AUGUST 23RD 2010,

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

VS. ) NO. SA073164-01

)

CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

)

___________________________________)

 

 

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

AUGUST 23, 2010

 

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

FOR THE PEOPLE: STEVE COOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BY: DAVID WALGREN, DEPUTY

DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY

210 WEST TEMPLE STREET

LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

 

FOR THE DEFENDANT: STRADLEY, CHERNOFF & ALFORD

BY: EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, ESQ.

COMMERCIAL BANK BUILDING

917 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002

 

THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV

BY: JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ.

ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER, SUITE 2320

LONG BEACH, CA 90831

 

FLANAGAN, UNGER & GROVER

BY: J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN

1156 N. BRAND BOULEVARD

GLENDALE, CA 91202-2582

 

REPORTED BY: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

VOLUME OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

PAGES 1-15

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01

 

2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY

 

3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2010

 

4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

 

5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

 

6 TIME: 12:20 P.M.

 

7 APPEARANCES:

 

8 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT,

 

9 REPRESENTED BY EDWARD CHERNOFF, ESQ.,

 

10 JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ., AND J. MICHAEL

 

11 FLANAGAN, ESQ.; PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID

 

12 WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT

 

13 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

 

14 CALIFORNIA.

 

15

 

16 THE COURT: LET ME CALL THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS

 

17 CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY. HE IS PRESENT IN CASE NO. SA073164

 

18 WITH HIS THREE COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY THEIR

 

19 TWO COUNSEL.

 

20 WOULD COUNSEL STATE THEIR APPEARANCE FOR THE

 

21 RECORD. FIRST, FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

22 MR. WALGREN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. DAVID

 

23 WALGREN FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

24 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN.

 

25 MS. BRAZIL: GOOD MORNING. DEBORAH BRAZIL FOR THE

 

26 PEOPLE.

 

27 THE COURT: FOR THE DEFENSE?

 

28 MR. CHERNOFF: ED CHERNOFF FOR DR. MURRAY.

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

1 THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. CHERNOFF.

 

2 MR. FLANAGAN: MICHAEL FLANAGAN APPEARING, YOUR

 

3 HONOR.

 

4 MR. LOW: GOOD MORNING, SIR. JOSEPH LOW.

 

5 THE COURT: DR. MURRAY, GOOD AFTERNOON.

 

6 THE DEFENDANT: GOOD AFTERNOON.

 

7 THE COURT: THIS MATTER IS ON CALENDAR FOR FURTHER

 

8 PROCEEDINGS. YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, MS. BRAZIL AND MR.

 

9 WALGREN APPEARED IN CHAMBERS, AND I CONTACTED BY

 

10 TELEPHONE MR. CHERNOFF IN HOUSTON AND WE HAD A TELEPHONE

 

11 CONVERSATION THROUGH THE SPEAKER PHONE.

 

12 IS THAT CORRECT, PEOPLE?

 

13 MR. WALGREN: YES. IT WAS FRIDAY, YOUR HONOR.

 

14 THE COURT: FRIDAY.

 

15 DEFENSE?

 

16 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

 

17 THE COURT: WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE STATUS OF

 

18 THE CASE AND REALISTIC START TIMES. WHAT IS THE PEOPLE’S

 

19 POSITION ON THIS, MR. WALGREN?

 

20 MR. WALGREN: I THINK IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MR.

 

21 CHERNOFF AND THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, BASED ON WITNESS

 

22 AVAILABILITY ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES, ONGOING INVESTIGATION

 

23 AND DISCOVERY ISSUES, AND SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE

 

24 DISCUSSED WITH THE COURT THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED PRIOR

 

25 TO PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WE HAD

 

26 WAS THAT AN OCTOBER 26 RETURN DATE WITH A FIRM DATE FOR

 

27 THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO START THE BEGINNING OF

 

28 JANUARY.

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

1 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?

