P V CM APRIL 6TH 2011

APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF,   J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, AND NAREG GOURJIAN,

 

PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

 

THE COURT:   IT IS 9:20 A.M. I DON’T WANT TO DELAY PROCEEDINGS ANY FURTHER IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, CASE SA073164.   WE HAVE THE PROSECUTION TEAM PRESENT, THE DEFENSE TEAM PRESENT, AND OTHER COUNSEL PRESENT. MAY I ASK COUNSEL TO PLEASE STATE THEIR APPEARANCE FOR THE RECORD.   FOR THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.   DAVID WALGREN FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.   DEBORAH BRAZIL FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

THE COURT:   FOR THE DEFENSE?

 

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   GOOD MORNING.   ED CHERNOFF FOR DR. MURRAY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR, MIKE FLANAGAN.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOUR HONOR, NAREG GOURJIAN FOR DR. MURRAY.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   FOR DR. ARNOLD KLEIN, GARO GHAZARIAN APPEARING ON HIS BEHALF.

 

THE COURT:   WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A REPRESENTATIVE OF MR. WEITZMAN’S OFFICE AS TO A MOTION TO QUASH.   AGAIN, IT IS 9:20.   THEY ACTUALLY FILED A MOTION AND SET IT FOR 8:30, SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOME FURTHER INFORMATION.   I’M SORRY.   AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ARE APPEARING PURSUANT TO 977?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   THIS MORNING, JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, I WAS HANDED A DOCUMENT FILED BY MR. GHAZARIAN TITLED COMPLIANCE WITH MICHAEL E. PASTOR’S ORDER IN RE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED TO DR. ARNOLD KLEIN BY DEFENDANT MURRAY AND CERTIFICATION OF RECORDS.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   YOUR HONOR, FORGIVE ME FOR THE INTERRUPTION.   I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT, BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IN MY RETURN FROM OVERSEAS AND THE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FOR ME TO COMPLY, I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT I ASK THESE RECORDS THAT I FILED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL AND ANY DISCUSSION THAT THE COURT MAY WISH TO HAVE IN OPEN COURT BE ALSO RATHER DONE IN CLOSED COURT SESSION.

 

THE COURT:   WITH REGARD TO THE DOCUMENTATION, I SAW IT WAS NOT FILED UNDER SEAL.   IT DEFINITELY SHOULD BE, AND I’M GOING TO FIND UNDER THE APPROPRIATE RULES OF COURT THAT THIS DOCUMENTATION IS TO BE SEALED.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   YES, THANK YOU.

 

THE COURT:   IT INVOLVES PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS WHICH WE KNOW, AND THOSE RECORDS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AND CERTAIN TESTIMONY MAY OR MAY NOT BE ADMISSIBLE. IT COVERS THE TIME PERIOD THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE FROM OCTOBER 23RD, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 16, 2009.   I HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTATION. MR. GHAZARIAN, DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD ANY FURTHER AS TO THE SUBPOENA ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER ANY SUCH SUBPOENA SHOULD REMAIN QUASHED OR NOT?   I HEARD YOU LAST WEEK.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   NO.   I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEYOND WHAT I HAVE ADDRESSED THE COURT WHEN I WAS HERE THE LAST APPEARANCE.   I TRUST THAT THE COURT WILL REVIEW THOSE RECORDS IN CAMERA.

 

THE COURT:   I DID.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   THE COURT WILL MAKE DETERMINATION WHETHER ANY PORTIONS ARE RELEVANT AND RELEASE THEM ACCORDINGLY. I BELIEVE I SEE MR. WEITZMAN IN THE COURTROOM.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WEITZMAN, GOOD MORNING.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER POSITION ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED TO DR. KLEIN FOR THE PARTICULAR MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE DECEDENT, MICHAEL JACKSON, DURING THE TIME PERIOD FROM OCTOBER THROUGH JUNE.   OCTOBER ’08 THROUGH JUNE OF ’09.   THAT WAS AN ISSUE WE ADDRESSED LAST TIME.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   IT WAS, YOUR HONOR, AND OUR POSITION IS STILL THE SAME.   OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL SUBMIT THAT ISSUE TO THE COURT.

