER EXPECTATIONS OF THAT OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE. NOW, IF THE PROSECUTION COMES DOWN WITH ANOTHER EXPERT, I CAN’T TELL YOU THAT WON’T CHANGE THINGS; OR IF SOMETHING UNUSUAL OCCURS DURING THE PROCESS, I CAN’T TELL YOU THAT WON’T CHANGE THINGS. BUT I HAVE NO EXPECTATIONS OF THAT HAPPENING.
THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT I’M ASKING.
MR. CHERNOFF: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: AND FROM THE PEOPLE’S STANDPOINT?
MR. WALGREN: YES. AND AGAIN, WE DID GET A DETAILED RESPONSE FROM THE DEFENSE, AND WE APPRECIATE IT. I THINK AT THIS STEP WE ARE SATISFIED. MANY OF THE WITNESSES, IN FACT NO CONTACT HAS BEEN MADE OR NO STATEMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN. I TRUST THAT IF THAT STATUS CHANGES AND STATEMENTS ARE TAKEN, WE WILL GET THE DISCOVERY. SO WE ARE SATISFIED TODAY WITH THE DEFENSE RESPONSE.
THE COURT: NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE’S OBLIGATION. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS OUT THERE FROM THE PEOPLE?
MR. WALGREN: I BELIEVE WE HAVE PROVIDED EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT, AUDIO, VIDEO, IN OUR POSSESSION. CERTAINLY, IF NEW INTERVIEWS TAKE PLACE, THAT WILL BE TURNED OVER IMMEDIATELY.
THE COURT: SO IT IS THE POSITION OF EACH SIDE THAT EACH SIDE HAS MET ITS DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AS OF THIS DATE, THE 10TH OF AUGUST 2011, 29 DAYS BEFORE JURY SELECTION IS SUPPOSED TO START. AND EACH SIDE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PENAL CODE SECTION 1054. IS THAT THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PEOPLE?
MR WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: BY THE DEFENSE?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, IT IS.
THE COURT: EACH PARTY APPEARS TO BE SATISFIED WITH THE OTHER’S RESPONSE. ONCE AGAIN, AS COUNSEL KNOW AND AS IS PART OF MY ORDER, THIS IS A CONTINUING DISCOVERY OBLIGATION WHICH MEANS THAT IF AND WHEN COUNSEL BECOME AWARE OF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY WAY OF THE WITNESSES, BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS, ADDITIONAL ISSUES, COUNSEL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE THAT TO OPPOSING COUNSEL. IS THAT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PEOPLE?
MR. WALGREN: IT IS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: BY THE DEFENSE?
MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS.
THE COURT: I DID RECEIVE YESTERDAY A FAX FROM MR. GOURJIAN, THE DEFENSE PROPOSALS REGARDING A QUESTIONNAIRE. I NOTE THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES WITH THE PEOPLE’S. SO DID THE PEOPLE GET IT?
MR. WALGREN: NO, YOUR HONOR. MR. CHERNOFF HAS INDICATED HE WILL E-MAIL A COPY.
MR. CHERNOFF: WE DID GIVE IT TO HIM THIS MORNING. WHAT I TOLD HIM, JUDGE, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE COLORED THE SECTIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE PROSECUTION’S FOR EASE, FOR YOUR EASE AND EXTERN’S EASE.
THE COURT: THAT DIDN’T COME THROUGH ON THE FAX.
MR. CHERNOFF: NO, IT DIDN’T COME THROUGH ON THE FAX. AND WE GAVE THE PEOPLE A COPY OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BUT IT ALSO IS NOT COLORED, BUT I TOLD THEM WHEN I GOT TO THE AIRPORT I WOULD E-MAIL THEM THIS EXACT THING SO THEY COULD SEE THAT. THIS IS YOUR COPY, AND WE ALSO PUT IT ON CD FOR THOSE PURPOSES. BUT THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE FULL QUESTIONNAIRE WE PROPOSED. IT IS JUST NOT COLOR CODED FOR THEM LIKE IT IS FOR YOU.
THE COURT: IF YOU E-MAIL IT TO THEM, HOW WILL THEYKNOW THE COLOR?
MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS THE AMAZING WORD PERFECT. YOU GUYS HAVE WORD, RIGHT?
MR. WALGREN: YES.
