P V CM Feb 28th 2011

 

APPEARANCES:

DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,

REPRESENTED BY J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN;

 

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

 

THE COURT:   MR. GOURJIAN, YOU ALSO ARE PRESENT AT THIS JUNCTURE.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, MR. CHERNOFF IS OR IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   HE IS NOT HERE TODAY.

 

THE COURT:   THIS IS AN APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO 977 ON BEHALF OF DR. MURRAY, WHOSE APPEARANCE HAS BEEN WAIVED.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. I JUST WAS HANDED AN AFFIDAVIT ALLEGEDLY BY DR. MURRAY WHICH WILL BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.   THERE IS MENTION IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN ONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS: “IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, MR. GOURJIAN PRESENTED ME WITH A WAIVER OF CONFLICT WHICH I REVIEWED AND SIGNED.   IT IS ATTACHED TO THIS DECLARATION.”

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THAT CAME IN FROM LAS VEGAS LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR.   THE ATTACHMENT IS NOT THERE. PERHAPS —

 

THE COURT:   I’LL GET IT TODAY?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOU WILL.   I WAS GOING TO ATTACH IT TO MY DECLARATION WHICH IS DUE WEDNESDAY IN THIS COURTROOM.

 

THE COURT:   MAYBE I COULD HAVE IT BEFORE.   AS LONG AS YOU ARE FILING THIS, I WOULD LIKE IT AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. FLANAGAN:   IS THAT UNDER SEAL?

 

THE COURT:   IF YOU FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE DO.                      

  THE COURT:   IT CAN BE FILED UNDER SEAL.   I WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION IF IT IS TO REMAIN SEALED.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THANK YOU.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   I’D LIKE AN UPDATE OF WHAT IS GOING ON VIS-A-VIS DISCOVERY.   I DON’T KNOW WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST. MS. BRAZIL WAS REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE LAST WEEK IN THE ABSENCE OF MR. WALGREN, AND ALONG WITH MR. WALGREN WHO IS HERE TODAY.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   I’VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY OVER THE WEEKEND TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED TO US ON THURSDAY.   THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 526 PAGES.   I PREPARED AN INVENTORY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND 380 OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE PROBATE DOCUMENTS.   THEY ARE INCLUDED IN SECTION 2 OF MR. FLANAGAN’S MOTION ENTITLED DEFENDANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY. THOSE 380 PAGES OF PROBATE DOCUMENTS ARE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO ASCERTAIN THE RELEVANCE THEY HAVE TO THE MATTER AT HAND, YOUR HONOR.   I HAVE DETAILED EACH OF THOSE SECTIONS THAT I CAN PROVIDE TO THE COURT AS AN UPDATE OR WE CAN PERHAPS SPEAK ABOUT IT, AND MR. FLANAGAN CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IT IS NOT IN THE FORM OF STATEMENTS.   IT IS LITERALLY COPIES OF PROBATE DOCUMENTS THAT THE DEFENSE CHARACTERIZES AS “PERTINENT PROBATE DOCUMENTS.”   AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE, YOUR HONOR, A FOUR-PAGE DECLARATION OF KATHY JORRIE RE KATHERINE JACKSON’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY, FILED ON JULY 28, 2009.   THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE 380 PROBATE DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF DISCOVERY. 118 OF THOSE 526 PAGES ARE THE C.V.’S OF THREE PURPORTED EXPERTS:   DR. WHITE, DR. HARASZTI,   AND DR. JONES. NINETEEN OF THE PAGES THAT WE RECEIVED ARE HANDWRITTEN OR TYPEWRITTEN NOTES PURPORTEDLY TO BE THOSE OF MR. CHERNOFF’S, AND THOSE CONTAIN SOME WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS INTERVIEWS. AND THERE ARE FIVE PAGES OF NAMES CONTAINING 40 NAMES OF PURPORTED CHARACTER WITNESSES, AND THERE IS NO STATEMENTS CONTAINED OR ATTACHED WITHIN THOSE 40 NAMES.   I BELIEVE MR. FLANAGAN IDENTIFIED THOSE NAMES FOR THE COURT AS BEING PATIENTS OF DR. MURRAY’S, WHO THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO CALL AS CHARACTER WITNESSES. THAT IS THE REVIEW OF THE SIX SECTIONS OF DISCOVERY THAT THE DEFENSE PROVIDED TO US ON THURSDAY WHEN WE WERE LAST IN COURT. SIGNIFICANTLY, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 19 PAGES ENTITLED MR. CHERNOFF’S HANDWRITTEN NOTES, THERE ARE NO WITNESS STATEMENTS WITHIN THE 526 PAGES AND, SIGNIFICANTLY, THERE ARE NO REPORTS BY THE EXPERTS THAT THE DEFENSE INDICATES BY THEIR DISCOVERY THAT THEY INTEND TO CALL AT TRIAL.   THAT IS ALL THE   INFORMATION I HAVE TO UPDATE THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO WHERE WE LEFT DISCOVERY ON THURSDAY.   AND, CLEARLY, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1054.3 BASED ON THE DISCOVERY THAT I’VE JUST DESCRIBED TO THE COURT.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT POSITION THEN WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THIS CASE?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   THE DEFENSE CANNOT BE DEEMED READY BY THIS COURT TO PROCEED WHEN THEY HAVEN’T COMPLIED WITH THE MANDATES OF RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY.   THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES, REPORTS OF WITNESSES, NOTES OF INTERVIEWS.   IF STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN BY A PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES IN ORAL FORM, THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT MEMORIALIZED IN WRITING. WITHOUT THE STATEMENTS AND REPORTS OF WITNESSES, WE CANNOT PROCEED WITH TRIAL BECAUSE 402 ISSUES CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY THE PEOPLE.   WE CANNOT GIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS A MEANINGFUL TIME ESTIMATE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE A CLEAR AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING BECAUSE, AS THE COURT CAN SEE FROM THE INFORMATION THAT I’VE PROVIDED IN THESE APPROXIMATELY 526 PAGES OF DISCOVERY, THERE ARE MANY, MANY 402 ISSUES THAT THE COURT WILL NEED TO ADDRESS REGARDING THESE DEFENSE WITNESSES. AND THIS DISCOVERY THAT I HAVE DETAILED FOR THE COURT DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 27 WITNESSES ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST THAT ARE IDENTIFIABLE AS POTENTIAL PEOPLE’S WITNESSES. WE HAVE DISCOVERY REGARDING THOSE WITNESSES IN THE FORM OF STATEMENTS OR CONTACTS WITH THEM.   BUT WHEN THESE WITNESSES APPEAR ON THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFENSE HAS NOT INTERVIEWED OR TAKEN A STATEMENT FROM ANY

OF THESE WITNESSES.   WE ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE STATEMENTS AS WELL. SO IT IS OUR POSITION, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE COURT CLEARLY MUST REQUIRE, BY ORDER, THAT THE DEFENSE COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER 1054.3.   UNTIL THEN, THE DEFENSE CANNOT BE DEEMED READY.   AND AS THE COURT STATED ON THURSDAY, YES, THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, BUT THEY, TOO, MUST COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT LAWS AND STATUTES THAT GOVERN THEIR SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU, MS. BRAZIL. MR. FLANAGAN, YOUR POSITION?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   MY POSITION?

 

THE COURT:   WHAT HAS CHANGED BETWEEN THURSDAY AND TODAY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BETWEEN THURSDAY AND TODAY, I HAVE CALLED ELISSA FLEAK AND ATTEMPTED TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE CORONER’S OFFICE TO INSPECT AND PHOTOGRAPH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS SEIZED FROM CAROLWOOD. I’VE CALLED MS. — WITH NO RETURN OF PHONE CALL — I’VE CALLED MS. BRAZIL TO ATTEMPT TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH LAPD TO INSPECT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN THE POSSESSION OF LAPD, WITH NO RETURN OF PHONE CALL. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE PHOTOS OF THE CORONER’S DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SEIZED OR THE POLICE DOCUMENTS. I HAVE TALKED WITH DR. WHITE AND ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF HIS OPINION.   I TALKED TO HIM YESTERDAY.   HE HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS LECTURING.   I ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE ME WITH A SUMMARY.   HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE THAT TO ME BY E-MAIL SOMETIME TODAY OR TOMORROW. I’VE TALKED WITH DR. HARASZTI.   I TALKED WITH HIM ON FRIDAY.   I TOLD HIM THE PROSECUTION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SUMMARY OF HIS OPINION IN THE CASE. EACH OF THESE DOCTORS HAS BEEN RETAINED WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS.   WE DIDN’T RETAIN ANY DOCTOR TO REPRESENT US PRIOR TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.   ONCE

THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS OVER AND WE KNEW SOME OF THE ISSUES, THEN WE STARTED OBTAINING DOCTORS. WE HAVE STILL GOT TWO MEDICAL EXAMINERS THAT CAN’T EVEN EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE UNTIL WE CAN PROVIDE THEM WITH THE CORONER’S SLIDES THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED FROM THE PROSECUTION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED YET. WE STILL HAVEN’T RECEIVED THE SURVEILLANCE TAPES FROM CAROLWOOD WHICH WE NEED TO HAVE FOR OUR OWN PERSONAL REVIEW. AND I’M SURE THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST HAVE AMENDED EXPERT REPORTS THAT WE HAVEN’T BEEN PROVIDED. THE REASON WHY I THINK THEY MUST HAVE AMENDED EXPERT REPORTS IS BECAUSE THEY NOW KNOW THE GASTRIC CONTENTS IN THIS CASE ARE OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE RELATING TO THEIR THEORY OF DEATH OF MICHAEL JACKSON. YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE NOTES — EITHER NOTES BY MR. WALGREN OR THE NOTES OFDR. RUFFALO.   YOU KNOW, RUFFALO WRITES A 57-PAGE REPORT, NOT MUCH OF WHAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS CASE AS TO PERTINENT ISSUES.   HE TESTIFIES IN THE MORNING REGARDING BLOOD CONTENTS AND HIS QUALIFICATIONS.   IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER LUNCH WHEN HE COMES IN AND TESTIFIES AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND NOW HE HAS CONCOCTED A NEW THEORY FOR THE FIRST TIME.   ANY EXPERT, NO OTHER EXPERT, NOT A CORONER, NOT AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, NONE OF THEIR 12 EXPERTS EVER

ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF GASTRIC CONTENTS IN THIS CASE.   IT WASN’T ADDRESSED UNTIL RUFFALO, AFTER LUNCH, AT PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHO ADMITTEDLY JUST TALKED WITH MR. WALGREN THAT DAY, AND HE COMES UP WITH A FORMULA TO SHOW POSTMORTEM REDISTRIBUTION WHICH, AS YOU HEARD, JUST GOT BLOWN UP BECAUSE HE USED THE WRONG MULTIPLIER IN THE CASE AND IT WAS TOTALLY INAPPLICABLE BUT WE DIDN’T GET THOSE NOTES EITHER.   EVEN AS HE WAS TESTIFYING, WE DIDN’T HAVE HIS NOTES OF WHAT HE WAS THINKING ABOUT. THIS DISCOVERY THING IS A TWO-WAY ISSUE. WHEN DO WE GET THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHEN DO WE GET THE SLIDES, WE CAN SHOW THEM TO OUR CORONER.   I MEAN WE DON’T NEED A WHOLE LOT OF TIME WITH THEM, AND WE ARE IN THE 30 DAYS.   WE ARE ABOUT 30 DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL NOW.

