P V CM MARCH 24TH 2011

 

APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, AND NAREG GOURJIAN,

 

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

 

THE COURT:   IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, SA073164, DR. MURRAY IS PRESENT IN COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. CHERNOFF, AND MR. FLANAGAN, AND MR. GOURJIAN.   I UNDERSTAND MR. PECKHAM IS ALSO HERE. MR. PECKHAM, GOOD MORNING.   WELCOME.

 

MR. PECKHAM:   GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.

 

THE COURT:   THE MATTER IS ON CALENDAR FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCEDURE.   LET ME PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME INFORMATION, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I’M SORRY FOR THE TARDINESS THIS MORNING. THERE WERE ELEVATOR RELATED PROBLEMS IN THE COURTHOUSE AND OTHER LOGISTICAL ISSUES. EVERY DAY, IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A BENCH OFFICER FROM THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT IS ASSIGNED TO PROVIDE JURY ORIENTATION, WELCOME MESSAGES, TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS.   THAT IS WHAT I WAS DOING A FEW MINUTES AGO, AND IT IS OUR POLICY AND PROCEDURE IN DEPARTMENT 107 THAT, WHEN WE HAVE THAT ASSIGNMENT, ALL OF OUR COURTROOM FAMILY WELCOMES PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO THE SYSTEM AND INDICATES OUR RESPECT FOR THEM.   SO THAT IS WHAT WE DID THIS MORNING. WE ARE GOING TO BE COMMENCING WITH JURY SELECTION.   LET ME EXPLAIN HOW WE ARE GOING TO BE PROCEEDING.   WE ARE GOING TO BE CONDUCTING JURY SELECTION AS DEPARTMENT 107 OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT ON THE FIFTH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, WHICH IS WHERE JURORS   ARE ASSEMBLED IN RESPONSE TO THEIR SUMMONSES IN THIS CASE.

 

I MADE A DETERMINATION THAT, TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE JURORS AND TO AVOID INCONVENIENCING THEM AND PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AND PEOPLE IN THE HALLWAYS, AND THE HORRIFIC ELEVATOR SITUATION, THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE MANAGEABLE AND CONTROLLABLE TO HAVE DEPARTMENT 107 HAVE SESSIONS IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING. THIS WILL BE AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM DEPARTMENT 107 WILL BE CONDUCTING ITS PROCEEDINGS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THIS BUILDING, BUT IT STILL WILL BE DEPARTMENT 107.   IT WILL BE AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS OF SEATING ACCORDING TO FIRE REGULATIONS, AND THERE WILL BE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALSO ALL COUNSEL AND COURT AND THE COURT STAFF WILL BE PRESENT AS WELL.

 

IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS WILL BE AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM, ALBEIT WITH LIMITATIONS FOR SPACE, BUT IT WILL BE OPEN. WE ARE GOING TO BE GETTING WORD WHEN JUROR SERVICES IS READY FOR US TO COME DOWN, AND THAT SHOULD BE IN A MATTER OF PERHAPS TEN OR 15 MINUTES.   ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE MADE FOR THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE TO GO TO THAT LOCATION, AND ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE MADE FOR THE PUBLIC TO GO TO THAT LOCATION AND TO ENTER THAT LOCATION WHERE WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS BY SWEARING IN THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE 160 PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO ARE PRESENT.   THAT MAY VARY BY A FEW, BUT THAT IS THE FIGURE I WAS GIVEN AS I LEFT THE ASSEMBLY ROOM THIS MORNING. WE WILL COMMENCE WITH THE SWEARING OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS.   I THEN WILL INTRODUCE THE CASE BY INTRODUCING THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE; NAMELY, DR. MURRAY AND ALL COUNSEL.   I THEN WILL PROVIDE THE JURORS WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS CASE AND HOW WE EXPECT TO PROCEED. I WILL BE ADVISING THEM THAT THE FIRST STAGE, AFTER WE LEAVE THE ASSEMBLY ROOM, WILL BE FOR THEM TO FILL OUT A VERY SHORT THREE-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE ON THIS CASE.   AND THERE IS AN AREA WHERE THEY CAN SIMPLY CHECK OFF YES, OR WHETHER THE PARTICULAR JUROR WOULD BE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP. IF THE JUROR IS CLAIMING A HARDSHIP, THE JUROR WOULD COMPLETE THE REMAINDER OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE HARDSHIP.   IS IT A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP?   IS IT BASED UPON SOME OTHER SPECIFIED HARDSHIP SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PREPAID VACATION OR BUSINESS PLANS, BEING OF SUCH A HARDSHIP THAT IT WOULD INTERFERE WITH EMPLOYMENT, PLANNED SURGERIES OR PHYSICAL THERAPIES, OR OTHER MAJOR MEDICAL ISSUES.   A STUDENT CURRENTLY ATTENDING CLASSES, A TEACHER SERVING FULL-TIME DURING THE DAY, AND ANY OTHER HARDSHIP A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM.

 

THE JURORS ARE GOING TO BE ADVISED BY ME AND ALSO IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THE CASE IS ESTIMATED TO BE, AND ALL WE CAN DO IS ESTIMATE, BUT BASED UPON WHAT COUNSEL HAVE INDICATED, BETWEEN 40 TO 45 DAYS IN LENGTH. WE ARE TELLING THEM THEIR SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED TODAY, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE COMING BACK ON THE 4TH OF   MAY 2011 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 40 TO 45-DAY LENGTH CASE WITH AN ESTIMATED END DATE OF JULY 1ST, 2001, WITH DAYS WHEN WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION OF MAY 30, 2011, WHICH IS MEMORIAL DAY, AND ALSO JUNE 13, 2011. THAT PROCESS OF HAVING THE JURORS COMPLETE THIS HARDSHIP EVALUATION SHOULD TAKE NO MORE THAN TEN MINUTES.   THESE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE DELIVERED BY THE COURT STAFF TO US IN DEPARTMENT 107, WHICH IS NOW GOING TO BE ON THE NINTH FLOOR BECAUSE ALL OF US WILL HAVE LEFT IMMEDIATELY AFTER I PROVIDE THE INTRODUCTION.   WE WILL REGROUP THERE. WHEN WE GET THESE RETURNED HARDSHIP RESPONSES BY PROSPECTIVE JURORS, THE ATTORNEYS AND I WILL MEET AND CONFER AS TO THE ISSUE OF HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE.   ONCE A DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT A JUROR IS GOING TO BE SERVING ON THIS CASE, THAT JUROR THEN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE, A WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE, AND THOSE JURORS WHO ARE HARDSHIP QUALIFIED WILL FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. THAT JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM NO LONGER IS PRIVATE — I’M SORRY — IT IS NO LONGER PUBLIC.   IT IS A PRIVATE, SECURE ENVIRONMENT.   JURORS WILL NOT BE COMING AND GOING FROM THAT LOCATION.   JURORS ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED WITH REFRESHMENTS, SNACKS AND LUNCH.   THERE ARE FACILITIES THERE AS WELL. SO THOSE JURORS WILL BE FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES AND WILL NOT BE LEAVING THE ROOM UNTIL THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE.   THE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE GROUPED AND PROVIDED TO US WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETED, AND THE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE PHOTOCOPIED AND PROVIDED TO COUNSEL FOR THEIR EVALUATION.

 

THE JURORS ARE IDENTIFIED BY NUMBERS.   THEY HAVE A JUROR I.D. BADGE WITH A CERTAIN RANDOM NUMBER, AND JURORS ALSO WILL BE PROVIDED WITH SEPARATE SECURE JUROR IDENTIFICATION BADGES FOR THIS CASE.   THAT IS THE PROCESS. THE COURT CLERK WILL BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE AND RELEASE AS OF NOW THE HARDSHIP BLANK FORM WHICH IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH IS A VERY REGULAR TYPE FORM WHICH IS USED ALL THE TIME IN JURY SELECTION.   IN THIS CASE, IT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. AS PART OF THE JURY INTRODUCTION THIS MORNING, I AM GOING TO BE READING A DOCUMENT TO THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS CAPTIONED “ADMONITIONS/ORDERS TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS.”   IT IS ON EACH SIDE OF A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT, SO THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO IT.   AND ALL JURORS WHO ARE HARDSHIP QUALIFIED IN THIS CASE, AND EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE HARDSHIP QUALIFIED, WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THIS FORM WHICH IS A COURT ORDER AND WHICH APPLIES TO THIS COURT.   THAT FORM LIKEWISE WILL BE RELEASED RIGHT NOW AND IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. YOUR THOUGHTS SO FAR, FROM THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   PEOPLE ARE GOOD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   DEFENSE?

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO, NOTHING.

THE COURT:   YOU ARE GOOD?