MR. CHERNOFF: THEY WILL HAVE IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I NOTED THAT ON THE PEOPLE’S SUBMISSION, THE PEOPLE INDICATED THERE MIGHT BE SOME FONT AND GRAMMATICAL ISSUES. THERE ARE A LOT OF DOUBLE SPACES, AND I THINK WE CAN MAKE THEM SINGLE SPACES TO CONDENSE.
MR. WALGREN: YES.
THE COURT: WITHIN AN INDIVIDUAL QUESTION, FOR INSTANCE, IF IT GOES OVER ONE LINE, THE SECOND LINE WAS DOUBLE-SPACED, I BELIEVE, RIGHT?
MR. WALGREN: YES. I THINK WHEN WE GET A MORE FINAL COPY, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE SUSPECTED THERE MAY BE SUBMISSIONS BY THE DEFENSE WHICH COULD CHANGE THE FORMATTING, SO I THINK THAT TYPE OF FINE-TUNING WE WILL RESERVE TO THE VERY END ONCE WE HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE VERY END BUT, YES, BECAUSE I’LL GET INVOLVED IN IT FROM MY STANDPOINT.
MR. WALGREN: EACH TIME WE SUBMIT A NEW ONE, WE WILL ALTER THE NUMBER AND SPACING. WE WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL WE GOT THE SUBSTANCE FINALIZED.
THE COURT: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COUNSEL BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING IN CHAMBERS ON A CONFIDENTIAL NOTE REGARDING ANYTHING ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE OR ANY OTHER ISSUES IN THIS CASE? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
MR. WALGREN: IT IS PROBABLY PREMATURE TO GET INTO THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNTIL WE GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DEFENSE PROPOSALS. I THINK IF THE COURT WANTED TO DISCUSS SCHEDULING IN CHAMBERS, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
THE COURT: OKAY, WE CAN DISCUSS IT IN CHAMBERS. DOESN’T MEAN IT WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT IT MAY BE MORE CONVENIENT. WE ARE PLANNING ON HAVING JURY SELECTION COMMENCE ON THURSDAY, THE 8TH OF SEPTEMBER. THAT IS STILL THE GO DATE. PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT?
MR. WALGREN: YES.
THE COURT: AND, MR. CHERNOFF, I KNOW YOU ARE TALKING TO MS. BRAZIL.
MR. CHERNOFF: I’M SORRY.
THE COURT: THE 8TH OF SEPTEMBER IS OUR GO DATE FOR THE FIRST PANEL OF JURORS?
MR. CHERNOFF: YES, JUDGE.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO GO IN CHAMBERS FOR A LITTLE BIT? I HAVE A JURY COMING BACK ON ANOTHER CASE IN A FEW MINUTES, ABOUT 15 MINUTES. BUT THAT APPEARS TO CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IF THERE ARE ANY MATTERS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS THAT ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, I THINK THOSE WILL BE AVAILABLE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE CONFIDENTIAL. WHEN SHOULD WE BE COMING BACK, PLEASE. I STILL WANT TO KEEP A SHORT LEASH ON THIS CASE.
MR. WALGREN: COULD WE MAYBE COME BACK ON THE RECORD IN A FEW MINUTES ONCE WE HAVE A CONVERSATION IN CHAMBERS.
THE COURT: SURE. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS MATTERS IN CHAMBERS AND WE WILL COME BACK ON THE RECORD AND SET A NEW STATUS DATE. THANK YOU.
(FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CHAMBERS)
THE COURT: WE ARE ON THE RECORD IN PEOPLE VERSUS MURRAY, AND WE HAVE MR. WALGREN, MS. BRAZIL, MR. GOURJIAN AND MR. CHERNOFF PRESENT. GOOD MORNING. I’VE BEEN HANDED WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE DEFENSE SUBMISSION ON VERY EXPENSIVE HEAVY-WEIGHT PAPER WITH, I GUESS, AREAS DESIGNATED THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY. I GUESS THEY ARE IN GREEN, IS IT?
MR. CHERNOFF: THEY ARE NOT ALL NEW STUFF. SOME IS JUST ARRANGED DIFFERENTLY. BUT, YES, IT IS IN GREEN ON YOUR COPY, JUDGE.
THE COURT: OKAY. I WANT TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MATERIALS AS WELL.
MR. CHERNOFF: WHAT WE HAVE DONE, JUDGE, I KNOW WE HAD A RECORDABLE CD TO GIVE YOU. INSTEAD I GAVE IT TO MS. BRAZIL, WHO IS GOING TO TAKE IT FROM THERE, RIGHT?
