JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE CAN BE SEEN HERE:-
APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, AND NAREG GOURJIAN,
PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD OUTSIDE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:)
THE COURT: AT APPROXIMATELY 8:15 THIS MORNING, I ALONG WITH OUR COURT FAMILY PROVIDED TO THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THIS CASE A GENERAL ORIENTATION, WHICH WE DO. WE WENT TO THE ROOM, INTRODUCED OURSELVES, AND THANKED THEM FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO BE PROSPECTIVE JURORS, HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, AND JUST MADE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AND THAT ENDED ABOUT 8:25 OR 8:30. WE ARE AWAITING WORD FROM THE ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATIVES AS TO WHEN THEY HAVE FINISHED PROCESSING THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 160 PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO ARE IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. THAT WILL VARY A LITTLE BIT DEPENDING ON CERTAIN ISSUES OF HARDSHIP THAT ARE RAISED WITH THE JURORS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE HAVING TO DO WITH MEDICAL TYPE ISSUES TODAY OR SOME EMERGENCY. SO THAT FIGURE OF ABOUT 150 OR 160 MAY VARY IN A CERTAIN WAY. WE ARE JUST AWAITING WORD FROM THEM WHEN WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO GO TO THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. I HAVE SDT DOCUMENTS WHICH THE COURT RECEIVED YESTERDAY, SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS FROM ROBERT DON LAWRENCE, M.D.
MR. CHERNOFF: RIGHT.
THE COURT: I BELIEVE, MR. CHERNOFF, YOU ISSUED THE SUBPOENA.
MR. CHERNOFF: YES.
THE COURT: WE HAVE THOSE. IN THE PAST, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS HAD A STIPULATION AS TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
MR. CHERNOFF: WE WILL MAKE A COPY.
THE COURT: COUNSEL WILL SIGN OFF, INITIAL AND DATE THE BACK. AND WE WILL RELEASE IT TO MR. CHERNOFF SO COPIES CAN BE MADE FOR THE DEFENSE AND THE PEOPLE, AND THE ORIGINALS RETURNED TO THE COURT. WOULD THAT BE STIPULATED BY THE DEFENSE?
MR. CHERNOFF: SURE.
THE COURT: BY THE PEOPLE?
MR. WALGREN: YES.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. I SHOULD NOTE THAT THE OUTER ENVELOPE HAS ABOUT 70 CENTS WORTH OF STAMPS THAT HAVEN’T BEEN ACTUALLY STAMPED, SO IT IS UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO STEAM THEM OFF. WE DO WHAT WE CAN IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES, FOLKS. WE WILL BE RECONVENING IN THE FIFTH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM AS SOON AS WE GET WORD FROM JURY SERVICES. DEPARTMENT 107 WILL BE AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM IN THAT JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, ALBEIT WITH LIMITED SEATING, AND IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT INCLUDES MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES AND GENERAL PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL, SPACE AVAILABLE BASIS. BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR IT IS AN OPEN PUBLIC PROCEEDING. IT WILL BE ON THE RECORD, AND ALL OF OUR STAFF WILL BE PRESENT AS WELL. I’LL BE INTRODUCING THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE, MUCH THE SAME WAY I DID WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS A LITTLE EARLIER THIS MORNING. I WANT TO ADMONISH EVERYONE PRESENT IN THIS COURTROOM, AS WELL AS OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THAT THE SAME RULES THAT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURTROOM WILL APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE FIFTH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, SINCE IT WILL BE DEPARTMENT 107. THERE WILL BE NO EATING, DRINKING, SMOKING, GUM CHEWING, OR TALKING IN DEPARTMENT 107 IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. ANY AND ALL CELL PHONES ARE TO BE TURNED OFF COMPLETELY, NOT ON VIBRATE MODE. THERE ARE TO BE NO COMMUNICATIONS OUTGOING OR INCOMING FROM THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM WHILE THE COURT IS IN SESSION AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
THERE IS TO BE ABSOLUTELY NO INTERACTION WITH THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THE PUBLIC IS NOT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER VERBAL OR NONVERBAL EXPRESSION WHILE IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM DURING THIS PROCESS. DON’T REACT OR IN ANY WAY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE ANY POTENTIAL JUROR IN THIS CASE. I TAKE THAT EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY, AND YOU SHOULD AND I ASSUME YOU WILL AS WELL. THE SAME RULES APPLY. I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE THEM. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? LET ME ALSO ADD THAT YESTERDAY IN THE MORNING AND EARLY AFTERNOON, THE ATTORNEYS AND I FINALIZED THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND THAT QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE PROVIDED TO THOSE JURORS WHO ARE PREPARED TO SERVE ON THE CASE AND ARE NOT EXCUSED FOR HARDSHIP.
THE FIRST PART OF THE PROCESS WILL BE OUR GOING DOWN AND INTRODUCING THE CASE AND MY DISCUSSING SOME ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE, SUCH AS THE LENGTH OF THE CASE, ET CETERA. THEN THE JURORS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A VERY SIMPLE FORM TO INDICATE WHETHER THOSE JURORS ARE PREPARED TO SERVE ON THE CASE IN THE SENSE THAT THOSE JURORS DON’T HAVE A HARDSHIP. NOT ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT THE CASE OR ANY OPINIONS THEY MAY HAVE, OR ANYTHING THEY MAY HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE CASE, BUT JUST WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE. THEN THE ATTORNEYS AND I WILL GET THOSE FORMS AND TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE FORMS. AND IF JURORS ARE PREPARED TO SERVE, MAKE THE QUESTIONNAIRES AVAILABLE TO THOSE JURORS.