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   WE WILL HAVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR  PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN THIS CASE TO GO TO THAT LOCATION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO GO TO THAT LOCATION AS WELL.   WE WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO COME BACK HERE. SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE IS MOVING – MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE MOVING FROM THIS COURTROOM TO OUR TEMPORARY COURTROOM IN THE JURY ROOM — DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL LOSE YOUR SEAT.   YOU WILL KEEP YOUR SEAT.   SO WE WILL NOT PENALIZE YOU FOR BEING A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND FOR GOING TO ANOTHER LOCATION, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO. WITH REGARD TO THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS CASE, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INTEREST IN THAT QUESTIONNAIRE.   THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN SEALED.   THE BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE IS GOING TO REMAIN SEALED UNTIL WE HAVE JURORS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THEIR WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE.   THAT COULD BE AS EARLY AS TODAY, ASSUMING WE HAVE A REQUISITE POOL.   I DON’T THINK WE WILL.   BUT IF WE DO, AS SOON AS WE HAVE WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A REASONABLE POOL OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO BEGIN THE ACTUAL VOIR DIRE PROCESS IN THIS COURTROOM, THAT BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY. IT WILL BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. IF WE HAVE TO GO TILL TOMORROW TO ACCOMPLISH THAT RESULT, OR EVEN ANOTHER DAY, THEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL REMAIN SEALED UNTIL PROSPECTIVE JURORS HAVE FILLED OUT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE. I INDICATED AT VARIOUS TIMES MY CONCERN ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE FLOATING AROUND CYBER SPACE AND THE IMPACT SUCH QUESTIONNAIRES COULD OR WOULD HAVE ON PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS, THE FAIRNESS TO DR. MURRAY, THE FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE.   AND MY CONCERNS, I THINK, HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS INTERNET SITES POSTING QUESTIONNAIRES. ONE INTERNET SITE POSTING A QUESTIONNAIRE THAT MIGHT BE REGARDED AS TONGUE IN CHEEK, BUT MIGHT NOT BE.   ANOTHER INTERNET SITE WHICH IS IN BANNER, BOLD HEADLINES INDICATING IT HAS A COPY OF THE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS CASE. THE ATTORNEYS AND I ARE GOING TO DISCUSS, AS WE DISCUSS THE HARDSHIP ISSUES, THE STATEMENTS IN THAT ARTICLE AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION AND HOW ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.

 

LET ME INDICATE I HAVE READ THAT PARTICULAR QUESTIONNAIRE POSTED ON-LINE.   NOT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THAT QUESTIONNAIRE POSTED ON-LINE IS PART OF THIS COURT’S QUESTIONNAIRE.   NOT ONE.   IT IS BOGUS.   THE POINT BEING THAT THAT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCHIEF THAT HAPPENS AND THE REAL POTENTIAL FOR SKEWING INFORMATION, FOR IMPACTING PROSPECTIVE JURORS WITH AREAS OF CONCERN WHERE THEY THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE TO ANSWER A CERTAIN WAY. SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS NONSENSE.   IT IS NOT AT ALL UNEXPECTED, I SUPPOSE.   I VALUE VERY MUCH AND CHERISH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND REMAIN COMMITTED TO

 PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND FREE SPEECH.   AND NONSENSE POSTED ON INTERNET SITES IS A VERY SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR THE FREEDOMS ALL OF US HAVE. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT SIGNED QUESTIONNAIRES FROM PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO ARE NOT CALLED TO THE JURY BOX ARE NOT PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.   I BELIEVE THERE IS A LONG HISTORY IN CALIFORNIA STANDING FOR THAT RULE OF LAW UNDER LESHER AND UNDER COPLEY PRESS, WHICH INDICATES THAT ONLY IF AND WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR ACTUALLY IS CALLED TO THE JURY BOX IS ANY WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE SIGNED AND FILLING OUT BY THAT JUROR A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. I HAVE EVALUATED THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING NBC, A SEMINAL CASE FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, AND PRESS-ENTERPRISE FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I REMAIN OPEN TO HEAR THE POSITION OF ANY ENTITY THAT BELIEVES THAT THAT VIEWPOINT IS INCORRECT, AND I INVITE ANY SUCH ENTITY TO FILE ANY APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION.   I’M HAPPY TO EVALUATE. BUT RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS, THE ADMONITION AND HARDSHIP SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND ARE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THIS CASE.   THE BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT UNTIL WE HAVE COMPLETED THE FILLING OUT OF THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES, WHICH COULD BE AS EARLY AS TODAY OR PERHAPS TOMORROW OR MAYBE, IF WE HAVE TO, THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK. AS SOON AS THAT IS DONE, THAT BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.   AND IF AND WHEN A PARTICULAR PROSPECTIVE JUROR IS ACTUALLY CALLED TO THE JURY BOX, THAT QUESTIONNAIRE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WILL BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THIS CASE.

 

MY VIEWPOINT IS THAT THE SIGNED AND COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN ITS ENTIRETY WILL BE PROVIDED AT THAT POINT.   THERE MAY BE A PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHERE THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WHICH IS REDACTED, AND I WILL HAVE TO MAKE UP MY MIND AT THAT POINT IN TIME.   BUT I AM KEENLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ONCE A PROSPECTIVE JUROR IS CALLED TO THE JURY BOX, THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITIES I’VE INDICATED, AS WELL AS OTHER AUTHORITY IN CALIFORNIA AND IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS AND IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND IS AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. THAT IS HOW WE WILL PROCEED.   A LOT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE HARDSHIP QUALIFIED IN THIS CASE.   AS TO IF WE WILL BE RESUMING TOMORROW, I THINK THE ODDS ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE RESUMING AT LEAST TOMORROW.   WHETHER WE HAVE TO GO OVER UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK IS ANOTHER STORY. I’M THINKING THAT I WANT A POOL OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO ARE HARDSHIP QUALIFIED OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 85 AND A HUNDRED.   WE HAVE SPACE ISSUES IN THIS COURT.   WE MAY HAVE TO BRING IN PEOPLE IN GROUPS AS PART OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS. BUT WE DO KNOW THE REALITY IS THAT WHILE WE ARE BEGINNING THIS PROCESS ON THE 24TH OF MARCH, 2011, AND PERHAPS THE 25TH OF MARCH, AND MAYBE EVEN SOMETIME NEXT WEEK STARTING WITH THE 28TH, BUT WE ARE RESUMING ON THE 4TH OF MAY.   THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENTS IN PEOPLE’S LIVES.   REGRETTABLY, PEOPLE GET SICK, INJURED.   THERE ARE FAMILY EMERGENCIES.   THERE ARE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, AND SO INVARIABLY THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO ARE HARDSHIP QUALIFIED AT THIS POINT WHO, BY MAY, ARE NOT ABLE TO SERVE.   SO WE ARE GOING TO LOSE SOME OF OUR PROSPECTIVE JURORS. SO ONCE THE ATTORNEYS AND I START TALKING ABOUT HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE, I THINK WE CAN DISCUSS A REALISTIC NUMBER OF THE JURY POOL AT LEAST AS A HARDSHIP QUALIFICATION WHERE WE WILL BE SATISFIED. SO YOUR THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE PLAN AND MY COMMENTS. FOR THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WHEN WAS THE COURT GOING TO BE MAKING AN INQUIRY REGARDING THE POTENTIAL LEAK OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE?

 

THE COURT:   WHEN THE ATTORNEYS AND I MEET AFTER WE HAVE INTRODUCED OURSELVES TO THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS.   ANY MINUTE.   AS I SAID, WHEN WE GO IN TO DISCUSS THE HARDSHIP RELATED ISSUES, THAT IS WHEN I DO WANT TO DISCUSS.   I DON’T EVEN WANT TO NECESSARILY USE THE TERM “LEAK.” THE DEVELOPMENT THAT I MENTIONED, ARE THE PEOPLE AWARE OF IT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE ARE AWARE OF IT, AND I BELIEVE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE HAS INFORMATION FOR THE COURT.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   DEFENSE IS AWARE OF IT AS WELL?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   ABSOLUTELY.

 

THE COURT:   SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL DISCUSS.   BUT BECAUSE OF THE TIME ISSUES AND THE FACT THAT I DON’T WANT TO KEEP THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WAITING AND I WANT TO GET GOING WITH OUR NEXT APPEARANCE, I WOULD RATHER PAUSE ON THAT. THOUGHTS, COMMENTS?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE ARE READY.   WE ARE READY TO GO.

THE COURT:   DEPUTY JONES, ANYTHING ELSE I SHOULD BE MENTIONING?

THE BAILIFF:   NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT:   MS. HEARN, ANYTHING COME TO MIND?

 

MS. MARY HEARN:   A STATEMENT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE WHO AREN’T FAMILIAR WITH THE COURT RULES WITH RESPECT TO CONTACT WITH THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SIGNS POSTED.   I WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE WHAT MS. MARY HEARN INDICATED.   MS. HEARN IS THE ACTING CHIEF OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.   AND THAT IS, WE VALUE VERY MUCH THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN COURTROOMS. IT IS AN ESSENTIAL AND VITAL ASPECT OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE WELCOME YOU. BUT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, ALL OF US ARE ADMONISHED THAT WE ARE NOT TO COMMUNICATE VERBALLY OR NONVERBALLY WITH ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN THIS CASE. DON’T SAY ANYTHING.   DON’T MAKE ANY NONVERBAL GESTURES OF ANY SORT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF OR OTHERWISE DISTINGUISH YOURSELF IN FRONT OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR. YOU ARE TO REMAIN IN YOUR PARTICULAR LOCATION AND BEHAVE PROFESSIONALLY. YOU ARE NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO COMMUNICATE WITH A JUROR, HAND THE JUROR ANY KIND OF BUSINESS CARD, OR PROVIDE ANY OTHER INFORMATION TO A JUROR AS TO A CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND A PROSPECTIVE JUROR AT ANY POINT DURING THE DURATION OF THE CASE. I DO NOT WANT ANY GAMES GOING ON, AND THE JURORS ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN THIS PARTICULAR INFORMATION SHEET WHICH SAYS THE SAME THING ON IT IN TERMS OF ORDERS AND ADMONITIONS.   SO PLEASE FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF OUR COURT SECURITY PERSONNEL AND OUR COURT STAFF, AND YOU WILL BE DIRECTED TO SEATING IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM WHICH IS GOING TO BE DEPARTMENT 107. WHILE THERE, YOU ARE TO BEHAVE IN CONFORMITY WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS.   WHEN WE CONCLUDE WITH THOSE PROCEEDINGS, YOU ARE TO LEAVE AND RETURN HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK HERE. WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT, MS. HEARN?