 

THE COURT:   NO.   WE ARE 26 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE LAST DAY IS THE 28TH OF MARCH, AND WE ARE GOING TO BE STARTING JURY SELECTION ON THE 24TH.   WE PROBABLY WON’T BE STARTING EVIDENCE FOR ANOTHER 35 OR 40 DAYS.

 

THE COURT:   EXCUSE ME?   35 OR 40 DAYS FROM WHEN?

MR. FLANAGAN:   FROM NOW.

 

THE COURT:   OH, THAT IS NOT THE BEGINNING OF TRIAL. TRIAL BEGINS WHEN WE BEGIN JURY SELECTION.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   OKAY.   SO THAT IS THE DATE OF TRIAL BEGINNING.   WE ANTICIPATE WE WILL BE READY, BUT IT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.  WE ARE RAPIDLY TRYING TO GET THIS CASE READY AND THE PROSECUTION REFUSES, UP UNTIL NOW, HASN’T PROVIDED — WE MADE OUR INFORMAL REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY BACK IN JANUARY.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, I WAS ASKING YOU WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BETWEEN THURSDAY AND TODAY, NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE OR HAVE NOT DONE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   OKAY.   WHAT I HAVE DONE IS I HAVE ASKED FOR REPORTS FROM DR. HARASZTI AND FROM DR. WHITE AND CHECKED WITH THE OTHER DOCTORS AS TO THE INFORMATION THEY NEEDED.   DR. JONES HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE SAME INFORMATION WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO DR. WHITE.   IT WAS A FIVE-POUND FEDERAL EXPRESS PACKAGE OF TRANSCRIPTS AND DOCUMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND I’VE TALKED TO, ATTEMPTED TO TALK TO MS. BRAZIL.   I’VE ATTEMPTED TO TALK TO MS. FLEAK.   I’VE BEEN TRYING TO SET UP AN INSPECTION. MAYBE I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS DONE OTHER THAN COUNT THE NUMBER OF PAGES I GAVE THEM LAST THURSDAY.

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOT REALLY INTERESTED AT THIS JUNCTURE IN LEARNING WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS DONE.   THE WHOLE ISSUE AROSE RATHER DRAMATICALLY LAST THURSDAY WHEN REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE ABOUT DR. WHITE AND HIS CONCLUSIONS AND HIS APPARENT CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. FLANAGAN THAT WERE NOT REPORTED — CONTAINED IN ANY KIND OF REPORT, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE, AND NO SUMMARY PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE.

I WANT TO CITE, WITH SPECIFICITY, TWO DECISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL.   THE FIRST, ROWLAND VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT, 124 CAL APP. 4TH, 154: “WHEN THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO CALL CERTAIN WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL, AN OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE RELEVANT REPORTS OF THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE PERSONS CAN BE INTERPRETED IN TWO WAYS: “(1) AS REQUIRING DEFENSE TO DISCLOSE ONLY REPORTS, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, WHICH COUNSEL RECEIVES FROM A THIRD PARTY, SUCH AS AN INVESTIGATOR; OR “(2) AS IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT ANY   RELEVANT STATEMENTS MADE BY THOSE INTENDED WITNESSES, INCLUDING ORAL STATEMENTS THEY HAVE MADE DIRECTLY TO DEFENSE COUNSEL. “WE CONCLUDE THE LATTER INTERPRETATION IS MORE REASONABLE BECAUSE IT COMPORTS WITH THE VOTERS’ INTENT TO PROMOTE THE ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUTH IN TRIALS BY REQUIRING TIMELY PRETRIAL DISCOVERY OF ALL RELEVANT AND REASONABLY ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION.   (CITING IN RE LITTLEFIELD, 5 CAL 4TH, 122, AT PAGES 130 THROUGH 131) “THIS OBJECTIVE IS ACHIEVED ONLY IF SECTION 1054.3 IS INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE NOT ONLY THE DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT WRITTEN AND RECORDED STATEMENTS OF INTENDED WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT BUT ALSO THE DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT ORAL STATEMENTS COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY TO COUNSEL BY SUCH A WITNESS OR COMMUNICATED TO COUNSEL VIA INVESTIGATOR OR SOME OTHER THIRD PARTY. “THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON TO REQUIRE BOTH THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL TO DISCLOSE   TO EACH OTHER ALL OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND REPORTS OF RELEVANT ORAL STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE   DEFENDANT WHOM THEY INTEND TO CALL AT TRIAL BUT NOT REQUIRE THEM TO DISCLOSE TO EACH OTHER ORAL STATEMENTS SUCH WITNESSES MADE DIRECTLY TO COUNSEL.   IN FACT, EXCLUDING SUCH STATEMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 1054.3 AND COMCOMITANT SECTION 1054.1 WOULD UNDERMINE THE VOTERS’ INTENT BECAUSE IT WOULD PERMIT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND PROSECUTORS TO AVOID DISCLOSING RELEVANT INFORMATION BY SIMPLY CONDUCTING THEIR OWN INTERVIEWS OF CRITICAL WITNESSES INSTEAD OF   USING INVESTIGATORS TO PERFORM THIS TASK AND BY NOT WRITING DOWN OR RECORDING ANY OF THOSE WITNESSES’ STATEMENTS.

“AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, SUCH GAMESMANSHIP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE QUEST FOR TRUTH WHICH IS THE OBJECTIVE OF MODERN DISCOVERY.” AND THIS PARTICULAR REASONING IS FOLLOWED AND LEGITIMIZED BY ANOTHER COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN PEOPLE VERSUS LAMB AT 136 CAL APP. 4TH, 575 AT 580, WHICH AGAIN REITERATES THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MEMORIALIZING STATEMENTS. HAVE YOU MET THAT OBLIGATION, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MEETING THAT OBLIGATION. NOW, ONE THING YOU JUST SAID WHICH IS, YOUR HONOR, SIMPLY — AND MS. BRAZIL WILL VERIFY THAT IT IS NOT TRUE, IS WE HAVEN’T TOLD HER ABOUT DR. WHITE.   I GAVE DR. WHITE’S PRELIMINARY OPINION, AS HE IS INVESTIGATING THIS CASE AND NEEDS FURTHER INFORMATION, I GAVE THAT IN WRITING TO HER — TO MS. BRAZIL, EXCUSE ME — WITH THE C.V. OF DR. WHITE. I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT DR. WHITE HAS REVIEWED DOCUMENTS.   I ITEMIZED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS REVIEWED. HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS ADDICTED TO PROPOFOL OR TO DEMEROL.   THAT THE DEMEROL ADDICTION HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH HIS INSOMNIA.   THAT HE WAS GOING THROUGH WITHDRAWALS FROM DEMEROL ON JUNE 25, AND THAT DR. MURRAY WAS NOT A CAUSE OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S DEATH.   I GAVE HER THAT IN WRITING ALONG — IT IS A BRIEF SUMMARY.   IT IS ONLY ABOUT HALF OF A PAGE SUMMARY. YOU INDICATED LAST WEEK YOU WANTED ME TO DO MORE.   MS. BRAZIL WANTS ME TO DO MORE.   I TALKED WITH DR. WHITE WHEN HE GOT BACK FROM HIS SPEAKING TOUR.   HE IS GETTING ME HIS OWN WRITTEN SUMMARY OF HIS CONCLUSIONS THAT HE HAS REACHED TO DATE. YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE PUTTING – I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU ARE PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE DEFENSE AND NOTHING ON THE PROSECUTION.   THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD 20 MONTHS TO PREPARE THIS CASE.   IN 20 MONTHS, THEY CAN’T GET US PHOTOGRAPHS, SLIDES, SURVEILLANCE TAPES, AND THE INFORMATION WE NEED.   WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THEM. REMEMBER, THEY HAVE GOT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.   THEY GO FORWARD FIRST IN THIS CASE.   THE FIRST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS OF THIS CASE WILL BE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.   WE ARE GOING TO BE RESPONDING TO THE PROSECUTION.   I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO PUT ON. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THE COURT WANTS TO

MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A WELL-RUN ONE WITNESS AFTER ANOTHER TRIAL IN THIS CASE, THAT THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER TO BOTH SIDES THAT THEY PROVIDE AT LEAST 24 HOURS’ NOTICE OF THE WITNESSES AND THE DESCRIPTION OR NATURE OF THEIR TESTIMONY THEY WILL PUT ON.   THIS IS A COURTESY THAT WAS NOT AFFORDED TO ME IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

 