THEN FOR THOSE JURORS WHO ARE CLAIMING HARDSHIP, THE ATTORNEYS AND I WILL BE MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY CLAIMED HARDSHIP AND WHETHER IT IS A VALID HARDSHIP AND WHETHER THAT JUROR, IN FACT, WILL BE EXCUSED. SOME MAY. SOME MAY NOT. THAT WILL DEPEND. WE WILL BE DOING ALL THAT IN CHAMBERS AND DOING ALL THAT ON THE RECORD, BUT THE RECORD WILL BE SEALED. IT WILL NOT BE A PUBLIC RECORD BECAUSE DISCUSSIONS OF JURORS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN TERMS OF HARDSHIP ISSUES ARE NOT THE TYPE OF PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. SO WE WILL BE DOING A LOT OF WORK, IN FACT MAJORITY OF THE WORK TODAY, IN CHAMBERS. I DON’T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANY REASON FOR US TO BE COMING OUT ON THE RECORD TODAY. CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASON, MR. WALGREN, MS. BRAZIL?
MR. WALGREN: NOT AT THIS POINT, BUT I KNOW COUNSEL — WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL OFF THE RECORD, AND WE MAY REQUIRE AN ON-THE-RECORD CONVERSATION AT SOME OTHER TIME.
THE COURT: IF IT IS ON THE RECORD AND IT IS A PUBLIC PROCEEDING, THEN WE WILL BE COMING BACK INTO COURT.
MR. WALGREN: I DOUBT IT WILL BE NECESSARY.
THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF, MR. FLANAGAN, MR. GOURJIAN, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHETHER WE WILL BE BACK IN COURT IN THE COURTROOM ITSELF AFTER THE JURY ISSUES?
MR. CHERNOFF: I AGREE WITH MR. WALGREN.
COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO ANYTHING ELSE, JUST STAND BY. I FIGURE AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30, WE SHOULD GET THE WORD THAT THE JURY COMMISSIONER IS READY FOR US TO GO TO THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, AT WHICH POINT WE WILL. I JUST WANTED TO ALERT EVERYBODY IT IS AN OPEN PUBLIC PROCEEDING WITH VERY LIMITED SEATING. SO THAT IS THE STORY. SO UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, WE ARE IN RECESS. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COMES UP, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SINCE I DON’T KNOW RIGHT NOW, I DON’T KNOW IF WE WILL BE BACK ON THE RECORD. BUT IF WE WILL, WE WILL NOTIFY PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE BAILIFFS WILL NOTIFY PEOPLE AS WELL AND THE COURTROOM WILL BE OPEN. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL WE RESUME IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. THANK YOU.
(9:10 A.M., RECESS.)
(9:20 A.M., FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN THE 5TH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. ALL PARTIES ARE PRESENT.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:)
THE COURT: LET ME CALL THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF, VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, DEFENDANT, CASE NO. SA073164. DR. MURRAY IS PRESENT IN COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE PRESENT IN COURT WITH THEIR COUNSEL. DEPARTMENT 107 IS CONVENING IN THE FIFTH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM OF THE CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM PROCEEDING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I RECOGNIZE YOU FROM ABOUT AN HOUR AGO WHERE THE COURT STAFF PROVIDED YOU WITH AN ORIENTATION, AND WE AGAIN WELCOME YOU TO JURY SERVICE. BUT DEPARTMENT 107, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NINTH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING, IS RECONVENING IN THE FIFTH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM.
SO THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM. THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE A CLOSED CIRCUIT TV HOOKUP SO THAT THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO ARE LOCATED IN SOME SIDE PORTIONS OF THE ROOM CAN SEE ME A LITTLE BETTER. I DON’T LIKE THE IDEA, BUT IT IS THE BEST WAY. IT IS NOT A GENERAL TELEVISION PROCEEDING, SO UNDERSTAND. IT IS CLOSED CIRCUIT, ONLY CONFINED TO THIS PARTICULAR ROOM. IT IS NOT BEING RECORDED IN ANY WAY.
SINCE THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM PROCEEDING, WE ARE BEGINNING A JURY TRIAL IN THIS CASE AND YOUR SERVICES ARE REQUIRED AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THIS CASE. AS WE BEGIN THE PROCESS, MS. SAMMIE BENSON, WHO IS THE COURT CLERK AND JUDICIAL ASSISTANT IN DEPARTMENT 107, IS GOING TO BE ADMINISTERING A JUROR OATH TO EACH OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE WORDS OF THIS JUROR OATH. THEY AREN’T JUST BARE WORDS. THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT MEANING IN TERMS OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS AS JURORS.
ONCE YOU TAKE THE OATH, ANY AND ALL ANSWERS THAT YOU PROVIDE TO US THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEEDING ARE PROVIDED UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY. SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC PROCEEDING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU REMAIN AWAKE. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. THANK YOU. SO MS. BENSON WILL ADMINISTER THE JUROR OATH TO THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS, AND PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY AND ANSWER ACCORDINGLY. MS. BENSON, WOULD YOU ADMINISTER THE OATH.
THE CLERK: GOOD MORNING AGAIN. WOULD ALL THEJURORS PLEASE RISE. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE FOLLOWING: DO YOU AND EACH OF YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY ANSWER UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ALL QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED TO YOU CONCERNING YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCY TO SERVE AS A TRIAL JUROR IN THE MATTER NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, AND THAT FAILURE TO DO SO MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS, PLEASE ANSWER BY SAYING YES.
THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS: YES.