MS. BRAZIL: I CAN PRINT OUT THE CHANGES THAT YOU SUGGESTED IN COLOR.
MR. CHERNOFF: SHE WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE, AND THEN WE WILL GET YOU A COPY AT THAT POINT. SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO WAIT FOR ME TO E-MAIL IT TO THEM.
THE COURT: THE DEFENSE QUESTIONNAIRE IS 37 PAGES. I THINK THE PEOPLE’S WAS 28. SO LET’S JUST TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT IS NEW AND DIFFERENT, AND WE WILL ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT. FORTUNATELY, WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, WE HAVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF TIME.
MR. WALGREN: SCHEDULING, YOUR HONOR. WE WERE DISCUSSING IT BRIEFLY. I ANTICIPATE WE WILL NEED THREE DAYS AS WE DID LAST TIME. AT LEAST FROM THE PEOPLE’S POINT OF VIEW, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE 8TH, 9TH, AND 12TH FOR QUESTIONNAIRES. AND THEN ONCE THEY ARE ALL COMPILED AND NUMBERED BY THE COURT, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO PHOTOCOPY ALL THESE AND GET THEM TURNED OVER. THE PEOPLE’S CONCERN IS THAT FOR A DATE TO COMMENCE VOIR DIRE AND THEN FOLLOWING OPENING STATEMENT, WE WOULD LIKE A DATE CERTAIN FOR OPENING STATEMENT AS OPPOSED TO A FLOATING DATE FOLLOWING VOIR DIRE. WE NEED TO MAKE TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS AND CALL WITNESSES. SO WE WERE HOPING TO ADDRESS SCHEDULING WITH THE COURT IN THAT REGARD AS FAR AS THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK. COUNSEL HAS INDICATED THEY NEED AT LEAST A WEEK, WHICH I DON’T THINK IS UNREASONABLE. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME REQUEST TO GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONNAIRE. AS SOON AS WE GET THEM TO THE DEFENSE IS PROBABLY — IF WE FINISH THE 12TH, I KNOW LAST TIME WE DIDN’T GET THEM FROM THE COURT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, WHICH WOULD BE ACTUALLY THE 13TH. THAT TAKES ABOUT TWO DAYS TO COPY THEM, GETTING THEM TO THE DEFENSE. THEY WILL PROBABLY GET THEM THE 15TH, 16TH, ON THAT THURSDAY, FRIDAY. IF WE HAVE THE NEXT WEEK FOR REVIEW, WE WERE THINKING POSSIBLY THE WEEK OF THE 26TH FOR TWO DAYS OR ONE DAY, PLUS A BUFFER DAY, HOWEVER THE COURT ANTICIPATED IT GOING, OF VOIR DIRE, THEN OPENING STATEMENTS MEANING THE 28TH, A WEDNESDAY. I’D ASK WE KIND OF DISCUSS KIND OF INFORMALLY BEFORE THE CASE IS CALLED.
MR. CHERNOFF: YOU MENTIONED TO ME THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DOING OPENING STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER VOIR DIRE. THAT WOULD KIND OF PUT YOU IN THAT POSTURE. IT WAS THE 26TH AND 27TH YOU WOULD VOIR DIRE. IF YOU DO OPENING ON THE 28TH, THAT GIVES US NO BUFFER.
MR. WALGREN: RIGHT. THAT IS WHY I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE VOIR DIRE SCHEDULE. AGAIN, OUR CONCERN IS KIND OF A DATE CERTAIN FOR OPENING STATEMENTS TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WITNESSES TO BE ABLE TO GO. AND IF WE HAVE A FLOATING DATE THAT WE WILL START WHENEVER WE FINISH VOIR DIRE, IT IS A BIT PROBLEMATIC WITH OUT-OF-STATE WITNESSES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. ALSO JUST THE WHOLE COMPLEXITY AND SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS IN THIS CASE.
THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE THE COURT BEGAN, AND I AGREE WITH MR. WALGREN. WE ARE PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT ON ALL OF THAT.