 

2 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

 

3 THE COURT: I INDICATED TO COUNSEL MY CONCERN. I

 

4 WANTED THIS PRELIMINARY HEARING TO BEGIN AS EXPEDITIOUSLY

 

5 AS POSSIBLE. I ALSO INDICATED TO COUNSEL I RECOGNIZE

 

6 THERE IS STILL ONGOING DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE AND THE

 

7 NEED FOR FURTHER PREPARATION AND INVESTIGATION BY ALL THE

 

8 PARTIES IN THIS CASE.

 

9 AND THE PEOPLE ARE STILL FULFILLING THEIR

 

10 DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES BY PROVIDING TO THE DEFENSE

 

11 ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DISCOVERY THAT THE DEFENSE

 

12 REALISTICALLY NEEDS IN THIS CASE.

 

13 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

14 THE COURT: THAT IS STILL AN ONGOING PROCESS?

 

15 MR. WALGREN: IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.

 

16 THE COURT: AND THE PEOPLE, IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING,

 

17 HAVE SOME WITNESS AVAILABILITY ISSUES AS WELL; IS THAT

 

18 CORRECT?

 

19 MR. WALGREN: THAT’S CORRECT.

 

20 THE COURT: SO REALISTICALLY, FROM THE PEOPLE’S

 

21 STANDPOINT, THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT A BEGINNING OF

 

22 JANUARY DATE FOR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS AN

 

23 APPROPRIATE REALISTIC START DATE.

 

24 MR. WALGREN: BASED ON OUR SCHEDULING CONCERNS AS

 

25 WELL AS THE DEFENSE.

 

26 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF, THAT IS A FAIR

 

27 REPRESENTATION?

 

28 MR. CHERNOFF: IT IS FAIR, JUDGE.

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

1 THE COURT: FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, YOU ARE STILL

 

2 RECEIVING AND PROCESSING ONGOING DISCOVERY WHICH YOU

 

3 BELIEVE YOU NEED IN ORDER TO FULFILL YOUR

 

4 RESPONSIBILITIES.

 

5 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, JUDGE.

 

6 THE COURT: THERE IS ALSO SCHEDULING ISSUES AS

 

7 WELL?

 

8 MR. CHERNOFF: YES, THERE ARE.

 

9 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

 

10 NOW, WE HAVE DISCUSSED A STATUS DATE SO WE

 

11 ALL CAN COME BACK AND GET A FIRMER IDEA ABOUT THE PROCESS

 

12 OF DISCOVERY, ANY LEGAL MOTIONS OR OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY

 

13 ARISE. AND WE DECIDED ON TUESDAY, THE 26TH OF OCTOBER AT

 

14 12:30. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MR. WALGREN?

 

15 MR. WALGREN: IT IS, YOUR HONOR.

 

16 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?

 

17 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.

 

18 THE COURT: IS THAT YOURS AS WELL, DR. MURRAY?

 

19 THE DEFENDANT: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

20 THE COURT: AND WE ALSO DECIDED THAT WE WOULD SET A

 

21 PRELIM DATE, AND I SAID I WANTED IT DURING THE FIRST WEEK

 

22 OF JANUARY AS LIKE A ZERO OF THREE PRELIM DATE WITH A

 

23 CLEAR DIRECTIVE THIS CASE IS GOING TO GO ON THAT DATE.

 

24 WAS IT THE 4TH OR THE 5TH THAT WAS BEST?

 

25 MR. WALGREN: I THINK ANY DATE THAT WORKS FOR THE

 

26 COURT WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

27 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THE 4TH. TUESDAY, THE 4TH OF

 

28 JANUARY, MR. CHERNOFF?

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

1 MR. CHERNOFF: THAT IS AS GOOD AS ANY, JUDGE.

 

2 THE COURT: WE WILL CALL THAT ZERO OF THREE FOR

 

3 PRELIM, AND THAT IS THE DATE WHEN WE INTEND TO HAVE THE

 

4 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE.