 

MS. MARY HEARN:   YES.   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   WE SHOULD BE GETTING WORD ANY MINUTE, BUT NOT QUITE.   BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATOR SITUATION, WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE RUNNING LATE.   I WIND UP APOLOGIZING ALL THE TIME BECAUSE I’M SURE SOME OF YOU HAD TO ENDURE IT.   THE ELEVATORS ARE TERRIBLE.   AND THE FACT THAT IT IS FREEZING OUTSIDE MAKES IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF HEAVY CLOTHING ON.   YOU CAN ONLY FIT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE ELEVATOR.   I’M NOT SUGGESTING YOU TAKE OFF ANY GARMENTS.   I’M SAYING THE CAPACITY IS SOMEWHAT MORE RESTRICTED. WE HAVE A LOT OF JURORS WHO WERE RUNNING LATE, BUT WE HAVE ALL OF THEM AND I WAS QUITE SURPRISE WE HAD SO MANY OF THEM SO WITH THAT IN MIND, BEAR WITH US, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.   IN A FEW MOMENTS, WE WILL BE MOVING FOR OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND THEN COMING BACK.   SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

 

 

 (RECESS.   9:30 A.M., FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN THE 5TH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM BEFORE THE PANEL OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS, COUNSEL, AND THE DEFENDANT:)

 

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.   LET ME CALL THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, CASE SA073164.   DR. MURRAY, HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND THE PEOPLE’S COUNSEL ARE PRESENT. WE ARE CONDUCTING COURT IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES.   THIS IS A PUBLIC COURTROOM. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MS. BENSON, THE COURT CLERK AND JUDICIAL ASSISTANT, IS GOING TO ADMINISTER A JUROR OATH TO ALL OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THIS JUROR OATH.   THESE ARE NOT BARE, BALD WORDS. THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT MEANING.   ONCE YOU RECEIVE AND TAKE THE OATH, ANY ANSWERS THAT YOU PROVIDE TO US THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE PROVIDED UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY.   SO PLEASE THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE JUROR OATH AND RESPOND ACCORDINGLY. THANK YOU. MS. BENSON.

 

THE CLERK:   WILL ALL JURORS PLEASE RISE.   PLEASE

LISTEN TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: DO YOU AND EACH OF YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY ANSWER UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ALL QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED TO YOU CONCERNING YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCY TO SERVE AS A TRIAL JUROR IN THE MATTER NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, AND THAT FAILURE TO DO SO MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS, PLEASE ANSWER BY SAYING YES.

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.   PLEASE BE SEATED, LADIES

AND GENTLEMEN. IF THEY CAN HAVE MICROPHONE PROBLEMS IN THE SUPER BOWL OR ON THE ACADEMY AWARDS, THEY CAN HAVE THEM IN JURY SELECTION.   GIVE US A FEW MOMENTS.   I HOPE I CAN SPEAK LOUDLY ENOUGH. THANK YOU.   IT’S BEEN FIXED. WE MET BRIEFLY THIS MORNING, AT WHICH TIME I PROVIDED TO YOU THE JURY ORIENTATION MESSAGE. CAN ALL OF YOU HEAR ME?

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   IF YOU CAN’T, LET ME KNOW, PLEASE.   CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW, AS THEY SAY IN THE COMMERCIAL?

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   THANK YOU, AND DO LET ME KNOW. WE ARE CONDUCTING A COURTROOM PROCEEDING IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM.   THIS IS DEPARTMENT 107 OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.   OUR USUAL HOME IS ON THE NINTH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING.   BUT FOR YOUR COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO COME TO YOU. BUT THIS IS A COURTROOM COMPLETE WITH FLAGS AND THE SOLEMNITY OF ANY COURTROOM, AND THAT SHOULD GUIDE US IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE INDICATED THE CASE.   I WILL REPEAT THE CASE.   THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.   IT IS CASE NO. SA073164.   IT IS BROUGHT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE PLAINTIFF, VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, AS THE DEFENDANT. IN THIS CASE, DR. MURRAY, AS THE DEFENDANT, IS ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 192(B), WHICH ALLEGES THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH OF JUNE 2008, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THAT CRIME.   THE ALLEGED VICTIM BEING MICHAEL JACKSON. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO HAS NOT HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE?   IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.   ANYONE?   I CAN’T SEE OVER THE SIDE.   ANYONE?

 

SERGEANT PARRA:   SIR, THERE IS ONE PERSON ON THIS SIDE AND ONE OTHER.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.   TWO.   WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, 160 JURORS.   HAVE THE OTHER 158 JURORS HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE?

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   INDICATING THE AFFIRMATIVE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, AS I’VE MENTIONED.   I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO YOU THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE AND THEN GIVE YOU SOME FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS CASE AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO BE PROCEEDING. LET ME INDICATE THIS IS A PUBLIC, OPEN COURTROOM.   THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA PRESENT.   THERE ARE TELEVISION SCREENS.   THEY ARE CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION SCREENS.   THESE ARE NOT BEING BROADCAST ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN IN THIS COURTROOM TO MAKE SURE ALL OF YOU CAN SEE AND HEAR US, SO PLEASE BE AWARE OF THAT. LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE.   LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE, AND THERE ARE TWO MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WHO ARE THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE. I NOW WILL INTRODUCE THEM. REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MR. DAVID WALGREN, WHO WILL STAND.

 

MR. WALGREN:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE COURT:   MS. DEBORAH BRAZIL.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE, DR. CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY.   DR. MURRAY, WILL YOU STAND.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE COURT:   REPRESENTING DR. MURRAY, MR. EDWARD CHERNOFF.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE COURT:   MR. J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE COURT:   MR. NAREG GOURJIAN.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   GOOD MORNING.

 

THE COURT:   YOU HAVE MET EARLIER THIS MORNING THE MEMBERS OF OUR COURT FAMILY IN DEPARTMENT 107, WHO ALSO ARE WITH US.   . LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE COMMENCING JURY SELECTION IN THIS CASE.   WE ARE COMMENCING JURY SELECTION IN THIS FACILITY BECAUSE IT IS MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE THAN DEPARTMENT 107.   IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT THINK SO, THAN WE HAVE IN THE COURTROOM AND IS MUCH MORE SECURE AND USER FRIENDLY THAN OUR COURTROOM. WE ARE GOING TO BE COMMENCING WITH THE PROCESS OF JURY SELECTION BY GIVING YOU SOME BASIC  INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF THIS CASE AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO BE SCHEDULING THIS CASE BECAUSE THAT WILL BE SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO SERVE ON THIS CASE. THIS CASE IS EXPECTED TO TAKE BETWEEN 40 AND 45 COURT DAYS.   WE ARE BEGINNING THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS TODAY, WHICH IS THURSDAY, THE 24TH OF MARCH.   WE MAY BE CONTINUING THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS TOMORROW, THE 25TH OF MARCH, AS WELL. WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING A BREAK IN THIS CASE UNTIL THE 4TH OF MAY WHEN WE WILL BE RESUMING WITH JURY SELECTION.   THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THE INTERIM.   I’LL TELL YOU ABOUT THOSE IN JUST A MINUTE.   BUT AFTER PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO RESUME ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 4TH, 2011. THE CASE WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 40 TO 45 DAYS, INCLUDING TODAY, AND STARTING UP AGAIN ON THE 4TH OF MAY.   CAN I TELL YOU A SPECIFIC, EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS OR THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF HOURS?   NO.   IT MAY BE A SURPRISE, BUT REAL LIFE CASES ARE NOT SCRIPTED EPISODES OF TELEVISION PROGRAMS OF 43 MINUTES AND 16 SECONDS WITH COMMERCIAL BREAKS, OR TWO-HOUR AND 15 MINUTE MOVIES THAT TAKE THREE YEARS TO MAKE. I AM DEPENDING UPON REALISTIC ESTIMATES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO ME BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE TO SAY THAT THE ESTIMATED LENGTH OF THE CASE IS 40 TO 45 DAYS, INCLUDING TODAY, AND STARTING MAY 4TH, WITH AN ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF THE 1ST OF JULY 2011. SO YOU ARE HERE TODAY.   THOSE JURORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE COMING BACK WILL BE COMING BACK ON MAY 4TH, I HAVE TO MENTION THE YEAR 2011, AND BE EXPECTED TO SERVE THROUGH APPROXIMATELY THE 1ST OF JULY 2011. ONCE AGAIN, SO THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING, RE-STARTING MAY 4TH THROUGH APPROXIMATELY JULY 1ST, 40 TO 45 DAYS.   IN THAT TIME FRAME FROM MAY 4TH TO JULY 1ST, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN SESSION ON MAY 30, WHICH IS MEMORIAL DAY AND WHICH IS A STATE AND FEDERAL HOLIDAY. WE ALSO WILL NOT BE IN SESSION JUNE 13, WHICH IS A DAY THE COURT ITSELF WILL BE DARK. SO BETWEEN MAY 4TH AND JULY 1ST, THERE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO DAYS WHEN WE ARE NOT IN SESSION. IT IS CONCEIVABLE, AND PERHAPS EVEN LIKELY, THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER DAYS WHEN WE ARE NOT IN SESSION, BUT I DO NOT KNOW THOSE DATES RIGHT NOW.   THINGS HAPPEN. WE JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER DATES WHEN WE ARE NOT IN SESSION, BUT RIGHT NOW YOU WOULD BE EXPECTED TO SERVE FROM MAY 4TH THROUGH JULY 1ST, 2011, WITH THAT IN MIND. NOW, WE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING EACH JUROR WITH A THREE-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE.   THE QUESTIONNAIRE ASKS IF YOU ARE ABLE OR NOT ABLE TO SERVE ON THIS CASE FOR THAT TIME FRAME.   YOU ARE HERE TODAY, SO WE HAVE YOU, BUT STARTING UP AGAIN ON MAY 4TH THROUGH JULY 1ST. IF YOU ARE ABLE, PUT A CHECK MARK BY THE YES. THAT WILL FULFILL THAT REQUIREMENT. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE AND ARE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP SERVING ON THE CASE THROUGH THE TIME FRAME, THERE ARE SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS OF THAT DOCUMENT WHICH WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS A HARDSHIP BY CHECKING OFF A PARTICULAR COLUMN AND PROVIDING US WITH FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION AS TO THE REASON WHY YOU WOULD BE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP. THERE IS A CATCH-ALL LAST SUBJECT AREA WHICH SAYS THAT IF ONE OF THE BASES FOR A HARDSHIP IS NOT ACTUALLY LISTED, IF THERE IS SOME OTHER HARDSHIP THAT YOU WOULD BE CLAIMING, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIST THAT PARTICULAR HARDSHIP. IMPORTANTLY, THE VERY LAST PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS A CERTIFICATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT WHAT YOU HAVE REPRESENTED TO US IS TRUE AND CORRECT.   IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT YOU JUST TOOK THE JUROR OATH, THAT CERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.   IT IS A FELONY TO COMMIT PERJURY, SO PLEASE LET THAT GUIDE YOU.   AND PLEASE BEAR IN MIND AND REMEMBER THAT ONCE YOU TOOK THIS OATH THIS MORNING, WHICH ALL OF YOU DID, ANY AND ALL ANSWERS THAT YOU PROVIDE TO US THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRIAL ARE PROVIDED UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY.   THAT PERJURY ADMONITION AND ORDER REMAINS IN EFFECT.