 

THE COURT:   IS IT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENSE?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   IN REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTATION, I FIND THAT IT IS PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.   THERE WAS CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE MAY HAVE HAD DOCUMENTATION FROM FEBRUARY OF ’09 THROUGH JUNE OF ’09, THE DEFENSE STILL WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION DURING THAT TIME PERIOD AS WELL AS FROM AN EARLIER TIME PERIOD FROM OCTOBER TO FEBRUARY. THE DOCUMENTATION I HAVE REVIEWED COVERS THE TIME PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 23RD, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 16, 2009. I’M GOING TO FIND IT IS RELEVANT.   IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY PARTICULAR PRIVILEGE.   AND THE NECESSITY FOR DISCLOSURE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHS ANY DESIRE TO MAINTAIN IT SOLELY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICE. SO THE DOCUMENTATION IS SEALED.   IT IS TO REMAIN SEALED.   A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTATION IS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE AND ALSO TO THE PEOPLE.   AND THAT DOCUMENTATION IS TO REMAIN SEALED AND IS COVERED BY A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN THAT NO MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM OR THE DEFENSE TEAM IS TO DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF ANY OF THIS DOCUMENTATION TO ANYONE ELSE ABSENT FURTHER COURT ORDER.   SO IT IS TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, TO REMAIN SEALED UP AND TILL THE TIME THAT THE COURT DECIDES IT IS NOT TO BE. DO THE PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, BUT I’D LIKE TO BE HEARD.

 

COURT:   GO AHEAD.

 

MR. WALGREN:   JUST FOR THE COURT’S CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, SUBPOENAS WERE SENT OUT BY THE CORONER’S OFFICE EARLY ON IN THIS CASE PRE-FILING, AND MEDICAL RECORDS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF DR. KLEIN. IN TOTAL, WE HAD RECEIVED 84 PAGES, 34 PAGES OF WHICH PERTAIN TO MEDICAL CARE, THE REMAINING PERTAIN TO BILLING.   THE MEDICAL RECORDS CONTAINED IN THOSE 34 PAGES ACTUALLY BEGIN ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2008, IF THE COURT LOOKS AT THE TOP OF THAT LAST PAGE, AND CONCLUDE ON JUNE 22ND.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ARE RIGHT.   I’M LOOKING AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE RATHER THAN BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   AND CONCLUDE ON JUNE 22ND, 2009.   ALL OF THESE 34 PAGES AND, IN FACT, ALL OF THESE 84 PAGES WERE GIVEN TO DEFENSE COUNSEL SOME TIME AGO AS PART OF DISCOVERY.   SO THEY HAVE ALL THESE RECORDS. AND I ASSUME WHAT THE COURT HAS THERE IS SIMPLY DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT WAS ALREADY GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE SOME TIME AGO. ON A SIDE ISSUE, I BELIEVE — AND IF I MISHEARD, THEN I CAN CERTAINLY BE CORRECTED — BUT I BELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED LAST TIME THEY HAD 130 PAGES OR 130 SOME ODD PAGES OF MEDICAL RECORDS RELATED TO DR. KLEIN.   IF THAT IS THE CASE, I’D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT ISSUE BECAUSE WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ANY ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY THEY MAY HAVE BEYOND THE 84 PAGES THE PEOPLE HAVE PROVIDED THROUGH DISCOVERY. LASTLY, I WOULD JUST STATE THESE RECORDS PRIOR TO TODAY’S DATE I THINK HAVE PROBABLY BEEN SHARED BY THE DEFENSE WITH THEIR EXPERTS AND BY THE PEOPLE WITH THEIR EXPERTS.   SO IN REGARD TO THE COURT’S PROTECTIVE ORDER, THAT ALL PREDATED TODAY’S DATE.   I WANTED THE COURT TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

 

THE COURT:   A COUPLE THINGS.   YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE DATES OCTOBER 22ND, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 22ND, 2009. WHILE THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENSE REPRESENTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN DISCOVERY PROVIDED, THE DEFENSE NEVERTHELESS WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD ALL THE RECORDS. SO I HAVE 34 PAGES WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID IS INCLUDED, MR. GHAZARIAN, CORRECT?