 

5 WITH REGARD TO THE SCHEDULING OF THE

 

6 PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHEN I ASKED JUST PRELIMINARILY WHEN

 

7 WE WERE HERE IN APRIL, I ASKED FOR A VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE

 

8 AS TO THE PEOPLE’S TIME ESTIMATE ON THIS CASE, AND MR.

 

9 WALGREN INDICATED APPROXIMATELY A WEEK.

 

10 MY UNDERSTANDING IS BECAUSE OF FURTHER

 

11 INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION AND ALSO DISCUSSING THE

 

12 MATTER WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, THAT PERHAPS THE PRELIMINARY

 

13 HEARING TIME ESTIMATE IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

 

14 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

15 THE COURT: WHAT ARE WE REALISTICALLY EXPECTING

 

16 NOW?

 

17 MR. WALGREN: TWO TO THREE WEEKS, YOUR HONOR, WITH

 

18 THE CAVEAT THAT AS WE GET CLOSER, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE

 

19 PEOPLE WILL BE DISCUSSING ANY POTENTIAL STIPULATIONS WE

 

20 MAY BE ABLE TO REACH. BUT I THINK TWO TO THREE WEEKS IS

 

21 A FAIR ESTIMATE.

 

22 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?

 

23 MR. CHERNOFF: I HAVE NO IDEA.

 

24 THE COURT: OKAY. I THINK WHEN THE PEOPLE SAID TWO

 

25 WEEKS, YOU SAID, WELL, MAYBE THREE WEEKS.

 

26 MR. CHERNOFF: WELL, WHENEVER A LAWYER SAYS TWO

 

27 WEEKS, THAT USUALLY MEANS THREE. WHEN THEY SAY THREE,

 

28 THAT MEANS FOUR. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL PRESENT.

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

1 THEY HAVEN’T TOLD ME, SO I DON’T KNOW.

 

2 THE COURT: I HOPE BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER, WE HAVE

 

3 FURTHER DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES SO THAT I HAVE A

 

4 BETTER IDEA. I DO HAVE A CALENDAR, AND I HAVE A

 

5 SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TRIALS THAT HAVE BEEN AGING IN THIS

 

6 COURTROOM BECAUSE THEY TAKE SO LONG TO TRY.

 

7 AND SO SETTING A REALISTIC AMOUNT OF TIME TO

 

8 DO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE TAKES SOME

 

9 MANEUVERING ON MY PART. I NEED ALL THE HELP I CAN GET

 

10 FROM THE PARTIES.

 

11 WOULD THERE BE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS

 

12 PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN WE START?

 

13 MR. CHERNOFF: JUDGE, PROBABLY. PROBABLY.

 

14 THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW?

 

15 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. I DON’T KNOW RIGHT NOW. I

 

16 CAN’T MAKE THAT ASSERTION.

 

17 THE COURT: HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL GIVE ME A BETTER

 

18 IDEA WHEN WE COME BACK IN OCTOBER. THAT MAY IMPACT HOW

 

19 MY SCHEDULE IS.

 

20 MR. CHERNOFF: I THINK IF I CAN GET SOME IDEA BY

 

21 THEN ABOUT THE WITNESSES, THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES, AND

 

22 WHAT THE PRESENTATION WILL BE, I CAN GIVE YOU THAT

 

23 ANSWER.

 

24 THE COURT: OKAY.

 

25 MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T KNOW WHETHER MR. WALGREN

 

26 WILL BE AT THAT POINT OR NOT, BUT HOPEFULLY BY THEN I CAN

 

27 GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER.

 

28 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE I TAKE THE TIME

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

1 WAIVER, IS THERE SOME OTHER ISSUE I SHOULD BE ADDRESSING?

 

2 MR. WALGREN?

 

3 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

4 THE COURT: LET ME ASK THE PEOPLE FIRST, THEN I’LL

 

5 ASK THE DEFENSE.

 

6 MR. WALGREN?

 

7 MR. WALGREN: JUST A COUPLE ISSUES, YOUR HONOR.

 

8 NUMBER ONE, SOMETIME BACK WE HAD AN SDT HAD

 

