NOVEMBER 16TH 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

)

CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

)

___________________________________)

 

 

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 

NOVEMBER 16, 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: (VIA SPEAKER PHONE)

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

OFFICIAL REPORTER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01

 

2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY

 

3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010

 

4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

 

5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

 

6 TIME: 12:00 P.M.

 

7 APPEARANCES:

 

8 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,

 

9 REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ., AND

 

10 J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, ESQ. (VIA SPEAKER

 

11 PHONE); PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID

 

12 WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT

 

13 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

 

14 CALIFORNIA.

 

15

 

16 (AN IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 2-7, HAS

 

17 BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,

 

18 BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT

 

19 HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A

 

20 SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY

 

21 NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

26

 

27

 

28

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01

 

2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY

 

3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010

 

4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

 

5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

 

6 TIME: 12:00 P.M.

 

7 APPEARANCES:

 

8 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,

 

9 REPRESENTED BY J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, ESQ. (VIA

 

10 SPEAKER PHONE); PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID

 

11 WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT

 

12 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

 

13 CALIFORNIA.

 

14

 

15 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN, LET ME PUT YOU ON THE

 

16 SPEAKER.

 

17 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.

 

18 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

 

19 WE ARE, ONCE AGAIN, ON SPEAKER PHONE AND MR.

 

20 WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL ARE PRESENT. MR. FLANAGAN IS ON

 

21 SPEAKER PHONE. AND MS. THEODOROU, THE COURT REPORTER, IS

 

22 TAKING DOWN WHAT IS BEING SAID.

 

23 IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

24 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.

 

25 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

 

26 MR. LOW AND I JUST SPOKE A COUPLE TIMES. HE

 

27 CALLED BACK A FEW MOMENTS AGO TO INDICATE THAT YOU WOULD

 

28 BE CALLING. SO WHAT IS THE LATEST?

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

1 MR. FLANAGAN: THE LATEST ON WHAT SUBJECT?

 

2 THE COURT: ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED TESTING,

 

3 WHICH I BELIEVE THE DEFENSE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR.

 

4 WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL WHICH INCLUDED DOCUMENTATION FROM

 

5 THE CORONER’S OFFICE.

 

6 DID YOU GET THAT?

 

7 MR. FLANAGAN: YES, I HAVE THAT. IT IS A FOUR-PAGE

 

8 DECLARATION FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE AS TO DISCUSSIONS

 

9 THEY HAD WITH ME AND PROCEDURES THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO DO,

 

10 AND THE TESTING AGREEMENT.

 

11 MR. WALGREN THEN SENT THAT TO MR. CHERNOFF.

 

12 MR. CHERNOFF E-MAILED IT TO ME. I DO HAVE COPIES OF THE

 

13 LETTERS THAT MR. WALGREN SENT WITH THE DECLARATION.

 

14 IN THAT LETTER, HE SUGGESTED TWO SCENARIOS.

 

15 ONE IS TO SPLIT THE RESIDUE IN HALF AND HAVE US TAKE HALF

 

16 AND LEAVE HALF WITH THE CORONER SO THE D.A.’S OFFICE

 

17 COULD MAYBE HAVE IT INDEPENDENTLY TESTED ANOTHER TIME

 

18 AFTER WE HAD IT TESTED.

 

19 MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CORONER’S LETTER IS

 

20 THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH LEFT AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN CERTAIN

 

21 THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO DO THE TEST. WITH THEIR LACK OF

 

22 CERTAINTY AND HAVING ENOUGH NOW TO DO THE TEST, I DON’T

 

23 THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO FURTHER SPLIT WHAT IS

 

24 AVAILABLE FOR THE TESTING PROCEDURES.

 

25 AND I THINK OPTION TWO, THAT BOTH SIDES

 

26 STIPULATE TO HAVE THE CORONER DO THE BEST THEY CAN WITH

 

27 WHAT THEY HAVE GOT, WOULD BE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. I

 

28 HAVE NO REASON NOT TO TRUST THE CORONER’S OFFICE USING

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

1 THEIR BEST EFFORT, AND I DON’T THINK MR. WALGREN WOULD

 

2 THINK THEY WOULD NOT USE THEIR BEST EFFORT.

 

