P V CM March 2nd 2011

DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY ED CHERNOFF,   J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN,

 

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

 

ALSO PRESENT IS NAREG GOURJIAN, ESQ.

 

 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CAMERA WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT:)

 

THE COURT:   ON THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, DR. MURRAY IS PRESENT WITH COUNSEL.   WE HAVE GOT MR. CHERNOFF, AND MR. FLANAGAN, MR. GOURJIAN. WE HAVE MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL, AND IT IS ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE HOUR. I’VE BEEN WAITING, BUT I UNDERSTAND COUNSEL HAVE BEEN CONFERRING ACCORDING TO THE STAFF.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE HAVE BEEN TALKING.

 

THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF IS VERY ILL.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I’M OKAY, JUDGE. WE TALKED YESTERDAY, MR. WALGREN AND I.   WE TALKED TODAY.   HERE IS THE STATE OF OUR EXPERTS.   WE WENT DOWN TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE YESTERDAY.   A VERY GRACIOUS POLICE OFFICER STAYED WITH US FOR A LONG TIME TO DO THAT.   WE GOT THE PHOTOS YESTERDAY.   I WENT DOWN TO MR. WALGREN’S OFFICE, AND HE COPIED THEM FOR US.   WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT A LOT OF THE THINGS THERE.   I GOT THOSE PHOTOS OUT TO OUR EXPERT, ONE OF OUR EXPERTS, WHO NEEDS IT. I GAVE THE C.V. TO MR. WALGREN YESTERDAY.   HE KNOWS WHO THAT IS.   HE IS A MEDICAL EXAMINER.   HE NEEDED THOSE PHOTOS AND THE SLIDES. NOW, WE HAVE CALLED THE CORONER, ELYSSA FLEAK, THREE TIMES.   WE HAVE CALLED HER TO TRY TO MAKE SOME ARRANGEMENTS TO GET THOSE SLIDES BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WE HAVE, HE IS A CONSULTING EXPERT RIGHT NOW, BUT IN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION I GAVE C.V. AND NAME TO MR. WALGREN.   HE NEEDS TO SEE THE SLIDES.   SO WE HAVE GOT THAT GOING ON. WE HAVE ANOTHER EXPERT, FINANCIAL EXPERT.   WE WERE ABLE TO PULL UP SOME STUFF, AND MR. WALGREN IS TALKING TO THAT EXPERT.   HE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A WITNESS. WE HAVE THE FINGERPRINTS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   YOU MEAN MR. FLANAGAN.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   MR. FLANAGAN.   I’M SORRY. WE HAVE THE FINGERPRINTS THAT WE GOT LAST WEEK PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER.   AND MR. WALGREN IS IN THE PROCESS OF AN ANALYSIS.   THEY HAVEN’T GOT IT YET, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO OUR OWN ANALYSIS.   THAT MAY BE ANOTHER EXPERT. I WAS INFORMED YESTERDAY BY MR. WALGREN THAT HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING ANOTHER EXPERT WHICH WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, AND I ASSUME WE WILL BE GIVEN THAT INFORMATION WITHIN THE TWO WEEKS OR SO, TEN DAYS OR

TWO WEEKS. SO HERE IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, JUDGE.   OUR CONCERN IS IF WE DO A GENERAL WAIVER, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS WE ARE GOING TO BE MONTHS AND MONTHS IN THE PROCESS.   WE CAN’T AFFORD TO DO THAT, OKAY. NOW, MR. WALGREN AND I DISCUSSED THE PROPOSITION OF STIPULATING TO A NEW END DATE WITHOUT A WAIVER, GETTING US INTO A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE BOTH MR. WALGREN AND I CAN PROVIDE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY ON THESE EXPERTS, BUT THAT WOULD NOT PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE ARE ESSENTIALLY CHURNING IT OUT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. WE ARE BOTH IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.   WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT.   WE ARE THINKING SOMEWHERE LATE APRIL.

 

THE COURT:   FOR WHAT?