9 GONE OUT FOR MR. SOME DOCUMENTS. I UNDERSTAND, FROM

 

10 SPEAKING TO THE COURT CLERK, THOSE HAVE ARRIVED. I’D ASK

 

11 THAT THEY, IF IT IS AGREEABLE WITH THE DEFENSE, THEY BE

 

12 RELEASED TO US. WE CAN PHOTOCOPY THEM AND BATES STAMP

 

13 THEM AND PROVIDE COPIES TO THE DEFENSE, BUT AT THIS POINT

 

14 THEY ARE IN THE CLERK’S CUSTODY.

 

15 THE COURT: WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE WORD SDT, THAT

 

16 STANDS FOR —

 

17 MR. WALGREN: IT IS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.

 

18 THE COURT: SO YOU SUBPOENAED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

 

19 FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES. AND AS A MATTER OF COURT POLICY

 

20 AND RULE, THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE DELIVERED SPECIFICALLY TO

 

21 THE COURT. AND WE HAVE THEM, MS. BENSON?

 

22 THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

23 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

 

24 IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PROCESS, MR.

 

25 CHERNOFF?

 

26 MR. CHERNOFF: NO. THERE IS NO OBJECTION.

 

27 THE COURT: WOULD COUNSEL STIPULATE TO A CHAIN OF

 

28 CUSTODY UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 1270, AND 1271, OR

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

1 1272 REGARDING ANY CHAIN OF CUSTODY ISSUES. WOULD THE

 

2 PEOPLE?

 

3 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

4 THE COURT: WOULD THE DEFENSE?

 

5 MR. CHERNOFF: WE WILL.

 

6 THE COURT: I’M ACCEPTING THE STIPULATION. SO THE

 

7 COURT WILL REQUEST THAT THE COURT CLERK, MS. BENSON,

 

8 PROVIDE TO MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL THE APPROPRIATE

 

9 DOCUMENTATION SO THEY CAN PHOTOCOPY IT FOR THEMSELVES AND

 

10 ALSO FOR THE DEFENSE, AND THEN RETURN TO THE COURT FILE

 

11 THE ORIGINALS.

 

12 MR. WALGREN: YES.

 

13 THE COURT: WHAT I’D LIKE YOU TO DO IS BEFORE YOU

 

14 LEAVE TODAY, IF BOTH OF YOU CAN INITIAL AND DATE THE

 

15 DOCUMENTATION.

 

16 NOW, WITH REGARD TO ANY SUCH DOCUMENTATION,

 

17 IS THERE ANY REQUEST FOR ANY TYPE OF PROTECTIVE ORDER?

 

18 MR. WALGREN: THERE IS A GENERAL REQUEST OF THE

 

19 PEOPLE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AS IT RELATES TO ALL

 

20 DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR. IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE DISCOVERY

 

21 WE ARE TURNING OVER TODAY, IT HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED.

 

22 WE WOULD LIKE A GENERAL PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT

 

23 THE DISCOVERY NOT BE DISSEMINATED IN ANY MANNER OUTSIDE

 

24 THE DEFENSE TEAM AS IS NECESSARY FOR TRIAL PREPARATION.

 

25 THE COURT: AND ALSO OUTSIDE THE PEOPLE’S TEAM.

 

26 MR. WALGREN: YES. YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

27 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?

 

28 MR. CHERNOFF: I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS IN IT, JUDGE.

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

1 I HAVE NO REASON TO OBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER.

 

2 THE COURT: RIGHT NOW, I WILL GRANT THAT ORDER. IT

 

3 IS CALLED A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND WHAT IT MEANS IS ALL OF

 

4 THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS DR. MURRAY AND

 

5 THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS, WHICH INCLUDES ANY INVESTIGATORS

 

6 OR ANY PARALEGALS EMPLOYED BY EITHER TEAM IN THIS CASE,

 

7 ARE ORDERED NOT TO DISSEMINATE OUTSIDE OF THE TEAM ANY OF

 

