JUNE 14TH 2010,

 

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