P V CM JAN 25/11

FELONY ARRAIGNMENT HEARING DATE- January 25, 2011- MICHAEL JACKSON/CONRAD MURRAY- CASE NUMBER SA073164

 

Parties Present: Defendant- Conrad Murray and two of his defense attorneys: Chernoff and Flannagan; Deputy District Attorneys: Walgren and Brazil

 

FAMILY: Katherine Jackson, Randy Jackson, Jackie Jackson, Rebbie Jackson, Other family friends

 

 

· Proceedings commenced at approximately 08:50a.m.

 

 

THE COURT:   GOOD MORNING MR. CHERNOFF, I NOTE THAT MR. LOW IS NOT PRESENT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE ARE A LITTLE LIGHT TODAY, JUDGE. I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW IT IS GOING TO LOOK IN THE FUTURE, BUT CURRENTLY THAT IS HOW WE ARE POSITIONED.

 

THE COURT:   THE DEFENSE IS READY TO PROCEED?

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE ARE READY.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. I HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH AN INFORMATION IN THIS CASE.   MR. CHERNOFF, HAS THE DEFENSE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE INFORMATION?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE HAVE.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. MAY I ARRAIGN DR. MURRAY?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, PLEASE.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. DR. MURRAY, GOOD MORNING.   TELL ME YOUR TRUE AND CORRECT, COMPLETE NAME, PLEASE.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT:   YOU CAN REMAIN SEATED, PLEASE.

THE DEFENDANT:   CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. DR. MURRAY, YOU ARE CHARGED IN COUNT 1 OF THIS FELONY INFORMATION WITH A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 192(B), WHICH ALLEGES THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 25, 2009, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, YOU DID UNLAWFULLY AND WITHOUT MALICE KILL MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON, A HUMAN BEING, IN THE COMMISSION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT, NOT AMOUNTING TO A FELONY; AND IN THE COMMISSION OF A LAWFUL ACT WHICH MIGHT HAVE PRODUCED DEATH IN AN UNLAWFUL MANNER, AND WITHOUT DUE CAUTION AND CIRCUMSPECTION THIS OFFENSE IS CALLED INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, A FELONY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CHARGE?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND, SIR, THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR THIS OFFENSE IS FOUR YEARS IN STATE PRISON. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A SPEEDY JURY TRIAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF TODAY’S DATE.   YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST YOU.   YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT INCRIMINATE YOURSELF.   YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE WHICH INCLUDES YOUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TESTIFY AND YOUR RIGHT TO USE THE COURT SUBPOENA PROCESS TO ASSIST YOU, ALL FREE OF CHARGE TO YOU. HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU, SIR?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   DOES THE DEFENSE WAIVE ANY FURTHER READING OF THE INFORMATION AND ANY FURTHER READING AND STATEMENT OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS, MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE DO, JUDGE.

 

THE COURT:   TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, A FELONY, DR. MURRAY, HOW DO YOU PLEAD?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YOUR HONOR, I AM AN INNOCENT MAN. I THEREFORE –THE COURT:   WHAT IS YOUR PLEA?

THE DEFENDANT:   — I AM NOT GUILTY.

 

THE COURT:   NOW, AS I EXPLAINED, DR. MURRAY IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A SPEEDY JURY TRIAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF TODAY’S DATE.   HAVE COUNSEL BEEN DISCUSSING ANY TRIAL DATE AND OTHER STATUS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE HAVE NOT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   I DID SEND TO COUNSEL A MEMORANDUM INDICATING THAT THE COURT WISHED TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF DISCOVERY, A REASONABLE ESTIMATE AS TO ANY LENGTH OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND A REALISTIC TRIAL DATE.   SO I’M CURIOUS YOUR POSITIONS ON THOSE ISSUES, MR. CHERNOFF.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WHAT WE HAVE DONE, JUDGE, IS MR. FLANAGAN AND I HAVE CLEARED OFF OUR CALENDAR, SO WHATEVER IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS IS OKAY WITH US.   I DON’T KNOW HOW LONG THE TRIAL IS GOING TO TAKE. WE HAD ASSUMED EIGHT WEEKS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.   BUT, OF COURSE, THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO KNOW BETTER THAN WE ARE ABOUT THAT.