 

ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE HARDSHIP EVALUATION FORM, THAT FORM WILL BE PROCESSED BY THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, AND THEN I WILL BE MEETING WITH COUNSEL TO GO OVER THE HARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRES.   I MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE COURT IS GOING TO FIND THAT THERE IS A JUSTIFIED HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE. AS I MENTIONED TO YOU THIS MORNING DURING JUROR ORIENTATION, JURY SERVICE IS AN OBLIGATION OF CITIZENSHIP.   WE MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR HAVING JURORS. QUITE FRANKLY, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.   WE CELEBRATE THEM. SO YOU ARE THE CORE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.   YOU ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR OUR DEMOCRACY.   WITHOUT JURORS, THERE IS NO UNITED STATES SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, SO PLEASE LET THAT GUIDE YOU. WE CERTAINLY VALUE YOU, AND WE WANT YOU TO BE CANDID, AND OPEN, AND THOROUGH, AND HONEST BECAUSE WE ACCEPT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LESS. ONCE WE HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT A   PARTICULAR JUROR IS GOING TO BE SERVING ON THIS CASE FROM MAY 4TH THROUGH JULY 1ST, THEN WE WILL NOTIFY THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE THAT THE JUROR WILL BE HANDED A QUESTIONNAIRE.   IT IS A 29-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE.   THE LAST PAGE IS ALSO A DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ANSWERS YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO US ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO YOU THAT YOUR NAMES ARE ANONYMOUS AND CONFIDENTIAL.   THEY ARE KEPT WITHIN A

SEALED COURT FILE AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE ABSENT FURTHER COURT ORDER.   THE INFORMATION ON THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE IS A PUBLIC, OPEN DOCUMENT AND, AT APPROPRIATE TIME, IS MADE A PART OF THE COURT RECORD AND IS PUBLIC. THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS THOROUGH.   IT IS REQUIRED, AND IN ITS OWN WAY IT ASSISTS VERY DRAMATICALLY IN SHORTENING THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF ASKING QUESTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN A COURTROOM.   A LOT, IF NOT MOST, OF THE QUESTIONS NORMALLY WOULD BE ASKED IN AN OPEN COURTROOM.   IT TAKES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME.   THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW YOU IN A MORE COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT TO READ THOROUGHLY AND UNDERSTAND A PARTICULAR QUESTION AND TO ANSWER IT OPENLY, AND CANDIDLY, AND HONESTLY.   IT DOES SPEED UP THE JURY QUESTIONING PROCESS RATHER DRAMATICALLY WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. SO YOU WILL BE FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.   YOU WILL SIGN IT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.   THE LAST PAGE, WHICH IS THE PAGE WHERE YOU PUT YOUR NAME AND CERTIFY, IT IS REMOVED AND IS NOT A MATTER OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.   THE OTHER PAGES ARE. YOU WILL HAVE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILING THINGS ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE SO THAT IF YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE OTHER MATTERS, YOU CAN DO SO AT A DIFFERENT TIME AND DIFFERENT LOCATION. WE VERY MUCH CALL UPON YOU TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THOROUGHLY AND PROVIDE US WITH ANY AND ALL INFORMATION YOU CAN.   IT WILL MAKE THE PROCESS GO MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY AND QUICKLY.

 

THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS THAT YOU WILL BE HERE IN THE JURY ROOM UNTIL YOU ARE EXCUSED TODAY.   IN THAT TIME FRAME, YOU WILL BE GIVEN REFRESHMENTS, AND SNACKS, AND ALSO LUNCH.   I KNOW WE MAY HAVE VEGANS AND WE MAY HAVE PEOPLE ON GLUTEN FREE DIETS OR OTHER DIETS.   WE HAVE MADE AS MANY ARRANGEMENTS AS WE CAN SO YOU WILL, HOPEFULLY, NOT BE HUNGRY. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, CATERING FOR THIS NUMBER OF PEOPLE CAUSED US SOME PROBLEMS.   I’M NOT SAYING IT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE GREAT CULINARY EXPERIENCES OF YOUR SERVICE, BUT I HOPE IT WILL SUFFICE.   WE WANT TO MAKE YOU AS COMFORTABLE AS WE CAN, BUT THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCOMFORT.   ALL I CAN DO IS APOLOGIZE UP FRONT BY LETTING YOU KNOW THE ALTERNATIVES ARE MUCH MORE UNCOMFORTABLE.

 

WE WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO SIT BACK AND RELAX AND DEVOTE ATTENTION TO THIS CASE, AND I’M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND ITS SIGNIFICANCE AS WELL AS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY CASE IN TERMS OF THIS GOVERNMENT AND IN TERMS OF THIS COUNTRY, AND ITS PROTECTIONS, AND ITS VALUES, AND ITS OPPORTUNITIES.   SO PLEASE LET THAT GUIDE YOU.   THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO BE PROGRESSING. FOR THOSE JURORS WHO ARE EXCUSED FROM SERVICE ON THIS CASE BECAUSE OF A VALID HARDSHIP WHICH I HAVE FOUND, THOSE JURORS WILL BE DIRECTED TO ANOTHER LOCATION WHERE THEY CAN COMPLETE THEIR JURY SERVICE TODAY IF, IN FACT, THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE.

 FOR THOSE JURORS WHO WILL BE COMPLETING THEIR QUESTIONNAIRES, YOU WILL REMAIN IN THIS ROOM AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THE LOGISTICS OF COMING BACK ON THE 4TH OF MAY 2011. SO THOSE ARE THE GENERAL GUIDELINES AND DIRECTIONS THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE NOW. I AM GOING TO READ TO YOU ADMONITIONS AND ORDERS THAT I HAVE PREPARED.   I KNOW THEM BY HEART BUT, BECAUSE THEY ARE A MATTER OF COURT RECORD, I ACTUALLY AM GOING TO READ THEM TO YOU.   THEY ARE CONTAINED IN A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT WHICH HAS TWO SIDES.   AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE GOING TO REMAIN ON THIS CASE, EACH OF YOU IS GOING TO GET A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT.   IT IS TWO SIDES, SO DON’T FEEL YOU ARE HOME FREE AFTER YOU READ THE FIRST SIDE.   PLEASE TURN IT OVER. I WILL READ TO YOU FROM THIS DOCUMENT.   EACH OF YOU WILL HAVE THIS DOCUMENT.  

 

THIS DOCUMENT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO GUIDE YOU AND PROVIDE YOU WITH ORDERS AND OBLIGATIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THIS CASE.   IT IS CAPTIONED “ADMONITIONS/ORDERS TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS.” LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: YOU HAVE BEEN SUMMONED TO SERVE AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THE CAPTIONED CASE. LET ME ADVISE YOU OF THE FOLLOWING ADMONITIONS AND ORDERS THAT APPLY TO YOUR CONDUCT FOR THE DURATION OF THE CASE UNTIL YOU ARE DISCHARGED FROM JURY SERVICE. YOU ARE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE OR THE PEOPLE OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT WITH ANYONE ELSE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, CO-WORKERS, SPIRITUAL LEADERS OR ADVISERS, THERAPISTS, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, SPECTATORS, OR EVEN TOTAL STRANGERS.