8 THE MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROVIDED AS PART OF DISCOVERY OR

 

9 AS PART OF ANY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTATION IN THIS CASE. IT

 

10 IS TO REMAIN EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE

 

11 TEAMS UNDER PENALTY OF CONTEMPT SHOULD IT GO ANY FURTHER.

 

12 DO THE PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORDER?

 

13 MR. WALGREN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

14 THE COURT: DOES THE DEFENSE?

 

15 MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO.

 

16 THE COURT: MAY I TAKE THE TIME WAIVER THEN?

 

17 MR. CHERNOFF: YES.

 

18 THE COURT: OKAY. DR. MURRAY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO

 

19 A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THAT

 

20 SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING TODAY OR WITHIN 60 DAYS OF

 

21 TODAY’S DATE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SPEEDY RIGHT?

 

22 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

 

23 THE COURT: DO YOU GIVE UP THAT SPEEDY RIGHT?

 

24 THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

25 THE COURT: SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU GIVE UP THE RIGHT

 

26 TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL TUESDAY, THE 4TH OF

 

27 JANUARY 2011, OR WITHIN THREE DAYS THEREAFTER?

 

28 THE DEFENDANT: YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

1 THE COURT: DO DEFENSE COUNSEL JOIN, MR. CHERNOFF?

 

2 MR. CHERNOFF: WE DO.

 

3 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN?

 

4 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.

 

5 THE COURT: MR. LOW?

 

6 MR. LOW: YES, SIR.

 

7 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

 

8 THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT, FREE AND

 

9 VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING WAIVER BY DR. MURRAY

 

10 OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY HEARING. THERE IS

 

11 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS CASE. IT IS A

 

12 MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE RAISED BY BOTH THE PEOPLE OF THE

 

13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE DEFENSE. THE JUSTIFICATION

 

14 IS NEED FOR FURTHER PREPARATION AND INVESTIGATION AND

 

15 SERIOUS WITNESS AVAILABILITY ISSUES.

 

16 THAT IS WHY I AM FINDING GOOD CAUSE FOR A

 

17 CONTINUANCE, AND I AM GRANTING THE CONTINUANCE IN THIS

 

18 CASE UNTIL THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011. I EXPECT THIS CASE

 

19 IS GOING TO GO TO PRELIM ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011. THE

 

20 DEFENDANT AND ALL ATTORNEYS ARE ORDERED BACK AT THAT TIME

 

21 ON THAT DATE.

 

22 AND ADDITIONALLY, THE DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL

 

23 ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK TO THIS COURT ON THE 26TH OF

 

24 OCTOBER 2010 AT 12:30 P.M. ON THAT DAY. SO THAT WILL BE

 

25 FOR ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, ANY MOTIONS, AND A STATUS

 

26 UPDATE.

 

27 SO IF THERE ARE ANY MOTIONS TO BE FILED,

 

28 COUNSEL MUST AND SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA RULES

 

 

 

 

11

 

 

1 OF COURT AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT RULES OF

 

2 COURT IN TERMS OF FILING ANY MOTIONS AND PROVIDING ANY

 

3 AND ALL APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION.

 

4 IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. WALGREN?

 

5 MR. WALGREN: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

6 THE COURT: MS. BRAZIL?

 

7 MS. BRAZIL: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

8 THE COURT: MR. CHERNOFF?

 

9 MR. CHERNOFF: YES. WE HAVE ONE BIT OF

 

10 HOUSEKEEPING. MR. FLANAGAN HAS A MOTION WE DISCUSSED IN

 

11 OUR TELECONFERENCE ON FRIDAY.

 

12 MR. FLANAGAN: NOT REALLY A MOTION, YOUR HONOR.

 

13 JUST ORDER FOR DISCOVERY. THE CORONER’S OFFICE HAS DONE

 

14 SOME TOXICOLOGY STUDIES ON CERTAIN FLUIDS, THREE FLUIDS,

 

15 WHERE THEY HAD POSITIVE RESULTS.

 