 

THE COURT:   WELL, FIRST THINGS FIRST.   DOES THE DEFENSE REQUEST THAT THE TRIAL COMMENCE WITHIN THE STATUTORY 60-DAY TIME FRAME?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE DO.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. AND THE PEOPLE EXPECT TO BE READY WITHIN THAT 60-DAY TIME FRAME?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   WE WILL HAVE THIS TRIAL WITHIN THE 60-DAY TIME FRAME.   THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES A REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATE.   THE DEFENSE IS SAYING EIGHT WEEKS.   I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT SQUARES WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO TAKE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE WOULD SAY ABOUT FOUR TO SIX WEEKS, YOUR HONOR, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON JURY SELECTION AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   DO WE HAVE A DATE?   HOW FAR OUT WOULD YOU WANT TO GO?   DO WE HAVE A 60TH DATE?

 

THE CLERK:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   I HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHER CASES THAT I HAVE TO DO, BUT WE WILL HAVE THIS TRIAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF TODAY’S DATE.   I JUST NEED A LAST DAY, AND WE WILL FIND OUT IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS.

 

THE CLERK:   THE 60TH DAY WOULD BE MARCH 28.

 

THE COURT:   SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT A DAY PERHAPS THE WEEK BEFORE?   WE HAVE CESAR CHAVEZ HOLIDAY.   I’LL BE OFF ON THE 1ST AS WELL, BUT WE CAN BEGIN JURY SELECTION PERHAPS SOMETIME THE WEEK BEFORE. IF YOU WANT TO TELL ME A DATE THAT YOU THINK IS REALISTIC, THAT IS FINE WITH ME.   I WANT TO FIND OUT NOW AND ALSO BEFORE THAT HOW DISCOVERY IS PLAYING OUT.   I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH SIDES ARE MEETING THEIR STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY IN A TIMELY FASHION, CERTAINLY AT A MINIMUM, 30 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE. DO YOU WANT TO BEGIN ON A MONDAY, A TUESDAY? DOES IT MATTER?   DO YOU WANT TO GO THE WEEK BEFORE?   DO YOU WANT TO BEGIN THE WEEK OF THE 28TH?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD PLAN ON STARTING MARCH 28, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A MONDAY, CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   OUR CONCERN WOULD BE COMING BACK SOONER THAN THAT JUST TO CONFIRM THE DATE AS WELL AS FOR DISCOVERY.   TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY DISCOVERY FROM THE DEFENSE, SO THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A CONCERN IF THE CASE IS GOING TO BE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITHIN THE 60 DAYS.

 

THE COURT:   HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH YOU, MR. CHERNOFF?

MR. CHERNOFF:   MARCH 28?

THE COURT:   YES.

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS FINE.

 

THE COURT:   DO COUNSEL BELIEVE IT APPROPRIATE THAT WE USE JURY QUESTIONNAIRES?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY.   YOU KNOW, I DON’T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, JUDGE. I’M SORRY.   BUT I ASSUME WE WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF INTERIM SETTING BEFORE THREE WEEKS OR SO.

 

THE COURT:   WE MAY HAVE A COUPLE.   LET ME JUST SHARE WITH YOU MY VIEWPOINT, AND MY VIEWPOINT IS THIS IS A CASE WHICH I THINK SHOULD UTILIZE JURY QUESTIONNAIRES. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES IN THIS CASE, AND I THINK THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY THROUGH THE USE OF JURY QUESTIONNAIRES, NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR INTERACTION WITH PROSPECTIVE JURORS BUT AS AN ADJUNCT. SO I WANT TO GIVE COUNSEL TIME TO THINK ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES, TO SUBMIT PROPOSED QUESTIONS, AND FOR ME TO RESPOND. I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A CASE WHERE I WANT TO UTILIZE PRESCREENED JURORS.   I THINK WE CAN USE JURORS WHO ARE PART OF OUR REGULAR JURY POOL.   OF COURSE, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A CASE THAT AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE HAS A TIME ESTIMATE OF ANYWHERE FROM FOUR TO EIGHT WEEKS, THAT WILL STREAMLINE AND ELIMINATE AVAILABLE JURORS JUST BECAUSE OF REALITIES OF WORK AND VACATIONS, ET CETERA, AND THE DIFFICULT ECONOMIC TIMES.   SO WE WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE LARGER THAN USUAL JURY PANELS SO WE CAN DETERMINE THE AVAILABILITY OF JURORS TO SERVE ON A CASE OF THIS LENGTH. SO I’M GOING TO SET THE CASE FOR JURY TRIAL ON MONDAY, 28 MARCH 2011.   THAT WILL BE AT NINE O’CLOCK A.M. IN THIS DEPARTMENT.   AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE, THAT IS THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AND WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MS. GOMEZ AND MR. MENDOZA, TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO CAN SERVE ON A CASE OF THIS LENGTH. COUNSEL SHOULD KNOW, AS I’M SURE YOU DO, THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW EACH PARTY IS ENTITLED TO TEN PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AND WE, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, WILL BE PICKING A MINIMUM OF FOUR ALTERNATES BUT, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, SIX ALTERNATES BECAUSE OF THE ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF THE TRIAL.   THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AT MORE LENGTH AT A DIFFERENT TIME, BUT WE DO NEED TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING DISCOVERY. I DON’T KNOW IF THERE ARE EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AT AN EARLIER POINT IN TIME PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 402 THROUGH 405.   BUT IF WE HAVE THIS DATE SET FOR JURY TRIAL, WE SHOULD WORK BACKWARDS. AND IF YOU WANT TO CHOOSE A DATE PERHAPS IN MID FEBRUARY, WE CAN GATHER AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF OUR READINESS STATUS, THEN EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE HEARD THEN. YOUR THOUGHTS, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I AGREE, YOUR HONOR.   MAYBE THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 14, IF THAT IS AGREEABLE WITH THE COURT AND COUNSEL.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   DO YOU WANT TUESDAYS, JUDGE?   IT DOESN’T MATTER.

