OCTOBER 26TH 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

                                                                  OCTOBER 26, 2010

                            APPEARANCES:

                            FOR PEOPLE:               STEVE COOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
                                                                  BY:   DAVID WALGREN, DEPUTY
                                                                            DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY
                                                                  210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
                                                                  LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

                            FOR 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, ESQ.
                                                                  1156 N. BRAND BOULEVARD
                                                                  GLENDALE, CA 91202-2582

                            REPORTED BY:             MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
                            VOLUME     OF               OFFICIAL REPORTER
                            PAGES 1-46

                                                                                                                                              1

                      1   CASE NO.:                                   SA073164-01

                      2   CASE NAME:                                 PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY

                      3   LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2010

                      4   DEPARTMENT 107                         HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

                      5   REPORTER:                                   MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

                      6   TIME:                                           12:30 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:   IN THE CONRAD MURRAY CASE, DR. MURRAY

                    17   IS PRESENT WITH HIS THREE COUNSEL.   THE PEOPLE

                    18   REPRESENTED BY THEIR TWO COUNSEL.

                    19                           GOOD AFTERNOON.

                    20               MR. CHERNOFF:   GOOD AFTERNOON.

                    21               MR. WALGREN:   GOOD AFTERNOON.

                    22               THE COURT:   MAY I ASK COUNSEL TO PLEASE STATE THEIR

                    23   APPEARANCE FOR THE RECORD.   FIRST, FOR THE PEOPLE.

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

                    25   WALGREN, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE.

                    26               MS. BRAZIL:   DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY DISTRICT

                    27   ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE.

                    28               THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

                                                                                                                                              2

                      1                           FOR THE DEFENSE?

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

                      3               MR. FLANAGAN:   MICHAEL FLANAGAN FOR DR. MURRAY.

                      4               MR. LOW:   JOSEPH LOW FOR DR. MURRAY.

                      5               THE COURT:   WE ARE HERE FOR A STATUS UPDATE.   MS.

                      6   BENSON, THE COURT CLERK, TOLD ME THAT COUNSEL WANTED TO

                      7   DISCUSS SOMETHING ABOUT DISCOVERY.   IS IT SOMETHING WE

                      8   CAN DISCUSS HERE AND NOW?

                      9               MR. FLANAGAN:   I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT

                    10   IN CHAMBERS, YOUR HONOR.

                    11               THE COURT:   ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE OF THE ISSUE?

                    12               MR. WALGREN:   I WAS MADE AWARE BY MR. CHERNOFF, HE

                    13   WISHED TO DISCUSS IT IN CHAMBERS.

                    14               THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   IS THERE SOMETHING WE

                    15   SHOULD DISCUSS IN OPEN COURT BEFORE THAT, OR SHOULD WE

                    16   REPAIR TO CHAMBERS FOR A FEW MOMENTS?

                    17               MR. FLANAGAN:   IT IS MORE PRODUCTIVE TO GO INTO

                    18   CHAMBERS FOR A FEW MOMENTS.

                    19               MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE.

                    20               THE COURT:   SHOULD WE BE ON THE RECORD IN CHAMBERS?

                    21               MR. FLANAGAN:   YES, IN CHAMBERS.

                    22               THE COURT:   EXCUSE US FOR A FEW MOMENTS, LADIES AND

                    23   GENTLEMEN.

                    24

                    25                           (WHEREUPON, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE

                    26                           HELD IN CAMERA, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF

                    27                           THE DEFENDANT.)

                    28   ///

                                                                                                                                              3

                      1                           (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD

                      2                           IN CHAMBERS, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE

                      3                           DEFENDANT, AND WERE NOT SEALED BY THE

                      4                           COURT:)

                      5

                      6               MR. FLANAGAN:   YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I GATHERED US

                      7   HERE?

                      8               THE COURT:   LET ME CALL IT.   WE ARE IN CHAMBERS ON

                      9   DR. MURRAY’S CASE WITH ALL COUNSEL PRESENT.

                    10                           MR. FLANAGAN?

                    11               MR. FLANAGAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

                    12                           I HAVE AN ORDER FOR RELEASE OF THE FLUID,

                    13   AUTHORIZATION TO DO SOME MORE ANALYSIS ON THE FLUIDS THAT

                    14   ARE INVOLVED HERE, AND I DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO BRING A

                    15   FORMAL MOTION.   I DON’T THINK A FORMAL MOTION IS

                    16   WARRANTED.   I THINK THE PROSECUTION PROBABLY WOULD AGREE.

                    17                           BUT AFTER MICHAEL JACKSON DIED, THEY SEARCHED

                    18   THE HOUSE.   THERE WAS A COUPLE THINGS FOUND IN THE

                    19   PREMISES.   THERE WAS A BROKEN SYRINGE ON THE FLOOR.

                    20   THERE WAS A SYRINGE STICKING IN AN IV, AN IV LINE.

                    21                           THE CORONER’S OFFICE, WHEN THEY GATHERED THIS

                    22   EVIDENCE, THEY DID A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT WAS IN

                    23   THE CONTENT OF EACH OF THESE OBJECTS.   AT THE SAME TIME

                    24   THEY WERE DOING THE FLUID ANALYSIS ON THE BODY FLUIDS OF

                    25   MICHAEL JACKSON, THEY QUANTIFIED THAT.   AND AS A RESULT

                    26   OF THAT QUANTIFICATION, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE LIKELY

                    27   CAUSE OF DEATH WAS ACUTE PROPOFOL INTOXICATION.

                    28                           I ASKED THE CORONER ABOUT LAST APRIL WHY THEY

                                                                                                                                              4

                      1   DIDN’T QUANTIFY THE CONTENT OF THE TWO SYRINGES AND THE

                      2   IV.   THEY SAID, “WELL, WE ONLY DO THE QUANTIFICATION FOR

                      3   PURPOSES OF DETERMINING CAUSE OF DEATH.”

                      4                           WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE

                      5   QUANTIFICATION DONE ON THE SYRINGES AND THE IV FLUIDS

                      6   BECAUSE IF THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS ACUTE PROPOFOL

                      7   INTOXICATION, THE MEANS OF GETTING PROPOFOL INTO THE

                      8   BODY, THE SYRINGE THAT WAS USED, WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL

                      9   INFORMATION PERHAPS FOR BOTH SIDES.

                    10                           THEY DID GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHY AND SPECTROMETRY

                    11   ON THE SOLUTIONS.   I WENT TO FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY

                    12   ASSOCIATES AND ASKED THEM IF THEY CAN DETERMINE

                    13   QUANTITATION BASED ON THE QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION DONE BY

                    14   THE CORONER’S OFFICE.   HE SAID, “NO, YOU CAN’T.   IT IS A

                    15   QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.”

                    16                           I ASKED, “CAN YOU DO A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

                    17   AND, IF SO, GET ME THE PROCEDURES.   I HAVE TO RUN IT BY

                    18   THE D.A.’S OFFICE, GET THEM TO AGREE AND GET THE COURT TO

                    19   ORDER IT,” BECAUSE THESE TESTS ARE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE

                    20   EVIDENCE.   HE SAID, “WELL,” SO HE CALLED LINTEMOOT, THE

                    21   CORONER’S TOXICOLOGIST, AS SOON AS SHE RETURNED FROM

                    22   VACATION.   SHE WAS IN CHINA FOR QUITE SOME TIME TOURING

                    23   CAVES.   HE ASKED HER ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS.

                    24                           WELL, THE SUBSTANCES IN THESE IV’S, THE TWO

                    25   SYRINGES, ARE DETERIORATING.   ONE SYRINGE IS

                    26   DETERIORATED.   THE ONE, THE BROKEN SYRINGE FOUND ON THE

                    27   FLOOR, HAS DETERIORATED DOWN TO JUST SALT.   SALTS IN

                    28   THERE.   THE OTHER SYRINGE HAS SOME FLUID STILL LEFT, AND

                                                                                                                                              5

                      1   THE IV HAS FLUID.

                      2                           AND HE ASKED HER IF THE CORONER’S OFFICE HAD

                      3   THE ABILITY TO ANALYZE THAT QUANTITATIVELY.   THEY WEREN’T

                      4   SURE, BUT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD GIVE A TRY.

                      5                           FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES CAN’T.   THEY

                      6   DON’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.   THEY CHECKED INTO

                      7   SEEING WHAT OTHER LABS MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IT.   THERE IS

                      8   A LAB, AMERICAN ANALYTICAL LABS IN COLORADO, THAT CAN DO

                      9   IT.

                    10                           BUT THE DETERMINATION HAS KIND OF BEEN MADE

                    11   BETWEEN OUR TOXICOLOGIST, A GUY NAMED MICHAEL HENSON FROM

                    12   FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES, AND LINTEMOOT THAT

                    13   PROBABLY —

                    14               THE COURT:   COULD YOU SPELL THAT NAME.

                    15               MR. FLANAGAN:   L-I-N-T-E-M-O-O-T.

                    16                           SHE IS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS DONE MOST OF

                    17   THE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE.

                    18               MR. CHERNOFF:   TOXICOLOGY.

                    19               MR. FLANAGAN:   IF ANALYSIS IS DONE, IT IS PROBABLY

                    20   GOING TO BE DESTRUCTIVE.   THERE IS PROBABLY ONLY ENOUGH

                    21   TO DO ONE ANALYSIS.

                    22                           SO RATHER THAN HAVE THE SUBSTANCES

                    23   TRANSPORTED TO COLORADO, I’M THINKING THAT MR. WALGREN

                    24   AND MS. BRAZIL ARE GOING TO WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A

                    25   NEUTRAL AND INDEPENDENT LABORATORY THAT IS DOING THE

                    26   ANALYSIS.

                    27                           IT HASN’T BEEN DONE YET.   IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

                    28   DONE A YEAR AGO WHEN THEY DID THE OTHER SOLUTIONS FOR

                                                                                                                                              6

                      1   QUANTIFICATION.   SO I’VE PREPARED AN ORDER WHICH

                      2   AUTHORIZES THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORONER

                      3   FORENSIC SERVICES TO DO THE ANALYSIS.

                      4                           SHE ALSO WANTED ME TO GET RELEASED SOME OF

                      5   THE FLUIDS FROM THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE, OR ANALYSES,

                      6   THE ANALYZED FLUID OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S TISSUE THAT WERE

                      7   DONE A YEAR AGO BECAUSE SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE

                      8   THOSE FOR REFERENCE AND A STANDARD IN DOING THESE.

                      9                           THEY HAVE QUANTIFIED PROPOFOL ON THE OTHER

                    10   FLUIDS.   THE FLUIDS THAT ARE IN THESE SYRINGES HAVE ONLY

                    11   BEEN QUALITATIVELY ANALYZED.   WE KNOW THERE IS PROPOFOL

                    12   AND LIDOCAINE.   WE DON’T KNOW PROPORTIONS.   PROBABLY

                    13   CAN’T QUANTIFY THEM, BUT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO

                    14   PROPORTIONALIZE EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE IS METHODS,

                    15   PROPER METHODS OF ADMINISTERING PROPOFOL AND IMPROPER

                    16   METHODS OF ADMINISTERING IT.   WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT

                    17   PERHAPS WHAT THESE SYRINGES WERE USED FOR.

                    18                           AND DUE TO THE FACT I THINK WE CAN ONLY DO IT

                    19   ONCE, I THOUGHT WE BETTER PICK A LAB THAT MAYBE THE

                    20   DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WOULD THINK WAS TOTALLY

                    21   INDEPENDENT OF, AND WHO HAS STATED THAT THEY THINK THEY

                    22   CAN DO IT.   IT WILL TAKE THEM ABOUT A MONTH TO A MONTH

                    23   AND A HALF TO GET THE ANALYSIS DONE.

                    24                           SO I HAVE PRESENTED THE COURT WITH AN ORDER.

                    25   I HAVE GIVEN MR. WALGREN A COPY OF THE ORDER, AND ALL IT

                    26   ASKS FOR IS TO ALLOW THE CORONER TO FINISH THE ANALYSIS

                    27   ON THESE THREE SUBSTANCES AND ALSO HAVE A SUITABLE AMOUNT

                    28   OF REFERENCE MATERIAL PRODUCED FROM MICHAEL JACKSON’S

                                                                                                                                              7

                      1   BODY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ANALYZED QUANTITATIVELY FOR

                      2   PROPOFOL.

                      3               THE COURT:   I’M JUST WONDERING WHY, AT THE END OF

                      4   OCTOBER, WE ARE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE.   HAVE COUNSEL

                      5   CHATTED ABOUT IT BEFORE?

                      6               MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.   I THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD GET

                      7   THESE RESULTS WHEN WE GOT DISCOVERY.   WE WERE GIVEN

                      8   DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE BACK IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.   IT