THE CLERK: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
THE COURT: ALL AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, MS. BENSON. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU THIS CASE. THE CASE BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS A CRIMINAL CASE. IT IS BROUGHT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE PLAINTIFF, THROUGH AND BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, VERSUS THE DEFENDANT, CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY. IN THIS CASE, NO. SA073164, DR. MURRAY, THE DEFENDANT, IS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 192(B), ON THE DATE OF JUNE 25, 2009. THE ALLEGED VICTIM, MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON. THIS CASE INVOLVES THE DEATH OF THE ENTERTAINER MICHAEL JACKSON.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO HAS NOT HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE? IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THIS CASE, HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MICHAEL JACKSON, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I DON’T SEE ANYBODY IN FRONT OF ME. HOW ABOUT ON THE SIDE? NO. HOW ABOUT ON THE OTHER SIDE? NO.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO HANDS RAISED.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS, WE DON’T EXPECT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN UNDER A ROCK FOR THE LAST COUPLE YEARS OR THAT YOU HAVE MADE A PIT STOP HERE FROM MARS. YOU ARE MEMBERS OF THE RELEVANT WORLD. THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JURY SERVICE IS THAT WE HAVE JURORS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WE DIDN’T EXPECT, NOR DO WE EXPECT THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE YOU. I’M GOING TO BE TALKING TO YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. RIGHT NOW, I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO YOU THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO YOU THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WHO WILL BE PROSECUTING THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU TWO PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.
FIRST OF ALL, TO MY LEFT-HAND SIDE AND TO YOUR RIGHT-HAND SIDE, MR. DAVID WALGREN.
MR. WALGREN: GOOD MORNING.
THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MS. DEBORAH BRAZIL.
MS. BRAZIL: GOOD MORNING.
THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE, DR. CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY. DR. MURRAY.
THE DEFENDANT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: NEXT TO DR. MURRAY ARE HIS ATTORNEYS. FIRST OF ALL, MR. EDWARD CHERNOFF.
MR. CHERNOFF: GOOD MORNING.
THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MR. MICHAEL PENA.
MR. PENA: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MR. J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN.
MR. FLANAGAN: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MR. NAREG GOURJIAN.
MR. GOURJIAN: GOOD MORNING.
THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: I’VE INTRODUCED TO YOU THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE. LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE. WE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT FOR YOUR COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE THAT WE WOULD BRING THE COURTROOM TO THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. IT IS NOT AT ALL AN USUAL PROCEDURE. IT IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER CASES WHERE WE HAVE ENGAGED IN SIMILAR TYPE OF PROCESS TO AVOID HAVING YOU HASSLED OR INCONVENIENCED ANY MORE THAN YOU ARE JUST BEING ON JURY DUTY GENERALLY. SO THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS TYPE OF PROCESS. THIS HAPPENS IN OTHER CASES AS WELL. SO THIS IS DEPARTMENT 107. IN MUCH THE SAME WAY, IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN ON JURY DUTY BEFORE, YOU WOULD BE SUMMONED INTO A COURTROOM, ALL WE ARE DOING IS BRINGING THE COURTROOM TO YOU. SO THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING AND WANT TO REITERATE.
THIS TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 25 DAYS. 25 COURT DAYS. I’LL REPEAT IT A FEW TIMES BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED ON THIS CASE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 COURT DAYS. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE AND PERHAPS A LITTLE LONG, BUT I WOULD RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF IT BEING A LITTLE LONG THAN A LITTLE SHORT. SO YOUR SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 DAYS. WE WOULD BEGIN THE PROCESS TODAY, THE 8TH OF SEPTEMBER. I’LL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS AS WE GO ON. FOR THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO SERVE AND ARE PREPARED TO SERVE ON THIS CASE, YOUR NEXT APPEARANCE ON THIS CASE WOULD BE ON FRIDAY, THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER.
SO YOU WOULD BE HERE TODAY, AND YOU WOULD BE UNDERGOING CERTAIN ORIENTATION AND A CERTAIN QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH YOU WOULD BE FILLING OUT. YOU NEXT WOULD BE COMING BACK ON FRIDAY, THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE EXACTING, YES, THAT WOULD BE 2011. COMING BACK FRIDAY, THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER 2011, FOR IN-COURT ON THE NINTH FLOOR, DEPARTMENT 107, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS. WE WOULD HOPE TO HAVE THAT JURY SELECTION PROCESS COMPLETED ON THAT FRIDAY, THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER. BUT JUST IN CASE WE HAVE SOME TIMING ISSUES, WE HAVE ALLOTTED ANOTHER DAY FOR POSSIBLE JURY SELECTION WHICH WOULD BE THE FOLLOWING MONDAY, THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE TRIAL IN TERMS OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND IN TERMS OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE WOULD BEGIN ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011.
SO ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE HERE TODAY. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE GOING TO BE SERVING AT THIS JUNCTURE, YOU WILL BE COMING BACK FRIDAY, THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER. POTENTIALLY THE FOLLOWING MONDAY. MAYBE NOT DEPENDING UPON WHETHER WE PICK THE JURY. BUT CERTAINLY, TUESDAY, THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011. AND OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT WE ARE GIVING YOU AN ESTIMATE YOUR SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED THROUGH FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2011. THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 25 COURT DAYS.