3 IN TALKING TO JAIME LINTEMOOT, I TALKED WITH

 

4 HER PROBABLY A WEEK AGO. I TALKED WITH HER IN JULY. I

 

5 TALKED WITH HER BACK IN MAY. SHE THINKS THAT SHE MIGHT

 

6 BE ABLE TO DO IT. SHE IS NOT POSITIVE SHE CAN DO IT

 

7 BECAUSE ONE OF THE SAMPLES IS DRIED UP AND THERE IS ONLY

 

8 CRYSTALS LEFT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DILUTED AND TESTED.

 

9 ONE OF THE SYRINGES DOES HAVE LIQUID SAMPLE

 

10 IN IT, AND THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY EXACTLY

 

11 WHAT THE QUANTITY WAS IN THE SYRINGES BUT THEY MIGHT BE

 

12 ABLE TO PROPORTIONALLY DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP OF HOW

 

13 MUCH LIDOCAINE TO HOW MUCH PROPOFOL THERE WAS AT ONE

 

14 POINT IN TIME.

 

15 SO I THINK IN VIEW OF THE FACT THERE IS

 

16 HARDLY ANY SAMPLE LEFT, WHY COMPROMISE IT IN TERMS OF

 

17 ANYONE BEING ABLE TO TEST IT AND LET THE CORONER GO AHEAD

 

18 AND TEST IT. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED ON BEHALF OF

 

19 DR. MURRAY.

 

20 THE COURT: BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO THE PEOPLE, DO

 

21 YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR DECLARATION IN FRONT OF YOU, BY

 

22 ANY CHANCE?

 

23 MR. FLANAGAN: NO, I DO NOT.

 

24 THE COURT: AT THE TOP OF PAGE 3, CAPTIONED

 

25 DECLARATION OF DANIEL T. ANDERSON AND JAIME LINTEMOOT,

 

26 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORONER, THERE IS A

 

27 SUBDIVISION (A):

 

28 “THE DEFENSE COUNSEL CANNOT

 

 

 

 

11

 

 

1 LOCATE ANOTHER MUTUALLY AGREED

 

2 UPON LABORATORY TO PERFORM THESE

 

3 QUANTITATIVE TESTS FOR LIDOCAINE

 

4 AND PROPOFOL IN THESE ITEMS OF

 

5 INTEREST.”

 

6 MR. FLANAGAN: THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE IS ANOTHER

 

7 LABORATORY THAT CAN DO IT. THEY ARE OUT OF STATE, THE

 

8 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES THAT I NORMALLY USE ON

 

9 CHEMICAL TESTING. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO

 

10 THIS TEST. THEY WOULD SEND IT TO, I THINK IT IS,

 

11 SOMETHING CALLED AMERICAN NATIONAL LABORATORIES. IT IS

 

12 OUT OF STATE.

 

13 AND THE LOGISTICS FOR GETTING THAT DONE WOULD

 

14 BE VERY DIFFICULT IN VIEW OF WHAT I PERCEIVE IS JUST

 

15 RESIDUE LEFT IN ONE OF THE SYRINGES AND A VERY SMALL

 

16 QUANTITY, SPLITTING IT IN HALF. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE

 

17 BETTER JUST GO WITH THE CORONER’S OFFICE.

 

18 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN AND/OR MS. BRAZIL, YOUR

 

19 THOUGHTS?

 

20 MR. WALGREN: WELL, THAT IS WHY WE PUT IT IN A

 

21 LETTER AND HAD THEM PREPARE THE DECLARATION, YOUR HONOR,

 

22 SO THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY CONFUSION.

 

23 MR. FLANAGAN: SOME THINGS DIDN’T OCCUR. MOST OF

 

24 THE CONVERSATION WITH LINTEMOOT IS CORRECT, AND I CAN’T

 

25 TELL YOU. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SHE

 

26 ATTTRIBUTES TO HAVING TOLD ME AT THE TIME OF OUR MEETING

 

27 IN JULY, BUT I THINK THAT IS NOT ALL COMPLETELY ACCURATE.

 

28 I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE IS LET’S GET IT TESTED

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

1 BY THE CORONER’S OFFICE. NOBODY WILL DISPUTE THEIR

 