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   34 PAGES, YOUR HONOR, IS CORRECT, ARE THE MEDICAL RECORDS.   AND MR. WALGREN IS CORRECT THAT PREVIOUSLY, PURSUANT TO CORONER SUBPOENA, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE ESSENTIALLY BILLING, WERE PROVIDED TO THE CORONER’S OFFICE.   THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE SUBPOENA THAT I AM COMPLYING WITH.   I’M COMPLYING WITH THE MEDICAL RECORDS, AND I HAVE DONE SO. ALSO THE COURT AND THE PARTIES OUGHT TO BE AWARE THAT I ACCEPTED THE COURT’S ORDERS TO GO BACK TO OCTOBER OF 2008, I BELIEVE, AND THE FIRST DATE THAT THERE IS TREATMENT OR MEDICAL RECORDS REGISTERED IS OCTOBER 22ND.   THAT IS WHY THERE ISN’T ANYTHING BEFORE OCTOBER 22ND.

 

THE COURT:   AND MR. CHERNOFF, AND MR. FLANAGAN, AND MR. GOURJIAN HAVE INDICATED THAT THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE, AN OCTOBER START DATE.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   THAT’S CORRECT.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, YOU ARE STANDING.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE NOW SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER.   I JUST HAVE TO RELATE TO THE COURT THAT I HAVE DISCLOSED THESE RECORDS TO VARIOUS POTENTIAL WITNESSES IN THIS CASE AND OTHER PEOPLE BEFORE NOW.   I WILL NOT DISCLOSE IT TO ANYONE ELSE SUBSEQUENT TO NOW. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE, SPECIFICALLY OUR DOCTORS AND OTHER PEOPLE WORKING WITH US ON THIS CASE, TO GO OVER THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THOSE RECORDS. THE FACT IS I’VE EACH GIVEN COPIES OF THESE RECORDS TO DR. WHITE AND DR. HARASZTI.

 

THE COURT:   I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT YOU DID. WHEN I SAY THE DEFENSE TEAM, I MEAN COUNSEL AND EXPERTS AND INVESTIGATORS CONNECTED WITH THE DEFENSE TEAM.   I’M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM PRESENTING THESE TO YOUR MEDICAL EXPERTS, BUT ADVISE THEM OF THE OBVIOUS. ANYTHING THEY MAY HAVE REVIEWED IS NOT TO BE DISCLOSED PAST YOUR TEAM. SAME THING WITH THE PROSECUTION TEAM.   IF YOU HAVE GOT EXISTING OR FUTURE EXPERTS WHOM YOU WISH TO CONSULT, YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO THEM, BUT WITH THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER IN MIND.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   YOUR HONOR, ALSO ONE HOUSECLEANING MATTER.   THOSE RECORDS, THE PERIOD OF TIME THEY COVER, INCLUDES OBVIOUSLY THE MONTH OF MAY OF 2009.   MOST OF THE MONTH OF MAY.   THE SEVERAL REFERENCES THERE ARE TREATMENTS BY ANOTHER PHYSICIAN, NOT MY CLIENT, BUT THEY WERE CONTAINED IN MY CLIENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND I HAVE COMPLIED AND PROVIDED THOSE AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   THIS INFORMATION IS FILED UNDER SEAL. IT IS TO REMAIN SEALED WITH A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND COPY TO BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE DEFENSE.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   MAY I PROVIDE AT THIS TIME.   I HAVE COPIES.   I HAD ANTICIPATED THE COURT MAY ASK ME.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS GREAT.

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   I HAVE A COPY FOR THE DEFENSE AND A COPY FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

THE COURT:   AGAIN, KEEP THEM SEALED, COUNSEL. THANK YOU. MR. GHAZARIAN, IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER?

 

MR. GHAZARIAN:   HAVE A PLEASANT DAY.

 

THE COURT:   YOU AS WELL.   THANK YOU.

 

MR. WALGREN:   ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   THEN WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF A MOTION TO QUASH AS WELL.   BUT WITH REGARD TO ANYTHING ELSE, GO AHEAD, MR. WALGREN. THIS WILL BE SEALED, MS. BENSON.

 

MR. WALGREN:   JUST WHAT I HAD INDICATED, YOUR HONOR.   I BELIEVE LAST TIME DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID THEY HAD 130 SOME ODD PAGES OF MEDICAL RECORDS FROM DR. KLEIN’S OFFICE.   AGAIN, WE HAVE 84 TOTAL.   AND I’D LIKE TO KNOW, IF THE COURT WOULD INQUIRE, IF THAT WAS A MISSTATEMENT OR IF THEY, IN FACT, HAVE THOSE PAGES WE WOULD WANT DISCOVERY IN REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL PAGES WE DO NOT HAVE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   MR. WALGREN IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.   WE HAVE MORE THAN THEY HAVE.   WE NEED TO TURN IT OVER TO THEM.   I JUST DON’T THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN THEY HAVE. IT MUST BE A MISSTATEMENT, NUMBER ONE.