SO THE TRIAL IN TERMS OF OPENING STATEMENTS, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, WOULD BEGIN ON TUESDAY, THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER. AND WE ARE GIVING YOU AN ESTIMATE THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER, THE LAST FRIDAY IN OCTOBER, OCTOBER 28 OF 2011. AGAIN, I FEEL THAT IS A VERY REALISTIC ESTIMATE. DURING THAT TIME FRAME, WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION ON WEEKENDS. SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS ARE COURT HOLIDAYS, SO WE ARE NOT IN SESSION ON WEEKENDS. AND ALSO WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2011. THAT IS COLUMBUS DAY. THAT IS A STATE AND FEDERAL HOLIDAY AND A COURT HOLIDAY. SO THAT DATE WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION.
THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUAL DAYS BETWEEN THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 28 WHERE, FOR SCHEDULING REASONS, WE ARE NOT IN SESSION. WE WILL TRY TO GIVE YOU AS MUCH ADVANCE WORD AS WE CAN. OUR EXPECTATION IS WE WILL BE WORKING MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS, STARTING COURT AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 OR 8:45 IN THE MORNING PROMPTLY TILL NOON. THERE IS AN HOUR AND A HALF BREAK DURING THAT NOONTIME PERIOD FROM NOON TO 1:30. RESUMING AT 1:30 UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 4:15 P.M. THAT END TIME CAN VARY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BASED UPON WITNESS AVAILABILITY AND OTHER SCHEDULING. SO DURING THE DAYS IN WHICH THE COURT IS IN SESSION, MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS EXCEPT FOR COLUMBUS DAY. COURT HOURS, 8:45 TO NOON AND 1:30 TILL APPROXIMATELY 4:15 P.M. IF THERE ARE ANY VARIATIONS, I’LL TRY TO GIVE THE JURORS AS MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE AS I CAN DURING THAT TIME FRAME.
WITH REGARD TO THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE, AFTER I CONCLUDE MY REMARKS THIS MORNING, MS. GLORIA GOMEZ, MS. FRAN JOHNSON AND HER STAFF OF JUROR SERVICES REPRESENTATIVES ARE GOING TO PASS OUT A HARDSHIP FORM TO THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THAT FORM WILL ASK, BASED UPON WHAT I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU AND WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE FORM WHICH AGAIN INDICATES THOSE DATES I MENTIONED TO YOU SO YOU’LL HAVE IT IN WRITING, WHETHER YOU ARE READY, WILLING, AND ABLE TO SERVE AND ARE PREPARED TO SERVE ON THE CASE.
I BELIEVE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF YOU WILL CHECK THE “YES” BOX. THE GOOD PART ABOUT CHECKING THE “YES” BOX IS WHEN YOU CHECK THE “YES” BOX, THE ONLY OTHER THING YOU HAVE TO DO, AS I’LL EXPLAIN TO YOU, IS SIGN A LITTLE FORM AT THE END WHICH IS A DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT YOU ARE STATING TRUTHFULLY WHAT YOU HAVE JUST REPRESENTED. IF YOU ARE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP IN SERVING ON THE CASE THROUGH THE TIME PERIOD I’VE INDICATED, YOU WILL CHECK THE BOX INDICATING THAT THERE IS A HARDSHIP AND THERE ARE VARIOUS SUB CATEGORIES THAT YOU WOULD INDICATE IN TERMS OF THE NATURE OF THE HARDSHIP:
WHETHER YOU BE A STUDENT ENROLLED IN SCHOOL AND YOU HAVE ONGOING CLASSES, FOR INSTANCE, AND ARE DESIROUS OF GOING TO SCHOOL. SOME STUDENTS ACTUALLY HAVE SAID, “YOU KNOW WHAT. I’LL SERVE. I’LL SERVE AS A JUROR.”
IF THERE ARE SOME FINANCIAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO YOUR JOBS, OR YOUR EMPLOYMENT, OR YOUR FAMILIES OF A FINANCIAL NATURE, OR MEDICAL ISSUES, FOR INSTANCE, AND SOME OTHER ISSUES AS WELL. THERE IS A CATCH-ALL COLUMN AT THE VERY END, IS THERE NOT, MS. GOMEZ? THERE IS A CATCH-ALL COLUMN ON THE HARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE OF ANY HARDSHIP THAT IS LISTED.
MS. GOMEZ: THAT’S CORRECT.
THE COURT: YOU CAN CHECK YOU ARE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP. WHAT THE ATTORNEYS AND I THEN WILL BE DOING IS WE WILL BE REVIEWING ALL OF THE THOSE HARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRES AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A PARTICULAR JUROR WILL OR WILL NOT BE EXCUSED IN THE CASE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT IS MY CALL AT THE END. THERE MAY BE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP, AND I’LL MAKE DECISION IF THAT HARDSHIP IS SUFFICIENT IN MY MIND TO CONSTITUTE AN EXCUSE IN THIS CASE. BEFORE ANY JUDGE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN EXCUSE A JUROR FOR A HARDSHIP, THE JUDGE HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE HARDSHIP IS EXTREME AND IT IS PERSONAL TO THE JUROR HERSELF OR HIMSELF. WE KNOW THAT ALL OF YOU ARE INVALUABLE TO YOUR EMPLOYERS, BUT THE SIMPLE FACT THERE MAY BE SOME HARDSHIP OR BURDEN OR IMPOSITION ON AN EMPLOYER IS NOT IN ITSELF AN EXTREME PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
WE WILL BE REVIEWING THOSE HARDSHIP RELATED QUESTIONNAIRE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE FILLED OUT, AND THEN WE WILL BE MAKING A DETERMINATION OF WHO IS GOING TO BE REMAINING.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU WILL BE PASSED OUT AN EXTENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRE. I’LL SHOW YOU THE QUESTIONNAIRE RIGHT NOW, AT LEAST THE FIRST PAGE. IT IS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRE. WE ARE USING A QUESTIONNAIRE BECAUSE IT IS MORE EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND FAIR THAN SPENDING DAYS OR EVEN WEEKS TALKING TO INDIVIDUAL JURORS. A QUESTIONNAIRE FORMAT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT SOME THINGS AND COMPOSE WHAT YOU THINK IS AN APPROPRIATE ANSWER USING YOUR OWN TIME, UNDER YOUR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THOSE JURORS WHO REMAIN WILL BE FILLING OUT TODAY THE WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS CASE.