THE COURT: I WAS HOPING, PERHAPS AGAINST HOPE, THAT WE COULD HAVE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF JURORS BY THE 9TH AND WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO OVER TO THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY. THAT MAY BE OPTIMISTIC. JUROR SERVICES CERTAINLY IS PREPARED TO DEVOTE THREE DAYS TO THE PROCEDURE WE HAVE UTILIZED BEFORE, STARTING ON A THURSDAY, GOING TO FRIDAY, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING MONDAY. MONDAYS ARE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT DAYS IN THIS BUILDING. THERE ARE A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF CASES AND TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF JURORS COMING IN GENERALLY. SO LOGISTICALLY, IT IS A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT DAY THAN THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. IF THAT HAPPENS, THAT HAPPENS. I JUST DON’T KNOW WHY YOU NEED SUCH A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME TO REVIEW THE QUESTIONNAIRES.
MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS REALLY BURDENSOME. FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE GOT — YOU HAVE TO CONDENSE EACH QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE IMPORTANT POINTS SO THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY HAVE ANALYSIS DONE. IT TAKES A LONG TIME. IN FACT, THE WEEK WE GOT LAST TIME, WE ONLY GOT THROUGH THE FIRST HUNDRED. WE WERE LITERALLY, BY THE TIME WE GOT THROUGH THAT WEEK, WE HAD A HUNDRED. WE HAD 50 OR 60, HOWEVER MANY LEFT, WE STILL HADN’T GONE THROUGH. I’M GUESSING THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME EXPERIENCE AS WE HAD. IT IS REALLY BURDENSOME.
MR. WALGREN: PEOPLE ARE IN AGREEMENT. ALSO, YOUR HONOR, IT TIES IN WITH THE NEED FOR THE THIRD DAY. IF THE COURT RECALLS, WE HADN’T — DEFENSE HADN’T FINISHED REVIEWING, AS MR. CHERNOFF JUST SAID, THAT THIRD PACKET. PRESUMABLY, A LOT OF JURORS WOULD HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED FOR CAUSE FROM THAT THIRD PACKET. I DON’T THINK IN ANY WAY WE ENDED UP WITH TOO MANY JURORS. I THINK THE THIRD DAY WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL BE NECESSARY THIS TIME. SO I THINK IT IS OVERLY OPTIMISTIC TO THINK WE COULD DO IT IN TWO DAYS. I THINK THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, AND I THINK WE END UP WASTING TIME BY TRYING TO SHORTEN IT INTO TWO DAYS. IF WE JUST ACCEPT IT AS THREE DAYS, IT WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT.
THE COURT: THEN YOU GET THE QUESTIONNAIRES BY THE VERY END OF THE DAY OF MONDAY, THE 12TH.
MR. WALGREN: ASSUMING EVERYTHING GOES — I MEAN, LAST TIME WE DIDN’T BECAUSE THERE WERE PROBLEMS. WE GOT THEM THE END OF THE WHOLE NEXT DAY.
THE COURT: THAT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I DON’T THINK WE COUNTED ON IT. IT WAS A REAL SHOCKER, AND I DON’T THINK WE WILL RUN ACROSS THAT AGAIN. SO I REALLY THINK YOU WILL GET THE QUESTIONNAIRES AT CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MONDAY, THE 12TH. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE CAN COME BACK THE FOLLOWING MONDAY. I’M GOING TO BE OFF ON FRIDAY, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU, FRIDAY, THE 16TH, IS IT?
MR. CHERNOFF: YOU SAID THE 15TH, DIDN’T YOU?
MR. WALGREN: 16TH.
MR. CHERNOFF: BECAUSE IT IS A FRIDAY, RIGHT.
THE COURT: IT SEEMS TO ME YOU HAVE TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY.
MR. WALGREN: THE DEFENSE CERTAINLY WON’T HAVE THEM.
MR. CHERNOFF: I’LL BE ACTUALLY IN L.A. I HAVE TO FLY OUT ON THURSDAY. I TOLD YOU, I HAVE TO BE IN HOUSTON FOR A HEARING.
THE COURT: ON THE 16TH?
MR. CHERNOFF: RIGHT. I HAVE A LAWYER THAT I’M REPRESENTING. SO I HAVE TO FLY OUT ON THE 15TH, GET THERE, PREPARE, HAVE A HEARING ON THE 16TH, THEN COMEBACK. THAT IS A WHOLE DAY I’M NOT GOING TO BE HERE. JUST LIKE YOU, I’LL BE IMMERSED IN SOMETHING ELSE.