 

THE COURT:   WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   ABSOLUTELY, I’LL MAKE SURE.

 

THE COURT:   YOU UPDATE THAT BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW WHEN WE COME BACK.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   ABSOLUTELY.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THIS TAKES US TO PAGE ’84.

 

THE COURT:   THE PEOPLE SAY 84 PAGES, 34 OF WHICH ARE —

 

MR. WALGREN:   MEDICAL RECORDS.

 

THE COURT:   THE REMAINDER ARE MEDICAL RECORDS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT IS CLEAR DR. KLEIN’S OFFICE BATES STAMPED THESE AK, AND THEN THE SEQUENCE NUMBERS.   WE CAN ADDRESS THIS TOMORROW TO CLARIFY ANY AMBIGUITY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   ABSOLUTELY.

 

THE COURT:   BEFORE WE GET TO THE MOTION TO QUASH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TODAY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   HOW IS DISCOVERY GOING?

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT IS ONGOING FROM THE PEOPLE’S POINT OF VIEW.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   AS WELL FROM THE DEFENSE.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IT IS GOING FINE.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS GOING FINE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   TODAY IT IS.

 

THE COURT:   THERE IS ALWAYS TOMORROW.   OKAY. SHOULD WE DEAL NOW WITH A MOTION TO QUASH FILED BY MR. WEITZMAN AND HIS FIRM.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, SIR.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WEITZMAN, GOOD MORNING.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   QUITE CHALLENGING TO GET UP HERE IN THE MORNING, ISN’T IT?

 

THE COURT:   YES.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   NOT LIKE IT USED TO BE.

 

THE COURT:   ABSOLUTELY.   THE ELEVATORS ARE ATROCIOUS.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   HOWARD WEITZMAN ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND JOHN BRANCA.

 

THE COURT:   YOU HAVE FILED A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED AS WELL AS A SUBPOENA.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   AND I HAVE RECEIVED, REVIEWED, AND CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTATION.   I’M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU IN TERMS OF ANY VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS YOU WANT TO MAKE.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I THINK IT IS SET OUT PRETTY WELL IN WRITING. FIRST OF ALL, THE REQUEST IS SO BROAD, IT PROBABLY NEVER COULD BE FILLED, AT LEAST BY THE ESTATE. BUT I’M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF IT IS.   AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAW, THERE HAS TO BE SOME REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT, UNLESS SOMETHING WAS FILED THAT I WASN’T COPIED ON.   I DON’T THINK THAT IS THE CASE, INDICATING WHAT RELEVANCE THE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS WOULD BE. THERE IS ALSO A THIRD PARTY INTEREST.   ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, FOR SURE AT LEAST THE ONES I’M SURE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND I DON’T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF IT ALL. I’D LIKE TO BE HEARD IF THE COURT HAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.   IT IS, AS WE SAY IN THE MOVING PAPERS, BURDENSOME, TOTALLY OVERLY BROAD, AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE COULD POSSIBLY BE AS TO WHAT LOANS MR. JACKSON MAY HAVE TAKEN OUT DURING HIS LIFETIME TO THE DEFENSE OF DR. MURRAY. AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT I WAS PRETTY CREATIVE WHEN I WAS DOING CRIMINAL DEFENSE WORK.   I COULDN’T COME UP WITH A THEORY.   I’M SURE MR. FLANAGAN USED TO BE PRETTY CREATIVE AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   LET’S HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   LET’S ADDRESS THE OVERBROAD.   WE ASKED FOR LOANS FROM THREE ENTITIES, NOT LOANS FROM HIS ENTIRE LIFE.   WE NEED LOANS THAT REFLECT LOANS THAT HE MADE OR HAD TAKEN OUT WITH PLAINFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT, WITH —