MR. CHERNOFF:   FOR THE TRIAL.

THE COURT:   LET ME HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   MORE SPECIFICALLY, I THINK EVERYONE APPRECIATED THE GENERAL SCHEDULING THE COURT HAD SET UP WITH THE THURSDAY, FRIDAY JURY SELECTION, DARK THE NEXT WEEK, THAT GENERAL SCHEDULE. SO OUR DISCUSSION WAS A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO DATES, THINKING THURSDAY, APRIL 28, AND FRIDAY, APRIL 29.   THAT THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, WE DO THE TWO GROUPS OF 50 EACH DAY, DARK THE FOLLOWING WEEK OF MAY 2ND TO DO QUESTIONNAIRES, AND THEN STARTING JURY SELECTION AND EVIDENCE THE WEEK OF MAY 9.

 

THE COURT:   I HAVEN’T HEARD THE DEFENSE YET ARTICULATE A BASIS FOR A GOOD CAUSE CONTINUANCE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I’M NOT ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE. THE PROSECUTION HAS ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE.   WE ARE WILLING TO AGREE TO STIPULATE TO A NEW DATE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PROSECUTION.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE BASICALLY WILLING TO STIPULATE TO GOOD CAUSE WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO —

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. IN ORDER TO CONTINUE A CASE, IF THAT IN FACT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, THE PARTICULAR MOVING PARTY HAS TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR A CONTINUANCE. AND WE KNOW THAT UNDER THE PENAL CODE AND CASE LAW, COUNSEL’S STIPULATION TO GOOD CAUSE IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO A FINDING OF GOOD CAUSE. THE DEFENSE IS EITHER READY OR NOT READY. THE PEOPLE ARE EITHER READY OR NOT READY, AND I NEED TO HAVE SOME DIRECTION.   I’VE GOT 320 JURORS WHO ARE BEING SUMMONED FOR THE DATES AT THE END OF MARCH, AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF A START DATE SOMETIME A WEEK AND A HALF LATER SO THAT COUNSEL WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THE QUESTIONNAIRES AND OTHERWISE PREPARE. WHY CAN’T WE STILL DO HARDSHIP SCREENING ON THE DATES INDICATED AT THE END OF MARCH, AND THEN DISCUSS PUTTING OVER THE REMAINDER OF VOIR DIRE AND THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE FOR A MONTH OR SO?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE CAN.

MR. FLANAGAN:   HAVE THOSE JURORS WAIT FOR A MONTH?

 

THE COURT:   THEY ARE NOT WAITING.   THEY WILL KNOW THAT THEY ARE BEING SCREENED FOR HARDSHIP, AND ACTUALLY I THINK A LOT OF THEM WOULD APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, IN ESSENCE, PREPARE TO CLEAR THEIR SCHEDULES.   BUT I WOULD BEGIN WITH THE JURORS.   AND IF COUNSEL NEED ADDITIONAL PREPARATION TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE IT. I DON’T THINK THE JURORS WILL BE INCONVENIENCED.   IF THEY ARE, THEY WILL TELL US THEY ARE INCONVENIENCED.   I THINK IN A WAY, IT ACTUALLY SAVES THE JURORS IN PLANNING OUT THEIR SPRING AND SUMMER SCHEDULES BY DOING THAT. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO UNTIL THE COURT IS IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT THE PARTIES ARE READY AND WE HAVE JURORS WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE HARDSHIP PROCESS. MS. BRAZIL, MR. WALGREN, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   MY ONLY CONCERN ON THAT, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT IN FRAMING THE QUESTIONNAIRE, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO BE AWARE OF AS MANY ISSUES AS POSSIBLE TO DRAFT AND SUBMIT TO THE JURY AN APPROPRIATE QUESTIONNAIRE.   WE DON’T HAVE A LOT OF THE REPORTS.   I DON’T NEED TO GO INTO   IT RIGHT NOW.   WE ARE LOOKING A LOT OF DISCOVERY AND THE EXPERT REPORTS, AND THAT MIGHT RAISE ISSUES WE WANT TO ADDRESS IN A QUESTIONNAIRE, OBVIOUSLY IN GENERAL TERMS OR IN TERMS THAT THE COURT FOUND APPROPRIATE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL AND PEOPLE AGREED ON. BUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS A BIT OF A CONCERN ON THE TIMING ISSUE.   IF WE ARE GOING TO BE HAVING TO HAVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE DONE AND SUBMITTED TO THEM AND WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR DISCOVERY, THAT WOULD BRING UP ISSUES WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE ADDRESSED IN THAT QUESTIONNAIRE.   THAT RAISES A CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