MR. WALGREN: WE NEED TO COPY THEM. THEY WILL NOT HAVE THEM BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
MR. CHERNOFF: NOT ON THE 12TH. THERE IS NO WAY.
MR. WALGREN: I THINK THE SOONEST WOULD BE THE 15TH. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF QUESTIONNAIRES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE MULTIPLE COPIES ON. IT ISN’T SOME PRIVATE SERVICE DOING IT FOR US. IT IS US. IT TAKES QUITE A BIT OF TIME.
THE COURT: I JUST SEE THE FIRST ROUND OF JURORS WILL BE HERE ON THE 8TH, AND YOU ARE TELLING ME THE EARLIEST YOU BELIEVE IS REASONABLY APPROPRIATE IS THE 28TH?
MR. WALGREN: THE WEEK OF THE 26TH. THE 26TH BEING A MONDAY.
THE COURT: THEN AGAIN, THE TIME FRAME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 35, 30 TO 45 DAYS. THAT IS FOUR TO SIX COURT WEEKS. THAT IS HOW WE ARE ESTIMATING THAT.
MR. WALGREN: I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THREE TO FOUR WEEKS.
THE COURT: I HAVE ALSO FELT IT WAS SHORTER. I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MOST RECENT DEFENSE DISCOVERY. THAT IS A LONG, LONG TIME.
MR. CHERNOFF: I THINK IT IS — IN TEXAS, WE HAVE WIDE OPEN CROSS. I KNOW YOU HAVE CROSS THAT IS LIMITED TO SCOPE OF DIRECT. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF WITNESSES THAT IF WE HAVE TO RECALL IN OUR CASE, WE MAY BE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF TIME. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON’T SEE OUR CASE WILL TAKE THAT LONG.
THE COURT: I WANT TO BE REALISTIC IN TERMS OF THE ESTIMATE BECAUSE THE LAST TIME WE TOLD THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WE WERE LOOKING AT UP TO A 60-DAY TIME. EVERY TIME YOU ADD ON AN EXTRA FIVE, SEVEN, TEN DAYS, YOU ARE MAKING IT MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO SERVE. I WANT TO BE REALISTIC. I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT TO DUPE THE JURORS INTO SERVING ON A CASE WHERE THE TIME ESTIMATE IS ABSOLUTELY WAY TOO SHORT. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, I DON’T WANT TO INCREASE IT.
MR. WALGREN: I THINK AT THIS STAGE, THREE TO FOUR WEEKS IS REALISTIC.
THE COURT: 20 COURT DAYS.
MR. CHERNOFF: FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.
MR. WALGREN: FOR EVERYTHING.
MR. CHERNOFF: REALLY?
THE COURT: WELL, I’LL TELL YOU.
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.
THE COURT: YOU KNOW WHAT. I DON’T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW. WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK MAYBE THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK. I WANT TO BE MORE DEFINITIVE, BUT I NEED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH JUROR SERVICES AND WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPUTY AS WELL IN TERMS OF OUR SCHEDULE. I DON’T WANT TO HAMMER YOU FOLKS. I WANT YOU TO HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE QUESTIONNAIRES. I’M AWARE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THEM. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, I DON’T WANT A TREMENDOUS LAPSE BETWEEN THE TIME WE ARE MEETING THE JURORS AND THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE THAT JUST BUILDS IN ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE’S SCHEDULES CHANGING, AND PEOPLE WHO MAY BE AVAILABLE AT ONE POINT NOT BEING AVAILABLE LATER ON BECAUSE OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME. WHAT ARE YOUR SCHEDULES LIKE THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK SO WE CAN GET A LITTLE FIRMER HANDLE ON THIS AND YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONNAIRES AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK, IF I MAY, THE WEEK OF THE 15TH.
MR. CHERNOFF: DO YOU WANT TO DO IT ON MONDAY, OR TUESDAY, OR CAN IT BE A WEDNESDAY?
THE COURT: I PREFER IT AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE MOST, RATHER THE QUICKEST RESPONSE.
MR. WALGREN: MONDAY IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.
THE COURT: MONDAY, THE 15TH. THAT WAY, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE QUESTIONNAIRES.
MR. CHERNOFF: I’LL BE HERE.
THE COURT: MONDAY, THE 15TH.
MR. CHERNOFF: THE 15TH IS FINE. THE ONLY – I HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE COST OF PLANE TICKETS WHEN YOU SCHEDULE THESE THINGS. I’M NOT SAYING THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN AVOID. BUT THE LONGER IT TAKES, THE CHEAPER IT IS.