THE COURT:   THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY RIGHT NOW.   WE WILL GET TO ISSUES INVOLVING INFORMATION TO COUNSEL ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING AND WHEN AT A WAYS DOWN THE ROAD, MR. FLANAGAN.   THAT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE. I DON’T WANT TO DISTRACT US FROM THE ISSUES

 AT HAND, WHICH ARE DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE ISSUES, NOT

 PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT WHO IS TESTIFYING ON WHAT DATE.   JUST FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON THAT ISSUE. I’M NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING THAT IT IS A ONE-WAY STREET EITHER, MR. FLANAGAN.   I DON’T WANT TO AGAIN DIVERT THE ATTENTION FROM THE DEFENSE OBLIGATION TO THE PEOPLE’S OBLIGATION WHICH IS OUT THERE AS WELL.   YOU KNOW, YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. WHITE. IN LAMB, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT WAS PREDICATED IN LARGE PART ON HIS BELIEF THAT IT IS ONLY WRITTEN REPORTS OF AN EXPERT THAT MUST BE DISCLOSED TO THE PROSECUTION.   HE ASSERTS THAT: “BECAUSE NO SUCH REPORT WAS PREPARED, AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL OBTAIN A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM A WITNESS, THERE WAS NO DISCOVERY VIOLATION.” HE ALSO ASSERTS THAT: “TODD’S NOTES, THE EXPERT’S NOTES IN THAT CASE, REFLECTED ONLY INTERIM CONCLUSIONS, NOT FINAL OPINIONS AND, THEREFORE, WERE NOT DISCOVERABLE.” THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT YOU WERE ARGUING LAST WEEK. “AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, SECTION 1054.3 REQUIRES A DEFENDANT TO DISCLOSE NOT ONLY WRITTEN REPORTS BUT ALSO ANY REPORTS OR STATEMENTS OF EXPERTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE.   TODD, THE EXPERT IN THIS CASE, STATED THAT WHILE HE HAD NOT PREPARED ANY REPORTS, HE HAD MADE NOTES ABOUT THE INTERVIEWS WITH WITNESSES, HAD MADE CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, AND MADE NOTES ABOUT HIS INSPECTIONS OF THE VEHICLES AND HAD CONVEYED THIS INFORMATION TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.   OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MEETINGS, TODD HAD EXPLAINED HIS THEORIES TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.” YOU CONFERRED WITH DR. WHITE AND OTHER EXPERTS ON THIS CASE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CASE, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I JUST GOT THROUGH EXPLAINING. TOLD THEM DR. WHITE’S TENTATIVE OPINION.   I’VE TALKED WITH DR. WHITE FURTHER YESTERDAY FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF.   I’VE ASKED HIM TO PREPARE ME A SUMMARY —

 

THE COURT:   EXCUSE ME?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   — OF WHAT HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO, OR WHAT HIS OPINIONS ARE IN THIS CASE.   AND HE IS GOING TO SEND THAT TO ME EITHER TODAY OR TOMORROW, AND I’M GOING TO PROVIDE THAT AS SOON AS I RECEIVE IT. YOU KNOW, THE DISCOVERY STATUTE REQUIRES US TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE DISCOVERY THAT WE HAVE 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE.   IF WE GET DISCOVERY AFTER THAT 30 DAYS, THEN WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THEM IN A TIMELY FASHION, WHICH I ASSUME WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY.   WE WILL DO THAT. WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM THAT AS IT COMES IN.

 

THE COURT:   BY THAT LOGIC, IF YOU DIDN’T GET THE INFORMATION UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF JURY SELECTION OR EVEN AFTER JURY SELECTION, OR SOMETIME DURING THE TRIAL, YOU WOULD FEEL THEN THERE WAS COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR OBLIGATION?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I DO ANTICIPATE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND DISCOVERY GOING RIGHT UP AND TILL WE PRESENT THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE.   PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO BE ON THE PROSECUTION CASE, BUT WE MIGHT HAVE TO REACT TO SOMETHING THEY PUT ON DURING THEIR CASE. THEY HAVEN’T TOLD US WHAT WITNESSES THEY ARE GOING TO CALL.   I ASSUME THEY WILL CALL MOST OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WITNESSES, AND WE ARE REACTING TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING RIGHT NOW AND PROVIDING THEM THE INFORMATION AS WE GET IT. SHE, MS. BRAZIL, DOESN’T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING IMPORTANT ABOUT THE PROBATE FILE THAT WE HAD CERTIFIED FOR PURPOSES OF USE IN THIS CASE.   WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR A FINANCIAL ANALYST THAT CAN BRING THE SIGNIFICANCE IN A REPORT TO MS. BRAZIL.   WE ARE STILL PREPARING THE CASE, AND WE ARE GOING TO BE PREPARING THE CASE EVEN AFTER TRIAL STARTS. I THINK, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE PREPARATION CAN’T BE DONE UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE UP AGAINST.   IT IS AN ONGOING THING, AND IT IS GOING TO BE AN ONGOING THING.   MY UNDERSTANDING OF MY OBLIGATION IS TO PROVIDE IT WHEN WE RECEIVE IT, AND WE WILL AND WE ARE.

 

THE COURT:   I’M SPEECHLESS. MS. BRAZIL OR MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YOUR HONOR, DEFENSE COUNSEL, MR. CHERNOFF, LAST WEEK IN MY REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING, AND MR. FLANAGAN BOTH SAID THEY ARE NOT READY. THEY ARE GETTING READY.   THEY ARE NOT READY.   THEY ARE NOT READY. TIME CAN’T BE TICKING AGAINST THE PEOPLE WHEN THE DEFENSE HAS CLEARLY STATED THEY ARE NOT READY.   THE PEOPLE FEEL THAT THE MARCH 24 DATE NEEDS TO BE VACATED. WE NEED COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE FOCUSING HERE JUST ON THREE EXPERTS. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THEIR WITNESS LIST HAS 91 PEOPLE ON IT.   I SEE LENGTHY, MULTIPLE DAYS OF 402 HEARINGS REGARDING THESE WITNESSES WHICH, FROM JUST A BRIEF PERUSAL, MANY OF THEM THE PEOPLE WOULD BE OBJECTING TO AS IRRELEVANT.   OBJECTIONS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES.   BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE DISCOVERY, IT IS HARD TO ANTICIPATE THAT. I JUST DON’T SEE HOW WE CAN BE SITTING HERE SAYING THE DEFENSE IS READY WHEN THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY THEMSELVES HAVE SAID THEY ARE NOT READY, AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE MARCH 24TH TRIAL DATE BE VACATED.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR –

THE COURT:   YES, MR. FLANAGAN.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   — WE WILL BE READY TO GO TO TRIAL ON MARCH 24TH.   WE ARE NOT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT READY RIGHT NOW.   IF THE PEOPLE WERE JUST GOING TO PUT ON WHAT THEY PUT ON AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, OTHER THAN A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS FROM EXPERTS WHICH WE HAVE NOT OBTAINED YET, WE WOULD BE READY TO GO TO TRIAL WITH PROBABLY ABOUT 15 WITNESSES. WE HAVE GIVEN THEM A LIST OF 91 WITNESSES WHICH ARE POTENTIAL WITNESSES.   THEY HAVE GIVEN US A LIST OF 106 WITNESSES.   DOES ANYBODY THINK THEY ARE GOING TO CALL 106 WITNESSES TO THE STAND?   I MEAN, THEY ARE PROVIDING US WITH A HAYSTACK AND ASKING US TO LOOK FOR THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK. WE GAVE THEM A LIST OF 91.   NOW, OF THOSE, 40 ARE POTENTIAL CHARACTER WITNESSES.   WE DON’T KNOW WHICH ONE WE WILL USE OR WHICH THREE OR FOUR, OR FIVE, WE MIGHT USE.

 

THE COURT:   WHERE ARE THEIR STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY OF THOSE ENUMERATED CHARACTER WITNESSES?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE HAVE NOT TAKEN STATEMENTS.   IT IS DR. MURRAY’S RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HE DID FOR THOSE WITNESSES, AND THOSE ARE WITNESSES WE ARE GOING TO CONTACT TO POTENTIALLY BE A CHARACTER WITNESS.   WE MIGHT NOT EVEN END UP PUTTING ON CHARACTER EVIDENCE, BUT WE MIGHT.

 

THE COURT:   BUT —

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE DECISION HASN’T BEEN MADE.   WE DON’T HAVE A TRIAL DATE FOR ANOTHER FOUR WEEKS. YOUR HONOR, IN ADDITION, 30 OF THE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE LISTED IN THIS BIG LIST OF 91, SOME WITNESSES ARE WITNESSES THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS IN THEIR DOCUMENTATION.   WE HAVEN’T INTERVIEWED THOSE WITNESSES. WE HAVE ANOTHER 15 WITNESSES.