 

DO NOT SPEAK TO OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEFENDANT, THE ATTORNEYS, ANY WITNESS, OR ANY SPECTATOR AT ANY TIME OR PLACE. DO NOT TALK ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS WITH ANY OTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR UNTIL YOU ARE PERMITTED TO DO SO. DO NOT SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT ANY OF THESE SUBJECTS IN PERSON, IN WRITING, BY E-MAIL, OVER THE TELEPHONE, ON THE INTERNET, AND I HAVE TO INCLUDE A CATCH-ALL, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER BECAUSE I NEVER KNOW WHAT SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE ANNOUNCED TOMORROW. YOU MUST NOT ALLOW ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE COURTROOM TO AFFECT YOUR OPINIONS OR DECISIONS.

 

DO NOT CONDUCT ON YOUR OWN OR THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON ANY INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OR THE LAW. DO NOT READ, LISTEN TO, OR WATCH ANY REPORT OR COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS CASE FROM ANY SOURCE. DO NOT VIEW OR LISTEN TO ANY TELEVISION OR RADIO PROGRAM, MOVIE, BOOK, OR MAGAZINE OR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, REGARDING ANY ASPECTS OF THE CASE. DO NOT ACCESS ANY INTERNET WEB SITES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY SEARCH ENGINES, OR POST ANY MESSAGES, OR ACCESS ANY BLOGS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED, TO ANY MESSAGES OR BLOGS ON ANY SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, OR SEND OR READ ANY TEXT OR TWEETS AS TO ANY ASPECTS OF THIS CASE, OR THE PERSONS OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT. NOT TOO MANY YEARS AGO, ALL I HAD TO SAY WAS DON’T READ OR LISTEN TO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE.   BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGICAL AGE. YOU GET THE CLEAR ORDER OF THE COURT.   PLEASE FOLLOW IT.

 

DO NOT DO ANY RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN OR THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON REGARDING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. DO NOT CONSULT A DICTIONARY OR A BIBLE REGARDING THIS CASE. DO NOT PERFORM ANY EXPERIMENTS OR VISIT THE SCENE OF ANY EVENT INVOLVED IN THE CASE.   IF YOU HAPPEN TO PASS BY THE SCENE, DO NOT STOP OR INVESTIGATE.

 

DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO TRIES TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE OR ABOUT ANY PERSON OR SUBJECT MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT.   IF SOMEONE ASKS YOU ABOUT ANY OF THESE SUBJECTS, TELL HIM OR HER THAT YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT DO SO.  IF THAT PERSON KEEPS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT SUCH A MATTER, YOU MUST END THE CONVERSATION.

 

DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO HAND YOU A BUSINESS CARD OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION SO THAT AT A LATER TIME YOU CAN CONTACT ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ABOUT THE CASE. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY BRING ANY SUCH INCIDENT OR ENCOUNTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURTROOM STAFF. IF YOU ARE SELECTED AS A JUROR IN THIS CASE, AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED AND YOU HAVE BEEN RELEASED AS A JUROR, YOU MAY DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYONE ELSE.   HOWEVER, YOU MUST WAIT AT LEAST 90 DAYS BEFORE NEGOTIATING OR AGREEING TO ACCEPT ANY PAYMENT OR OTHER BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. FOR THE DURATION OF THE CASE UNTIL YOU ARE DISCHARGED FROM JURY SERVICE, IF YOU BECOME AWARE OF ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE OR THE PERSONS OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT FROM ANY SOURCE OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, INADVERTENTLY, OR ACCIDENTALLY, DO NOT SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COURTROOM STAFF. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ANY DISOBEDIENCE OF THESE ORDERS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.   A VIOLATION OF ANY ORDER CAN IMPACT THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL AND UNDERMINE OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. SUCH A VIOLATION CAN RESULT IN DIRECT AND NEGATIVE PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES TO YOU AS WELL.   IT CAN RESULT IN YOUR BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, SENTENCED TO JAIL AND/OR FINED.   WITH THIS IN MIND, PLEASE TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND FOLLOW TO THE LETTER EACH OF THESE ADMONITIONS AND ORDERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION.

 

MS. GOMEZ, IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION I SHOULD BE CONVEYING?

 

MS. GOMEZ:   THERE IS NOTHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   ENJOY YOUR DAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DEPARTMENT 107 WILL NOW EXIT THIS FACILITY AND RESUME ON THE NINTH FLOOR IN ITS USUAL HABITAT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

 

 

(FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN DEPARTMENT 107, WITH ALL PARTIES AND THE DEFENDANT PRESENT.)

 

 

(10:30 A.M., FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CHAMBERS, WITH ALL COUNSEL PRESENT:)

 

 

THE COURT:   WE ARE ON THE RECORD IN CHAMBERS IN PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD MURRAY, AND MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL ARE PRESENT.   MR. CHERNOFF, MR. FLANAGAN, AND MR. GOURJIAN ARE PRESENT, ALONG WITH MYSELF, AND MS.T, AND THE COURT EXTERN,  NOW THAT WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE HARDSHIP ASPECT OF THE CASE, DID I MISS SOMETHING?   DID I NOT EMPHASIZE SOMETHING?   DID I OVER-EMPHASIZE SOMETHING?   I WOULD LIKE YOUR TAKE ON HOW I CAN IMPROVE, IF AND WHEN WE GET TO TOMORROW. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT, YOUR HONOR. I KNOW PRINTED MATERIALS INDICATED SOME ADDITIONAL DAYS THE COURT IS OFF.

 

THE COURT:   THEY ARE WRONG, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THEM.   THERE WAS A TYPO ON CERTAIN PRINTED MATERIALS INDICATING, I BELIEVE, THE 26TH AND 27TH OF MAY.   THAT HAD BEEN DAYS OFF, AND THAT HAS BEEN DELETED. THE ONLY DAYS OFF ARE THE 30TH OF MAY, AND 13TH OF JUNE.DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR TOMORROW, IF WE GET TO THAT POINT?

 

 MR. WALGREN:   AS FAR AS ANYTHING THAT COULD BE ADDED?

 

THE COURT:   OR DELETED, MODIFIED.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I KNOW THE COURT MENTIONED THE INCIDENT DATE AS JUNE 25, 2008.

 

THE COURT:   I THOUGHT I SAID THE 28TH.   I MADE A MISTAKE.   OKAY.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T THINK IT IS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE.

 

THE COURT:   I APOLOGIZE THEN. MS. BRAZIL?

 

MS. BRAZIL:   I AGREE WITH MR. WALGREN.   THE ONLY POINT I WOULD ADD IS YOUR MISSTATING THE DATE.

 

THE COURT:   I APOLOGIZE. MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   MR. GOURJIAN?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   NO, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   LET US ADDRESS THE ISSUE I RAISED A LITTLE EARLIER.   THAT IS, THERE IS A POSTING ON THE TMZ WEBSITE DATED THE 23RD OF MARCH AT 3:05 P.M.   I WAS ALERTED TO IT YESTERDAY, AND I RAISED IT THIS MORNING. COUNSEL ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS POSTING?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN INDICATED THE DEFENSE WANTED TO ADDRESS IT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, IT IS OUR FAULT.   I WANT TO ADDRESS IT.   YESTERDAY, WE GOT A PHONE CALL FROM REUTERS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I GOT A CALL FROM REUTERS.

 

THE COURT:   WHO DID?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I DID.   MY SECRETARY TOOK THE CALL. SHE CALLED ME.   SHE SAID, “REUTERS WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE.”   AND I TOLD MY SECRETARY, “TELL THEM THAT JUST WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE.” AND SO THEN SHE GETS BACK TO ME, AND I DIDN’T TALK TO THEM.   SHE GETS BACK TO ME AND SAYS, “WELL, TMZ HAS IT.   HOW COME THEY CAN’T HAVE IT?” I SAID, “WHAT?”   I SAID, “WELL, IT IS NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.”   SO SHE HUNG UP.   THEN SHE RAN TMZ.   I THINK YOU PROBABLY GOT A COPY OF THE ARTICLE.   SHE RAN TMZ, AND SHE SHOWS IT TO ME. I’M THINKING, “OH, GOD, HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED?” SO I BROUGHT IT TO ED’S ATTENTION, AND NONE OF US HAS TALKED TO THE PRESS, BUT I THINK ED CAN EXPLAIN.

 

THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   SO I LOOK AT IT, AND FIRST I THOUGHT THEY HAD THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE.   I, OF COURSE, FREAKED OUT.   I LOOKED AT THE QUESTIONS ON THIS, THEN WE TOOK OUT THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE YOU PROVIDED US.   NONE OF THE QUESTIONS MATCHED UP TO THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT TWO OF THE QUESTIONS WERE QUESTIONS I RECOGNIZED FROM THE DEFENSE JURY QUESTIONS.   AND THEN THERE WERE TWO OTHERS THAT WERE NOT ONES THAT WE REQUESTED BUT WERE SIMILAR TO THE ONES WE REQUESTED. SO I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHO OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE AND MR. FLANAGAN’S OFFICE, AND NAREG WASN’T INVOLVED IN THIS, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, WHERE WOULD THAT HAVE COME FROM, IF THAT IS THE CASE. SO WE TOOK OUT — WE FOUND THE DEFENSE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH IS ONLY ON MY LAPTOP AND I-PAD.   WE WENT, REVIEWED IT WITH WHAT TMZ REPORTED, AND TWO OF THE QUESTIONS WERE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE REQUESTS THAT WE HAD MADE, THEN TWO OF THEM WERE SIMILAR. SO I CALLED AROUND.   I CALLED MY OFFICE TRYING TO LOCATE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT I NEEDED TO KNOW.   TOWARDS THE END OF THE EVENING, I RECOGNIZED THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOME — NOBODY HAD OUR JURY QUESTIONNAIRE.   IF THEY HAD OUR JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, IT WOULD BE PRECISE.   SO I FIGURED OUT THAT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY RECEIVED CAME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. THAT OTHER SOURCE WAS A MEDIA COMPANY WE HIRED TO ANSWER OUR PHONES AND TAKE CALLS, AND I HAD ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE US SOME POSSIBLE JURY QUESTION THEY E-MAILED ME SIX QUESTIONS. I WENT BACK TO MY E-MAIL ACCOUNT.   I FOUND THAT E-MAIL THAT THEY SENT ME.   I LOOKED AT IT, AND IT MATCHED.   THAT IS WHERE THEY HAD TO HAVE GOTTEN IT, SO I CONFRONTED THE COMPANY.   THEY FIRST DENIED IT.   THEN SHOWED THEM EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, THIS OBVIOUSLY IS WHERE THEY GOT IT.   THEY FINALLY ADMITTED IT. ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD LEAKED THOSE QUESTIONS.   NOT MY JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, NOT THE COURT’S QUESTIONNAIRE.   BUT THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD RECOMMENDED TO US, THEY LEAKED THOSE TO TMZ, AND THAT IS WHERE THE STORY CAME FROM. NOW, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THEY ARE FIRED.   IT IS STILL MY RESPONSIBILITY.   I WANTED TO MAKE SURE MR. WALGREN KNEW AND THAT YOU KNEW.