THE COURT: SOMETIMES, YES. SOMETIMES, NO. I’M NOT INSENSITIVE TO THAT, MR. CHERNOFF. IT IS EXPENSIVE TRAVELING. WE CAN DO IT TELEPHONICALLY.
MR. CHERNOFF: THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE.
THE COURT: MONDAY, THE 15TH. LET’S MAKE IT NINE O’CLOCK. WE WILL SET UP A CONFERENCE CALL AT 9:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, THE 15TH OF AUGUST, TO DISCUSS FUTURE SCHEDULING ISSUES. I’M THINKING YOUR SUGGESTION IS TOO FAR OUT. THAT IS JUST MY GUT AT THIS POINT, BUT LET’S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE ALL PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVEN’T DISCUSSED ANY SUBSTANTIVE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. WE MAY BE DISCUSSING THEM AT A LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN IT COMES TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE. SO THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHILE CONDUCTED IN CHAMBERS, ARE BEING REPORTED. AND AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PUBLIC AND THE TRANSCRIPT CAN BE PROVIDED. ALL RIGHT. 9:00 A.M. ON THE 15TH, BY PHONE.
MR. CHERNOFF: THANKS, JUDGE.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
(FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE MURRAY CASE. ONCE AGAIN, ALL COUNSEL ARE PRESENT. COUNSEL AND I HAD A DISCUSSION REGARDING SCHEDULING. AND IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASIER ON COUNSEL, BECAUSE OF THEIR OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AND TRAVEL TIME, AND BECAUSE WE ARE SIMPLY GOING TO BE DISCUSSING SCHEDULING, WE ARE SETTING THE MATTER ON THE 15TH OF AUGUST AT 9:00 A.M. FOR A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL. THIS PHONE CALL WILL BE ON THE RECORD UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SENSITIVE. BUT IT WILL BE BY TELEPHONE IN CHAMBERS AND, IN ESSENCE, ALL WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING IS SCHEDULING. RIGHT NOW, THE PLANS ARE TO HAVE JURY SELECTION ON THE 8TH AND THE 9TH, AND MOST POSSIBLY THE 12TH OF SEPTEMBER. WE WILL BE GETTING THE FULL NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES BY THE END OF THE DAY ON THE 12TH. JUROR SERVICES THEN WILL BE RANDOMIZING THE QUESTIONNAIRES AND
THE JURORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE PART OF THE POOL IN THIS CASE; NAMELY, THOSE JURORS WHO ARE NOT EXCUSED FOR HARDSHIP. WE SHOULD HAVE THAT LIST BY PROBABLY SOMETIME ON THE 13TH OF SEPTEMBER. IT DOES TAKE A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRES TO BE PHOTOCOPIED. USUALLY TAKES SEVERAL DAYS. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, IN ESSENCE, IS TO HAVE COUNSEL REVIEW THE MATERIALS. THE PROPOSAL IS TO REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES THAT WEEK AND FOR PERHAPS THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK OF THE 19TH, WE WOULD BE ENGAGED IN JURY SELECTION IN TERMS OF FORMAL VOIR DIRE IN THE COURTROOM SOMETIME DURING THE WEEK OF 19TH. THE PEOPLE ARE PROPOSING THAT OPENING STATEMENTS BE ON —
MR. WALGREN: DURING THE WEEK OF THE 26TH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND THE DEFENSE FEELS THAT IS A VERY REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATE, MR. CHERNOFF?
MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO.
THE COURT: I HAVE INDICATED I MAY THINK OF SHORTENING A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE WILL BE DISCUSSING WHEN WE COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THIS BY TELEPHONE. SO THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WILL BEGIN ON THE 8TH. IT DEPENDS ON HOW THAT GOES IN TERMS OF PHOTOCOPYING AND REVIEW OF THE MATERIALS, BUT POTENTIALLY OPENING STATEMENTS THE WEEK OF THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER. THAT MAY CHANGE. AND AS SOON AS WE GET A BETTER IDEA, WE WILL SHARE IT WITH EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT?
COUNSEL AND I WILL BE CONVERSING ON MONDAY, THE 15TH OF AUGUST, 9:00 A.M., AND WE WILL HAVE FURTHER WORD BASED UPON THAT. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
You must be logged in to post a comment.