                      9   WASN’T IN THE INITIAL DISCOVERY.

                    10                           THEN BACK IN, I THINK IT WAS, MARCH OR APRIL,

                    11   I WAS GIVEN ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WHICH INCLUDED

                    12   GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHS AND GRAPH RESULTS OF THEIR TESTS ON

                    13   THESE THINGS.

                    14                           I WENT IN APRIL TO MEET WITH THE CORONER’S

                    15   OFFICE, WENT DOWN THERE AND ASKED THEM IF, IN ADDITION TO

                    16   THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS THEY HAVE DONE, BY VIRTUE OF

                    17   WHAT THEY HAVE DONE CAN THEY QUANTIFY OR AT LEAST RATIO

                    18   IT.   LINTEMOOT SAID, “NO.”

                    19                           WE CAME BACK HERE TO COURT, I GUESS IT WAS

                    20   PROBABLY IN JUNE, AND I WANTED TO GET A COURT ORDER

                    21   SIGNED TO ALLOW US TO DO IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT

                    22   THAT ENDED UP GETTING PUT OFF BECAUSE I’M NOT SURE BUT I

                    23   THINK MR. WALGREN DIDN’T KNOW HOW MUCH WAS LEFT, WHETHER

                    24   IT WAS GOING TO BE TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE OR WHATEVER.

                    25                           SO AS A COMPROMISE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, I

                    26   ASKED THE COURT TO PLEASE SIGN AN ORDER NOT ALLOWING THE

                    27   CORONER TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO DESTROY ANY

                    28   EVIDENCE UNTIL THE PARTIES HERE CAN DECIDE ON HOW TO GET

                                                                                                                                              8

                      1   IT DONE IN CASE IT CAN ONLY BE DONE ONCE.

                      2                           AND THEN DURING SEPTEMBER AND END OF OCTOBER,

                      3   I THINK, MS. LINTEMOOT WAS GONE.   SO I WENT AND HIRED A

                      4   FORENSIC TOXICOLOGIST TO GO OVER HER GRAPHS TO SEE IF

                      5   BASED ON THOSE GRAPHS HE COULD QUANTIFY IT.   HE SAID, “I

                      6   REALLY CAN’T UNLESS I KNOW WHAT KIND OF STANDARD THEY

                      7   WERE USING.   I’LL HAVE TO TALK TO LINTEMOOT.”

                      8                           HE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL SHE GOT BACK FROM CHINA.

                      9   HE TALKED TO HER AND FOUND OUT WHAT WAS LEFT IN THE

                    10   SAMPLES.   AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH LEFT, THAT

                    11   IT IS DETERIORATING AND IT IS PROBABLY IN A FORM THAT

                    12   FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES CAN’T ANALYZE, ESPECIALLY

                    13   THE SYRINGE THAT IS KIND OF DRIED UP BECAUSE ALL THERE IS

                    14   IS RESIDUE.   IT IS DRY RESIDUE NOW.

                    15                           SO HE AND LINTEMOOT TALKED TOGETHER IF THERE

                    16   WAS A PROCEDURE WHEREBY IT COULD BE DONE.   WELL, MY

                    17   TOXICOLOGIST SAID THERE IS A LAB IN COLORADO THAT CAN

                    18   PROBABLY DO IT, BUT LINTEMOOT THOUGHT SHE WOULD BE ABLE

                    19   TO DO IT.

                    20                           SO AS A RESULT OF ALL THIS, IT HAS JUST TAKEN

                    21   TIME.   THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A YEAR AGO.   THERE IS

                    22   NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, AND NOW ALL WE CAN DO IS HOPE FOR

                    23   A RESULT.   BUT IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND I THINK IT

                    24   IS IMPORTANT TO BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE.

                    25               THE COURT:   WELL, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED COUNSEL TO

                    26   HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER AT LENGTH.   I WOULD HAVE

                    27   EXPECTED A FORMALLY NOTICED MOTION IF THERE IS ANY KIND

                    28   OF DISPUTE.

                                                                                                                                              9

                      1                           I’LL TURN TO THE PEOPLE, EITHER MS. BRAZIL OR

                      2   MR. WALGREN, AND ASK FOR YOUR POSITION.

                      3                           MR. WALGREN?

                      4               MR. WALGREN:   FIRST, IN REGARD TO THIS ORDER, I

                      5   THINK IT IS TOTALLY PREMATURE BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING

                      6   REPRESENTED RIGHT HERE, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO TALK TO THE

                      7   ANALYST ABOUT THIS PERSONALLY.   I LITERALLY GOT THIS A

                      8   FEW MINUTES AGO.

                      9                           WHEN I TALKED TO MR. CHERNOFF LAST WEEK, MR.

                    10   CHERNOFF TOLD ME THEY WERE STILL LOOKING.   I DON’T WANT

                    11   TO MISSTATE, BUT HE INDICATED THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN

                    12   EXPERT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND WOULD WE BE AMENABLE

                    13   TO MAYBE HAVING THE CORONER’S OFFICE DO IT.   THAT IS THE

                    14   FIRST I WAS INFORMED OF ANYTHING.

                    15                           THEN I HAVE THIS ORDER HANDED TO ME MOMENTS

                    16   AGO WHERE MR. FLANAGAN SAYS HE WILL ASK THE COURT TO SIGN

                    17   IT.

                    18                           THERE ARE VERY TECHNICAL, COMPLEX ISSUES.

                    19   AGAIN, I RAISED THIS LAST TIME.   I DON’T KNOW WHY

                    20   MR. FLANAGAN WOULD THINK THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE ANY ISSUES

                    21   TO RAISE.   LAST TIME, I SAID THERE IS CHAIN OF CUSTODY

                    22   ISSUES.   THERE IS DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE ISSUES.

                    23                           YOU KNOW, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT,

                    24   AND I AM OPTIMISTIC WE CAN WORK IT OUT.

                    25                           I THINK SIGNING THIS ORDER IS ABSOLUTELY

                    26   PREMATURE AND, QUITE HONESTLY, I DON’T KNOW THAT AN ORDER

                    27   NEEDS TO BE SIGNED TO HAVE THE CORONER DO SOMETHING.   IF

                    28   THEY THINK IT IS A RELIABLE TEST, THEY CAN DO IT.

                                                                                                                                              10

                      1               THE COURT:   IT GETS TRICKY IN TERMS OF BEING

                      2   DESTRUCTIVE.

                      3               MR. FLANAGAN:   THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED NOT TO DO

                      4   ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE.   I DIDN’T TALK TO

                      5   LINTEMOOT UNTIL LAST NIGHT.   IT TOOK ME TEN DAYS TO GET

                      6   AHOLD OF HER.   I WASN’T ABLE TO GIVE FURTHER NOTICE, BUT

                      7   ALL WE ARE DOING IS ASKING FOR THE CORONER.

                      8                           THERE IS NO CHAIN OF EVIDENCE PROBLEM WITH

                      9   THE CORONER.   THE CORONER HAS GOT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE

                    10   ARE ASKING TO BE ANALYZED.   THE CORONER ONLY NEEDS LAPD

                    11   EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF A REFERENCE SAMPLE BECAUSE THEY

                    12   HAVE ALREADY QUANTIFIED PROPOFOL IN THAT, AND THEY CAN

                    13   MAYBE GET SOME INFORMATION FROM THAT.

                    14                           SHE CALLED ME LAST NIGHT AND TOLD ME WHAT SHE

                    15   NEEDED.   WHAT SHE NEEDS IS PERMISSION FROM THE COURT TO

                    16   DO THE ANALYSIS.

                    17               THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF

                    18   THIS MOTION AND THE NEED FOR BOTH PARTIES TO EVALUATE ITS

                    19   MERITS AND OTHER FACTORS, I SIMPLY AM NOT GOING TO SIGN

                    20   ANY ORDER AT THIS JUNCTURE WITHOUT GIVING THE PROSECUTION

                    21   THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO EVALUATE ALL THAT AND

                    22   HAVE ME EVALUATE ALL OF IT.

                    23               MR. WALGREN:   YOUR HONOR, I DON’T EXPECT ANY

                    24   SUBSTANTIAL DELAY.   I THINK MS. BRAZIL AND I CAN SET UP A

                    25   MEETING WITH THE ANALYST AND MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL ON THE

                    26   SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT SHE FEELS CAN BE DONE OR WHAT IS

                    27   RELIABLE OR APPROPRIATE TO BE DONE.   I THINK WE CAN

                    28   DISCUSS THIS WITH COUNSEL.

                                                                                                                                              11

                      1                           I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN, QUITE FRANKLY, WITH MR.

                      2   FLANAGAN ABOUT THIS.   I HAVE SPOKEN TO MR. CHERNOFF

                      3   BRIEFLY.   SO THIS IS ALL, YOU KNOW, A BIT OF A SURPRISE.

                      4               MR. FLANAGAN:   MY CONVERSATION WAS WITH MS. BRAZIL.

                      5               THE COURT:   WE HAVE COUNTER-CONVERSATIONS.

                      6                           THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I’M GOING TO LEAVE IT UP

                      7   TO THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE.   IF THERE APPEARS

                      8   TO BE NO RESOLUTION, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO COME BACK, BUT

                      9   WE WILL DO THE PRELIM AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY.   SO WE

                    10   ARE GOING TO ACT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN IN TERMS OF

                    11   ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.