 

THE COURT:   AND MS. BRAZIL.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE TALKED ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. FIRST THING, I LET THEM KNOW. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE DEFENSE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT IN ANYONE’S HANDS.   IT IS ONLY DIGITAL.   IT IS IN THE COURT’S HANDS, AND IT IS IN MY LAPTOP.   WE DIDN’T AUTHORIZE ANY OF THAT RELEASE.   NO ONE HAS SEEN IT.   WE HAVEN’T GIVEN TO IT ANYONE, CERTAINLY NOT THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE.   ALL I CAN DO IS APOLOGIZE. IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN?   MS. BRAZIL?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, YOUR HONOR, OTHER THAN WHEN I SAW THE STORY AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT IS QUOTED IS, IN FACT, VERBATIM FROM THE DEFENSE QUESTIONNAIRE, I MEAN DRAFT QUESTION THAT WAS SUBMITTED, I THINK IT WAS QUESTION 105.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   AND QUESTION 77.   THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO THAT WERE ALMOST VERBATIM, AND I SAW THAT IMMEDIATELY.   NOW, NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS, THANKFULLY, IN RETROSPECT, MADE IT TO THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE.

 

THE COURT:   WE HAVE COVERED A SERIES OF TOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN MODIFICATIONS OF LANGUAGE, AND I DON’T KNOW. MR. GOURJIAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   THANKFULLY, I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE DURING THE DEFENSE PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.   DON’T WORRY ABOUT THAT SOURCE ANYMORE.

 

THE COURT:   I BELIEVE COUNSEL.   I THINK THIS, REGRETTABLY, IS WHAT HAPPENS.   IT JUST SHOWS US THAT WE NEED A VERY SMALL CIRCLE OF PEOPLE AROUND US WHO UNDERSTAND PROFESSIONALISM AND RESPONSIBILITY. I THINK I MADE AS BOLD A STATEMENT AS I COULD THIS MORNING ABOUT THIS REPORT BY CHARACTERIZING IT AS

 BOGUS.   I DON’T KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING ELSE, I SHOULD BE DOING.   I BELIEVE COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL INDICATES THAT THEY DIDN’T DIRECTLY DO ANYTHING IN VIOLATION OF MY ORDER.   THAT THIS IS REALLY KIND OF HISTORY AND, REGRETTABLY, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WILLING TO MAKE A BUCK. I’M SURE IT WASN’T OUT OF SOMEONE’S GOOD HEART THAT SOMEONE DECIDED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION ON THE EVE OF JURY SELECTION.   I DON’T KNOW HOW LONG THE AGENCY MAY HAVE HAD IT, BUT IT JUST REINFORCES THE COURT’S ADMONITIONS TO COUNSEL ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT AND THE CONDUCT OF THEIR TEAMS WHICH OFTEN INVOLVES OTHER PEOPLE.

 

THIS CASE, ONCE AGAIN, WILL NOT BE TRIED IN PRESS RELEASES AND IN INTERVIEWS.   IT WILL BE TRIED IN THE EVIDENCE.   SO THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD, AND I’M GLAD IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, AND I APPRECIATE THE CANDOR OF COUNSEL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING?

 

MR. WALGREN:   A COUPLE POINTS, IF WE HAVE TIME.

 

THE COURT:   SURE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WILL WE GET A LIST OF JURORS, I GUESS, AT A FUTURE DATE, OR ONCE ALL QUESTIONNAIRES ARE SUBMITTED?   WILL WE GET THE STANDARD RANDOM LIST OF JUROR NAMES?

 

THE COURT:   NO.

 

MR. WALGREN:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOT GOING TO GIVE NAMES OF JURORS. I’M GOING TO GIVE THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE BADGE NUMBER.   THEY WILL BE IN ORDER BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE THEIR BADGES FOR THEIR RANDOM ORDER IN THE COURTROOM. WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS YOU WILL SEE ON THE FAR LEFT COLUMN, AS YOU MAY HAVE SEEN BEFORE IN OTHER CASES, A BADGE NUMBER PRESUMABLY FROM ONE TO WHATEVER OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH HARDSHIP.   THAT WILL BE IN THE FAR LEFT.   THEN FOLLOWING IT WILL BE THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE BADGE NUMBER. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CORRELATE THAT INFORMATION IN TERMS OF YOUR RANDOM LIST OF JURORS WHO ARE IN A CERTAIN POSITION WITH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE.

I HAVE DRAMATIC CONCERNS ABOUT JUROR NAMES FLOATING AROUND IN THE UNIVERSE.   I DO NOT THINK IT SERVES ANYONE’S INTERESTS TO HAVE IT OUT THERE. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES, OF COURSE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.   ARE THE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRES NUMBERED SEQUENTIALLY?

 

THE COURT:   THEY SHOULD BE, AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO STRESS IN TERMS OF FIGURING OUT WHO’S WHO.   THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CORRELATE IT WITH THE PARTICULAR LAST FOUR-DIGIT JUROR I.D. NUMBER AND, EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THE ORDER IN WHICH WE EXPECT TO CALL JURORS. NOW, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE HAVE JURORS ONE THROUGH A HUNDRED, THERE ARE GOING TO BE INDIVIDUAL JURORS WHO ARE EXCUSED BETWEEN NOW AND MAY 4TH, OR ON THE DATE OF MAY 4TH, BECAUSE OF THE SAME ISSUES I RAISED EARLIER.   THAT IS THE REALITY. YOU MAY HAVE A SKIP BETWEEN JUROR 4 AND JUROR 7 AND, AGAIN, SO WE WILL KNOW WHO IS NEXT UP.   BECAUSE, BY MAY 4TH, WE WILL KNOW WHO HAS SURVIVED THE HARDSHIP CUT AND ALSO THE GOOD CAUSE CUT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN WE GET TOGETHER AND WE DISCUSS THE QUESTIONNAIRES AND COUNSEL MAY VERY WELL STIPULATE THAT A PARTICULAR JUROR SHOULD BE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE.   WE HAVE HAD THIS HAPPEN. IF THERE IS A PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED AND COUNSEL ARE COMFORTABLE — COUNSEL MAY NOT BE – THEN WE DO IT IN COURT WITH THE JUROR.   BUT THE KEY IS THAT YOU WILL HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND FROM THE JURORS’ PRESENTATION IN THE COURTROOM EXCEPT THE NAME. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   I REALLY DO THINK THIS IS THE TYPE OF CASE WHERE JUROR ANONYMITY IS ABSOLUTELY MANDATED IN FAIRNESS TO ALL THE PARTIES SO THAT WE HAVE JURORS WHO ARE ABSOLUTELY CANDID AND HONEST AND ARE NOT FEARFUL OF BEING HOUNDED BY PEOPLE IN THIS AGE OF CYBER SPACE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   DEFENSE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   WE SHOULD BE GETTING A FLOW OF HARDSHIP RESPONSES.   I’LL BE IN TOUCH WITH JUROR SERVICES BECAUSE OUR IDEA IS TO GO THROUGH THEM.   I’LL NOT MAKE COPIES OF THESE.   WE WILL GO THROUGH THEM AND SEE IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT DEVELOP. YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE SAYS, YES, THAT PERSON WANTS TO SERVE, I THINK THAT ENDS IT. WOULD YOU AGREE, MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I GET THE FEELING WE ARE GOING TO GET ABOUT A GOOD NUMBER THAT ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM.   I DON’T KNOW WHY I GET THAT FEELING.

 

THE COURT:   I THINK THAT IS REALISTIC.   YOU CAN DECIDE AMONGST YOURSELVES WHAT YOU THINK THE PERCENTAGE IS GOING TO BE. IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO SAY YES, IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER I SHOULD BE DOING?   WE ALL AGREE IF THAT PERSON SAYS YES, THAT PERSON GETS A QUESTIONNAIRE.   WHAT HAPPENS AFTER IS ANOTHER STORY. IF THEY SAY NO, IF WE NEED TO QUESTION FURTHER THE JUROR BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF ANY RESPONSE, THEN WE DO. HISTORICALLY, IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH FINANCIAL ISSUES AND THE PERSON CAN PROVIDE US WITH CERTAIN INFORMATION, THAT SHOULD END IT.   BUT THIS COURT IN THE PAST HAS HAD A WORLD FAMOUS PRODUCER WHO CLAIMED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, AND IT WAS LAUGHABLE.   SO YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. AND WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO MEDICAL ISSUES, CARE ISSUES, STUDENTS, TEACHERS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE PREPLANNED VACATIONS, THAT GETS PROBLEMATIC.   SOME PEOPLE ARE PREPARED TO CANCEL THEM.   OTHERS SAY, “LOOK, THIS IS MY YEARLY VACATION WITH MY FAMILY.   HOW CAN I NOT GO?” OF COURSE, WE ARE GOING RIGHT INTO THE SUMMER SEASON, TOO.   THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO AT FACE VALUE MAY NOT HAVE ANY INCOME RELATED ISSUES, BUT THEY DO HAVE ISSUES OF THEIR PERSONAL LIVES.   SO THESE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.   IT IS GOING TO BE A LONG DAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WHEN DOES SCHOOL END HERE?