I URGE YOU TO BE AS CANDID, OPEN, AND HONEST AS POSSIBLE. WHEN YOU READ THE COVER PAGE, IT DIRECTS YOU TO BE OPEN, CANDID AND HONEST. AND YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE ANSWERS THAT YOU PROVIDE TO US ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE PROVIDED UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY. WHEN YOU FILL OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, AT THE END YOU WILL SIGN A CERTIFICATION PAGE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. YOUR ANSWERS ARE PROVIDED JUST AS IF YOU WERE A WITNESS CALLED AS A WITNESS IN A CASE AND WERE PROVIDED WITH THE OATH AS MS. BENSON ADMINISTERED TO YOU TODAY. THAT OATH THAT YOU TOOK THIS MORNING APPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS DOES YOUR CERTIFICATION AT THE END.
SO I WANT TO STRESS TO YOU THAT YOUR ANSWERS ON THAT QUESTIONNAIRE ARE PROVIDED UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY. PLEASE BE AS OPEN, HONEST AND CANDID AS POSSIBLE. BE AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IF YOU ARE COMPLETE, THEN WE DON’T HAVE TO ENGAGE IN FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONING IN THE OPEN COURTROOM WHICH CAN TAKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND NOT BE AS FAIR AS IT SHOULD BE.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND FOR THOSE JURORS WHO ARE SELECTED ON THIS CASE, IT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. YOU ARE ANONYMOUS JURORS IN THIS CASE. THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT YOUR NAMES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND YOUR NAMES REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL ABSENT FURTHER COURT ORDER. I DON’T KNOW YOUR NAMES. THE DEFENDANT, THE ATTORNEYS, DON’T KNOW YOUR NAMES. WE ARE DESIGNATING FOLKS BY NUMBERS. IT IS NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL. IT HAPPENS REGULARLY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT, THAT YOU ARE ANONYMOUS JURORS IN THIS CASE. WE VALUE YOUR PRIVACY. YOU SHOULD VALUE YOUR PRIVACY AS WELL AND NOT JEOPARDIZE OR UNDERMINE YOUR PRIVACY.
SO YOU ARE GOING TO BE DESIGNATED BY NUMERICAL DESIGNATIONS. MS. GOMEZ AND HER STAFF WILL GO OVER THIS WITH YOU. WHEN YOU FILL OUT EACH PARTICULAR PAGE, YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR DESIGNATION NUMBER. THEY WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU IN DETAIL. AND THE CERTIFICATION PAGE AT THE VERY END CALLS FOR YOU TO PRINT AND SIGN YOUR NAME. THAT IS REMOVED. IT IS KEPT UNDER SEAL AND NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE ABSENT FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. BUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, ANY ANSWERS THAT YOU PROVIDE TO US IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE QUESTIONING PROCESS, ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD. THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE AS MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD, BUT YOUR NAMES ARE NOT.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I FIRST ASK IS DO YOU HAVE ANY FAMILIARITY WITH THIS CASE, AND YOUR ANSWER IS THAT ALL OF YOU DO. IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD NOW THAN IT WAS SOME YEARS AGO WHEN I STARTED IN THIS BUSINESS, I USED TO PROVIDE JURORS WITH ADMONISHMENTS THAT SAID DON’T READ OR WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CASE, PLEASE. THAT ENDED IT. WELL, OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE GOTTEN SO TECHNOLOGICALLY SAVVY, WE HAVE HAD TO MODIFY THE ADMONITIONS AND ADMONISHMENTS. I WANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME DETAILED ADMONISHMENTS WHICH ARE, IN ESSENCE, ORDERS OF THIS COURT WHICH GOVERN YOUR BEHAVIOR FROM NOW ON.
A COURTROOM IS MORE THAN A STERILE AND BARE INTERIOR ROOM IN A BUILDING. IT IS IN THE TRUEST SENSE OF THE WORD A TEMPLE OF JUSTICE. WHAT HAPPENS IN A COURTROOM SYMBOLIZES A COMMITMENT TO OUR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND THE RULE OF LAW. YOU WILL BE THE ONLY JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. I’M A JUDGE OF THE LAW, AND FOR THAT I GET A BLACK ROBE AND CLEANING BILLS. BUT EACH JUROR IS AND ALWAYS REMAINS AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGE OF FACTS; NAMELY, WHAT HAPPENED AND WHOM, IF ANYONE, TO BELIEVE. SO YOU ARE JUDGES. IN PREPARING THIS CASE, EACH SIDE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ONLY LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED TO YOU. AS THE JUDGE OF THE LAW IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN AND REMAINS MY ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS AS TO WHAT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AND WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU.