                    12                           IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO COME BACK IN A SHORT

                    13   PERIOD OF TIME, WE WILL DO IT, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO DELAY

                    14   THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

                    15               MR. CHERNOFF:   LET ME SAY THIS.   WE ARE NOT TRYING

                    16   TO DELAY THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

                    17               THE COURT:   I’M NOT SAYING YOU ARE.

                    18               MR. CHERNOFF:   THIS IS WHY WE BROUGHT THIS UP IN

                    19   JUNE.   WHEN, UPON OBJECTION FROM THE PEOPLE, YOU SAID YOU

                    20   WOULD NOT ORDER TRANSFER OF THAT EVIDENCE TO OUR EXPERT,

                    21   IT WAS LIQUID.   IT COULD HAVE BEEN QUANTIFIED.   IT IS NOW

                    22   TOO LATE PERHAPS TO QUANTIFY ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.   THE

                    23   LONGER WE WAIT, IT IS TOO LATE TO QUANTIFY OTHER PIECES

                    24   OF EVIDENCE.

                    25                           WE ARE BRINGING IT UP NOT BECAUSE WE ARE

                    26   TRYING TO DELAY.   THIS WON’T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE

                    27   PRELIMINARY HEARING.

                    28               THE COURT:   FINE.

                                                                                                                                              12

                      1               MR. CHERNOFF:   WE ARE DOING IT BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS

                      2   ON FIRE.   WE NEED A HOSE.

                      3               THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW THAT.   YOU ARE MAKING

                      4   REPRESENTATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC —

                      5               MR. CHERNOFF:   ONLY WHAT THE CORONER TOLD US.

                      6               THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW, AND I THINK THE

                      7   PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH

                      8   THE DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER, AN ANALYST, OR ANY OTHER

                      9   PROFESSIONALS, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE, BEFORE WE GO TO A NEXT

                    10   STEP.   IF THAT NEXT STEP IS NOT JUSTIFIED, YOU ARE SAYING

                    11   IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHAT

                    12   WE DO IS KEEP THE PRELIMINARY HEARING SET AND IN THE

                    13   INTERIM WE DO OTHER MATTERS.

                    14                           RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A NO TAMPER/DESTRUCTIVE

                    15   ORDER, EXCEPT FOR THE MATTER I ALREADY HAD RELEASED.   I

                    16   THINK YOU AGREED TO AND I SIGNED AN ORDER.

                    17               MR. FLANAGAN:   THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING RELEASED.

                    18               THE COURT:   YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT TO COME BACK

                    19   OR WHEN YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS OTHER ISSUE BECAUSE FROM

                    20   WHAT MR. CHERNOFF IS SAYING, HE IS TALKING ABOUT A HOUSE

                    21   ON FIRE.   YOU KNOW, WE ARE QUITE A WAYS INTO THIS.   I

                    22   WANT TO ACT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.

                    23               MR. WALGREN:   IF THERE IS A HOUSE ON FIRE, WE COULD

                    24   HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY THE DEFENSE DURING THE MONTHS

                    25   SINCE THE LAST APPEARANCE.   I WAS NOT CONTACTED.   MR.

                    26   FLANAGAN SPOKE TO MS. BRAZIL ABOUT THE PRESERVATION

                    27   ORDER.

                    28               MR. CHERNOFF:   HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE CORONER’S

                                                                                                                                              13

                      1   OFFICE AT ALL, THE TOXICOLOGIST AT ALL?

                      2               MR. WALGREN:   YES.

                      3               MR. CHERNOFF:   THEN YOU WOULD KNOW.   WE GOT THE

                      4   EXACT SAME INFORMATION YOU GOT.

                      5               THE COURT:   I’LL NOT HAVE COUNSEL ARGUING WITH EACH

                      6   OTHER.

                      7                           TELL ME WHERE YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS.   I’M

                      8   SUGGESTING WE SET SOME SORT OF DATE WHEN YOU CAN EITHER

                      9   HAVE SOME STIPULATION OR WE COME BACK INTO COURT.

                    10               MR. WALGREN:   I CAN SET UP A MEETING.   MS. BRAZIL

                    11   AND I CAN SET UP A MEETING OR CONVERSATION WITH THE

                    12   ANALYST IN THE COMING DAYS AS SOON AS SHE IS AVAILABLE.

                    13               MR. FLANAGAN:   SHE IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW.

                    14   YESTERDAY WAS THE FIRST TIME I ACTUALLY GOT HER TO COMMIT

                    15   THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE COULD DO IT, THAT SHE WOULD DO IT.

                    16   I’VE BEEN WANTING THIS EVIDENCE FOR THE LAST NINE OR TEN

                    17   MONTHS.   I KEPT THINKING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT IN THE

                    18   NATURAL COURSE.

                    19               THE COURT:   BUT, MR. FLANAGAN, YOU ARE AN

                    20   EXPERIENCED, EXTRAORDINARILY TALENTED LAWYER.   I’M SURE

                    21   IN YOUR WORK HISTORY, YOU HAVE RUN ACROSS INSTANCES WHERE

                    22   YOU MAY EXPECT SOMETHING, AND OTHERS DON’T REACH THAT

                    23   LEVEL.   SO, YOU KNOW, TO SAY, WELL, YOU WERE EXPECTING

                    24   THE PEOPLE TO DO IT IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

                    25               MR. FLANAGAN:   I’VE TRIED TO DO IT WITHOUT THE

                    26   PEOPLE, THEN I TRIED TO DO IT WITH THE PEOPLE LAST JUNE.

                    27   AND DUE TO MS. LINTEMOOT’S BEING OUT AND GONE, I WASN’T

                    28   ABLE TO RESOLVE ANYTHING WITH HER.

                                                                                                                                              14

                      1                           I GOT ANOTHER CRIMINALIST/TOXICOLOGIST TO

                      2   TELL ME WHAT I’VE GOT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT.   HE TALKED

                      3   TO MS. LINTEMOOT, FOUND OUT WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE WERE,

                      4   AND THIS IS THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.

                      5                           I COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS ORDER HERE.   NOW, I

                      6   THINK PEOPLE WANT TO CHECK IT OUT WITH LINTEMOOT.   THEY

                      7   WOULD FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT SHE TOLD ME YESTERDAY, AND WE

                      8   SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THIS ORDER SIGNED WITHIN THE WEEK.

                      9               THE COURT:   YOU KNOW WHAT.   IF THERE IS

                    10   JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUING IT, BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR

                    11   FURTHER EVALUATION, WE DO IT.   BUT I CAN SET THE MATTER

                    12   FOR A NONAPPEARANCE, SUBMISSION OF PAPERWORK, IF THE

                    13   PARTIES CAN AGREE.

                    14                           IF NOT, WE COME BACK TO COURT.   I WANT TO

                    15   ADDRESS IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.   I DON’T WANT EITHER

                    16   PARTY TO BE PREJUDICED BY THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

                    17   CERTAINLY, IT DOESN’T HELP A PARTY WHEN ITEMS NO LONGER

                    18   CAN BE TESTED OR ARE DETERIORATING OR DESTROYED.

                    19                           THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WILL REMAIN SET FOR

                    20   THE 4TH OF JANUARY.

                    21               MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

                    22               THE COURT:   STILL ON?

                    23               MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

                    24               MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

                    25               THE COURT:   IF YOU WANT TO PICK A DAY A WEEK FROM

                    26   THURSDAY, OR WEEK FROM FRIDAY, OR WEEK FROM TODAY, I

                    27   COULD PUT IT ON A NONAPPEARANCE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF ANY

                    28   PAPERWORK.

                                                                                                                                              15

                      1                           IF IT DOESN’T APPEAR AS THOUGH THE PARTIES

                      2   CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT, THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO COURT.

                      3               MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.

                      4               MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE, YOUR

                      5   HONOR.

                      6               THE COURT:   I NEED SOME IDEA, COUNSEL, OF HOW THIS

                      7   PRELIMINARY HEARING IS GOING TO UNFOLD AND THE TIME

                      8   ESTIMATE.   I DON’T KNOW IF I HAVE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS

                      9   PRELIM.   I’M IN THE DARK, AND I THINK I REALLY NEED TO

                    10   HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AN ESTIMATE.

                    11                           WHERE ARE WE GOING?   DO WE KNOW?

                    12               MR. WALGREN:   AGAIN, THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE WE WILL

                    13   BE DISCUSSING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL.   IT RELATES TO THE

                    14   TIMING.

                    15               THE COURT:   I JUST AS SOON DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT

                    16   IN OPEN COURT.   I’M NOT SEALING ANY RECORDS IN THIS CASE.

                    17   WHILE THIS IS BEING REPORTED IN CHAMBERS, I’M NOT SEALING

                    18   THIS.

                    19               MR. FLANAGAN:   I THOUGHT THIS IS BEST TALKED ABOUT

                    20   OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESS AND THE FAMILY.

                    21               THE COURT:   THE BOTTOM LINE IS I CAN UNDERSTAND

                    22   YOUR CONCERN AND CONSIDERATION.   BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS A

                    23   COPY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, SOMEBODY GETS IT.   I’M NOT

                    24   SEALING IT.   IT IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL.   IT IS MORE

                    25   COMFORTABLE FOR US, BUT IT IS A MATTER FOR OPEN

                    26   DISCUSSION.

                    27                           BUT IN TERMS OF THE STATUS OF THE PRELIM, I

                    28   JUST AS SOON DO THAT IN OPEN COURT.

                                                                                                                                              16

                      1               MR. FLANAGAN:   OKAY.

                      2               MR. WALGREN:   SO THE COURT KNOWS, ON TIMING, WE

                      3   HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT, AND MR. CHERNOFF AND I SPOKE

                      4   LAST WEEK.

                      5               THE COURT:   LET’S DO THAT IN OPEN COURT.

                      6               MR. WALGREN:   JUST RELATED TO WHAT STIPULATIONS WE

                      7   MAY BE ABLE TO AGREE ON IN THE COMING WEEKS, AND WE WOULD

                      8   INFORM THE COURT OF THAT IF WE REACH AGREEMENT.   THERE

                      9   ARE STIPULATIONS THAT COULD SHORTEN THE PRELIM BY DAYS.

                    10   IT IS RELEVANT TO THE TIMING ISSUE.

                    11               THE COURT:   BUT BOTTOM LINE, I JUST AS SOON DO THAT

                    12   IN OPEN COURT.   YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT ME TO CALENDAR

                    13   IT FOR A NONAPPEARANCE, PERHAPS STATUS CONFERENCE BY

                    14   TELEPHONE, IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE.   I JUST AS SOON DO IT AS

                    15   QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE URGENCY.

                    16               MR. FLANAGAN:   I THINK MR. WALGREN AND I SHOULD BE

                    17   ABLE TO AGREE ON AN ORDER.   MR. WALGREN WILL BRING THAT

                    18   DOWN FOR APPROVAL, AND I’LL BRING IT DOWN FOR SIGNATURE

                    19   IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.

                    20               MR. CHERNOFF:   IS IT HELPFUL TO HAVE A MEETING WITH

                    21   LINTEMOOT?

                    22               MR. WALGREN:   MAYBE, BUT WE WILL REACH OUT TO HER

                    23   IF EVERYTHING IS FINE AND THEN WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO DO

                    24   THAT IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.   MAYBE WE ALL SIT DOWN

                    25   TOGETHER.

                    26                           I THINK A WEEK FROM THURSDAY WITH THE HOPE AN

                    27   ORDER WOULD BE SUBMITTED.   OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE IS AN

                    28   ISSUE, WE WILL BE CONVERSING.

                                                                                                                                              17

                      1               THE COURT:   WE WILL SET UP AN INTERMEDIATE STATUS

                      2   DATE WHEN WE ALL COME BACK.   RIGHT NOW, I’LL LEAVE IT AT

                      3   THAT.   I EXPECT TO HAVE SOME INDICATION OF STATUS A WEEK

                      4   FROM THURSDAY, AND WE WILL LEAVE THE PRELIM SET FOR THE

                      5   4TH OF JANUARY AND I’LL CHAT WITH YOU IN OPEN COURT ON

                      6   THE TIMING ISSUE.

                      7

                      8                           (WHEREUPON, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE

                      9                           HELD IN CHAMBERS OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF

                    10                           THE DEFENDANT.)

                    11

                    12                           (THE IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 18-34,

                    13                           HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,

                    14                           BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT

                    15                           HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A

                    16                           SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY

                    17                           NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)

                    18

                    19

                    20

                    21

                    22

                    23

                    24

                    25

                    26

                    27

                    28

                                                                                                                                              35

                      1                           (FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN

                      2                           OPEN COURT, ALL PARTIES BEING PRESENT.)

                      3

                      4               THE COURT:   IN DR. MURRAY’S CASE, DR. MURRAY AND

                      5   HIS COUNSEL, AND THE PEOPLE’S COUNSEL ARE PRESENT.

                      6                           THE COURT HAS BEEN CONFERRING WITH COUNSEL IN

                      7   CHAMBERS FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES REGARDING SOME

                      8   ONGOING ISSUES.   ONE OF THOSE ISSUES IS A DISCOVERY

                      9   REQUEST, AND COUNSEL ARE INDICATING TO ME THAT THEY ARE

                    10   PREPARED TO SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK ABOUT RESOLVING THIS

                    11   ISSUE BY NEXT THURSDAY.

                    12                           IS THAT RIGHT, MR. WALGREN?

                    13               MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

                    14               THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

                    15               MR. CHERNOFF:   IT IS CORRECT.

                    16               THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

                    17                           SO THAT WOULD BE NEXT THURSDAY, WHICH IS THE

                    18   4TH OF NOVEMBER 2010, BY 4:00 P.M. IN THIS DEPARTMENT,

                    19   AND COUNSEL TO SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK.   AT THIS JUNCTURE IT

                    20   WOULD INVOLVE A POTENTIAL STIPULATION OR AN AGREEMENT AS

                    21   TO THE HANDLING OF CERTAIN FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THIS

                    22   CASE, AND I’VE INDICATED TO COUNSEL I’M LEAVING IT TO

                    23   THEM TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

                    24                           WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE PRELIMINARY

                    25   HEARING, THE PARTIES HAVE INDICATED, AND I HAPPEN TO

                    26   AGREE AND INSIST ON IT, THAT WE KEEP TO OUR SCHEDULE.   SO

                    27   THE PRELIMINARY HEARING REMAINS SET FOR TUESDAY, THE 4TH

                    28   OF JANUARY 2011.   WE WILL MAKE THAT AT NINE O’CLOCK A.M.

                                                                                                                                              36

                      1   IN THIS DEPARTMENT.

                      2                           IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MR. WALGREN?

                      3               MR. WALGREN:   IT IS, YOUR HONOR.

                      4               THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

                      5               MR. CHERNOFF:   IT IS, JUDGE.

                      6               THE COURT:   NOW, I ASKED COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ABOUT

                      7   THE POSTURE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE

                      8   ANTICIPATED NATURE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ITS

                      9   LENGTH BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE GOING

                    10   HERE AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CERTAINTY ABOUT SOME

                    11   ESTIMATES.   AND MR. WALGREN WANTED TO ADDRESS THOSE

                    12   MATTERS, AND I THINK MR. CHERNOFF DID AS WELL.   I SAID

                    13   THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ADDRESS IN OPEN COURT.

                    14                           COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE ARE CONFERRING.   DO

                    15   YOU NEED A MOMENT?

                    16               MR. CHERNOFF:   NO.   THANK YOU, JUDGE.   I’VE GOT IT.

                    17               THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

                    18               MR. WALGREN:   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

                    19                           AT THIS TIME THE ESTIMATE REMAINS THE SAME,

                    20   WHICH WAS ABOUT A TWO TO THREE-WEEK ESTIMATE.   HOWEVER,

                    21   MR. CHERNOFF, DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND THE PEOPLE ARE IN

                    22   DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL STIPULATIONS THAT COULD

                    23   SHORTEN THAT TIME ESTIMATE.   I EXPECT THOSE DISCUSSIONS

                    24   WILL CONTINUE IN THE COMING WEEKS.

                    25                           I KNOW WHEN I LAST SPOKE TO MR. CHERNOFF, HE

                    26   WANTED TO SPEAK TO CO-COUNSEL.   SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL

                    27   CONTINUE AND WE WILL CERTAINLY APPRISE THE COURT OF ANY

                    28   STIPULATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WE REACH THAT WOULD LESSEN THE

                                                                                                                                              37

                      1   NUMBER OF WITNESSES WE PLAN ON CALLING.

                      2               THE COURT:   WHEN YOU SAY TWO OR THREE WEEKS, YOU

                      3   ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TEN AND 15 COURT

                      4   DAYS?

                      5               MR. WALGREN:   CORRECT.

                      6               THE COURT:   AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, WHAT IS THE

                      7   ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WITNESSES YOU MAY BE CALLING?   I