 

THE COURT:   VARIOUS TIMES.

 

MR. WALGREN:   END OF MAY, JUNE.

 

THE COURT:   KIND OF DEPENDS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   SC IS OUT BEGINNING OF MAY.

 

THE COURT:   BUT, REMEMBER, WE ARE NOT INTERESTED ONLY IN STUDENTS OR TEACHERS, BUT WE ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN FAMILY MEMBERS.   YOU HAVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS WHICH ARE ON A DIFFERENT TRACK.   YOU KNOW, FAMILIES WILL GO AWAY FOR A SUMMER VACATION.   SO THESE ARE ALL THINGS WE HAVE TO DISCUSS. YOU KNOW, IN THE BEST OF ALL WORLDS, WE WOULD

 HAVE THAT POOL.   I’M THINKING OF SOMEWHERE IN THE 90 TO A HUNDRED RANGE AT THIS JUNCTURE.   I DON’T KNOW IF THAT IS TOO FEW, TOO MANY.   THE LAST THING WE NEED IS TO RUN OUT OF JURORS ON MAY 4TH, BUT I NEED IT TO BE A LITTLE MANAGEABLE.   WE HAVE FIRE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY.   I CAN’T FIT EVERYBODY IN THE COURTROOM IF WE GET THAT NUMBER. WE MAY HAVE TO BEGIN THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AND THE EXERCISE OF PEREMPTORIES.   THEN IF WE NEED REPLENISHMENTS, WE GET REPLENISHMENTS.   BUT I’M JUST WONDERING YOUR THOUGHTS ON A NUMBER OR A RANGE OF HARDSHIP QUALIFIED JURORS.   WE ARE NOT EVEN TALKING AT THIS POINT ABOUT OTHER GOOD CAUSE ISSUES, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. WALGREN, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE. WE WILL HAVE SIX ALTERNATES, TOO.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WHEN YOU SAID 90 TO A HUNDRED, YOU WERE THINKING THAT IS HOW MANY WOULD BE COMING BACK MAY 4TH, ESSENTIALLY?

 

THE COURT:   YES.   I WASN’T FACTORING IN NECESSARILY THE NUMBER WE EXCUSE BETWEEN NOW AND MAY 4TH BASED UPON THE WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRES FOR GOOD CAUSE.   I’M TALKING ABOUT LITERALLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE PASSED THROUGH THE HARDSHIP AND THE GOOD CAUSE SCREENING.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME WE ARE AWAY.

 

THE COURT:   BUT SOMETHING HAPPENS.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YOU HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE.   YOU HAVE HAD THIS WHOLE PERIOD OF TIME?

 

THE COURT:   OH, NO.   I DON’T THINK ANY OF US HAS HAD THIS.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IT, SO I WOULDN’T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE WE ARE LIKELY TO LOSE.

 

THE COURT:   EVEN OVERNIGHT, WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS. SOMEBODY GOES HOME AND SAYS, “OH.”

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   “HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?”

 

THE COURT:   “GUESS WHAT,” YOU KNOW, AND SOMEBODY IN THE FAMILY GOES, “DON’T YOU REMEMBER?   I’M HAVING HEART SURGERY TOMORROW.”

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WELL, THEY GET SWORN IN.   AND THE GUY COMES IN THE NEXT DAY AND SAYS, “I MEANT TO TELL YOU, I KNOW THE DEFENDANT.”   HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

 

THE COURT:   SOMETHING OF THAT SORT.   BUT THERE ARE EMERGENCIES THAT DEVELOP.   SOMETHING HAPPENS AT WORK, A HUGE ISSUE.   YOU KNOW, HALF THE OTHER JURORS ARE LAID OFF IN THIS ECONOMIC TIME.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   HOW WILL YOU ADDRESS THAT WITH THE JURY ONCE YOU GET THE 90 OR A HUNDRED?   DO THEY APPROACH YOU BEFOREHAND, OR WOULD THEY MAKE A NOTE TO THE COURT BEFOREHAND?

 

THE COURT:   I’LL BE ASKING QUESTIONS, IN ESSENCE, ABOUT WHETHER THEY OPENLY, AND HONESTLY, AND COMPLETELY ANSWERED THE QUESTIONNAIRE.   THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO PUT A QUESTION MARK NEXT TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS.   WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT ON THE FRONT PAGE.   THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO APPROACH CONFIDENTIALLY.   WE WILL DEAL WITH THAT. I WILL ALSO BE ASKING IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR MAY HAVE COME UP WHICH WOULD AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO SERVE OR WHICH WOULD AFFECT ANY ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE.   GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ADD, OR DELETE, OR MODIFY SOMETHING.   AND THEY WILL KEEP US UPDATED SO WE DON’T HAVE THAT SURPRISE ABOUT ONCE A PERSON IS SWORN AND THE PERSON, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE. I HAVE HAD THAT.   I’M SURE ALL OF US HAD THAT HAPPEN AS WELL.   THAT IS FOR MAY 4TH, BUT THERE IS WORK TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND MAY 4TH AS WELL.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE SHOULD HOPE TO HAVE A HUNDRED ON MAY 4TH WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.

 

THE COURT:   OKAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YOU ANTICIPATE IF A JUROR BETWEEN NOW AND MAY 4TH, LET’S SAY A JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE QUALIFIED, ONE OF THE HUNDRED, ALL OF A SUDDEN HAS AN EMERGENCY, YOU ANTICIPATE THEY WOULD CALL THE COURT?

 

THE COURT:   THEY ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN CALL-BACK NUMBERS TO THIS COURTROOM.   ONCE THEY ARE SWORN JURORS, THEY ARE OURS.   THEY ARE NOT WITH JUROR SERVICES ANYMORE. MS. BENSON, THE COURT CLERK, CAN BE KEPT A LITTLE BIT BUSY, BUT WE HAVE HAD THAT HAPPEN.   A FAMILY MEMBER MAY CALL.   THE JUROR MAY CALL.   AND, GOD FORBID, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO A JUROR HIMSELF OR HERSELF, A FAMILY MEMBER CALLS AND SAYS THIS PERSON IS IN DISTRESS. THEN WE WILL MEET AND CONFER, AND WE DETERMINE.   WE TRY TO GET SOME VERIFICATION, AND THEN WE MAKE A DETERMINATION IF WE ARE GOING TO STIPULATE THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXCUSE A JUROR.   IT WILL HAPPEN.   IT MAY NOT HAPPEN UNTIL THAT MORNING, BUT IT WILL HAPPEN. YOU CAN ONLY DO WHAT YOU CAN DO. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT COUNSEL WILL HAVE THE QUESTIONNAIRES AND WILL HAVE THE RANDOM ORDER IN WHICH WE EXPECT JURORS TO SERVE.   THAT ISN’T NECESSARILY THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WILL COME.   THERE MAY BE CHANGES BECAUSE OF JURORS DROPPING OFF.   THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE, UNDER EXISTING CASE LAW, THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD UNTIL THE JUROR IS ACTUALLY CALLED TO THE BOX. THERE IS NO RIGHT OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO EVERY QUESTIONNAIRE BY EVERY POTENTIAL JUROR.   YOU WILL HAVE AN IDEA, BUT YOU WON’T KNOW EXACTLY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   BEAR WITH ME A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING.   YOU HAD SAID EARLIER ABOUT SOMETHING.   YOU SAID ABOUT 21 IN A BOX, OR 24 IN A BOX, OR 25 IN A BOX. I DIDN’T WRITE IT DOWN.   HAVE YOU ALREADY MADE THAT DETERMINATION?

 

THE COURT:   YES.   IT IS NOT UNUSUAL ON THIS FLOOR, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE CASES, AND WE HAVE ELONGATED JURY BOXES.   YOU MAY NOT HAVE EVEN NOTICED IT, BUT THE BOXES HAVE THREE EXTRA SEATS IN EACH ROW OF THE BOX. THEY USED TO JUST HAVE SIX.   YOU WOULD HAVE SIX AND SIX. THAT WOULD BE IT.   OUR BOXES ON THE NINTH FLOOR HAVE NINE. SO YOU HAVE NINE SEATS IN THE BACK ROW WHICH WE DESIGNATE AS JURORS 1 THROUGH 9.   THEN YOU HAVE NINE SEATS IN THE FRONT ROW, WHICH WE DESIGNATE AS JURORS, FOR THIS PURPOSE OF VOIR DIRE, 10 THROUGH 18.   THEN WE HAVE IN FRONT OF THE JURY BOX NINE ADDITIONAL SEATS, DESIGNATED 19 THROUGH 27.   THE CORE JURY IS IN SEATS 1 THROUGH 12. WE FIND IT HELPFUL AND EXPEDITIOUS TO HAVE OUR INQUIRY DIRECTED TO A LARGER NUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS UP FRONT.   THAT IS MANAGEABLE.   ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON THIS FLOOR DOES THE WHOLE COURTROOM.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS HOW WE DO IT IN TEXAS.