16 WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO REEXAMINE THOSE RESULTS

 

17 AND HAVE THE COURT SIGN AN ORDER ALLOWING PACIFIC

 

18 TOXICOLOGY LABORATORIES TO REEXAMINE THE TOXICOLOGY

 

19 RESULTS. IT DEALS WITH A COUPLE OF SYRINGES AND IV-TUBE.

 

20 THE COURT: THE ISSUE WAS RAISED ON THURSDAY. AND

 

21 AT THE TIME WHEN MR. CHERNOFF RAISED THE ISSUE, MR.

 

22 WALGREN WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHETHER THE

 

23 DEPARTMENT OF CORONER HAD SUFFICIENT AVAILABLE MATERIAL

 

24 TO BE ANALYZED.

 

25 I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, MR.

 

26 WALGREN.

 

27 MR. WALGREN: NO, YOUR HONOR. IN FACT, WE ARE

 

28 WAITING TO SEE THE MOTION TO SEE. WE DIDN’T KNOW AT THAT

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

1 TIME SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.

 

2 SO THERE APPARENTLY IS NO MOTION. NO P&A.

 

3 JUST SIMPLY AN ORDER HERE. WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO

 

4 RESPOND AT THIS TIME.

 

5 MR. FLANAGAN: NORMALLY, FOR REEXAMINATION, WE JUST

 

6 PROVIDE THE COURT WITH AN ORDER. I THINK THERE IS NO

 

7 QUESTION BUT THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO REEXAMINE THE

 

8 FLUIDS. I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE ORDER, THE

 

9 FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES REPORT. THEY FOUND

 

10 CHEMICALS IN THREE SEPARATE FLUIDS THAT THEY EXAMINED.

 

11 WE JUST WANT TO TAKE A LOOK.

 

12 THE CORONER — I’VE TALKED WITH THE CORONER.

 

13 THERE IS A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT FOR REEXAMINATION.

 

14 LINTERMOOT, THE CORONER’S EXAMINER, HAS ONLY DONE

 

15 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR

 

16 QUANTITATIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LAB QUANTIFY WHAT

 

17 IS IN THESE SAMPLES.

 

18 THE COURT: THE ABSENCE OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,

 

19 I THINK THE COURT CAN ADDRESS IT.

 

20 THE ISSUE THAT CONCERNS ME IS CHAIN OF

 

21 CUSTODY AND WHETHER THERE REALISTICALLY IS ENOUGH

 

22 MATERIAL TO EXAMINE. DO YOU THINK COUNSEL CAN CONFER

 

23 ABOUT THIS AND LET ME KNOW BY SOME SORT OF FAX WHETHER

 

24 YOU HAVE AGREED TO THIS. I RATHER NOT SCHEDULE AN

 

25 INTERVENING APPEARANCE DATE, BUT I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT

 

26 TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER TO DEAL WITH THIS.

 

27 SO YOU HAVE GOT THE REQUEST, MR. WALGREN. I

 

28 THINK YOU CAN ADDRESS IT WITHOUT POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

1 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN

 

2 DISCUSS IT AMONG OURSELVES, BUT IT IS MUCH MORE

 

3 COMPLICATED THAN MR. FLANAGAN IS REPRESENTING.

 

4 THERE ARE CUSTODY, CHAIN OF CUSTODY, ISSUES,

 

5 PROCEDURAL ISSUES, ISSUES AS TO WHETHER THE SAMPLE WOULD

 

6 BE DESTROYED BY TESTING, WHETHER WE HAVE A CHANCE TO

 

7 REANALYZE. THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED.

 

8 THE COURT: I DON’T DOUBT IT. I THINK THAT IS

 

9 SOMETHING FOR THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS. WE HAVE COMPETENT,

 

10 VERY PROFESSIONAL, EXPERIENCED LAWYERS, AND I THINK THEY

 

11 ARE AWARE OF ALL THESE ISSUES.

 

12 I’M GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO SET FORTH

 