 

THE COURT:   YOU KNOW, WE GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, MR. CHERNOFF, SO ANY DATE IS OKAY.   I SHOULD LET YOU KNOW THAT FROM THE 16TH TO THE 21ST, THE COURT HAS OTHER BUSINESS.   SO IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THAT WEEK, IT WOULD EITHER BE THE 14TH OR THE 15TH.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I’D RATHER NOT DO THIS ON VALENTINE’S DAY.

 

THE COURT:   DOES IT EXTEND TO THE 15TH, MR. CHERNOFF?   IS IT ONE OF THOSE ROLLING VALENTINE’S DAYS?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I HAVE TO FLY OUT.   IF I FLY OUT ON VALENTINE’S DAY, YOU MAY NEVER SEE ME AGAIN, SO —

 

THE COURT:  WELL, THE ISSUE THEN, IS THE 22ND TOO LATE, MR. WALGREN, DO YOU THINK?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT WHOLE WEEK IS BAD FOR THE PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR.   I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK SOONER THAN THAT.

 

THE COURT:   I WOULD THINK SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, AT LEAST TO JUST GET A STATUS UPDATE.   IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN, WE WILL.   HOW ABOUT THE WEEK OF THE 7TH?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN?

MR. WALGREN:   THE 7TH IS GOOD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   HOW IS THE DATE OF TUESDAY, THE 8TH OF FEBRUARY 2011?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   ARE WE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT DR. MURRAY SHOW FOR THESE STATUS CONFERENCES?

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS GOING TO INVOLVE.   THERE HAS BEEN A WAIVER FILED OF PERSONAL PRESENCE.   I CAN TAKE AN ADDITIONAL WAIVER IF WE SIMPLY ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING STATUS UPDATES AND THERE IS A WAIVER.   I DON’T KNOW EACH PARTY’S POSITION.   I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE WILL BE DOING ON THE 8TH OF FEBRUARY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WELL, DR. MURRAY CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, AND ALTHOUGH THE POSITION IS TENUOUS, HE WILL BE IN HOUSTON DURING THAT WEEK.   WE MAY HAVE SOME PROCEEDINGS HE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH DURING THAT WEEK. IF ALL WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IS A STATUS CONFERENCE, I DON’T SEE WHY HE WOULD HAVE TO BE HERE FOR THAT.   HE COULD ATTEND TO HIS BUSINESS THERE.   IT IS AWFULLY EARLY.   I IMAGINE IF THAT IS ALL IT IS GOING TO BE IS A STATUS CONFERENCE —

 