 

THE COURT:   REALLY?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS WHY I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND.   WE LITERALLY TALK TO THE ENTIRE PANEL.

 

THE COURT:   SO YOU ARE READY TO GO.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   READY TO GO MAKE OUR STRIKES, AND WE ARE DONE.

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK AT THE VERY LEAST YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THEIR FEET OR SOME PART OF THEIR BODY.   IF SOMEBODY IS IN THE BACK ROW, I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IT’S NOT EASY.

 

THE COURT:   I’M SENSITIVE TO THAT.   SO IT IS KIND OF A MODIFIED PACK, SO WE HAVE 27.   YOU AND I ARE TALKING TO THE PEOPLE IN SEATS 1 THROUGH 27.   WHEN WE GET TO THE EXERCISE OF PEREMPTORY STRIKES, THEY ARE DIRECTED TO THE PEOPLE IN SEATS 1 THROUGH 12, THEN WE BACKFILL WITH THE PEOPLE IN SEATS 13 THROUGH 27.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IMMEDIATELY?

 

THE COURT:   YES.   IT IS KIND OF A DOMINO EFFECT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   AND THOSE JURORS WALK OUT?

 

THE COURT:   YES.   IF ONE OF THE JURORS IN ONE OF THOSE SEATS 1 THROUGH 27 DOESN’T SHOW AT A POINT, OR IS EXCUSED BEFORE PEREMPTORIES FOR SOME OTHER REASON, LIKE CAUSE, WE DON’T KEEP SHUFFLING EVERYBODY AROUND.   WE WILL TAKE SOMEBODY FROM SEAT NO. 28.   THE PERSON IN THE BACK THEN MOVES TO THAT VACATED SEAT. BUT ONCE WE BEGIN EXERCISING PEREMPTORIES, THE PEREMPTORIES ARE DIRECTED TO THE JURORS IN SEATS 1 THROUGH 12.   THEN THEY MOVE ACCORDINGLY.   NO. 13 MOVES TO THE VACANT SEAT, THEN 14, ET CETERA. EACH SIDE, AS YOU KNOW, GETS TEN PEREMPTORIES, AND WE ARE GOING HAVE SIX ALTERNATES.   AND EACH SIDE GETS A NUMBER EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF ALTERNATES, WHICH IS SIX.   SO EACH SIDE HAS SIX PEREMPTORIES TO THE ALTERNATE JURORS.   THAT IS HOW I EXPECT IT TO GO.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE FIRST 12 ARE THE JURY, THEN THE ALTERNATES, ARE THEY DESIGNATED 1 THROUGH 6 AND DO THEY SERVE IN THAT ORDER —

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   — OR RANDOM?

 

THE COURT:   ABSOLUTELY RANDOM.   THAT IS THEIR SEAT NUMBER.   IF AND WHEN IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO SUBSTITUTE AN ALTERNATE FOR A REGULAR JUROR, THAT SELECTION IS DONE RANDOMLY AND I LET THEM KNOW.   SO ONE DOESN’T THINK THAT ALTERNATE JUROR 1 IS NEXT UP.   THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL. IT IS DONE BY PUTTING THE JUROR NUMBER, ALTERNATE 1 THROUGH 6, ON A POST-IT, FOLDING IT, PUTTING IT IN A BASKET, SUFFICIENTLY SHAKING THEM AROUND AND DRAMATICALLY CHOOSING WHICH JUROR.   THAT WAY, THEY ALL PAY ATTENTION.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WHEN DO WE LEARN WHAT 1 THROUGH 27 IS GOING TO BE?   AT WHAT POINT DO WE LEARN THAT?

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T THINK WE WILL KNOW UNTIL THE 4TH.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CHANGE. AGAIN, YOU WILL HAVE A LIST OF THE RANDOM JURORS IN ORDER AND THE RANDOM LIST IS DONE BY A COMPUTER.   IT JUST SHUFFLES THE PEOPLE.   WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL RANDOMIZE TODAY AND TOMORROW, ASSUMING WE DON’T HAVE A HUNDRED AND SOMETHING WHO COME OUT OF TODAY.   WE WILL RANDOMIZE THE JURORS SO THAT THE JURORS WHO ARE CALLED TODAY ARE SOMEHOW NOT AHEAD OF THE JURORS TOMORROW.   OUR POOL IS THE NUMBER OF JURORS FROM TODAY AND TOMORROW AND, IF WE HAVE TO, NEXT WEEK, WHICH I DON’T THINK WE WILL HAVE TO. THE JURY SERVICES AGENTS WILL RANDOMIZE THAT BY COMPUTER, AND YOU WILL GET THE LIST BY THE LAST FOUR DIGITS AND PROPOSED SEATING ORDER WHICH IS NOT FINALIZED UNTIL THAT DAY.   SO WE HAVE GOT TO HANG AROUND.   IT IS A LONG DAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW HOW THEY DO IT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, BUT IN TEXAS DO THEY, ONCE THEY GO OUT FOR DELIBERATIONS, DO THEY STAY OUT UNTIL THEY REACH A VERDICT?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THEY DID.

 

THE COURT:   OVERNIGHT?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WELL.   DO YOU MEAN DO WE SEQUESTER THEM?

 

THE COURT:   NOT EVEN —

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO.   WE JUST SEND THEM HOME, AND THEY COME BACK NEXT DAY AND KEEP DELIBERATING.

 

THE COURT:   DOES NEXT DAY MEAN THE WEEKEND?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THEY WON’T COME BACK SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.

 

THE COURT:   THERE ARE JURISDICTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH SAY YOU BEGIN YOUR DELIBERATIONS AND WE WILL BE WAITING FOR YOU, AND THEY STAY OUT ALL NIGHT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE SIT AROUND, WAIT FOR THE JURY AND THEY SEND OUT QUESTIONS, THEN WE SEND THEM HOME AT NIGHT. THEY COME BACK.

 

THE COURT:   I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA ARE EQUALLY ENLIGHTENEND.   TODAY, BECAUSE WE NEED TO KNOW WHETHER TO HAVE PEOPLE COME BACK, WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET BACK ALL THE WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRES BECAUSE I DON’T WANT JURORS LEAVING THE CONFINES OF OUR SECURE FACILITIES AND GOING OUT THERE UNTIL THEY HAVE COMPLETED THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE.   I THINK THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROPOSITION.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE HAVE TO MAKE COPIES.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO ACTUALLY COPY THE SIGNED QUESTIONNAIRES.   I’LL NOT DO THAT UNTIL WE HAVE RANDOMIZED PEOPLE SO THEY CAN BE NUMBERED.   SO WE WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO DO THAT. THAT MAY NOT BE REALISTICALLY UNTIL NEXT WEEK.   ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THIS AMOUNT OF TIME.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   IF YOU HAVE A HUNDRED, YOU WILL HAVE 29 PAGES.   2,900 PAGES.

 

THE COURT:   DO THE MATH.   YOU HAVE TO HAVE REPRODUCTIONS FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE DEFENSE, AND I WANT MY OWN.   IT IS A LOT OF PHOTOCOPYING.   THE D.A.’S OFFICE IS VERY GOOD AT DOING IT.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   DOES IT COME BATES STAMPED AND WATERMARKED FROM THE D.A.’S OFFICE?

 

THE COURT:   WE WILL WORRY ABOUT THAT A LITTLE LATER.   RIGHT NOW, I JUST WANT TO GET THROUGH WITH THE HARDSHIP PART.   THE SOONER I EVALUATE HARDSHIP, THE SOONER PEOPLE CAN LEAVE AND GO TO ANOTHER FLOOR TO FILL OUT THEIR JURY SERVICE.   THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. PEOPLE ARE EXCUSED ON THIS CASE.   THOSE PEOPLE GO TO ANOTHER FLOOR AND THEY ARE PART OF THE POOL FOR OTHER CASES.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OH, THAT IS TERRIBLE.   THOSE POOR GUYS.

 

THE COURT:   AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO START QUESTIONNAIRES, I WANT THEM TO DO IT REALLY QUICK.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IT WILL TAKE A WHILE.

 

THE COURT:   I’M RUNNING ABOUT HALF AN HOUR BEHIND WHAT I EXPECTED BECAUSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES THIS MORNING.   BUT THE FACT THAT WE GOT THAT NUMBER OF JUROR RETURNS IS REMARKABLE.   I THINK WE HAVE 159 NOW.   THEY TOLD ME THERE HAS BEEN A REVISION.   I WAS TOLD THERE WAS 160.   APPARENTLY, THE ACTUAL TOTAL IS 159, AND I CAN VERIFY IT.   SO ANYWAY, THAT IS OUR STATUS. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE PUBLIC, AND THEY ARE BEING REPORTED BY.  AND IF ANYBODY WANTS THEM TRANSCRIBED, THEY WILL BE TRANSCRIBED. AGAIN, I THANK MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN FOR THEIR CANDOR.   I THINK IT IS EMBARRASSING.   AND AGAIN, IT JUST CAUTIONS US TO BE VIGILANT.   OKAY.   SEE YOU IN A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU.

 

 

 (11:00 A.M., AN IN CHAMBERS CONFERENCE, PAGES 53-115, HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER, BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)

 

                    18

 

                    19

 

                    20

 

                    21

 

                    22

 

                    23

 

                    24

 

                    25

 

                    26

 

                    27

 

                    28

 

(PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED TO 8:30 A.M., MARCH 24, 2011.)