 

THE COURT:   THE PROSECUTION DOESN’T KNOW THAT, MR. FLANAGAN.   WHAT MS. BRAZIL WAS POINTING OUT IS EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE CHARACTERIZED AS “PROSECUTION   WITNESSES,” THAT DOESN’T PRECLUDE YOU FROM HAVING CONFERRED WITH THEM AND OBTAINED YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.   SO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY —

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   — POTENTIAL WITNESSES, AND WE WOULD NOT BE RELYING UPON ANY STATEMENTS OTHER THAN THE STATEMENTS ALREADY GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTION.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES, THE STATEMENTS THEY HAVE TAKEN — WE HAVE NO STATEMENTS FROM THEM.   WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE STATEMENTS FROM THEM.   WE ARE SUBPOENAING THEM, ANTICIPATING THAT THEY WILL TESTIFY TO WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS. MOST OF THESE WITNESSES ARE HOSTILE WITNESSES.   THERE IS ANOTHER GROUP OF HOSTILE WITNESSES THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO GET INTO COURT, TOO, LIKE DR. ADAMS.   THEY KNOW WHAT DR. ADAMS IS ALL ABOUT.   WE WANT TO GET HIM INTO COURT.   HE IS A HOSTILE WITNESS. WE HAVE A DR. KLEIN, A HOSTILE WITNESS.   HE IS FIGHTING US ALL THE WAY.   WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES THAT ARE HOSTILE WITNESSES.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ARE NOT TELLING ME WHAT YOU HAVE. YOU ARE TELLING ME WHAT YOU DON’T HAVE.   THAT IS THE DILEMMA HERE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I’M TELLING YOU, YOU KNOW, I’VE TOLD YOU SO MUCH MORE ABOUT OUR CASE THAN THE PROSECUTION HAS INDICATED.   I DON’T KNOW WHY THIS — IT REALLY GIVES ME THE APPEARANCE THIS IS A ONE-WAY STREET.   YOU ARE HARPING ON ME TO DO STUFF THAT IS DEPENDENT UPON ME GETTING THINGS FROM THE PROSECUTION. IF WE COULD JUST GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR, WE COULD COMPLETE DISCOVERY WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.   WE WILL BE READY ON MARCH 24TH.   IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON’T HAVE QUITE THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES TO HIRE A BUNCH OF INVESTIGATORS LIKE THE PROSECUTION DOES IN THIS CASE. THE COURT HAS FURTHER PUT A FINANCIAL BURDEN   ON US.   YOU KNOW, IF THERE WASN’T A SUSPENSION OF CALIFORNIA’S PRIVILEGES, WE WOULDN’T HAVE NEAR AS MUCH WORRY IN THIS CASE AND WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE DIRECT NEED TO GO TO TRIAL WITHIN 60 DAYS.

 

THE COURT:   WAS DR. MURRAY PRACTICING MEDICINE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.

THE COURT:   THEN WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BECAUSE I THINK THE COURT KNOWS THAT WHEN YOU SUSPEND HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN ONE STATE, OTHER STATES TEND TO RECIPROCATE.

 

THE COURT:   HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER STATES WHICH HAVE SUSPENDED DR. MURRAY’S LICENSE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE HAVE GOT A DEAL WITH NEVADA. NEVADA IS LOOKING AT TEXAS, AND TEXAS — IF WE DON’T WAIVE SPEEDY TRIAL, THEY ARE WILLING TO WAIT THIS OUT. BUT IF WE CONTINUE THIS CASE OFF FOR TEN MONTHS, WE WOULD HAVE EVEN MORE PROBLEMS.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM, MR. FLANAGAN. I RULED AS I DID.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I KNOW IT IS OUR PROBLEM, AND WE ARE DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM AND SO THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO GO TO TRIAL RIGHT AWAY.   WE DON’T HAVE THE BUDGET THAT WOULD AFFORD US TO DRAW THIS THING OUT FOR TEN MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS.   AND RIGHT NOW, DR. MURRAY IS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE LAW IN NEVADA —

 

THE COURT:   MEDICINE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   — AND IN TEXAS, BECAUSE WE DIDN’T WAIVE OUR RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL AND WE ARE NOT DRAWING THIS THING OUT.   WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DECISION ON THIS WHOLE MATTER HOPEFULLY WITHIN THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS.

 

THE COURT:   THE DEFENSE STILL HAS TO BE READY.   THE DEFENSE STILL HAS TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS.   THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE READY, AND THE PEOPLE HAVE TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS. ARE YOU READY FOR TRIAL?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

THE COURT:   YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT, MS. BRAZIL?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   YOUR HONOR, CATEGORICALLY, I DON’T KNOW HOW THE DEFENSE CAN REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THEY ARE READY FOR TRIAL BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE JUST LISTENED TO. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED DISCOVERY THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO, AND MR. FLANAGAN REPEATEDLY STATES THAT THEIR READINESS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS.   FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID THAT THE PROBATE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS PROVIDED TO US ARE HOPEFULLY GOING TO BE A CATALYST FOR THE SECURING OF A FINANCIAL ANALYST TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. YOUR HONOR, AS HE SITS HERE TODAY, HE IS TELLING YOU, MR. FLANAGAN IS, THAT HE IS CONTINUALLY REACHING OUT TO ADDITIONAL EXPERTS FOR REPORTS TO ASSIST IN THEIR DEFENSE.   THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO THOSE REPORTS 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL COMMENCES.   THAT IS THE PLAIN LETTER OF PENAL CODE SECTION 1054.3 AS CONSTRUED BY ROWLAND AND LAMB, AS THE COURT READ OUT LOUD. SIGNIFICANTLY, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE WOULD LIKE TO RUSH THE CASE TO TRIAL FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL NEEDS, SPECIFICALLY DR. MURRAY’S ABILITY TO RETAIN HIS LICENSE IN TWO OTHER STATES.   THAT SITUATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRIAL THAT IS PROCEEDING HERE IN CALIFORNIA, AND THE DEFENSE MUST ABIDE BY THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 1054 WHICH IMPOSES ON THEM CERTAIN CONDITIONS BEFORE THEY CAN ANNOUNCE READY FOR TRIAL. THEY ARE NOT READY FOR TRIAL.   SPECIFICALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENDANT, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY, MR. FLANAGAN, SAYS THAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE AN EXPERT REVIEW THE CORONER’S EVIDENCE AND REVIEW THE EVIDENCE THAT IS BOOKED BY LAPD. YOUR HONOR, THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEFENSE TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS, NOTHING HAS STOOD IN THEIR WAY FROM SEEKING A COURT ORDER WELL BEFORE NOW TO PREPARE THEMSELVES FOR TRIAL.   THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS 45 DAYS AGO.   THE DEFENSE HAS AN OBLIGATION ONCE THEY ANNOUNCE READY TO BE READY, TO BE MEN OF THEIR WORD, AND THEY ARE NOT, YOUR HONOR. SO THE COURT CANNOT ACCEPT MR. FLANAGAN’S REPRESENTATION THAT THEY ARE READY FOR TRIAL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT READY FOR TRIAL.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT ABOUT MR. FLANAGAN’S COMMENTS ON HIS REPEATED REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY FROM THE PROSECUTION?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   I CAN ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE SPOKE OF ON THURSDAY AND, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, IF WE ARE NOW GOING TO SHIFT TO THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, I’M HAPPY TO DO SO. THE DISCOVERY REGARDING THE PHOTOGRAPHS, NON-WATERMARKED, NON-BATES STAMPED, WE AGREED ON THURSDAY THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS THAT ISSUE TODAY AND THE COURT WOULD FASHION WHATEVER PROTECTIVE ORDERS THE PARTIES SAW FIT REGARDING THOSE PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPHS.   WE ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT TODAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO FROM THE CAROLWOOD RESIDENCE, THE CD THAT THE DEFENSE HAS IS ALL OF THE SURVEILLANCE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION.   THERE IS NOT ADDITIONAL SURVEILLANCE VIDEO   IN THE PEOPLE’S POSSESSION OR IN LAPD POSSESSION CONCERNING THE CAROLWOOD RESIDENCE.

 

THE COURT:   DO YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS IN ANYBODY ELSE’S POSSESSION?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO, YOUR HONOR.   THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE HAVE NOT.

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT IS CD NO. 476210.   I HAVE A SIGNED RECEIPT THAT THEY RECEIVED IT MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE WERE PROVIDED A SNIPPET OF THE ARRIVAL OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND DR. MURRAY.   WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ANYTHING SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE EARLY MORNING HOURS, INCLUDING THE PARAMEDICS’ ARRIVAL.   WE HAVEN’T BEEN PROVIDED THAT.   LAPD HAS IT.

 

THE COURT:   DO WE KNOW THE TIME FRAME OF THE DISCOVERY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE?   FROM WHEN TO WHEN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   TIME FRAME OF THE —

 

THE COURT:   OF THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, FROM WHEN IT BEGINS UNTIL WHEN IT ENDS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT IS THE ARRIVAL THAT EVENING.   THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.

 

THE COURT:   HOW LONG IS IT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WELL, I THINK IT IS THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SHORT CLIPS.   WE ARE TALKING MINUTES TOTAL, PROBABLY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE SHORT CLIPS — YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE THING HAPPENED FROM ONE O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING TILL ABOUT ONE O’CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON THE FOLLOWING DAY. THERE SHOULD BE 12 HOURS.   LAPD SEIZED WHAT THEY SEIZED. WE DON’T, YOU KNOW, WE CAN’T WALK IN AND SAY TO KATHERINE JACKSON, “PLEASE GIVE US WHAT LAPD TOOK.” IF THEY HAVE SNIPPETS, THEY HAVE THE REST. WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A MINUTE OF IT OR TWO MINUTES.   THAT IS NOT COMPLIANCE.   WE WANT THE ENTIRE SURVEILLANCE TAPE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   LET ME REPEAT MYSELF.   LAPD HAS SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE.   I AM TOLD THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENSE REPRESENTS THE ENTIRETY OF THE SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE THAT WAS DOWNLOADED. THEY HAVE IT.   THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME FOOTAGE WE HAVE. THAT IS WHAT LAPD DOWNLOADED FROM THE HARD DRIVE.

 

THE COURT:   SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS ALL OF IT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, AND THIS IS FOOTAGE ESSENTIALLY POINTING TO THE GATE OF THE RESIDENCE, THE GATE USED BY VEHICLES TO ENTER THE PROPERTY.

 

THE COURT:   DOES IT INTEREST YOU THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A TIME FRAME THAT MAY BE SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF 12 HOURS AND WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN DOWNLOADED IS ONLY A MATTER OF MINUTES.   HOW DOES THAT SQUARE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   MANY THINGS INTEREST ME ABOUT THE CASE.   I’M JUST REPRESENTING —

 

THE COURT:   SURE, YOU CAN SHARE THEM WITH ME, BUT THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT, THOUGH.   YOU KNOW, I’M CURIOUS BECAUSE BASED UPON WHAT MR. FLANAGAN IS SAYING, IS HE OFF BASE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   OFF BASE IN REGARD TO WHAT?

 

THE COURT:   IN TERMS OF HIS REQUEST.

 

MR. WALGREN:   LAPD IS ONLY IN POSSESSION OF WHAT THEY DOWNLOADED.   WHAT THEY DOWNLOADED WAS THESE CLIPS ASCERTAINING WHO ENTERED THE PROPERTY THAT EVENING.