                      8   REALIZE THERE MAY BE SOME STIPULATIONS, BUT I NEED YOU TO

                      9   NARROW IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE, MR. WALGREN.

                    10               MR. WALGREN:   IT WOULD BE VERY SPECULATIVE AT THIS

                    11   POINT.   I THINK THE STIPULATION, IF AGREED UPON, COULD

                    12   LESSEN THAT NUMBER A GREAT DEAL.   I HESITATE TO SAY A

                    13   NUMBER AT THIS POINT, BUT I CAN INFORM THE COURT IN THE

                    14   NEXT FEW WEEKS OF A MORE ACCURATE NUMBER, IF THAT IS

                    15   AGREEABLE WITH THE COURT.

                    16               THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF, HOW DOES THAT TIME

                    17   ESTIMATE APPEAR TO YOU?   I DON’T KNOW IF THE DEFENSE IS

                    18   GOING TO PRESENT ANY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OR THE NATURE OF

                    19   WHAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED, BUT GIVE ME YOUR THOUGHTS.

                    20               MR. CHERNOFF:   WELL, JUDGE, ALTHOUGH MR. WALGREN

                    21   DOESN’T KNOW HOW MANY WITNESSES HE WILL BE CALLING, HOW

                    22   ABOUT THIS.   I WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA IF

                    23   I WERE TO KNOW IF WE WERE TO STIPULATE TO ALL THE THINGS

                    24   THAT WE DISCUSSED ON THE PHONE.

                    25               THE COURT:   THAT IS THE ATTORNEYS.   I HAD NOTHING

                    26   TO DO WITH THIS.

                    27               MR. CHERNOFF:   I’LL NOT GO INTO THOSE PARTICULARS.

                    28   BUT IF WE WERE TO STIPULATE TO THOSE, HOW MANY DAYS WOULD

                                                                                                                                              38

                      1   BE CUT OFF OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND THEN THAT

                      2   WOULD GIVE ME A BETTER ESTIMATE OF HOW LONG IT WOULD

                      3   TAKE.

                      4               MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T THINK MR. CHERNOFF AND I HAD

                      5   SUFFICIENT TIME TO HASH OUT THE PROPOSED STIPULATIONS.

                      6   THE CONVERSATION ENDED WITH MR. CHERNOFF SAYING HE WANTED

                      7   TO DISCUSS WITH CO-COUNSEL, BUT WE ARE HOPEFUL ANY

                      8   STIPULATIONS WOULD KNOCK OFF DAYS, NOT HOURS.

                      9               MR. CHERNOFF:   PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE

                    10   HAD, JUDGE, WAS THAT MR. WALGREN WAS GOING TO PROVIDE ME

                    11   THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES AND THE ITEMS THAT HE WAS

                    12   GOING TO PRODUCE PRIOR TO, LONG BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY

                    13   HEARING, AND I ASSUME HE IS GOING TO DO THAT.

                    14                           DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WE HAD THAT

                    15   DISCUSSION, HE IS GOING TO PROVIDE ME A LIST OF ALL THE

                    16   STIPULATIONS THAT HE WISHES US TO AGREE TO, AND I’M GOING

                    17   TO TELL HIM POINT BY POINT WHETHER WE WILL AGREE TO THOSE

                    18   STIPULATIONS ONCE WE GET THAT LIST.

                    19                           I RECKON AT THAT POINT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A

                    20   PERFECT IDEA ABOUT HOW LONG THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS

                    21   GOING TO TAKE.   I REALIZE THAT DOESN’T HELP YOU RIGHT

                    22   NOW.   BUT ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE WILL PROBABLY

                    23   HAVE A PERFECT IDEA.   YOU HAD ASKED ME —

                    24               THE COURT:   IN 28 YEARS, I NEVER HAD A PERFECT

                    25   IDEA, MR. CHERNOFF, SO I ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATIONS BUT

                    26   THINGS HAPPEN IN THE VOLATILE NATURE OF CRIMINAL

                    27   LITIGATION.

                    28                           THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THE TIME ESTIMATE AND

                                                                                                                                              39

                      1   THE ISSUE OF CONTINUOUS PRELIMINARY HEARING BECAUSE I

                      2   HAVE OTHER CASES ON MY DOCKET.   THEY ARE ALL IMPORTANT.

                      3   THEY ALL INVOLVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VITAL INTEREST IN THE

                      4   CASE.

                      5                           WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO JANUARY OF NEXT

                      6   YEAR, A LOT OF THE CASES WHICH DON’T GO BEFORE JANUARY

                      7   1ST ARE SET TO GO.   SO I DON’T KNOW IF AT THIS JUNCTURE

                      8   WE WOULD HAVE A WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS PRELIM OR WHETHER I

                      9   SHOULD EXPECT TO START ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY AND GO

                    10   SOMETIME AFTER THAT WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF WHEN I’M GOING TO

                    11   BE OPEN TO DO TRIALS IN OTHER CASES.

                    12               MR. CHERNOFF:   I ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE A WAIVER.

                    13               THE COURT:   CAN I TAKE IT NOW?

                    14               MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, YOU CAN.

                    15               THE COURT:   IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH THE PEOPLE?

                    16               MR. WALGREN:   FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.

                    17               THE COURT:   HAVE YOU CONFERRED WITH DR. MURRAY

                    18   ABOUT THIS?

                    19               MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

                    20               THE COURT:   DR. MURRAY, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WHAT IS

                    21   CALLED A CONTINUOUS PRELIMINARY HEARING.   THAT MEANS ONCE

                    22   WE HAVE BEGUN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE, AS WE

                    23   EXPECT TO DO ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR, YOU ARE

                    24   ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING CONTINUE UNTIL

                    25   ITS COMPLETION WITHOUT ANY KIND OF INTERRUPTION.   SO YOU

                    26   START ON JANUARY 4TH AND JUST KEEP ON GOING.

                    27                           I CAN’T DO ANY OTHER CASES EVEN THOUGH

                    28   COUNSEL MAY AND YOU MAY NOT BE READY ON A PARTICULAR DAY

                                                                                                                                              40

                      1   OR WITNESSES MAY NOT BE READY.   I CAN’T DO ANY OTHER

                      2   CASES WHILE THIS CASE IS PENDING BECAUSE YOU ARE ENTITLED

                      3   TO HAVE THAT CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY

                      4   HEARING.

                      5                           DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT, SIR?

                      6               THE DEFENDANT:   BEFORE I ANSWER YOU, JUDGE, I’D

                      7   LIKE TO CONFER WITH MY ATTORNEYS TO GET A BETTER

                      8   CLARIFICATION.

                      9               THE COURT:   TAKE A MOMENT, COUNSEL.   MR. CHERNOFF

                    10   IS CONFERRING WITH DR. MURRAY.

                    11

                    12                           (DEFENDANT MURRAY AND MR. CHERNOFF

                    13                           CONFER.)

                    14

                    15               MR. CHERNOFF:   WE ARE READY.

                    16               THE COURT:   DR. MURRAY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO

                    17   CONFER WITH YOUR ATTORNEY?

                    18               THE DEFENDANT:   YES.

                    19               THE COURT:   YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT TO A CONTINUOUS,

                    20   UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY HEARING.

                    21                           DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?

                    22               THE DEFENDANT:   YES.

                    23               THE COURT:   DO YOU GIVE UP THAT RIGHT?

                    24               THE DEFENDANT:   I DO.

                    25               THE COURT:   DO YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT IF AND WHEN WE

                    26   COMMENCE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE, WE CAN

                    27   INTERRUPT THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS

                    28   YOU, YOUR ATTORNEYS, OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES FOR THE

                                                                                                                                              41

                      1   DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION, ANY PROSECUTION WITNESSES, AND

                      2   THE COURT ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO RESUME?

                      3               THE DEFENDANT:   YES.

                      4               THE COURT:   NOW, YOU HAVE A SEPARATE RIGHT TO A

                      5   CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT IS NOT

                      6   INTERRUPTED FOR MORE THAN TEN COURT DAYS.   DO YOU

                      7   UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?

                      8                           THAT MEANS EVEN THOUGH THERE COULD BE

                      9   INTERRUPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR ONE, TWO,

                    10   THREE, FOUR DAYS, UP UNTIL NINE, YOU HAVE A SEPARATE

                    11   RIGHT TO A CONTINUOUS, UNINTERPRETED PRELIMINARY HEARING

                    12   FOR NO MORE THAN TEN COURT DAYS.

                    13                           DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?

                    14               THE DEFENDANT:   I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AGAIN WITH

                    15   MY ATTORNEY.

                    16               THE COURT:   SURE.

                    17

                    18                           (DEFENDANT MURRAY AND MESSRS. CHERNOFF

                    19                           AND FLANAGAN CONFER.)

                    20

                    21               THE COURT:   COUNSEL IS DOING SO.

                    22                           WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, YOU MAY AS WELL TALK

                    23   ABOUT THE 60-DAY RULE AS WELL.   THAT TAKES CARE OF ALL

                    24   THE PRELIMINARY HEARING RULES.

                    25                           COUNSEL ARE CONFERRING.

                    26               MR. CHERNOFF:   JUDGE —

                    27               THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

                    28               MR. CHERNOFF:   — BY CONSENSUS, WE ARE GOING TO

                                                                                                                                              42

                      1   WAIVE, OF COURSE, CONTINUOUS HEARING, BUT WE CAN’T WAIVE

                      2   ANYTHING ELSE, THE TEN DAYS.

                      3               THE COURT:   YOU DON’T WANT TO GET INTO THE TEN

                      4   COURT DAYS OR 60-DAY RULE.

                      5               MR. CHERNOFF:   WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS AND TOO

                      6   MUCH TRAVELING.

                      7               THE COURT:   I WANT TO KEEP THE CASE MOVING.   IT IS

                      8   PERFECTLY OKAY WITH ME, BUT JUST A MINUTE.   WE HAVE OUR

                      9   JURORS COMING IN.   TIME OUT FOR JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE.

                    10

                    11                           (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)