2 CREDIBILITY. I THINK THEY ARE NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT

 

3 LABORATORY. THEY TELL ME THEY ARE TOTALLY INDEPENDENT.

 

4 THAT IS WHY THEY WOULD TALK TO ME WITHOUT FIRST GETTING

 

5 PERMISSION TO TALK TO ME FROM MR. WALGREN. THEY SAID,

 

6 “NO, WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT LABORATORY. WE WILL TELL YOU

 

7 WHAT OUR PROCEDURES ARE.”

 

8 AND JAIME LINTEMOOT HAS BEEN QUITE OPEN WITH

 

9 ME. SO WE HAVE NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN

 

10 GET HE BEST POSSIBLE RESULTS. I REALLY THINK WE ARE

 

11 PROBABLY LIMITED TO THAT DUE TO THE LACK OF QUANTITY THAT

 

12 REMAINS.

 

13 THE COURT: AND THIS IS BASED UPON YOUR OWN

 

14 DISCUSSIONS WITH EXPERTS ON THEIR EXPERTISE?

 

15 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.

 

16 THE COURT: BECAUSE I DON’T WANT THE SITUATION TO

 

17 ARISE WHERE AT A LATER POINT IN TIME ONE SIDE OR THE

 

18 OTHER SAYS THAT SOMETHING WAS MISHANDLED AT THE OUTSET

 

19 AND THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE WHICH WERE NOT

 

20 UTILIZED.

 

21 MR. FLANAGAN: OH, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN’T

 

22 ESCAPE THAT. I THINK THAT THE CONTENTS OF BOTH SYRINGES

 

23 AND THE I.V. SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUANTIFIED IN THE VERY

 

24 BEGINNING WHEN THEY WERE QUANTIFYING THE SUBSTANCES IN

 

25 THE BODY OR THE FLUIDS IN THE BODY.

 

26 JAIME EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THEY ONLY DO

 

27 QUANTIFICATION WHEN IT IS RELEVANT FOR CAUSE OF DEATH AND

 

28 I’LL AGREE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SYRINGE WOULD HAVE

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

1 NOTHING TO DO WITH CAUSE OF DEATH, BUT IT MIGHT HAVE

 

2 SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE INSTRUMENTALITY THAT WAS USED TO

 

3 CAUSE THE DEATH. THEY DON’T NORMALLY QUANTIFY UNLESS IT

 

4 IS DIAGNOSTIC.

 

5 I DON’T THINK AT THE TIME — THEY PROBABLY

 

6 DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTENT OF THE

 

7 SYRINGES. WE THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE THINK IT

 

8 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE OUTSET. FROM WHAT I’VE BEEN

 

9 WAITING FOR WHEN I WAS WAITING FOR DISCOVERY ON THE

 

10 TOXICOLOGY, I WAS VERY ANXIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE TOXICOLOGY

 

11 SHOWED.

 

12 I’VE GONE THROUGH THE GRAPHS AND THE CHARTS

 

13 OF THE GAS-CHROMATOGRAPH AND THE SPECTROMETRY. I WAS

 

14 THINKING WHY CAN’T YOU QUANTIFY WHAT IS THERE BECAUSE OF

 

15 WHAT IS THERE. THAT IS WHY I GOT ANOTHER LAB TO CHECK

 

16 THEIR CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS. WE THINK THE QUANTITY IS SO

 

17 IMPORTANT. I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT

 

18 TO DO NOW.

 

19 BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO I FEEL THAT,

 

20 YOU KNOW, THAT IT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN DONE RIGHT FROM THE

 

21 VERY BEGINNING. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BACK IN JUNE OR

 

22 JULY OF 2009.

 

23 THE COURT: WELL, THE ISSUE IS WHERE DO WE GO FROM

 

24 HERE.

 

25 MR. FLANAGAN: DO THE BEST WE CAN TO GET THE TEST

 

26 DONE NOW.

 

27 MR. WALGREN: OF COURSE, THE DEFENSE, MR. FLANAGAN,

 

28 YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS AS SOON AS YOU HAD

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

1 WISHED. YOU COULD HAVE SUBMITTED A COURT ORDER AT THE

 

2 DAY OF ARRAIGNMENT. SO THIS TIMING ISSUE IS KIND OF A

 