 

THE COURT:   I KNOW.   WHO MAKES THE DECISION AS TO WHAT IS DOWNLOADED?   I MEAN WHAT TOTAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED?   I’M NOT A COMPUTER TYPE OF PERSON.   YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE PROCESS UNDER WHICH THE DOWNLOADING WAS ACCOMPLISHED?   DID SOMEONE MAKE A DECISION, WELL, HERE IS STUFF THAT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER.   IT IS HOURS AND HOURS OF JUST NOTHING.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I COULDN’T TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   I GUESS YOU WILL NEED TO KNOW.   I NEED THAT INFORMATION.

 

MR. WALGREN:   AS FAR AS WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS?

 

THE COURT:   NO.   IS THERE A GREATER NUMBER OF HOURS OF TAPE OUT THERE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WHAT I’M TOLD IS THE CLIPS WE HAVE IS WHAT WAS DOWNLOADED.

 

THE COURT:   BY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   BY THE LAPD.

 

THE COURT:   DO WE KNOW IF SOMEONE AT THE LAPD LEVEL MADE A DECISION THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS TO BE DOWNLOADED AND CERTAIN THINGS THAT WEREN’T TO BE DOWNLOADED, OR EVERYTHING THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM WAS DOWNLOADED?

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT WAS DOWNLOADED.   MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DOWNLOAD TOOK PLACE ON-SITE AT THE RESIDENCE.   SO THAT THE COMPUTER TECH GUY WAS ON-SITE AT CAROLWOOD AND DOWNLOADED THE CLIPS WE HAVE THAT SHOW WHO ENTERED THE PROPERTY AT WHAT TIME.   THAT IS THE DISCOVERY WE HAVE.

 

THE COURT:   DOES THAT INCLUDE WHEN PARAMEDICS CAME TO THE PROPERTY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NOT THAT WE HAVE, NO.

 

THE COURT:   IS THERE SOME INDICATION THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WASN’T FUNCTIONING AT THAT TIME?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I COULDN’T ANSWER THAT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   WELL, THAT IS THE DILEMMA.   HOW DOES THE DEFENSE THEN FIND OUT ABOUT OTHER SURVEILLANCE VIDEO MATERIAL THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DOWNLOADED?   IS IT IN THE POSSESSION OF A CIVILIAN, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR SOME OTHER PERSON?   DO YOU KNOW?

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.   WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES.

 

THE COURT:   I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT. IF IT IS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEN THE DEFENSE HAS ITS OPTION IN TERMS OF SUBPOENAING THE MATERIAL.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I AM REPRESENTING IT IS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

 

THE COURT:   I’M JUST WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED IN TERMS OF WHETHER CERTAIN DECISIONS WERE MADE TO DOWNLOAD THIS AND NOT DOWNLOAD THAT.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   MAYBE WE COULD FIND OUT WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DID WITH IT.   IF THEY DON’T HAVE IT, THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT.   THERE IS PROBABLY A HARD DRIVE.   THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT.   THEY CHOSE WHAT TO DO.   WELL, AFTER THEY CHOSE WHAT THEY WANTED, WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE REST. SHOULDN’T WE BE ENTITLED TO THAT INFORMATION?   WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO GET THIS SURVEILLANCE TAPE.   WE JUST ASSUME THEY WOULD HAVE HAD AN ENTIRE COPY OF IT.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN, I NEED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   LIKEWISE, WITH REGARD TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS, LET’S JUST DEAL WITH THIS IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCTION OF THAT DOCUMENTATION.   WE WILL BE REGROUPING EITHER TOMORROW OR WEDNESDAY ON THIS.   THIS IS GOING TO BECOME A DAILY AFFAIR. I SERIOUSLY AM CONSIDERING ALL SORTS OF RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY SITUATION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS ON ANY ATTORNEY, WHETHER IT BE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY OR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, WHO IS NOT MEETING HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS.   I’M CONTEMPLATING THOSE SANCTIONS IN THE ORDER OF $1,500 PER DAY PER LAWYER WHO IS NOT MEETING HIS OR HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS. I ALSO AM CONSIDERING SANCTIONS INVOLVING A GOOD CAUSE CONTINUANCE IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS A SANCTION I WOULD PREFER TO AVOID.   BUT BASED UPON WHAT I AM HEARING, I AM EXTREMELY DISTRESSED ABOUT THE STATE OF THIS CASE AND ABOUT WHETHER, IN FACT, THE DEFENSE IS READY FOR TRIAL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO DR. MURRAY. I AM ALSO CONSIDERING POSSIBLE JURY INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING TARDY DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE. PRECLUSION OF WITNESSES IS ABSOLUTELY THE LAST RESORT FOR ANY COURT, AND I DO NOT WANT TO PUNISH DR. MURRAY.   THAT IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE HERE. BUT I AM DISTRESSED, TO SAY THE LEAST, WITH THE LACK OF INFORMATION THAT IS BEING COMMUNICATED BY THE DEFENSE.   IF THERE IS SOME INFORMATION STILL OUTSTANDING FROM THE PEOPLE, I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE IT IN A VERY QUICK MANNER, AND I BELIEVE THEIR OVERALL RESPONSE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY.   I CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT THE DEFENSE. AND, MR. FLANAGAN, WHILE YOU MAY FEEL THAT THE COURT IS IMPOSING A ONE-WAY DISCOVERY OBLIGATION

HERE, IN NO WAY IS THAT CORRECT.   THIS IS A TWO-WAY OBLIGATION, AND THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MEETING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. WHAT I HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE IS THAT, “THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND WE ARE DECIDING HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED.   WE ARE GOVERNED BY THE FACT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES INVOLVING DR. MURRAY’S PRACTICE OF MEDICINE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN PARTICULAR, AND ITS CONCOMITANT EFFECT ON THE STATE OF NEVADA.” THOSE ARE NOT THE ISSUES THAT ARE IN FRONT OF ME.   THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF ME DEAL WITH THE READINESS FOR THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL, NOT DR. MURRAY’S MEDICAL PRIVILEGES IN OTHER STATES. AND THE COURT HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATING TO THE DEFENSE AND, IN PARTICULAR, DR. MURRAY BY ALLOWING HIM TO APPEAR 977.   THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN DURING THE NEXT HEARING.   WHEN WE GET TOGETHER EITHER TOMORROW OR WEDNESDAY, MR. CHERNOFF IS GOING TO BE HERE AND DR. MURRAY IS GOING TO BE HERE AS WELL, TO BE HERE AND TO EXPERIENCE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE SO THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT REMAINS AND WHAT DOESN’T REMAIN. WHAT REMAINS IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DEFENSE DISCOVERY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION WITHIN THE TIME FRAME REQUIRED BY LAW.   AND I AGAIN MUST TELL YOU, I AM EXCEEDINGLY DISAPPOINTED BY WHAT I AM HEARING, ESPECIALLY FROM AN ATTORNEY OF THE EXPERIENCE LEVEL AND COMPETENCE LEVEL AND EXPERTISE OF MR. FLANAGAN.   THAT IS NOT HOW I WOULD BELIEVE THAT CRIMINAL CASES ARE TO BE PRESENTED IN A COURTROOM.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR —

THE COURT:   YES.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   — ARE WE GOING TO SET ANY TIME LIMITS ON WHEN WE GET THE PHOTOS AND WHEN WE GET THE SLIDES?   YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TWO MEDICAL WITNESSES THAT JUST REALLY CAN’T — THEY HAVEN’T VENTURED AN OPINION TOME.   THEY HAVE AGREED TO BE A WITNESS, BUT THEY WANT TO SEE SLIDES OF THE AUTOPSY.   I MEAN —

 

THE COURT:   THEY HAVE AGREED TO BE A WITNESS, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING SAY?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I KNOW WHAT THEY — I THINK I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY BECAUSE —

 

THE COURT:   HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BECAUSE I THINK I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.   I WAS THE ONLY PERSON TO CALL TO THE COURT’S ATTENTION THE GASTRIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.   NOT ONE PROSECUTION WITNESS EVER ADDRESSED THAT UNTIL MR. RUFFALO, AFTER LUNCH WITH MR. WALGREN.   AND THEN HE COMES UP WITH THIS THEORY OF POSTMORTEM REDISTRIBUTION WHICH WAS, AS YOU HEARD, HOGWASH.

 

THE COURT:   WAIT A MINUTE.   I DIDN’T HEAR IT AS HOGWASH.   I HEARD THE EVIDENCE.   THAT AGAIN DISTRACTS FROM THE ISSUE AT HAND.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE WITNESSES READY.   I TOLD YOU, I HAVE, I THINK, TWO MEDICAL REPORTS COMING IN TODAY OR TOMORROW THAT I’VE ASKED THE DOCTORS TO PROVIDE.   THESE DOCTORS WENT THROUGH VOLUMES AND VOLUMES OF MATERIALS, A STACK OF PAPERS THICKER THAN WHAT GAVE MR. WALGREN.

 

THE COURT:   YOU INDICATED SOMETHING IN THE ORDER OF FOUR INCHES.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.   WELL, FIVE POUNDS WORTH.   THAT IS WHAT FED EX CHARGED ME FOR. AND THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.   THE STUFF THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR, WE MADE THE INFORMAL REQUEST ON IN LATE JANUARY AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.   WE MADE THE INFORMAL REQUEST WHICH, UNDER THE CODE, IS A PREREQUISITE FOR US MAKING THE FORMAL REQUEST 17 DAYS AFTERWARDS.   ABOUT THAT TIME, WE MAKE THE FORMAL REQUEST. YOU HAVE GRANTED THE FORMAL REQUEST.   I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE BIT OF DISCOVERY FROM THE PROSECUTION SINCE LAST THURSDAY WHEN I WAS HERE.