THE COURT:   WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT EXPRESSED CONCERN, I WANT TO KEEP THE CASE ON A REASONABLE TRACK AND I DO NOT WANT TO BURN 320 JURORS WHO HAVE RECEIVED EMERGENCY SUMMONSES IN THIS CASE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THEY HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THEM?

 

THE COURT:   SURE.   THEY WERE SENT OUT WHEN THE CASE ANNOUNCED READY TO GO WITHIN 60 DAYS.   IT TAKES QUITE A WHILE TO GET PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN L.A. COUNTY.   IT IS NOT DONE LIGHTLY.   AND BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE TRIAL AND THE NEED FOR SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS, THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE SENT OUT, I BELIEVE, 320 ADDITIONAL SUMMONSES AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BURN THEM. I THINK WE CAN BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A VERY GOOD HANDLE ON PROSPECTIVE QUESTIONS.   IF IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE, THEN I’LL HAVE TO ADDRESS IT ANOTHER TIME AND MAKE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER I WANT TO VACATE THE JURY SELECTION START DATE. BUT I STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT ALL THIS MEANS IF THE DEFENSE ISN’T WAIVING TIME.   I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. FLANAGAN SAID A COUPLE DAYS AGO ABOUT SOME ISSUES PENDING IN THE STATES OF NEVADA AND TEXAS, BUT —

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHEN YOU WAIVE TIME, YOU GO TO DAY ZERO.

 

THE COURT:   NO.   YOU GO TO WHATEVER DAY YOU WANT IT.   YOU CAN CALL IT ZERO OF BLANK.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I THINK THEN, I GUESS WE COULD.

 

MR. WALGREN:   MY UNDERSTANDING WAS YOU ARE WILLING TO WAIVE UNLESS WE ARE WAIVING TO A DATE CERTAIN AS A LAST DAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   MY POINT IS WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE AN UNCERTAIN PROPOSITION WHERE WE ARE JUST STRINGING ALONG. BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO PICK A JURY, WE DON’T HAVE THAT PROBLEM.

 

THE COURT:   NO, WE DON’T BECAUSE —

MR. FLANAGAN:   TRIAL COMMENCES.

MR. CHERNOFF:   THERE IS NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER.

 

THE COURT:   TRIAL COMMENCES AND COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY WANT TO AGREE ABSOLUTELY THAT AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED, TRIAL HAS COMMENCED WITHIN THE REQUISITE TIME FRAME.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   AND THE COURT HAS DISCRETION THEREAFTER TO ADJUST ITS SCHEDULE.   I DON’T WANT TO PUT THE PARTIES IN AN UNTENABLE SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE MASSIVE DELAYS ONCE WE HAVE STARTED WITH THE EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF THE TRIAL.   WE HAVE LOTS OF ISSUES WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOU DON’T MIND A MONTH DELAY BETWEEN JURY SELECTION?

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T.   I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE.   I MEAN, I DON’T KNOW.   I DON’T KNOW HOW IT WILL WORK OUT.   I WILL SPEAK AGAIN WITH THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE.   I DON’T THINK IT IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE FOR THE JURORS.   I THINK WE WILL TELL THE JURORS THAT WHILE WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING HARDSHIP ON THESE DAYS, REALISTICALLY WE WILL HAVE YOU COME BACK IN A

MONTH.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO GET JURORS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PREPARE FOR THAT EVENTUALITY.