3 RED HERRING, BUT WE ARE BEYOND THAT.

 

4 WE HAVE A DECLARATION EXPLAINING EVERYTHING

 

5 FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE, SO NOW WE DECIDE WHICH WAY YOU

 

6 WANT TO GO. YOU HAVE INDICATED YOU WANT THE CORONER TO

 

7 DO IT. YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND YOU CAN ALSO HAVE YOUR OWN

 

8 LAB DO IT. IF YOU HAVE A LAB TO DO IT, THEY CAN GO AHEAD

 

9 AND TAKE THE SPLIT. WE DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY

 

10 LAB OF YOURS THAT SAYS THEY HAVE INSUFFICIENT MATERIALS

 

11 TO DO A TEST.

 

12 MR. FLANAGAN: I DON’T KNOW THAT THERE IS ENOUGH

 

13 MATERIALS TO DO THE TEST. MAYBE I SHOULD TALK TO JAIME

 

14 LINTEMOOT AGAIN. BUT AS FAR AS GETTING MY LAB, GETTING A

 

15 COURT ORDER THE DATE OF ARRAIGNMENT, REMEMBER WE WERE NOT

 

16 GIVEN THE TOXICOLOGY STUFF UNTIL, I THINK IT WAS,

 

17 PROBABLY APRIL SOMETIME. AND I WAS VERY ANXIOUS TO GET

 

18 IT BECAUSE I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TOXICOLOGY WAS.

 

19 WE DIDN’T KNOW THAT IT HADN’T BEEN DONE. THIS CASE

 

20 WASN’T FILED FOR SIX MONTHS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE

 

21 CHANGE HAS BEEN IN THE LAST TEN MONTHS. BUT I JUST

 

22 ASSUMED THAT THE QUANTIFICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE

 

23 BECAUSE THE QUANTIFICATION WAS DONE FOR PURPOSES OF THE

 

24 AUTOPSY WHEN THEY ARE TESTING SOLUTIONS. I JUST ASSUMED

 

25 THAT IT WAS ALREADY DONE.

 

26 I FOUND OUT IN APRIL THAT IT IS NOT DONE.

 

27 AND THEN I CONTACT THE CORONER’S LAB AND SEE IF AN

 

28 INTERPRETATION BASED UPON THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS, SEE

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

1 IF THERE WAS AN INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD BE QUANTIFIED.

 

2 AND SHE TELLS ME, NO, THE TESTING PROCEDURE SHE OUTLINED

 

3 IN HER PROPOSED PROCEDURES OF DILUTING THE PROPOFOL AND

 

4 LIDOCAINE 50-50 AND THEN TESTING IT, SEEING WHAT IT LOOKS

 

5 LIKE, AND LETTING IT SIT THERE FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS, WAS

 

6 THE EXACT PROCEDURE THAT I PROPOSED BE DONE BECAUSE I

 

7 KNOW PROPOFOL DISSIPATES QUICKLY.

 

8 AND I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT IT LOOKS

 

9 LIKE BECAUSE WE THINK IN THAT ORIGINAL SYRINGE, THE ONE

 

10 THAT IS IN THE I.V., THAT YOU SHOULD FIND A SOLUTION THAT

 

11 WILL BE 50-50 PROPOFOL AND LIDOCAINE AND THAT IS WHAT WE

 

12 ANTICIPATE.

 

13 THERE IS SOME FLUID IN THAT SYRINGE. I THINK

 

14 THE CRIME LAB, OR IF THE CORONER’S OFFICE IS ALLOWED TO

 

15 LOOK AT IT, THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL COME UP WITH.

 

16 THE COURT: SHOULD YOU BE SUBMITTING A LETTER IN

 

17 RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF THE CORONER WHERE YOU SAY

 

18 THE CORONER MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR DISCUSSIONS?

 

19 MR. FLANAGAN: I COULD. I COULD SUBMIT THAT,

 

20 ANOTHER DECLARATION, IN WRITING. AS SOON AS I GET BACK

 

21 TO THE OFFICE, I COULD GET ON IT THIS AFTERNOON.

 

22 THE COURT: I WANT TO AVOID A WAR OF DECLARATIONS.

 