 

THE COURT:   WE DECIDED WE WERE GOING TO DEFER THE ISSUE OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER MATERIALS UNTIL TODAY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT I HAVE DONE.   I HAVE DONE THINGS.   WHAT HAS THE PROSECUTION DONE SINCE THURSDAY?   I HAVEN’T HEARD THAT QUESTION ASKED.   I TOLD YOU WHAT I’VE DONE. I’VE ASKED THE PROSECUTION FOR THE INSPECTION.   BOTH MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL, THEY DON’T RETURN PHONE CALLS.   I’VE ASKED DOCTORS FOR REPORTS. WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

 

THE COURT:   OKAY, MS. BRAZIL.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   YOUR HONOR, I DID NOT RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL FROM MR. FLANAGAN THURSDAY OR FRIDAY.   I DON’T KNOW WHAT NUMBER HE CALLED.   I DON’T KNOW IF YOU GOT AN INCORRECT NUMBER, BUT I DIDN’T RECEIVE A PHONE MESSAGE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   DEBORAH BRAZIL’S VOICEMAIL, HER VOICE.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   I UNDERSTAND MR. FLANAGAN SAYS HE CALLED ME.   I’M ADVISING YOU I DID NOT RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL FROM HIM, SO I DON’T KNOW WHAT SPECIFICALLY HE ASKED ME IN THAT TELEPHONE CALL. HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO SETTING UP A MEETING

WITH ANY OF THE CORONER’S EXPERTS, MR. FLANAGAN AND THE ENTIRE DEFENSE TEAM HAS HAD ALL OF THE DISCOVERY RELATED

 TO THE TOXICOLOGY AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S REPORT.   HE CERTAINLY HAS MET WITH MS. FLEAK AND KNOWS WHERE THE CORONER’S OFFICE IS BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN THERE.   HE HAS MET WITH THEM SO I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT MR.FLANAGAN IS REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SOMEHOW FAILED TO PROVIDE HIM WITH DISCOVERY WHEN IT SOUNDS LIKE HE NEEDS A MEETING WITH SOMEONE AT THE CORONER’S OFFICE IN ORDER TO CONTINUE ON WITH HIS DEFENSE DISCOVERY. WITH RESPECT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS, I DON’T KNOW WHAT MR. FLANAGAN IS REFERRING TO WHEN HE SAYS CORONER’S SLIDES.   PERHAPS WE COULD CLEAR THAT UP SO WE COULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH WHAT HE IS LOOKING FOR.   WE WILL PROVIDE THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, NON-WATERMARKED FOR HIS EXPERTS.

 

THE COURT:   WHEN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT:   YES.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I WASN’T HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

 

THE COURT:   WHICH IS WHY WE PUT IT OVER TO TODAY.

 

MR. WALGREN:   RIGHT.   JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN PROVIDED THESE PHOTOS MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO,

 HOWEVER WITH WATERMARKS ON THEM.   BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED LARGE COLOR COPIES OF ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, ALBEIT WATERMARKED. THE ONLY ISSUE IS NON-WATERMARKED.   NOT THAT THEY HAVEN’T HAD THE PHOTOGRAPHS, NOT THAT THEY HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS.   THEY HAVE   HAD THEM ALL FROM SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME OF FILING.   SO THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.   THEY SIMPLY WANT IT IN ANOTHER MEDIUM. SO THEN THE ISSUE JUST BECOMES, OBVIOUSLY, THE PEOPLE WATERMARKED THE PHOTOGRAPHS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD VERY SERIOUS SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY CONCERNS IN THIS CASE.   WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE PHOTOS INADVERTENTLY LEAKED OUT, APPEARING ON TABLOID SITES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.   SO THEY WERE WATERMARKED WITH DEFENSE ATTORNEYS’ NAMES ON THEM, TRANSLUCENT WATERMARKING WITH DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S NAMES, SO AS A FURTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION IN THE HOPES THAT NONE OF

THESE THINGS WOULD BE LEAKED OUT. WE HAVE TAKEN THAT CONCERN VERY SERIOUSLY. THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE BEEN WATERMARKED. IF THE COURT IS GOING TO ORDER THE PEOPLE TO TURN THEM OVER IN A NON-WATERMARKED FORM, THE PEOPLE ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT, OBVIOUSLY PURSUANT TO THE COURT ORDER.   BUT THAT IS THE POSITION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. AS FAR AS IF THE COURT WERE TO ORDER US TODAY TO TURN THOSE OVER WITHOUT WATERMARKS, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE THEM TO THE DEFENSE PROBABLY IN A COUPLE DAYS.   IT IS JUST THE TIME OF REMOVING WATERMARKS AND THEN GETTING THEM GOOD QUALITY COPIES MADE, ET CETERA.

 

THE COURT:   BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR —

 

THE COURT:   YES, GO AHEAD.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   — COULD THAT BE IN DIGITAL FORM. WE CAN DETERMINE THE SIZE WE WANT TO USE AND THE PORTIONS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE WANT TO USE. WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US BEFORE WAS LITTLE FOUR-BY-SIX PICTURES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT.   THAT IS NOT THE SAME SIZE THEY EVEN USE AS EXHIBITS IN THE COURT. THEY HAD THE EIGHT-BY-TEN.   WE WOULD LIKE IT IN DIGITAL FORMAT SO WE CAN PREPARE IT FOR EXHIBIT USE IN THE TRIAL IN ADDITION TO HAVING OUR EXPERTS REVIEW IT.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN?   MS. BRAZIL?   IS THAT DOABLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT JUST RAISES ADDITIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS FROM THE PEOPLE’S POINT OF VIEW, BUT WE WILL COMPLY WITH WHATEVER COURT ORDER IS MADE.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AND ORDER THAT THE PEOPLE PROVIDE UNWATERMARKED DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHIC

EVIDENCE.   THERE IS A PROTECTIVE ORDER.   THIS INFORMATION

IS NOT TO BE DISCLOSED OR DISSEMINATED TO ANYONE BEYOND THE ATTORNEYS AND THEIR INVESTIGATIVE TEAM THROUGHOUT THE PENDENCY OF THIS CASE.   I REALLY, REALLY TAKE IT SERIOUS. IS THAT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   BY THE DEFENSE?

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

MR. WALGREN:   ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, YOUR HONOR.   IN MR. CHERNOFF’S REQUEST FOR NON-WATERMARKED COPY, HE SPECIFICALLY WROTE: “THIS REQUEST DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PHOTOS OF MICHAEL

JACKSON HIMSELF.” THE PEOPLE ARE ASSUMING THAT THAT IS THE

REQUEST, AND WE WILL NOT BE PROVIDING NONWATERMARKED COPIES OF MICHAEL JACKSON HIMSELF.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE DON’T NEED NON-WATERMARKED PHOTOS OF THE PHYSICAL BEING OF MICHAEL JACKSON.   WE DO WANT SLIDES AND AUTOPSY SCIENTIFIC PHOTOS AND SLIDES FOR PURPOSES OF EXPERT EXAMINATION.   WE DON’T WANT PHYSICAL LIKENESS PHOTOS.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW WHAT SLIDES OF AUTOPSY MATERIALS MEANS.   DOES IT MEAN PICTURES OF THE DECEDENT’S BODY?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO, WE DON’T WANT THAT.

THE COURT:   OR BODY PARTS?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE DON’T WANT PICTURES — WELL, PARTS, YES, BUT NOT PHYSICAL LIKENESS.   WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING A CHANCE THAT ANYBODY COULD GET CUSTODY OF THAT INFORMATION.   WE JUST WANT THE SCIENTIFIC ANATOMICAL EXAMINATION THAT WAS PERTINENT AT THE AUTOPSY.

 

THE COURT:   SEE, I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, SCIENTIFIC ANATOMICAL EXAMINATION, THAT WOULD BE OF THE DECEDENT’S BODY PARTS?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WELL, BODY PARTS, YES, BUT NOT PHYSICAL LIKENESS, SUCH AS THE FACE.   WE DON’T WANT ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE A COMMERCIAL VALUE.

 

THE COURT:   REGRETTABLY, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING NOWADAYS HAS A COMMERCIAL VALUE.   I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE TRYING TO COOPERATE.   THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE.   IF I COULD ALSO RESPOND?

 

THE COURT:   NO.   I WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE SPECIFIC ORDER THAT THE PEOPLE PROVIDE NONWATERMARKED PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE, AND MR. WALGREN RAISED THE ISSUE OF EXCLUDING CERTAIN TYPES OF PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THAT REQUIREMENT.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT WAS AT MR. CHERNOFF’S DIRECT REQUEST THAT THEY WERE NOT ASKING —

 

THE COURT:   SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT WAS PURSUANT TO MR. CHERNOFF’S DIRECT REQUEST WHERE HE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN HIS LETTER TO ME THAT HE DID NOT — HE WAS NOT REQUESTING NONWATERMARKED COPIES OF PHOTOS OF MICHAEL JACKSON HIMSELF.

 

THE COURT:   DOES THAT MEAN NON-BODY PARTS?

MR. FLANAGAN:   A BODY PART MIGHT BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A WOUND.

THE COURT:   OR AN ORGAN.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   OR AN ORGAN.   WE DON’T WANT PHYSICAL LIKENESS, BUT WE DO WANT PICTURES OF SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION USED BY THE CORONER IN DETERMINING THEIR POSITION.   SLIDES OF BRAIN TISSUE, LIVER TISSUE.

 

THE COURT:   MIGHT BE SLIDES OF INDIVIDUAL PORTIONS OF THE DECEDENT’S BODY, OF INDIVIDUAL AREAS OF THE BODY OBFUSCATED.   I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY THE SENSITIVE AREA WE ARE DISCUSSING.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   YOUR HONOR —

 

THE COURT:   GIVE COUNSEL A MOMENT.   MR. GOURJIAN AND MR. FLANAGAN ARE CONFERRING.

 

                   

 

                                       (DEFENSE COUNSEL CONFER.)

 

                   

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHEN THEY PROVIDE US THIS INFORMATION, WE WILL MEET AND CONFER AND PICK OUT THE ONES THAT WE THINK WOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY SUBMITTED AND SIGN A RECEIPT FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPH.