THE COURT:   WELL, I NEED A LITTLE HELP BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHAT EVIDENTIARY MATTERS ARE GOING TO BE OUT THERE.   WE HAD A VERY LENGTHY PRELIMINARY HEARING.   WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME PASS FROM THE DATE OF THE ARRAIGNMENT ON THE COMPLAINT UNTIL THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.   IT WAS AN EXHAUSTIVE PRELIMINARY HEARING. SO I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING TO HAPPEN ON THAT NEXT DATE.   DO THE PEOPLE ANTICIPATE FILING SOME MOTIONS REGARDING EVIDENCE, MR. WALGREN, MS. BRAZIL?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T KNOW THAT WE WILL ON THAT DAY, YOUR HONOR, BUT I SUSPECT THERE MAY BE SOME SHORTLY THEREAFTER. AGAIN, THE PEOPLE ARE KIND OF WORKING IN A VACUUM HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY DISCOVERY. THAT IS ONE OF OUR PARAMOUNT CONCERNS.   OBVIOUSLY, THAT MAY CREATE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WE NEED TO RESPOND TO.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS GOING TO BE — THAT IS GOING TO BE EARLY FOR THAT, FOR THOSE ISSUES.   WE ARE GOING TO SEND OUT AN INFORMAL LETTER FOR DISCOVERY THIS WEEK.   I ASSUME THE PROSECUTION WILL REQUEST AS WELL EARLY AND SOON.   BUT EVEN IF WE DO THAT, THAT IS JUST TEN DAYS AWAY.   THAT IS JUST SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN DAYS AWAY.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T WANT TO WASTE TIME IF ALL WE WILL DO IS COME HERE AND SAY WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO   REPORT.   BOTH PARTIES SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE A STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FULL AND COMPLETE AND FAIR DISCOVERY 30 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE.   SINCE WE ARE GOING WITHIN THE 60-DAY TIME PARAMETERS —

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I THINK THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 21ST IS MORE REALISTIC.   THAT GIVES US TIME TO PROVIDE WITHIN THE 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL.

 

THE COURT:   THE PEOPLE SAID THEY WILL BE UNAVAILABLE THE ENTIRE WEEK.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.   HOW ABOUT THE 18TH, THE VERY END?   THE COURT IS GONE?

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOT AVAILABLE.   SO I CAN DO JUST SO MUCH.   IT IS EITHER THE 14TH, THE 15TH, OR WE GO TO THE 28TH, WHICH WOULD BE THIRTY DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE. I DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM GOING WITH THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNSEL HAVE TO MEET THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS ON THAT DATE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM MEETING THE WEEK OF THE 7TH.   THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM.   IT IS DR. MURRAY’S PRESENCE IS THE ONLY ISSUE.   IF HIS APPEARANCE CAN BE WAIVED, NOBODY OBJECTS TO THAT, THEN WE CAN MEET SOMETIME LATER IN THAT WEEK.   THE 11TH, WHICH IS A FRIDAY, THAT WILL GIVE US AN EXTRA WEEK.

 

THE COURT:   YES.   THE 11TH IS LINCOLN’S BIRTHDAY. THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF REVERENCE FOR PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND SPECIFICALLY HAS THAT DAY OFF IN ADDITION TO PRESIDENTS’S DAY.   THERE WE GO. I DON’T MIND COMING BACK THAT WEEK.   DR. MURRAY CAN WAIVE HIS PRESENCE IF WE ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING PROCEDURAL TYPE ISSUES.   I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS OR HEARINGS ON THAT DATE. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.   HOW ABOUT FEBRUARY 10?

 

THE COURT:   NO CAN DO.   PICK ANOTHER DAY.   7TH, 8TH, OR 9TH.

MR. WALGREN:   7TH IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE.

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.   THAT WOULD BE FINE.

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.   I CAN MOVE THINGS AROUND FOR THAT DAY.   I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, IT IS 12 DAYS OFF AND WE HAVE GOT — I WOULD ASSUME THE PEOPLE WILL WANT TO KNOW WHO OUR WITNESSES ARE GOING TO BE, WHO OUR POTENTIAL WITNESSES ARE.

 

THE COURT:   YOU CAN KEEP ON MEETING YOUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATION.   IT IS ROLLING DISCOVERY UP TO AND INCLUDING THE 28TH.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE WILL ACCOMPLISH ON THE 7TH.

 

THE COURT:   WILL WE ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING ON THE 7TH, MR. WALGREN, DO YOU THINK?

 

MR. WALGREN:   AGAIN, WE ARE HOPING TO GET SOME DISCOVERY.   I MEAN, THE 7TH IS THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE 30-DAY DISCOVERY DATE, SO I WOULD THINK DEFENSE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME DISCOVERY FOR US BY THAT TIME.