13 THE PARAMETERS AND PUT IT IN WRITING. AND THEN IF YOU

 

14 HAVE MADE AN AGREEMENT, RUN IT BY ME AND I’LL SEE IF I

 

15 CAN WRITE IT OFF. IF NOT, WE WILL GET EVERYBODY BACK IN

 

16 HERE AND HAVE FORMAL ARGUMENT.

 

17 I DON’T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER IF THE

 

18 DEFENSE NEEDS TO ANALYZE IT, SO I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.

 

19 ANYTHING ELSE, MR. FLANAGAN, MR. LOW, OR MR.

 

20 CHERNOFF?

 

21 MR. CHERNOFF: JUDGE, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THEN

 

22 THAT YOU WERE SAYING THAT NEITHER THE PROSECUTION NOR THE

 

23 DEFENSE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT FLUID UNTIL OR IF WE

 

24 COME TO EITHER AN AGREEMENT OR A RULING ON YOUR PART. IT

 

25 HAS BEEN 14 MONTHS. I HATE FOR THAT FLUID TO DISAPPEAR

 

26 ON US.

 

27 CAN WE HAVE AN ORDER TO PRESERVE THAT

 

28 EVIDENCE, AN ORAL ORDER TO PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE?

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

1 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN?

 

2 MR. WALGREN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT, BUT I DO

 

3 THINK THE SMART THING TO DO WOULD BE TO HAVE A WRITTEN

 

4 ORDER TO CONVEY THAT TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES.

 

5 THE COURT: WE ARE DEALING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF

 

6 CORONER, NOT DEALING WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

 

7 CALIFORNIA, SO IT IS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY. I AM HAPPY

 

8 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE REQUEST, AND I’M

 

9 ISSUING AN ORDER ORAL ORDER RIGHT NOW THAT THE PEOPLE AND

 

10 THE DEPARTMENT OF CORONER ARE NOT TO DESTROY OR OTHERWISE

 

11 AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF WHATEVER IS REMAINING.

 

12 I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THE DEFENSE WOULD

 

13 FILE A FORMAL REQUEST FOR AN ORDER THAT I CAN SIGN TO

 

14 THAT EFFECT, THEN PROVIDE ME, AFTER BOTH SIDES HAVE HAD

 

15 THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT, WITH A

 

16 WRITTEN ORDER REGARDING THE STIPULATION, ANY STIPULATION

 

17 YOU HAVE.

 

18 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.

 

19 THE COURT: CHAIN OF CUSTODY ISSUES AND INTEGRITY

 

20 ISSUES ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN CASES. SO WE WANT TO MAKE

 

21 SURE THAT THE DEFENSE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT IT

 

22 HAS TO DO, BUT AT THE SAME TIME DOESN’T IMPACT THE

 

23 INTEGRITY OF THE PROSECUTION IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE’S

 

24 EVIDENCE. SO I’M ISSUING THE ORAL ORDER RIGHT NOW.

 

25 FOLLOW UP, MR. FLANAGAN. YOU CAN FAX OR

 

26 DELIVER A WRITTEN ORDER FOR ME TO SIGN. RUN IT BY THE

 

27 PEOPLE FIRST. THEY CAN SIGN OFF ON IT, THEN I’LL BE

 

28 HAPPY TO SIGN OFF. THEN WE GET TO THE NEXT STEP.

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

1 ANYTHING ELSE?

 

2 MR. CHERNOFF: NO.

 

3 MR. WALGREN: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

4 THE COURT: SO WE WILL SEE COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY

 

5 AT 12:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, THE 26TH OF OCTOBER 2010. IN

 

6 THE INTERIM, BOND TO STAND.

 

7 THERE IS SOME FURTHER MATTERS COUNSEL MAY

 

8 WANT TO ADDRESS. WE WILL BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE COURTROOM.

 

9 THANK YOU.

 

10

 

11 (THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED

 

12 TO 12:30 P.M., OCTOBER 26, 2010.)

 

13

 

14

 

15

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

26

 

27

 

28