THE REASON I AM RELATING THESE FACTS IS THAT YOU, AS JUDGES OF THE FACTS, ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND YOU MUST FOLLOW MY DIRECTIONS AS TO YOUR CONDUCT. THE UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEE PROTECTIONS TO THE PARTIES, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THE PLAINTIFF AND DR. MURRAY AS THE DEFENDANT. ISSUES OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND WILL BE DISCUSSED. THEY ARE LEGAL ISSUES THAT CONCERN ME. JUST AS NEITHER SIDE IS ALLOWED TO SANDBAG ANOTHER SIDE BY SPRINGING SURPRISES OR SECRETS, JURORS MAY NOT, CANNOT, AND MUST NOT SANDBAG THE PARTIES WHO HAVE ENTERED A COURTROOM SEEKING JUSTICE. HAVING EVEN ONE JUROR CONSIDER SOMETHING OR MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE OF THE EVIDENCE IN SECRET VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF BOTH PARTIES AND UNDERMINES THE PUBLIC PROCESS GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION.
A VIOLATION OF ANY OF MY ORDERS REGARDING YOUR CONDUCT CAN RESULT IN AN UNJUST VERDICT OR A MISTRIAL CAUSING EXTRAORDINARY INCONVENIENCE, EMOTIONAL TURMOIL, AND EXPENSE. SUCH A VIOLATION WOULD BE TERRIBLY UNFAIR TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN OR AFFECTED BY THIS CASE. AS YOU UNDOUBTEDLY KNOW, SOME INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET, OR ON TALK RADIO, OR THROUGH COMMENTARIES OR REPORTS ON THE MEDIA, OR JUST OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD CAN BE BASED UPON SOURCES THAT ARE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, OR PRESENTED IN UNRELATED CONTEXT. SUCH OUTSIDE INFORMATION, NOT PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE IN A COURTROOM, CAN BE INFLAMMATORY, PREJUDICIAL, OR SIMPLY UNRELATED TO THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN A REAL LIFE COURTROOM TRIAL. ALSO CERTAIN INFORMATION MAY NOT BE LEGALLY PERMITTED.
IT SIMPLY IS NOT FAIR TO THE PARTIES AND OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO HAVE EVEN ONE JUROR MAKE A DECISION BASED ON SOMETHING DISCOVERED OR COMMUNICATED OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS COURTROOM. I CERTAINLY REALIZE THAT FOR MANY OF US, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE GROWN UP IN THE INTERNET AGE, NOT ME, UNFORTUNATELY OR FORTUNATELY, THE SEARCHING OF THE INTERNET IS AS EASY AND ROUTINE AS BREATHING. WE HAVE THIS NEED TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR MOST INTIMATE PERSONAL LIVES WITH 750 MILLION STRANGERS EVERY DAY. WE ACCESS SOURCES WHERE WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THOSE SOURCES AND ANY AGENDA OR MINDSET THAT THE POSTER MAY HAVE. I ALSO REALIZE, BASED UPON MY FEW YEARS IN THIS JOB, THAT JURORS WHEN CALLED UPON ARE AS DETERMINED AS EVER TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND IN THIS CASE, DOING THE RIGHT THING MEANS FOLLOWING ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS AND ORDERS.
THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, I AM GOING TO BE DELIVERING ADMONITIONS AND ORDERS TO YOU. I’M GOING TO BE READING A FULL ADMONITION AND ORDER, A COPY OF WHICH EACH OF YOU WILL RECEIVE IN WRITING WHICH WILL GOVERN YOUR BEHAVIOR DURING THIS CASE. AND BECAUSE WE LIVE IN DIFFERENT TIMES WHERE THERE IS SO MUCH INFORMATION OUT THERE, I HAD OPTIONS ABOUT HOW TO EFFECTUATE JUSTICE IN THIS CASE AND INSURE FAIRNESS, WHICH IS OUR OVERRIDING FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN. ONE OF THE OPTIONS WAS TO SEQUESTER THE JURORS IN THIS CASE DURING THE ENTIRE TRIAL. BY SEQUESTER, I MEAN LITERALLY KEEP AHOLD OF ALL THE JURORS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THIS CASE. JURORS WOULD NOT BE AT HOME WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES, OR AT WORK, OR WITH THEIR RELATIVES. THEY WOULD NOT BE IN COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE FRIENDS, OR FAMILIES, OR RELATIVES, EXCEPT IF THEY WERE MONITORED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO WOULD BE PRESENT DURING ANY SUCH CONVERSATION. THERE WOULD BE NO INTIMACY, AND JURORS WOULD, IN EFFECT, BE PRISONERS, KEPT UP IN A HOTEL, NOT RELATING TO THE REAL WORLD.
I CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THAT COURSE. I MADE A SIGNIFICANT DECISION NOT TO FOLLOW THAT COURSE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN AND REMAINS MY BELIEF THAT, WHEN CALLED UPON, JURORS WILL FOLLOW THE CORRECT PATH IN THIS CASE. AND BY MAKING THAT DECISION, I AM ITERATING AND REITERATING MY FAITH IN THE INTEGRITY OF EACH JUROR WHO IS CHOSEN IN THIS CASE.
WHEN YOU ARE CALLED UPON TO SERVE, AND IF YOU ARE CALLED UPON TO SERVE, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAILOR AND ADJUST YOUR LIFESTYLES BECAUSE WHILE YOU WILL NOT BE SEQUESTERED ON A 24/7 BASIS, THERE WILL BE ARRANGEMENTS MADE TO HAVE YOU DELIVERED TO THE COURTHOUSE AND BROUGHT TO THE COURTHOUSE FROM CERTAIN LOCATIONS THAT WILL BE SECRET. YOU WILL RECEIVE TRANSPORTATION. DURING THE DAY, YOU WILL BE OUR GUESTS. YOU WILL NOT BE OUTSIDE OF THE COURT BUILDING. YOU WILL REMAIN INSIDE, AND YOU WILL BE IN THE COURTROOM OR IN THE JURY ROOM AND WE WILL BE PROVIDING REFRESHMENTS, AND LUNCHES, AND OTHER SNACKS, ET CETERA, FOR YOU DURING THE DAY. BUT YOU WILL BE GOING HOME AT THE END OF THE COURT DAY TO LIVE YOUR LIVES AND COMING BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COURT SESSION IN THE MORNING. AND ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS, YOU WILL BE WITH YOUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS. YOU CAN UNDERTAKE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES.