 

THE COURT:   I THINK WE SHOULD SEE EACH OTHER ON THAT DAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   SEE HOW WE ARE GOING.   YOU CAN BE THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE CONTENT OF ANY QUESTIONNAIRE.   I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THERE SHOULD BE A QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS CASE, AND YOU SHOULD BE TRYING TO GIVE ME A MORE REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATE.   THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FOUR-WEEK CASE AND AN EIGHT-WEEK CASE.   IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHEN IT COMES TO VOIR DIRE.   IT OBVIOUSLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF ALL OUR SCHEDULES, AND I HAVE A LOT OF CASES THAT I HAVE TO DO AND I HAVE GOT TO WORK AROUND THEM AS WELL.

 IT IS IMPORTANT TO AFFORD DR. MURRAY HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY JURY TRIAL, AND HE WILL HAVE IT IN THIS COURTROOM.   I JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE GUIDANCE FROM YOU. HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN GIVE ME THE GUIDANCE BY THE 7TH.   I WILL EXPECT THAT YOU WILL HAVE SOME PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THAT DATE. I WOULD PRINT OUT ANOTHER WAIVER FORM.   I HAVE TO GO BACK AND ACTUALLY PRINT IT OUT BECAUSE THE WAIVER FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS NOT EXECUTED IN OPEN COURT.   YOU KNOW WHAT, DO WE HAVE THE FILE, MS. BENSON?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   DR. MURRAY CAN AFFIRM HIS SIGNATURE IN OPEN COURT.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS WHAT I WILL DO RIGHT NOW.   I WANT TO USE THAT WAIVER FORM UNDER 977.

 

CHERNOFF:   JUDGE, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT TIME ON THE 7TH?

 

THE COURT:   YES.   I THINK WE WILL START A LITTLE LATER.   THERE WERE LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS THIS MORNING WITH THE ELEVATORS AND TRANSPORTATION, AND I FEEL STRONGLY WE SHOULD GET STARTED ON TIME BUT I ALSO KNOW THE REALITY. SO PERHAPS 9:15 ON THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY 2011.   THAT WILL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO COME IN, ALTHOUGH I NOTE THAT I HAVE A FULL AND DETAILED SENTENCING HEARING ON THAT DATE, A VERY COMPLICATED ONE. MAY I ASK, IS THE 8TH ACCEPTABLE, OR IS THAT WORSE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS WORSE FOR THE PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   HOW ABOUT THE 9TH?

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS WORSE THAN THE 8TH.

THE COURT:   OKAY.

MR. WALGREN:   CAN WE COME IN A LITTLE LATER ON THE 7TH?

 

THE COURT:   YES, I’M THINKING YOU SHOULD.   LET ME — I’M WONDERING WHETHER 1:30 MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME ON THAT DATE, BOTH IN TERMS OF IT BEING A LITTLE LESS BUSY IN THE COURTHOUSE AND ALLOWING ME TO DEAL WITH A VERY COMPLICATED MATTER THAT MORNING.   HOW IS 1:30?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS FINE.

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.

 

THE COURT:   WE WILL MAKE IT AT 1:30 P.M.   THAT IS MONDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2011.   COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR. MR. CHERNOFF, THERE IS A REQUEST BY THE DEFENSE AND, IN PARTICULAR, DR. MURRAY, TO WAIVE DR. MURRAY’S PERSONAL PRESENCE ON THAT DATE AT THAT TIME?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, JUDGE.

THE COURT:   IS THAT YOUR REQUEST, DR. MURRAY?

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   DR. MURRAY, YOU SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT ALL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PRESENTATION OF ANY ARGUMENT ON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO BE CONFRONTED BY AND CROSS-EXAMINE ALL WITNESSES. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT AT ANY HEARING OR ON ANY MOTION OR OTHER PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING WHEN THE CASE IS SET FOR TRIAL, WHEN A CONTINUANCE IS ORDERED, AND WHEN ANY FURTHER MOTIONS ARE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT, AND IN THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT ON MONDAY, THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY 2011?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   DO YOU GIVE UP THAT RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   I GIVE UP THAT RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT, BUT I DO RESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY, IF I AM AVAILABLE, I WILL SHOW UP.   IS THAT OKAY?

 

THE COURT:   NOTHING WOULD PLEASE ME MORE, SIR.

THE DEFENDANT:   THANK YOU.

THE COURT:   JUST NOTIFY COUNSEL SO WE DON’T HAVE A SURPRISE.

THE DEFENDANT:   THANK YOU, SIR.