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   HSBC.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   HSBC.   THANK YOU, MR. WEITZMAN.   AND ALSO WITH, I BELIEVE IT IS, ONE OTHER ENTITY.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I HAVE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANK BUILDING CORPORATION, AND I HAVE BARCLAY’S.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   BARCLAY’S, PLAINFIELD, AND HSBC. BASICALLY, WHEN MR. WEITZMAN TALKS ABOUT OVERBROAD, WE NAMED ALL OF THE ENTITIES AND EVERY POSSIBLE CONCEIVABLE FORMAT IN LIGHT OF OUR A.E.G. LIVE VERSUS A.E.G. ISSUE WE ADDRESSED.   BUT WE ARE REALLY ONLY ASKING FOR THE LOANS FROM THREE SPECIFIC ENTITIES. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR IT IS WE HAVE A FINANCIAL EXPERT WHO HAS TOLD US THAT HE NEEDS THESE LOANS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT JACKSON’S FINANCIAL SITUATION. NOW, WITH REGARD TO RELEVANCE, GOOD CAUSE, THE DEFENSE, THE CRUX OF THE DEFENSE, IS GOING TO BE THAT JACKSON DID A DESPERATE ACT AND TOOK DESPERATE MEASURES THAT CAUSED HIS OWN DEATH.   THEREFORE, HIS EMOTIONAL CONDITION, PHYSICAL, AND FINANCIAL, ARE RELEVANT TO SHOW HIS STATE OF MIND WHEN HE DID THIS ACT. DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, YOU WILL RECALL THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED HE WAS HAPPY, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE CONCERTS THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO ATTEND TO, THAT HE WAS IN GOOD PHYSICAL SHAPE.   WE BELIEVE, IN TALKING TO OUR FINANCIAL EXPERTS AND GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE OBTAINED THROUGH PUBLIC RECORDS FROM THE ESTATE THAT, IN FACT, THIS PARTICULAR CONCERT TOUR THAT HE WAS GOING TO GO ON WAS — BACK UP FOR A SECOND. HE WAS ACTUALLY IN MORE DEBT AS A RESULT OF THE CONCERT THAN HE WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FROM DOING THE CONCERT.   THE ESTATE HAS INFORMATION AND, IN FACT, ONLY THE ESTATE HAS INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT JACKSON ACTUALLY WAS FACING IF HE DIDN’T COMPLETE THIS.

 

THE COURT:   EITHER MR. JACKSON OR THE DECEDENT, PLEASE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I’M SORRY.   WHAT HE WAS FACING IF HE DIDN’T COMPLETE THESE CONCERTS.   THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ASKED, AND WE HAVE ASKED THE ESTATE FOR THIS INFORMATION. HIS GREATEST ASSET, MR. JACKSON’S BEST, GREATEST ASSET HAPPENS TO BE MUSIC CATALOGS.   WE BELIEVE THEY WERE LEVERAGED BY THESE THREE ENTITIES, AND WE BELIEVE THEY WERE LEVERAGED UP TO THE POINT THAT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY WORTHLESS TO MICHAEL JACKSON.   THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR FINANCIAL EXPERT IN ORDER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT HIS FINANCIAL CONDITION AT THE TIME HE DID THIS DESPERATE ACT. WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE IT IS RELEVANT.   AND WITHOUT THESE DOCUMENTS, WE ABSOLUTELY CAN’T COMPLETE THE FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   SO IS THE THEORY THAT MICHAEL JACKSON COMMITTED SUICIDE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   THAT HE TOOK HIS OWN LIFE?   BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT IS NOT A SALABLE THEORY.   BUT THAT IS FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DECIDE AT SOME POINT. WHAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO, BECAUSE THERE ARE THIRD PARTIES INVOLVED, THE DOCUMENTS REALLY – THE DOCUMENTS, THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, DON’T HAVE ANY RELEVANCE. WHAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IS WORK OUT A STIPULATION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL AS TO THE AMOUNT OF DEBT MR. JACKSON WAS IN AT THE TIME HE DIED.   IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IS THE ONLY POTENTIAL RELEVANCE.   THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SOME OF THE PORTIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, I THINK, ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. I THINK WE COULD ARRIVE AT SOME AGREEMENT WHERE A STIPULATION COULD BE READ TO THE TRIER OF FACT.