                    12

                    13               THE COURT:   THANK YOU.   OUR DELIBERATING JURORS

                    14   HAVE RETIRED TO THE JURY ROOM.   SERGEANT PARRA, THANK

                    15   YOU.

                    16                           SO WE STILL HAVE THIS WAIVER OF CONTINUOUS

                    17   PRELIM UP TO TEN COURT DAYS.   IS THAT CORRECT, MR.

                    18   CHERNOFF?

                    19               MR. CHERNOFF:   IT IS, JUDGE.

                    20               THE COURT:   AND, DR. MURRAY, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?

                    21               THE DEFENDANT:   YES.

                    22               THE COURT:   SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT

                    23   TO CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY HEARING ONCE THE

                    24   PRELIMINARY HEARING STARTS IN THIS CASE, AND YOU GIVE UP

                    25   THAT RIGHT FOR UP TO TEN COURT DAYS AFTER.   WE MAY HAVE

                    26   TO BREAK.

                    27               THE DEFENDANT:   YES.   YES, YOUR HONOR.

                    28               THE COURT:   JOIN IN THE WAIVER, MR. CHERNOFF?

                                                                                                                                              43

                      1               MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, WE ARE.

                      2               THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN?

                      3               MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

                      4               THE COURT:   MR. LOW?

                      5               MR. LOW:   YES, SIR.

                      6               THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

                      7                           THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND EXPLICIT, KNOWING AND

                      8   INTELLIGENT, FREE AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY DR. MURRAY OF

                      9   HIS RIGHT TO A CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED PRELIMINARY

                    10   HEARING.   THAT IS A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT CAN BE

                    11   INTERRUPTED FOR UP TO TEN COURT DAYS AT A PARTICULAR

                    12   TIME.

                    13                           THERE IS NO WAIVER OF THE TEN COURT DAY RULE

                    14   OR THE 60-DAY RULE AS WELL.

                    15                           COUNSEL, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO GIVE US A BETTER

                    16   TIME ESTIMATE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME PERIOD IN JANUARY,

                    17   PLEASE DO.   SHOULD WE BE SETTING AN INTERIM DATE FOR

                    18   ANYTHING, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO REGROUP ON THE

                    19   PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011, OR SHOULD

                    20   WE GET TOGETHER IN A MONTH OR SO, OR WHAT?

                    21               MR. CHERNOFF:   IS IT POSSIBLE FOR TO US DO THIS BY

                    22   TELEPHONE?

                    23               THE COURT:   YES.

                    24               MR. CHERNOFF:   REALLY, IT IS JUST HOUSEKEEPING

                    25   MATTERS, THE TWO ISSUES WE DISCUSSED.   ALL RIGHT.   AND IT

                    26   SEEMS LIKE WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT BY TELEPHONE.

                    27   I DON’T KNOW IF WE SET A DATE NOW, WHETHER THAT IS

                    28   HELPFUL.

                                                                                                                                              44

                      1               THE COURT:   I’LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU.   I JUST DON’T

                      2   WANT TO BE SURPRISED ON THE 4TH OF JANUARY OF ISSUES WE

                      3   COULD HAVE ADDRESSED BEFORE.   I WANT TO GO.   I WANT TO

                      4   MOVE IT.   DR. MURRAY HAS AN INTEREST IN A PRELIMINARY

                      5   HEARING.   THE JACKSON FAMILY AND OTHERS HAVE AN INTEREST

                      6   IN IT AS WELL, AND THAT IS THE DATE WE CHOSE.   SO I THINK

                      7   THAT IS A REASONABLE DATE UNLESS THE PEOPLE BELIEVE WE

                      8   SHOULD SET AN INTERIM APPEARANCE DATE.

                      9               MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T THINK AT THIS TIME IT IS

                    10   NECESSARY, BUT I WOULD ASK WE SET AN ACTUAL MAYBE

                    11   TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE DATE, SCHEDULED DAY.   I THINK THAT

                    12   WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE THINGS KEEP MOVING ALONG.

                    13               THE COURT:   WE HAVE A SCHEDULED DATE OF POTENTIAL

                    14   DISCUSSION WHICH IS NEXT THURSDAY, BUT YOU WANT TO PICK A

                    15   DAY WHEN WE CAN HAVE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE?

                    16               MR. WALGREN:   I THINK LIKE A ONE-MONTH DATE.

                    17               MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS A GREAT IDEA.

                    18               THE COURT:   THAT BRINGS US TO THE THANKSGIVING

                    19   TIME.   I THINK WE SHOULD GO OVER TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF

                    20   DECEMBER AFTER THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY, IF YOU ARE

                    21   THINKING OF SOMETIME ON OR AFTER THE 1ST OF DECEMBER.

                    22   YOU LET ME KNOW.

                    23               MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE.

                    24               THE COURT:   FRIDAY, THE 3RD.

                    25               MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.

                    26               MR. CHERNOFF:   CAN I SEE FOR JUST A SECOND.

                    27               THE COURT:   SURE.   THIS IS A NON-APPEARANCE.   THIS

                    28   IS BY TELEPHONE.

                                                                                                                                              45

                      1               MR. CHERNOFF:   FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3RD.

                      2               THE COURT:   NO.   DECEMBER, UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING

                      3   ABOUT OCTOBER OF NEXT YEAR, AND I DON’T THINK SO.   SO YOU

                      4   PICK A DAY.   I MEAN, I’M AVAILABLE.   WE WILL DO THIS

                      5   DURING THE LUNCHTIME.

                      6               MR. CHERNOFF:   DECEMBER 3RD IS PERFECTLY OKAY.

                      7               THE COURT:   THAT IS FRIDAY FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

                      8   CALL.   DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT AT NOON?   THAT WOULD HELP

                      9   ME OUT.   I WOULD ANTICIPATE BEING IN TRIAL.   THAT WILL BE

                    10   12:00 O’CLOCK NOON, PACIFIC STANDARD TIME, PLEASE,

                    11   FRIDAY, THE 3RD OF DECEMBER 2010.

                    12                           COUNSEL CAN MAKE ARRANGEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN

                    13   HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL AT THAT TIME.   RIGHT NOW, THE

                    14   CONFERENCE CALL WON’T BE ON THE RECORD UNLESS THERE IS

                    15   SOME PARTICULAR ISSUE.   THIS IS JUST AN INFORMAL

                    16   DISCUSSION TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ON THE SAME

                    17   PAGE.

                    18                           DO YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO SPEEDY

                    19   PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 4TH, 2011 OR, IF

                    20   NECESSARY, WITHIN THREE DAYS THEREAFTER, SIR?

                    21               THE DEFENDANT:   YES.

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

                    23               MR. CHERNOFF:   WE DO.

                    24               THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN?

                    25               MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

                    26               THE COURT:   MR. LOW?

                    27               MR. LOW:   YES, SIR.

                    28               THE COURT:   ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS AN EXPRESS AND

                                                                                                                                              46

                      1   EXPLICIT, FREE AND VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING

                      2   WAIVER BY DR. MURRAY OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY PRELIMINARY

                      3   HEARING.

                      4                           THIS IS A MUST GO, COUNSEL, OF THE 3RD — I’M

                      5   SORRY — THE 4TH OF JANUARY 2011.   THAT WILL BE AT 9:00

                      6   A.M., PLEASE.   WE TRY TO START AT 8:30, BUT COUNSEL CAN

                      7   GET HERE A LITTLE EARLY AND WE WILL BE READY TO GO AT

                      8   THAT POINT.

                      9                           ANYTHING ELSE, MR. WALGREN?

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

                    11               THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

                    12               MR. CHERNOFF:   NO, JUDGE.

                    13               THE COURT:   THANK YOU.   WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY AT

                    14   THE TIME.

                    15               MR. WALGREN:   THANK YOU.

                    16

                    17                           (PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)

                    18

                    19

                    20

                    21

                    22

                    23

                    24

                    25

                    26

                    27

                    28