BUT DURING THOSE TIME FRAMES WHEN YOU ARE NOT IN COURT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, READ, WATCH, SEE, HEAR, OR DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF INTEGRITY ON YOUR PART TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PATH IN TERMS OF INSULATING YOURSELF ON THE OUTSIDE FROM ANYTHING THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS JURORS IN THIS CASE. IT WILL CALL UPON EACH OF YOU TO FOLLOW YOUR INTEGRITY AND TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF TAILORING YOUR LIFESTYLE.
IF YOU WANT TO GOOGLE, GOOGLE AWAY. IF YOU WANT TO TEXT OR TWEET, TEXT OR TWEET AWAY. IF YOU WANT TO SURF THE NET, GO FOR IT, BUT NOT ABOUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. I WANT YOU TO TALK TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY UNLESS SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER YOU FEEL THAT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. THAT IS ULTIMATELY YOUR DECISION. WE WANT YOU TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE BUT NOT ABOUT THIS CASE, THE TOPICS, SUBJECTS OR PERSONS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT. DON’T COME INTO CONTACT WITH ANY OF THOSE OUTSIDE INFLUENCES. AND THE REASON IS, AS I CONTINUE TO TELL YOU BECAUSE IT IS SO IMPORTANT, THIS CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE COURTROOM. EVIDENCE IS NOT WHAT SOMEONE SAYS IN A TELEVISION PROGRAM, ON A RADIO SHOW, IN THE MEDIA, NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE ARTICLE, ON THE INTERNET, OR ON THE OUTSIDE. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE.
AGAIN, IT WOULD BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR FOR YOU NOT TO DECIDE THE CASE BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE. SO IT WILL REQUIRE YOU TO TAILOR AND ADJUST NORMAL LIFESTYLE ISSUES. AND THE COURT BELIEVES THAT, BECAUSE OF ITS FAITH IN THE JURY SYSTEM, JURORS ARE PREPARED, READY AND WILLING AND ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE ALTERNATIVE IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE. THAT IS UNDERMINING OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL. I NOW WILL DELIVER TO YOU AN ADMONISHMENT/ORDER TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHICH WILL GOVERN YOUR BEHAVIOR AS A COURT ORDER THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR JURY SERVICE IN THIS CASE. AGAIN, EACH YOU WILL RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS WRITTEN ORDER.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEEN SUMMONED TO SERVE AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THE CAPTIONED CASE. LET ME ADVISE YOU OF THE FOLLOWING ADMONISHMENTS/ORDERS THAT APPLY TO YOUR CONDUCT FOR THE DURATION OF THE CASE UNTIL YOU ARE DISCHARGED FROM JURY SERVICE: YOU ARE NOT TO TALK OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATE ABOUT THIS CASE OR THE PEOPLE OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT WITH ANYONE ELSE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, CO-WORKERS, SPIRITUAL LEADERS OR ADVISERS, THERAPISTS, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, SPECTATORS, OR EVEN TOTAL STRANGERS). DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEFENDANT, THE ATTORNEYS, ANY WITNESS, OR ANY SPECTATOR AT ANY TIME OR PLACE. DO NOT TALK ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS WITH ANY OTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR UNTIL YOU ARE PERMITTED TO DO SO.
DO NOT SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT ANY OF THESE SUBJECTS IN PERSON, IN WRITING, BY E-MAIL, OVER A PHONE, ON THE INTERNET, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER. I HAVE TO ADD THAT PART OF IT IN. FROM DAY-TO-DAY, I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO COME UP IN TERMS OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES. SO EVEN TELEPATHIC COMMUNICATION, PLEASE.
YOU MUST NOT THE ALLOW ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE COURTROOM TO AFFECT YOUR OPINIONS OR DECISIONS. DO NOT CONDUCT ON YOUR OWN OR THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON ANY INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OR THE LAW. DO NOT READ, LISTEN TO, OR WATCH ANY REPORT OR COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS CASE FROM ANY SOURCE.
DO NOT VIEW OR LISTEN TO ANY TELEVISION OR RADIO PROGRAM, MOVIE, BOOK, OR NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE ARTICLE REGARDING ANY ASPECTS OF THE CASE. DO NOT ACCESS ANY INTERNET WEBSITE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY SEARCH ENGINE SITE SUCH AS GOOGLE, OR ASK, OR BING, ET CETERA) OR POST ANY MESSAGES OR ACCESS ANY BLOGS ON ANY SITE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY SOCIAL-NETWORKING SITES, SUCH AS MYSPACE OR FACEBOOK, ANY OF THOSE SITES) OR SEND OR READ ANY TEXTS OR TWEETS AS TO ANY ASPECTS OF THIS CASE OR THE PERSONS OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT.
DO NOT CONDUCT ANY RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN OR THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON REGARDING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. DO NOT CONSULT THE DICTIONARY OR A BIBLE REGARDING THIS CASE. DO NOT PERFORM ANY EXPERIMENTS OR VISIT THE SCENE OF ANY EVENT INVOLVED IN THE CASE. IF YOU HAPPEN TO PASS BY THE SCENE, DO NOT STOP OR INVESTIGATE.
DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO TRIES TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE OR ANY PERSON OR SUBJECT MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT. IF SOMEONE ASKS YOU ABOUT ANY OF THESE SUBJECTS, TELL HIM OR HER THAT YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT DO SO. IF THAT PERSON KEEPS TALKING ABOUT SUCH A MATTER, YOU MUST END THE CONVERSATION. DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO HAND YOU A BUSINESS CARD OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION SO THAT AT A LATER TIME YOU CAN CONTACT ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ABOUT THE CASE. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY BRING ANY SUCH INCIDENT OR ENCOUNTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURTROOM STAFF.
IF YOU ARE SELECTED AS A JUROR IN THIS CASE, AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED AND YOU HAVE BEEN RELEASED AS A JUROR, YOU MAY DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYONE ELSE. HOWEVER, YOU MUST WAIT AT LEAST 90 DAYS BEFORE NEGOTIATING OR AGREEING TO ACCEPT ANY PAYMENT OR OTHER BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. FOR THE DURATION OF THE CASE UNTIL YOU ARE DISCHARGED FROM JURY SERVICE, IF YOU BECOME AWARE OF ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE OR THE PERSONS OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT FROM ANY SOURCE OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, INADVERTENTLY, OR ACCIDENTALLY,
DO NOT SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COURTROOM STAFF. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ANY DISOBEDIENCE OF THESE ORDERS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. I’M GOING TO REPEAT IT. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ANY DISOBEDIENCE OF THESE ORDERS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. A VIOLATION OF ANY ORDER CAN IMPACT THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL AND UNDERMINE OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. SUCH A VIOLATION CAN RESULT IN DIRECT AND PERSONAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO YOU AS WELL. IT CAN RESULT IN YOUR BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, SENTENCED TO JAIL AND/OR FINED. WITH THIS IN MIND, PLEASE TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND FOLLOW TO THE LETTER EACH OF THESE ADMONISHMENTS/ORDERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION.
AS A CRIMINAL CASE, THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT ARE INVOLVED. FIRST OF ALL, A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE, SUCH AS THIS, HAS AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL. AND THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL CORNERSTONE PRINCIPLE OF OUR SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY. COUNTRIES AROUND THIS GLOBE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. IT IS ONE OF THE CHERISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. WHEN THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE A CRIMINAL CHARGE, SUCH AS THIS, THE DEFENDANT, DR. MURRAY, HAS THAT ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL. AND ALONG WITH THAT RIGHT, THERE ARE OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS INVOLVED, AND THEY INCLUDE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AND THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT NOT TO TESTIFY AND TO REMAIN SILENT. IN A CRIMINAL CASE SUCH THAT IS, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING A DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED. AND UNLESS AND UNTIL TH PEOPLE MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE REMAINS. SO PLEASE BEAR THAT IN MIND.
ALSO IN A CRIMINAL CASE, A DEFENDANT AND THE DEFENSE HAS NO OBLIGATION OR BURDEN OR RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER TO DO OR SAY ANYTHING. YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN A CERTAIN WAY WHERE YOU WANT TO “HEAR” BOTH SIDES OF A STORY. IT IS NOT HOW OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WORKS. OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WORKS IN DETERMINING WHETHER, AT THE END OF THE CASE, WHATEVER HAS TRANSPIRED IN TERMS OF THE EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE PEOPLE HAVE MET THEIR BURDEN. THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT WHETHER DR. MURRAY IS “INNOCENT.” THIS IS A CASE ABOUT WHETHER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN PROVE THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AS I WILL DEFINE THE TERM FOR YOU. AND NO LACK OF TESTIMONY ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT OR NO LACK OF EVIDENCE BY THE DEFENSE GENERALLY CAN MAKE UP FOR SOMETHING PEOPLE’S RESPONSIBILITY IF, AT THE END OF THE CASE, THE PEOPLE DON’T MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SERVED IN CIVIL CASES. THE STANDARD IN A CIVIL CASE IS BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF. WE ALWAYS SAY JUST TIP THE SCALES A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THE OTHER. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IS A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER STANDARD, AS I WILL DEFINE THE TERM FOR YOU, AND YOU MUST APPLY THAT STANDARD. I WILL NOT BE TELLING YOU, NOR WILL YOU EVER HEAR ME TELL YOU THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, OR TO ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY. THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SUCH BURDEN. THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN IS TO PROVE THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SO I WILL BE PROVIDING YOU WITH LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH, AS JUDGES, YOU MUST FOLLOW JUST AS I MUST FOLLOW AS WELL. SO WITH ALL THAT IN MIND, MS. GOMEZ, IS THERE ANYTHING I MAY HAVE MISSED OR NEGLECTED TO MENTION?
MS. GOMEZ: NOT THAT I CAN THINK OF, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I’LL LEAVE YOU IN THE CAPABLE HANDS OF MS. GOMEZ AND MS. JOHNSON AND THEIR STAFF MEMBERS. AS I MENTIONED TO YOU DURING JUROR ORIENTATION, WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT AS CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF JURY SERVICE AS AN OBLIGATION AND DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP TO LIVE IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY. SO ONCE AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE, COUNSEL, AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND PLEASE FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SHERIFF’S AND THE JUROR SERVICES DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT 107 WILL NOW STAND IN RECESS AND RESUME FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AT A LATER TIME. MY WEST WISHES TO ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU.
(10:05 A.M., RECESS. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CHAMBERS WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND WERE SEALED BY THE COURT.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.