 

THE COURT:   MS. BRAZIL?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   YOUR HONOR, CAN WE CLARIFY.   MR. FLANAGAN KEEPS USING THE WORDS SLIDE AND PHOTOGRAPH. WOULD THE COURT INQUIRE WHAT HE MEANS BY THE WORD SLIDE. IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH?

 

THE COURT:   IS IT A PHOTOGRAPH OF A SLIDE OR THE SLIDE ITSELF?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I THINK A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SLIDE, IF THEY TOOK THEM.   A SLIDE WOULD BE A CROSS-SECTION OF LIKE A PIECE OF LIVER TISSUE.   THEY TAKE A CROSS-SECTION. THEY MAKE IT INTO A SLIDE.   WE HAVE A MEDICAL EXAMINER THAT WANTS TO LOOK AT THAT.

 

THE COURT:   WHO IS THAT?

MR. FLANAGAN:   DR. JONES.

 

THE COURT:   AGAIN, I DON’T KNOW WHAT COMMUNICATION THERE HAS BEEN BETWEEN THE DEFENSE AND THIS PHYSICIAN IN TERMS OF HE OR SHE WANTS TO LOOK AT IT FOR WHAT REASON. WHAT IS GOING ON?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THEY WANT TO HAVE AN ENTIRE – THESE DOCTORS WANT TO HAVE AN ENTIRE PACKAGE OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEY VENTURE AN OPINION.

 

THE COURT:   WHICH IS THE SAME REASON ONE HAS THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BEGINNING OF TRIAL.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ANTICIPATE WE WILL HAVE IT BEFORE WE BEGIN TRIAL.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW IF THAT HELPS OUT, MS. BRAZIL, IN TERMS OF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHS OF SLIDES.   BUT WE ALSO SEEM TO BE DISCUSSING THAT THERE MAY BE PHOTOGRAPHS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DECEDENT’S BODY.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE HAS PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE CORONER’S OFFICE JUST AS THE PEOPLE DO.   SO WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT MR. FLANAGAN IS REFERRING TO REGARDING PHOTOGRAPHS OF A SLIDE OF SOME SPECIMEN OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S BODY.

 

THE COURT:   THERE ARE NOT ANY?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY.   WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF AND TURNED OVER, PER OBLIGATION, ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE CORONER’S OFFICE TOOK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUTOPSY OF MR. JACKSON.   SO IF MR. FLANAGAN CAN POINT TO A PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH IN THE WATERMARKED PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HE HAS, THAT MIGHT CLEAR IT UP. BUT I JUST DON’T WANT THE COURT TO BE UNDER

THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE ARE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE CORONER’S OFFICE THAT ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PEOPLE THAT THE DEFENSE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED.

 

THE COURT:   NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WATERMARKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DECEDENT’S BODY OR BODY PARTS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WE ARE OBVIOUSLY SPEAKING DIRECTLY JUST ABOUT THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH THE DEFENSE DOES HAVE, THEY COULD JUST SIMPLY CIRCLE THE ONES OR IDENTIFY TO US WHICH ONES THEY ARE SEEKING IN A NONWATERMARKED FORMAT.   AND ASSUMING THERE IS NO DEPICTION OF SENSITIVE ISSUES TO THE PEOPLE, WE WILL PROVIDE THAT. BUT AGAIN, THE DEFENSE HAS PHOTOGRAPHS.   THEY KNOW WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS THEY ARE SEEKING.   THEY CAN SIMPLY IDENTIFY THEM TO US BY MAKING A BLACK AND WHITE COPY, CIRCLING THE PHOTOGRAPH, AND SAYING, “THIS IS THE AUTOPSY PHOTO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN A NONWATERMARK FASHION.”

 

THE COURT:   THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. MR. FLANAGAN, THAT WAY YOU MAKE A DECISION OF WHAT YOU THINK YOU NEED AND WHAT YOU DON’T.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHY DON’T WE JUST GET ALL OF THEM AND WE WILL TELL THEM WHAT WE DON’T NEED.   WE HAVE EXPERTS.   ONE EXPERT IS IN CANADA.   ONE EXPERT IS IN TEXAS.   WE NEED TO HAVE THEM MAKE THE CHOICE OF WHAT THEY NEED.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY SAY THEY WANT EVERY PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN DURING THE AUTOPSY, WHICH APPARENTLY WOULD INCLUDE CERTAIN PHOTOS WHICH IDENTIFY THE DECEDENT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THEN I GUESS WE NEED THAT, TOO.   WHY DON’T WE JUST GET ALL OF THEM THEN.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT MR. CHERNOFF RELAYED TO ME, THAT THEY DID NOT WANT PHOTOGRAPHS OF MICHAEL JACKSON.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ARE READING FROM A LETTER.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THIS IS A LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 2011.   HE INDICATES — I’LL READ IT VERBATIM. “IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED

THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE RECEIVED COPIES OF PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE CAROLWOOD HOUSE DURING THEINVESTIGATION, THEY ARE COVERED

WITH WATERMARKS THAT MAKE THEM EITHER DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO REVIEW.   WE REQUEST PHOTOS THAT ARE NOT OBSCURED BY THE WATERMARK.   THIS REQUEST DOESNOT EXTEND TO THE PHOTOS OF MICHAEL JACKSON HIMSELF.”

 

THE COURT:   I NEED MORE CLARIFICATION FROM THE DEFENSE CAMP, MR. FLANAGAN.   YOU ARE MAKING THE REQUEST. YOU HAVE AUTHORITY.   MR. CHERNOFF IS MAKING THE REQUEST. HE HAS AUTHORITY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE WANT A COPY OF ALL PHOTOGRAPHS. WE DON’T REALLY WANT HEADSHOTS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY IDENTIFIABLE AS MICHAEL JACKSON.   THAT IS

ALL.

 

THE COURT:   YOU KNOW WHAT.   I NEED YOU TO GO THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED, AND I NEED YOU TO IDENTIFY WHAT YOU THINK IS PROPER BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU CHARACTERIZE AS A HEADSHOT, WHAT THAT MEANS, WHETHER THE WHOLE REST OF THE BODY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HEAD WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.   I NEED MORE CLARIFICATION.   I ALSO NEED COUNSEL TO GIVE MUCH MORE DETAILED INFORMATION. I’M GOING TO PUT THIS OVER TO WEDNESDAY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   CAN WE GET AN ORDER FOR INSPECTION. YOU SIGN IT.

 

THE COURT:   YES.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BUT THERE IS NOT MUCH I CAN DO TO GET TO LAPD UNTIL MS. BRAZIL ACQUIESCES THAT I CAN SEE IT.

 

THE COURT:   MS. BRAZIL DIDN’T SAY SHE WASN’T.   THE WORD ACQUIESCE ASSUMES RESISTANCE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I HAVE TO CALL AND ASK MS. FLEAK. SHE HAS TO CALL ME.   I HAVE TO SCHEDULE TIME WHEN I CAN GO IN AND SEE THIS STUFF.   I CAN’T WALK IN THE FRONT DOOR.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T BELIEVE MS. BRAZIL IS IN CHARGE OF THE CORONER’S OFFICE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   SHE CAN CERTAINLY EASE THE PAIN.   WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?   DO YOU WANT TO GO OVER NOW?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I’D LOVE TO GO OVER RIGHT NOW.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE HAVE TO CALL THE CORONER’S OFFICE AND MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

MR. FLANAGAN:   THAT IS HOW I WAS GOING TO PROCEED.

 

THE COURT:   YOU HAVE DONE IT BEFORE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I HAVE DONE IT BEFORE, BUT NOW WE ARE IN CRUNCH TIME.   I’M TRYING TO GET IT DONE REALLY QUICKLY.   I HAVE TALKED WITH LINTEMOOT.   I’VE NEVER GONE TO SEE MS. FLEAK, BUT I HAVE GONE TO SEE LINTEMOOT, WHO HAS BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE.   WE WENT THROUGH HER CALCULATIONS, BUT SHE DIDN’T HAVE ACCESS OR SHE DIDN’T HAVE AVAILABLE THAT DAY ALL THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.   MS. FLEAK GATHERED IT, ITEMIZED IT.   SHE IS THE ONE.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T THINK THE PEOPLE HAVE ANY MORE SUPERVISORIAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER MS. FLEAK THAN THE DEFENSE DOES.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   OH, I DON’T KNOW IF THAT IS COMPLETELY TRUE.

 

THE COURT:   THE CORONER’S OFFICE IS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY.   I’D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PARTIES WILL JOINTLY CALL THE CORONER’S OFFICE.   IF THE PEOPLE WOULD AS SOON AS WE GET THROUGH THIS EVENING.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHAT ABOUT LAPD.   CAN GO WE GO AND INSPECT THE LAPD ITEMS TODAY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT I DID INQUIRE ABOUT LAPD, AND THEY CAN MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.   THE SOONEST THEY CAN DO IT IS TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS NOT GOING TO WORK.   THAT IS JUST NOT GOING TO WORK.

 

MR. WALGREN:   DETECTIVE ORLANDO MARTINEZ, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE EVIDENCE ASPECT OF THE CASE, IS OUT OF TOWN THIS WEEK.

 

THE COURT:   THEN DETECTIVE MARTINEZ HAS A PARTNER, I’M SURE.   AND WHILE THAT PARTNER MAY NOT HAVE THE TITLE OF BEING IN CHARGE OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT PERSON CAN UNDERTAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY.   I’M NOT GOING TO DELAY.

 

 

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN UP AGAINST.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ARE NOT UP AGAINST IT.   THE REQUESTS HAVEN’T BEEN MADE UNTIL A RELATIVELY RECENT VINTAGE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   JANUARY 27.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ARE NOT SHY, MR. FLANAGAN.   AT AN EARLIER POINT IN TIME, YOU COULD HAVE RAISED THESE ISSUES. ON WEDNESDAY, THE SUBMISSION BY MR. GOURJIAN, BELIEVE, IS DUE AT NOON.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK AT ONE O’CLOCK ON WEDNESDAY?   I’D RATHER DO THIS IN THE MORNING, BUT WE COULD DO IT IN THE AFTERNOON AS WELL.   I KNOW YOU HAVE VERY IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES, COUNSEL.   I ALSO HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHER CASES I’M GOT ON MY CALENDAR. I’M WORKING WITH JUROR SERVICES WHICH IS VERY COMPLICATED.   I’M WORKING WITH THE L.A. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ON THIS CASE.   I’M WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE ON THIS CASE AS WELL.   SO I’VE GOT A FEW THINGS TO DO, AND YOU HAVE VERY IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO.   IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE A DAILY ROUTINE AROUND HERE.   SO WEDNESDAY MORNING.