23 SOME OF US ACTUALLY WATCH FORENSIC FILES, AND I DON’T

 

24 KNOW IF THERE IS OR IS NOT SOME OTHER LABORATORY

 

25 SOMEWHERE ON THE PLANET THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THE

 

26 ANALYSIS WHICH YOU SAY CAN OR CAN’T BE DONE BY THE

 

27 CORONER.

 

28 I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT I SHOULD BE DOING IN

 

 

 

 

16

 

 

1 TERMS OF THE FUTURE OF THESE SAMPLES.

 

2 MR. FLANAGAN: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS DONE IS

 

3 DONE. WHAT HASN’T BEEN DONE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THAT IS

 

4 WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE AT THE PRESENT TIME FOR PURPOSES

 

5 OF DOING THIS ANALYSIS.

 

6 WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO DO IS WE ARE WILLING

 

7 TO STIPULATE THAT THE CORONER USE ITS BEST EFFORTS. I DO

 

8 NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT ANOTHER LAB CAN DO IT. THERE

 

9 WAS THIS OTHER LAB. MIKE HENSON OF FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY

 

10 ASSOCIATES SAID IT WOULD BE EXPERIMENTAL. HE MIGHT BE

 

11 ABLE TO DO IT.

 

12 WELL, I HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION WITH JAIME

 

13 LINTEMOOT, AND SHE SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING. “I THINK

 

14 WE CAN DO IT. I’M NOT CERTAIN.”

 

15 YOU KNOW, NOBODY CAN TELL YOU RIGHT UP FRONT

 

16 THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. NOBODY HAS

 

17 PROBABLY EVER DONE THIS BEFORE. NOBODY EVER HAD TO DO

 

18 THIS, TO EXAMINE THE CRYSTALLINE LIDOCAINE AND PROPOFOL.

 

19 BUT REGARDLESS OF THE STATUS OF EVERYBODY’S

 

20 KNOWLEDGE, PROBABILITY OR LACK OF PROBABILITY, NOW THE

 

21 BEST THING TO DO IS THE BEST WE CAN WITH THIS. FOR

 

22 PURPOSES OF DEALING WITH THIS, WE ARE WILLING TO

 

23 STIPULATE TO THE LOS ANGELES CORONER’S OFFICE BE THE

 

24 AGENCY THAT MAKES THEIR BEST EFFORTS. THEY ARE THE ONLY

 

25 ONES THAT CAN DO IT WITH THE FULL AMOUNT OF SAMPLE THAT

 

26 IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. AND I WOULD THINK IF ANYBODY

 

27 COULD DO IT, THEY CAN DO IT.

 

28 THE COURT: PARAGRAPH 16 OF THE DECLARATION READS

 

 

 

 

17

 

 

1 AS FOLLOWS. IT IS PAGE 4 OF 4:

 

2 “IN CONCLUSION, THE LAC/DOC

 

3 TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY IS

 

4 NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR

 

5 TOXICOLOGY ANALYSIS PERFORMED

 

6 AND IS FULLY CAPABLE OF HANDLING

 

7 THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE

 

8 FLUIDS. HOWEVER, THE TWO

 

9 PRINCIPAL ANALYSTS CONCEDE THAT

 

10 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE

 

11 LIMITED VOLUMES OF MEDICAL

 

12 EVIDENCE FLUIDS WOULD BE

 

13 EXPERIMENTAL AND INTERPRETATION

 

14 OF DATA MAY,” CAPITAL M-A-Y, “BE

 

15 DIFFICULT BASED ON FACTORS SUCH

 

16 AS DEGRADATION AND DILUTION

 

17 FACTORS.”

 

18 DO YOU HIM CONCUR WITH THAT?

 

19 MR. FLANAGAN: I REREAD THAT, AND I THINK IF

 

20 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY WAS APPROACHING THIS PROBLEM, THEY

 

21 WOULD STATE THE EXACT SAME THING.

 

22 THE COURT: WELL, ARE THE PEOPLE PREPARED TO

 

23 STIPULATE TO WHAT MR. FLANAGAN SAID HE WOULD STIPULATE

 

24 TO?

 

25 MR. WALGREN: I DON’T KNOW ABOUT A STIPULATION. I

 