 

THE COURT:   BUT THE PEOPLE ARE A PARTY TO THIS, SO I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE’S POSITION IN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING BECAUSE IT WAS SAID ON THE RECORD.   THERE WAS A STATEMENT INFERRING THAT EVEN IF MR. JACKSON LIVED AND COMPLETED THE TOUR, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF DEBT.   AND THAT IS JUST – THE TOUR WOULD HAVE PUT MICHAEL IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN HE WAS, AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONTINUE AND REFINANCE AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF THAT THE ESTATE HAS ACCOMPLISHED POST-DEATH.   SO THAT IS JUST NOT FACTUALLY ACCURATE, JUST BECAUSE I FELT COMPELLED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. SO IF COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WOULD BE WILLING TO ENTER INTO SOME STIPULATION, I THINK IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS WE COULD ARRIVE AT A STIPULATION THAT WOULD SATISFY THE NEEDS OF WHATEVER PRESENTATION THEY INTEND TO MAKE TO THE TRIER OF FACT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE NEED THE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH THESE PARTICULAR MUSIC CATALOGS WERE LEVERAGED, BY WHAT AMOUNT THEY WERE LEVERAGED.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   FINE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IF MR. BRANCA IS WILLING TO PROVIDE A DECLARATION THAT WOULD STATE PRECISELY HOW MUCH WAS OWED ON EACH INDIVIDUAL MUSIC CATALOG WITH THESE THREE CREDITORS, THAT MIGHT SATISFY THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO GET TO OUR FINANCIAL CONSULTANT.   THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES WOULD DO IT.   BUT IF MR. BRANCA IS WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT DOCUMENTATION, WE COULD CERTAINLY BE SATISFIED WITH THAT.   THAT, OF COURSE, WOULDN’T HAVE TO BE OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE.   OUR CONSULTANT CAN RELY ON THAT AS AN EXPERT.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I CAN WORK WITH COUNSEL ON THAT. THAT IS WHY I VOLUNTEERED.   I DON’T KNOW AGAIN IF THE PEOPLE ARE AGREEABLE TO THAT.   BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL ARE AGREEABLE TO IT.   WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT AND GET THE NUMBERS TO THEM.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS ONE THING TO COMPLY IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH A SUBPOENA AND COURT ORDER.   IT IS ANOTHER THING FOR CERTAIN EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE A TRIER OF FACT.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I UNDERSTAND.

 

THE COURT:   WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS THAT MAY BE PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF A SUBPOENA. WHETHER ANY OR ALL OF THEM ARE GOING TO COME IN AT TRIAL IS A MATTER WHERE PARTIES GET INVOLVED. MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL, I DON’T KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON ANY OF THIS.   YOU ARE TECHNICALLY NOT A PARTY TO THE SUBPOENA ISSUE.   YOU ARE CERTAINLY A PARTY TO ANY ISSUE OF EVIDENCE TO BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL.

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.   ON THAT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST SAY CATEGORICALLY THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE ENTERING INTO ANY STIPULATION REGARDING FINANCES.   THE PEOPLE’S POSITION IS THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT SIDESHOW DESIGNED TO TAKE THE ISSUES AWAY FROM THE JURY THAT THEY ARE INSTRUCTED TO DEAL WITH AND SMEAR MICHAEL JACKSON, THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE.   IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHARGE OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARE THAT DR. MURRAY PROVIDED MICHAEL JACKSON CAUSING HIS DEATH.   AND WE WILL IN NO WAY STIPULATE TO ANY FINANCIAL RECORDS. IF THE COURT RULES THAT IT IS RELEVANT, THEN THE DEFENSE CAN PROVE IT UP, BUT WE FIND IT COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND HAVING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHARGES BEFORE THE COURT.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   CAN I JUST ENTER MY AGREEMENT INTO THE RECORD WITH MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THE OPINIONS OF MR. WEITZMAN AND MR. WALGREN ARE RELEVANT WITH REGARD TO RELEVANCE.   THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SUBPOENA HAS BEEN ISSUED WITH GOOD CAUSE, WHETHER IT IS OVERBROAD, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PARTICULAR PARTIES CAN COMPLY. MR. WALGREN ESSENTIALLY IS MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE RELEVANCE.   THAT IS, OF COURSE, FOR THE JUDGE TO DECIDE AT THE TIME THAT IT IS OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE. WE ABSOLUTELY THINK IT IS RELEVANT.   WE BELIEVE THAT AT THE TIME THAT MICHAEL JACKSON DIED, HE WAS A DESPERATE MAN IN MANY DIFFERENT RESPECTS REGARDING HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.   SO IN THAT REGARD, WE DISAGREE. AND I BELIEVE THE SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED PROPERLY, AND MR. WEITZMAN AND MR. BRANCA SHOULD BE ORDERED TO COMPLY.