 

MR. WALGREN:   CAN WE DO IT TOMORROW, TUESDAY, YOUR HONOR?

 

THE COURT:   FINE.   WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW?   WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE WE BE FINALIZING TOMORROW?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE PEOPLE WOULD BE REQUESTING TOMORROW THAT THE COURT VACATE THE TRIAL DATE BECAUSE I DON’T EXPECT TO HAVE DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE.  THAT IS OUR REQUEST TODAY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, YOUR HONOR, IS THEY ARE HOLDING UP PROVIDING US THIS DOCUMENT SO THEY CAN FICTIONALIZE THAT WE ARE NOT READY.   THE FACT IS THAT THEY ARE HOLDING EVERYTHING UP.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE ARE NOT HOLDING ANYTHING UP.   THE PHOTOGRAPHS, AS THE COURT NOTED, WERE DEFERRED TO TODAY. WE WILL HAVE THOSE TO THE DEFENSE.   WE WILL HAVE ALL THE NON-AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE DEFENSE TOMORROW.   WE WILL WORK.

 

THE COURT:   THE COURT ORDERS THAT NON-WATERMARKED DIGITAL NON-AUTOPSY PHOTOS BE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW AFTERNOON. WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS, I WANT TO HEAR FURTHER FROM MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN, MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL, BEFORE I GO TO THAT NEXT STEP IN VIEW OF THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DEFENSE REQUEST, WHICH IS WHY I NEED DR. MURRAY HERE, WHICH IS WHY I NEED MR. CHERNOFF HERE.   WE WILL DO IT ON WEDNESDAY.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   CAN WE DO IT IN THE AFTERNOON?

THE COURT:   WE WILL DO IT AT ONE O’CLOCK.

 

MR. WALGREN:   CAN WE DO IT AT TWO O’CLOCK, YOUR HONOR?   I HAVE ANOTHER HEARING WEDNESDAY.

 

THE COURT:   IN FRONT OF ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES?   IS IT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS FLOOR?

MR. WALGREN:   NO, NOT ON THIS FLOOR.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   TWO O’CLOCK P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND OF MARCH 2011.   AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE I AM CONSIDERING VERY SERIOUSLY THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AT THIS POINT.   AS I MENTIONED, $1,500 PER DAY FOR DELAYED DISCOVERY AS TO ANY PARTICULAR LAWYER, AMONG OTHER POSSIBLE SANCTIONS. IF THE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO REQUEST, AS THEY HAVE, THAT THE COURT FIND GOOD CAUSE FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL, YOU SHOULD PROVIDE ME WITH SOME INFORMATION FROM THAT PROPOSITION APART FROM WHAT IS SPECIFIED IN 1054 ITSELF, SOME CASE LAW IN PARTICULAR ON THIS ISSUE. AGAIN, THERE IS A LOT IN THE HOPPER RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THE START DATE OF THE 24TH OF MARCH.   BUT FROM WHAT I’M HEARING, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHAT IS IT YOU WANT ME TO PROVIDE THEM BY TWO O’CLOCK ON WEDNESDAY?

 

THE COURT:   YOUR DISCOVERY.   THE DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS TO PROVIDE 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL UNDER 1054.3 OF THE PENAL CODE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THERE IS MEDICAL WITNESSES WE CANNOT — WE HAVE A CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM HERE.   WE CANNOT PROVIDE THAT DISCOVERY.

 

THE COURT:   THEN WRITE IT DOWN.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THERE ARE 88 OTHER WITNESSES ON THEIR LIST.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   MAY WE TAKE A PAUSE FOR A MOMENT AND ADDRESS THE MEDICAL WITNESSES MR. FLANAGAN IS EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT.   I’D LIKE TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON DR. WHITE. THE WITNESS THAT ON THURSDAY MR. FLANAGAN REPRESENTED IS THE MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THE DEFENSE CASE.   THE DISCOVERY THAT MR. FLANAGAN PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE REGARDING DR. WHITE INCLUDES A STATEMENT THAT, IN FORMING HIS OPINION, DR. WHITE HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION STATEMENTS DURING AN INTERVIEW THAT DR. WHITE HAD WITH CONRAD MURRAY. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT DISCOVERY.   WE ARE ENTITLED TO THE STATEMENTS THAT CONRAD MURRAY MADE TO ANY OF THE EXPERTS IN ADDITION TO THE REPORT CREATED BY THE EXPERT.   SO PERHAPS MR. FLANAGAN CAN GET STARTED ON PROVIDING THE PEOPLE WITH THAT INFORMATION.   PRESUMABLY, HE HAS THAT.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   DR. WHITE, I REQUESTED A REPORT YESTERDAY.   THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I’VE BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO HIM SINCE THURSDAY.

 

THE COURT:   HE MAY BE A VERY BUSY PERSON.   HE WILL JUST HAVE TO BE BUSIER.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I TOLD THE COURT THAT HE IS PROVIDING THAT REPORT TO ME EITHER TODAY OR TOMORROW.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS WHY I’M PUTTING THE CASE OVER TO 2:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY.   COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO MEET THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, OR ELSE THEY WILL FACE SANCTIONS AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES. SO I’M ORDERING THE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE NONWATERMARKED DIGITAL NON-AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW. WITH REGARD TO ANY ITEMS IDENTIFIED AS

AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AT 2:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY. WITH REGARD TO THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, THE PEOPLE ARE TO GET BACK TO DEFENSE COUNSEL BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON WHAT EXISTS AND WHAT DOESN’T EXIST. I ACCEPT THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THEY THINK THEY HAVE NOW.   IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THERE IS A TIME FRAME, AND I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING DURING THIS 12-HOUR TIME FRAME.   THE DEFENSE IS CURIOUS AND I AM AS WELL.   IF THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE IT IN THEIR POSSESSION, I’M NOT SO SURE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING.   THE

QUESTION IS WHO HAS GOT THE ORIGINALS. WHAT ELSE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T THINK ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS TIME.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   ANY UPDATE ON MEDICAL REPORTS IF THEY HAVE GOT THAT.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THEY HAVE ALL OUR DISCOVERY TO DATE, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   AND YOU UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A CONTINUING OBLIGATION?

 

MR. WALGREN:   ABSOLUTELY.

 

THE COURT:   SO ARE THERE POTENTIALLY OTHER REPORTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GENERATED IN THIS CASE?

 

 

MR. WALGREN:   CERTAINLY, I KNOW THERE IS OUTSTANDING FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE THAT IS STILL FORTHCOMING.   THERE WILL PROBABLY BE ADDITIONAL.   AT THIS POINT, THERE WILL BE MORE REPORTS, YES.

 

THE COURT:   FROM PEOPLE THAT PEOPLE INTEND TO CALL AT TRIAL?

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   HOW DOES THAT SQUARE THEN WITH THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TIMELY DISCOVERY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   AN ONGOING ANALYSIS, NEW ANALYSIS WAS DONE, AND THE CRIMINALISTS SIMPLY AREN’T DONE WITH IT YET.

 

THE COURT:   IF THERE HAD BEEN PRIOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS —

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

THE COURT:   — THIS IS CONTINUING ANALYSIS.

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

THE COURT:   WHAT ABOUT NEW AND DIFFERENT MEDICAL REPORTS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   IF THERE ARE NEW AMENDED REPORTS, WE WILL PROVIDE THEM IMMEDIATELY.   THERE IS NOTHING AT THIS POINT AT ALL.

 

THE COURT:   IS THERE SOME OTHER EXPERT OUT THERE WHOM THE PEOPLE INTEND TO CALL AND THE DEFENSE DOESN’T HAVE A MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC REPORT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE ARE IN CONSULTATION WITH ANOTHER EXPERT.   I DON’T KNOW IF WE INTEND ON CALLING HIM OR NOT BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T RECEIVED ANYTHING.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THAT IS PRECISELY THE POSITION WE ARE IN, YOUR HONOR.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I HAVE HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATION WITH HIM WHATSOEVER.   HE RECEIVED THE MATERIALS IN THE CASE AND IS WORKING ON IT, BUT I’VE NOT HAD, UNLIKE MR. FLANAGAN, I’VE NOT HAD AN HOUR AND A HALF CONVERSATION WITH HIM OVER THE WEEKEND WITHOUT NOTES.   I HAVE NOT TALKED TO HIM IN ANY MANNER SUBSTANTIVELY WHATSOEVER.   HE HAS SOME MATERIALS, AND HE IS WORKING ON IT.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   AND, YOUR HONOR, I DON’T EVEN KNOW THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL HE IS TALKING ABOUT.   DR. WHITE, MR. WALGREN HAS HAD A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH. I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE A TWO-WAY STREET.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS A TWO-WAY STREET.   IT SHOULD BE. IT IS AND WILL BE A TWO-WAY STREET. WE ARE GOING TO RESUME 2:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND OF MARCH 2011.   THE PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN EFFECT, AND I EXPECT DRAMATICALLY INCREASED PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.   HAVE A GOOD ONE. ALSO, THE COURT IS ORDERING, PURSUANT TO 977, THAT DR. MURRAY APPEAR FOR THE NEXT HEARING ON WEDNESDAY AND THAT MR. CHERNOFF APPEAR FOR THE NEXT HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, AND THE DEFENSE WILL SUBMIT TO THE COURT BY NOON MR. GOURJIAN’S MATERIALS.   CORRECT?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

 

 

 

 

 (THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED TO 2:00 P.M., MARCH 2, 2011.)