26 WOULD PROPOSE IF MR. FLANAGAN HAS INDICATED HERE AND

 

27 INDICATED TO ME ON THE TELEPHONE EARLIER HE WANTED TO

 

28 PROCEED WITH THE TESTING WITH THE CORONER’S OFFICE, I

 

 

 

 

18

 

 

1 WOULD SUGGEST, MR. FLANAGAN, IF YOU COULD DRAW UP AN

 

2 INITIAL DRAFT OF THE COURT ORDER, THEN WE CAN MAKE ANY

 

3 AMENDMENT WE THINK APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE DECLARATION.

 

4 WE CAN GO FROM THERE.

 

5 MR. FLANAGAN: IF I DREW UP A PROPOSED COURT ORDER,

 

6 IT WOULD BE BOTH SIDES WOULD AGREE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

 

7 CORONER’S OFFICE BE ALLOWED TO DO THE TESTING IN THE

 

8 MANNER THEY SET FORTH IN THEIR DECLARATION. WHAT ELSE

 

9 NEEDS TO BE AGREED TO?

 

10 THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE IN

 

11 THERE INCORPORATING THAT PARAGRAPH 16, THAT IT IS

 

12 UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TESTING IS EXPERIMENTAL. IT MAY

 

13 RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OR DEGRADATION OF WHATEVER IS

 

14 LEFT, AND THE PARTIES RECOGNIZE THAT THERE DOES NOT

 

15 APPEAR TO BE ANY OTHER LABORATORY WHICH IS CAPABLE OF

 

16 DOING IT, ASIDE FROM ANY OTHER LANGUAGE YOU CAN THINK OF.

 

17 MR. FLANAGAN: DOES THAT ADD ANYTHING TO THE

 

18 CORONER’S ABILITY TO DO THE TEST? I THINK WE WANT TO GET

 

19 THE FLUIDS AND CRYSTALS INTO THE HANDS OF SOMEBODY WHO

 

20 CAN AT LEAST MAKE A STATEMENT. IT SHOULD BE CONDITIONED

 

21 UPON OUR ACQUIESCING AND THE FACT THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD

 

22 DO IT. I DON’T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE COULD DO IT, BUT WE

 

23 ARE WILLING TO AGREE THAT IN VIEW OF THE SITUATION RIGHT

 

24 NOW WITH LIMITED SAMPLE AVAILABLE, BEING AN EXPERIMENTAL

 

25 PROCEDURE, THAT THE CORONER HAS THE BEST CHANCE OF BEING

 

26 ABLE TO DO IT.

 

27 MR. WALGREN: WHICH AGAIN I FALL BACK TO I THINK

 

28 YOU SHOULD WRITE A DRAFT. WE WILL AMEND IT AS WE THINK

 

 

 

 

19

 

 

1 IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE DECLARATION. IF WE CAN REACH

 

2 AGREEMENT ON THE TERMINOLOGY, OPTION TWO WILL WORK.

 

3 IF NOT, YOU ALWAYS HAVE OPTION ONE WHERE YOU

 

4 CAN GO FIND YOUR OWN LAB. WE ARE NOT REQUESTING THIS

 

5 TESTING. WE DON’T THINK IT IS RELEVANT, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE

 

6 OUR THOUGHTS WHY THE DEFENSE WANTS IT. WE ARE NOT

 

7 REQUESTING IT. IT SHOULD BE A DEFENSE REQUEST, DEFENSE

 

8 ORDER. BUT IT SHOULD BE, I THINK, CONSISTENT WITH THE

 

9 DECLARATION SO EVERYONE KNOWS AND EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES

 

10 THEY WERE PUT ON NOTICE UP FRONT REGARDING THE RISKS AND

 

11 LIMITATIONS OF THIS TESTING.

 

12 MR. FLANAGAN: I DON’T THINK THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT

 

13 THE LIMITATIONS AND DECLARE OUR KNOWLEDGE AT THIS PRESENT

 

14 TIME. I THINK ALL WE WANT TO DO IS GET IT TESTED AND LET

 

15 THE CORONER MAKE THEIR BEST EFFORT.

 

16 THE COURT: WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IN THE FIRST

 

17 INSTANCE IS DRAFT A PROPOSED ORDER. RUN IT BY THE

 

18 PEOPLE, THEN I GET INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER I SIGN THE

 

19 ORDER IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM OR WITH SOME CHANGES. BUT

 

20 CLEARLY, IT HAS TO BE IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSED COURT

 

21 ORDER.

 

22 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.