 

THE COURT:   OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I TAKE THIS WAIVER.   SO YOU DON’T FEEL YOU HAVE TO BE HERE ON THAT DATE AS A CONDITION OF YOUR BOND BECAUSE YOUR BOND IS GOING TO STAND JUST AS THOUGH YOU HAD, IN FACT, BEEN IN COURT ON THAT DATE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   THANK YOU.

 

THE COURT:   AND DO YOU, IN FACT, GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT ON THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY 2011, OR AT SUCH OTHER TIMES THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE HERE?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   AND DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR INTERESTS WILL BE DEEMED REPRESENTED AT ALL TIMES BY THE PRESENCE OF EITHER, OR BOTH, OR ALL THREE OF YOUR ATTORNEYS, JUST THE SAME AS IF YOU HAD BEEN PERSONALLY PRESENT IN COURT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   AND DO YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT NOTICE TO ANY OF YOUR ATTORNEYS IN THAT ATTORNEY’S PRESENCE IN COURT ON A PARTICULAR DAY AT A PARTICULAR TIME IS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE NOTICE TO YOU?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. I WILL ASK, IF I MAY, THAT THIS PARTICULAR

FORM BE PROVIDED TO DR. MURRAY.   YOU CAN JUST PUT A SIGNATURE LINE. LET’S JUST GET ANOTHER SIGNATURE, AND DR. MURRAY CAN EXECUTE THE FORM IN OPEN COURT PURSUANT TO THE DICTATES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REGARDING AN IN-COURT WAIVER OF PERSONAL PRESENCE. AND IF DEFENSE COUNSEL LIKEWISE WOULD SIGN BELOW AND DATE IT TODAY’S DATE, PLEASE, 25 JANUARY 2011.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. DR. MURRAY DID, IN FACT, YOU AFFIX YOUR SIGNATURE ON TODAY’S DATE?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   AND DID YOU AS WELL, MR. CHERNOFF?

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, JUDGE.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. THE FORM IS EXECUTED IN OPEN COURT.   MS. BENSON, THE COURT CLERK, IS DIRECTED TO REFILE THIS.   IT WAS FILED ON 29 DECEMBER 2010.   IT IS REFILED IN COURT. SO WE WILL SEE COUNSEL AT PROMPTLY 1:30 P.M. ON MONDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2011.   DR. MURRAY’S BAIL AND BOND IS TO STAND IN THE INTERIM AND WILL BE DEEMED TO STAND AS OF THIS DATE SHOULD HE NOT BE PRESENT. BUT ALL COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY ARE ORDERED TO BE IN THIS COURTROOM AT NINE O’CLOCK A.M. FOR JURY TRIAL ON 28 FEBRUARY 2011 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ORDER, NOTICE OR SUBPOENA. ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO BE DISCUSSING, ON THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY 2011, THE STATUS OF DISCOVERY, ANY MORE REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATE OF THE TRIAL READINESS, AND ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY ARISE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. THE COURT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN THE PAST WITH MOTIONS BY MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS OR TELEVISION AND PHOTO COVERAGE INSIDE OF THE COURTROOM.   WE WILL DISCUSS THAT ISSUE ON THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY 2011.   MY INCLINATION IS TO PERMIT TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE.   I WILL HEAR FROM THE PARTIES ON THE 7TH OF FEBRUARY REGARDING THAT MATTER AND RESERVE JUDGMENT ON IT.   BUT I WANT TO AT LEAST SHARE WITH YOU THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLICATION FILED FOR SUCH COVERAGE AND THE COURT IS CONTEMPLATING IT. ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS JUNCTURE, MR. WALGREN AND/OR MS. BRAZIL?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK YOU MAY HAVE STATED FEBRUARY 28 AS THE TRIAL DATE WHEN YOU JUST REITERATED IT.

 

THE COURT:   I APOLOGIZE.   MARCH 28. IT IS UNUSUAL AROUND HERE FOR US TO BE DOING TRIALS WITHIN THE 60-DAY PERIOD.   I WAS PROBABLY THINKING OF NEXT YEAR, BUT IT IS MARCH 28, 2011.   SO MARCH 28, 2011, NINE O’CLOCK A.M., THIS DEPARTMENT. DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORDER TO APPEAR, DR. MURRAY?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 THE COURT:   BOND TO STAND.   THANK YOU.   WE ARE IN

 

 

 (PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED TO 1:30 P.M., JANUARY 25, 2011.)