 

THE COURT:   WELL, RIGHT NOW I DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION.   I FIND THAT THE SUBPOENA AS CURRENTLY FRAMED IS OVERBROAD.   IT IS CALLING FOR DOCUMENTATION WHICH IS UNDULY BURDENSOME.   IT IS UNREASONABLE.   IT IMPLICATES IMPROPERLY THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY OF THE DECEDENT IN THIS CASE, AND I’M NOT GOING TO ORDER THERE BE COMPLIANCE. I’M NOT GOING TO QUASH IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. MY FEELING IS THAT IF MR. WEITZMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE, AND THE DEFENSE CAN REACH SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT AS TO APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS LIMITED, THAT IS ONE THING.   WHEN IT COMES TO A DISABILITY, THAT IS ANOTHER THING AND I THINK WE HAVE TO FRAME IT IN TERMS OF A 402 MOTION. SO I’M NOT SAYING IT IS OR IS NOT GOING TO COME IN.   I’M SAYING RIGHT NOW THIS IS MAJOR DEEP SEA FISHING, AND I’M NOT GOING TO ORDER THERE BE COMPLIANCE. WHAT I AM GOING TO REQUEST IS THAT MR. WEITZMAN AND HIS OFFICE MEET WITH MR. CHERNOFF, AND MR. FLANAGAN, AND MR. GOURJIAN, AND THEIR OFFICE, TO SEE IF THERE CAN BE SOME SORT OF SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO IT. THEN WE MAY HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER STEP.   BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS SUBPOENA IS WAY, WAY, WAY TOO BROAD.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   MR. WEITZMAN HAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT YOU QUASH THE SUBPOENA INVOLVING JOHN BRANCA THAT WAS SERVED TO HIM PERSONALLY.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   WELL, I ACCEPTED SERVICE.

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOT GOING TO QUASH THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION WHICH MR. BRANCA CAN PROVIDE.   BUT I’M NOT GOING TO TURN A TRIAL INVOLVING A CHARGE OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER INTO AN ESCAPADE AND INTO A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCES OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S ENTIRE LIFE. THE DEFENSE HAS MADE A CERTAIN POINT.   WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT AS A MOTION IN LIMINE WHERE, IF ANYWHERE, WE ARE GOING ON THIS.   BUT RIGHT NOW, I’M NOT GOING TO ORDER THE COMPLIANCE AS REQUESTED.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I ALSO THINK I MISSPOKE.   WHEN I TALKED IN TERMS OF A STIPULATION BEFORE A TRIER OF FACT, I WAS ASSUMING THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WOULD ULTIMATELY AGREE TO.   I MERELY WAS SUGGESTING AS THE COURT, HAS NOW REQUESTED, THAT KIND OF WE HAVE A MEET AND CONFER, SEE IF WE CAN WORK OUT NUMBERS ONLY.

 

THE COURT:   AND AGAIN, THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEFENSE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND THE DEFENSE SUBPOENA.   IT REALLY DOESN’T INVOLVE THE PEOPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU MAY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.   WHAT I’M INDICATING RIGHT NOW, I’LL NOT ORDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS TO THE PRESENT FORMAT OF THE SUBPOENA.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   BECAUSE IT’S OVERLY BROAD?

 

THE COURT:   ABSOLUTELY.   IT IS BURDENSOME, HAS UNREASONABLE PRIVACY RELATED ISSUES.   AND, QUITE FRANKLY, I DON’T THINK IT IS ESTABLISHED BY GOOD CAUSE.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I THINK I’LL TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   SO THE QUESTION IS ONCE WE START GETTING INTO 402 ISSUES, WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS WITH MORE SPECIFICITY.   BUT I DO WANT MR. WEITZMAN AND HIS OFFICE TO MEET WITH MR. CHERNOFF, MR. FLANAGAN, MR. GOURJIAN AND THEIR OFFICE, TO SPEAK AND SEE IF THERE IS SOME ALTERNATIVE YOU CAN DECIDE.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   THANK YOU.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT.   SO THE SUBPOENA REMAINS OUTSTANDING FOR MR. BRANCA.   HOWEVER, YOU LET MR. BRANCO KNOW.