 

23 THE COURT: RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN STATUS QUO WHERE

 

24 THERE IS NOTHING BEING DONE. MY ORIGINAL ORDER REMAINS.

 

25 MR. FLANAGAN: RATHER THAN PHRASE THE ORDER AS A

 

26 STIPULATION BASED ON A STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO HAVE

 

27 THE CORONER DO IT, HAVE THE ORDER BASED UPON THE DEFENSE

 

28 REQUESTING THAT THE CORONER DO FURTHER TESTING.

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

1 THE COURT: WELL, NO. I THINK THE DEFERRING OF THE

 

2 TESTING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

 

3 MR. FLANAGAN: NO. THAT THE CORONER DO FURTHER

 

4 TESTING.

 

5 THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU SAID DEFER TESTING. I

 

6 APOLOGIZE.

 

7 THAT IS WHAT IS CHANGING THE STATUS QUO. SO

 

8 THAT THE CORONER ENGAGE IN TESTING.

 

9 MR. FLANAGAN: WE WILL HAVE A STIPULATION THAT THE

 

10 CORONER WILL DO THE TEST. YOU WANT IT TO BE AT DEFENSE

 

11 REQUEST THAT THE CORONER DO IT?

 

12 THE COURT: ANY TIME A COURT CAN GET A STIPULATION,

 

13 IT IS HAPPY WITH A STIPULATION. I DON’T SENSE, HEARING

 

14 FROM MR. WALGREN, THAT THE PEOPLE AT THIS JUNCTURE ARE

 

15 PREPARED TO STIPULATE.

 

16 WHAT I DO HEAR THEM SAYING IS THEY WANT TO

 

17 REVIEW ANY PROPOSED DEFENSE ORDER AND THEN COMMENT ON IT,

 

18 AND ULTIMATELY I’LL HAVE TO CALL IT.

 

19 MR. FLANAGAN: I WANTED TO GET IT AS CLOSE TO BEING

 

20 ACCURATE THE FIRST TIME I SEND IT OVER. MR. WALGREN, DO

 

21 YOU WANT ME TO FRAME IT AS A DEFENSE REQUEST AS OPPOSED

 

22 TO STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES?

 

23 MR. WALGREN: YES.

 

24 MR. FLANAGAN: THAT IS A YES?

 

25 MR. WALGREN: YES.

 

26 THE COURT: OKAY. SO WHAT I’LL DO, I’LL WAIT. AND

 

27 WHEN I GET IT, YOU SHOULD BE SENDING ME A COPY. I’LL NOT

 

28 ACT ON IT UNTIL I HAVE INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE. THEN I’LL

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

1 MAKE UP MY DECISION AS TO WHAT, IF ANYTHING, I WANT TO DO

 

2 WITH IT.

 

3 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.

 

4 THE COURT: I BELIEVE THE CONCERN THAT YOU

 

5 EXPRESSED AT ONE TIME IS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. I DON’T

 

6 KNOW IF THAT IS THE SAME CONCERN RIGHT NOW.

 

7 MR. FLANAGAN: I THINK IT MIGHT NOT BE, ALTHOUGH

 

8 THE FLUID, I THINK, IS DIMINISHING. THE SYRINGE DOES

 

9 HAVE FLUID IN IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT EFFORTS THEY ARE

 

10 MAKING TO KEEP IT IN FLUID FORM, BUT ONE HAS ALREADY

 

11 CRYSTALLIZED.

 

12 OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO TEST

 

13 IT BACK IN JUNE OR JULY OF 2009, BUT NOW WE ARE STUCK

 

14 WITH WHAT WE CAN DO AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IT AS SOON AS

 

15 POSSIBLE.

 

16 MR. WALGREN: I’M CURIOUS. YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID YOU

 

17 DON’T KNOW OF ANY LAB THAT IS CAPABLE OF DOING THIS

 

18 TESTING.

 

19 MR. FLANAGAN: NO. THE L.A. CORONER’S LAB WAS VERY

 

20 WELL CAPABLE OF DOING THE TESTING TO PROPORTION PROPOFOL

 

21 AND LIDOCAINE WHEN THEY HAD AN ABUNDANCE OF SAMPLE. THEY

 

22 USED ABOUT A POINT NINE OR .09 CC TO DO THE QUALITATIVE

 

23 ANALYSIS. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

 

24 AT THE SAME TIME THEY WERE DOING THE QUALITATIVE. THEY

 

25 DID QUANTITATIVE ON URINE, BLOOD, AND ALL OTHER

 

26 SUBSTANCES AT THE VERY SAME TIME.

 

27 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC

 

28 PROTOCOL. MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS DIFFERENT THAN, OBVIOUSLY,

 

 

 

 

22

 

 

1 THE BLOOD SAMPLES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

 

2 MR. FLANAGAN: I DON’T THINK IT IS. YOU ARE

 

3 EXAMINING A FLUID FOR CHEMICAL CONTENTS, WHETHER IT IS

 

4 URINE, WHETHER IT IS VITREOUS HUMOR, OR A SOLUTION IN THE

 

5 SYRINGE.

 

6 THE COURT: RIGHT NOW, I’M GOING TO WAIT. WHEN DO

 

7 WE BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROPOSED DEFENSE ORDER?

 

8 MR. FLANAGAN: PROBABLY TOMORROW.

 

9 THE COURT: OKAY. YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT,

 

10 BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW, THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER?

 

11 MR. FLANAGAN: WHEN I GET BACK TO THE OFFICE TODAY,

 

12 I’LL WORK ON IT IMMEDIATELY.

 

13 THE COURT: SHOULD WE HAVE SOME OTHER CONFERENCE

 

14 ESTABLISHED TO DISCUSS THIS? SHOULD I LEAVE IT UP TO

 

15 BOTH OF YOU TO FOLLOW UP ON IT, THEN YOU TO NOTIFY ME

 

16 WHEN YOU WANT ME TO HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL OR OTHER

 

17 DISCUSSION?

 

18 MR. FLANAGAN: I’LL FORWARD IT. I’LL JUST FORWARD

 

19 IT TO MR. WALGREN, AND THEN MR. WALGREN AND I WILL

 

20 PROBABLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT.

 

21 THE COURT: SHOULD YOU BE FORWARDING IT TO ME THEN?

 

22 MR. FLANAGAN: I WILL FORWARD A COPY TO YOU, TOO.

 

23 THE COURT: HOW ARE YOU WITH THAT, MR. WALGREN?

 

24 MR. WALGREN: EITHER WAY. WE CAN EITHER HAVE

 

25 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS, OR THE COURT CAN BE INVOLVED ON

 

26 THE OUTSIDE, WHATEVER THE COURT PREFERS.

 

27 THE COURT: FORWARD IT UNDER SEAL. ULTIMATELY, IT

 

28 IS GOING TO BE UNDER SEAL.

 

 

 

 

23

 

 

1 MR. FLANAGAN: I’LL HAVE SOMEONE PERSONALLY DELIVER

 

2 IT TOMORROW MORNING.

 

3 THE COURT: I’LL WAIT FOR COUNSEL TO GET BACK TO

 

4 ME. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND I WILL NOT BE HERE DURING

 

5 THANKSGIVING WEEK.

 

6 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.

 

7 THE COURT: FROM THE 22ND THROUGH THE 26TH. SO IF

 

8 THERE IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO THIS WEEK, THAT WOULD BE

 

9 BETTER.

 

10 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.

 

11 THE COURT: I’LL GET IT AND LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO

 

12 GO FURTHER.

 

13 MR. FLANAGAN: I’LL TRY TO GET IT DOWN THERE

 

14 TOMORROW.

 

15 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS

 

16 NOW, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

17 MR. FLANAGAN: NO.

 

18

 

19 (AN IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 24-26, HAS

 

20 BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,

 

21 BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT

 

22 HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A

 

23 SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY

 

24 NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)

 

25

 

26

 

27

 

28

 

 

 

 

27

 

 

1 (IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10

 

11

 

12

 

13

 

14

 

15

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

20

 

21

 

22

 

23

 

24

 

25

 

26

 

27

 

28