 

MR. WEITZMAN:   I’LL LET HIM KNOW.

 

THE COURT:   BODY ATTACHMENT, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION, REMAINS, IS ORDERED AND HELD UNTIL THE 9TH OF MAY FOR MR. BRANCA JUST TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION. THANK YOU. NOW, IN TERMS OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE UNDER 402, WAS THERE ANYTHING FILED BY THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO.   WE ARE GOING TO BE FILING SOME MOTIONS IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE THE END OF LAST WEEK.   MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK THAT CHANGED WHEN THE COURT INDICATED THEY WERE GOING TO BE DARK THE END OF LAST WEEK.   BUT IN ANY EVENT, WE LIKELY MAY FILE ONE TODAY AND WE WILL HAVE PROBABLY A COUPLE MORE IN COMING DAYS, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   WE WILL BE REGROUPING TOMORROW AT 8:30 FOR JURY SELECTION, CORRECT?   PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   CORRECT.

 

THE COURT:   DEFENSE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   AND DR. MURRAY WILL BE HERE, OF COURSE. I’LL BE DOING THE ORIENTATION AS I DID THE LAST TWO TIMES FOR THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING.   THAT TAKES ABOUT TEN MINUTES.   THEN I’LL COME BACK HERE.   I HAVE A MORNING CALENDAR TOMORROW AT 8:30.   I’LL BE DOING THAT.   AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING WE HAVE ON THIS CASE AT PROMPTLY 8:30, AT WHICH TIME THE DEFENSE AND COUNSEL ORDERED TO COME BACK. AGAIN, WE WILL AWAIT NOTIFICATION OF THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE AS TO WHEN WE SHOULD GO TO THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION.

 

NOW, I HAVE GOT TWO RETURNS ON TWO SEPARATE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM TO THE BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ONE FILED BY MS. BRAZIL ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, THE OTHER FILED BY MR. CHERNOFF ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE.   THEY BOTH APPEAR TO ASK FOR THE SAME 911 TAPE.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   THAT’S CORRECT.

 

THE COURT:   I HAVE GOT THEM.   SO IF COUNSEL WANT TO STIPULATE — AND THEY APPEAR TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT FEELS LIKE A CASSETTE IN EACH ONE.   I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE IT IS THE EXACT SAME CASSETTE.   IF YOU WANT TO SIGN OFF ON EACH ONE OF THESE, AGREE THERE IS CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND JUST PUT YOUR SIGNATURES AND THE DATE, WE CAN OPEN THEM AND PROVIDE THEM TO THE PARTIES AS PART OF DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE.   I DON’T KNOW WHO WANTS TO MAKE COPIES FOR WHOM.   THEY BOTH MAY BE THE SAME, BUT I DON’T KNOW.   DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THEY ARE THE SAME, BUT WE DID ASK FOR A LOG.   WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING EXTRA WHICH WE CAN JUST MAKE A COPY OF.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS IN THESE.   THEY HAVE REMAIN SEALED.   THE QUESTION IS WHO WANTS TO DO PHOTOCOPYING AND DUPLICATING.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THEM, YOUR HONOR, IN EACH OTHER’S PRESENCE AND COMPARE CONTENTS AND MAKE THAT DECISION.

 

THE COURT:   IS THAT FAIR?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS GREAT.

 

THE COURT:   COUNSEL STIPULATE TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   STIPULATED.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   I’LL PROVIDE THESE TO MS. BENSON.   YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH THEM BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW. ANYTHING ELSE TODAY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   DEFENSE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   SEE YOU TOMORROW AT 8:30 A.M., PLEASE, AT WHICH TIME, BARRING SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE ELEVATORS, WE WILL BE ABLE TO RESUME.   I HAVE TO CONTINUE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONDITION OF THIS BUILDING.   THE ELEVATORS ARE TERRIBLE.   I DON’T THINK WE ARE GOING TO GET RAIN TOMORROW, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW.   SO TAKE ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT. SO WE WILL START PROMPTLY AT 8:30.   HAVE A GOOD ONE. ON THIS CASE, WE ARE IN RECESS.

 

(NEXT PROCEEDINGS 8:30 A.M., APRIL 7, 2011.)