 

THE COURT:   THEY CAN PREPARE, OR THEY THEN CAN COME BACK AND SAY, “YOU KNOW WHAT.   STUFF HAS COME UP.” MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL ARE A LITTLE CONCERNED.

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO.   JUST CLARITY THEN.   WHEN WOULD THEY BE FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES?

 

THE COURT:   ON THE 24TH AND, IF WE HAD TO, ON THE 25TH.   WE WILL HAVE 160 ON EACH DAY.   I WANT TO REALISTICALLY HAVE APPROXIMATELY 75 OR SO HARDSHIP QUALIFIED JURORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE READY, WILLING, AND ABLE TO FILL OUT THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES.   THAT WOULD BE ON THE 24TH OR 25TH OF MARCH.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THEN WOULD WE RETURN A WEEK LATER TO   SELECT THE JURY AND THEN LET THEM SIT, OR WOULD WE RETURN?

 

THE COURT:   THREE OR FOUR WEEKS LATER.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   A MONTH LATER AND SELECT THEM, THEN GO RIGHT INTO EVIDENCE.

 

THE COURT:   YES.   NOW, THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT MR. WALGREN RAISED.   THAT IS, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ITS PRESENTATION TO THE JURORS AND THE ACTUAL VOIR DIRE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JURORS, I THINK WE WILL JUST HAVE TO ADDRESS IT.   I BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE A GOOD ENOUGH QUESTIONNAIRE THAT IT WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUES.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   IF WE HAVE VOIR DIRE, WE CAN COVER IT IN ORAL VOIR DIRE, ANYTHING THAT COMES UP IN THE MEANTIME.   I’M SURE THERE CAN’T BE TOO MANY THINGS COME UP, BUT IT COULD BE COVERED ORALLY.

 

THE COURT:   I WANT TO AVOID AS MUCH AS I CAN EXTENSIVE ORAL VOIR DIRE.   THAT IS THE REASON I’M UTILIZING A VERY INTENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRE BASED VOIR DIRE.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   YOUR HONOR, MY ONLY CONCERN IS IN THE INTERIM FROM MARCH 24TH AND 25TH UNTIL THE TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY COMMENCE SELECTION OF THE JURY, THAT WE MAY NEED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL VOIR DIRE ON THE ISSUE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY BECAUSE I CAN ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA THAT WOULDN’T BE ADDRESSED IN THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AS IT IS PROCESSED AT THE END OF MARCH.

 

THE COURT:   THAT WOULD OCCUR EVEN IF THERE WERE A TWO-DAY TIME PERIOD GAP.   I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT. CERTAINLY, WHAT I WOULD DO WHEN THE JURORS COME BACK IS GIVE EACH JUROR HIS OR HER QUESTIONNAIRE AND ASK IF IT STILL REMAINS TRUE AND ACCURATE.   AND IF ANYTHING HAS COME TO THEIR ATTENTION WITHIN THE INTERVENING TIME FROM THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNTIL ORAL VOIR DIRE, THEY SHOULD BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.   I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT. IT HAS HAPPENED WHEN WE HAVE DONE ORAL VOIR DIRE, AND THERE HAS BEEN A REPORT IN THE L.A. TIMES ON A CASE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT NEXT MORNING AND WE HAVE HAD THAT ACTUALLY HAPPEN DURING VOIR DIRE. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO IN THAT REGARD.   IF, IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO, IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE WE CAN COMPLY WITH THAT PROCEDURE, I’LL HAVE TO REEVALUATE.   BUT RIGHT NOW, I HAVE AN INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THAT DR. MURRAY’S TEAM IS PREPARED, THAT THE PEOPLE’S TEAM IS PREPARED, AND THAT I HAVE JURORS WHO ARE NOT BURNED.

 

MR. WALGREN:   BASED ON THAT PROPOSAL THEN, WE WILL DO THE QUESTIONNAIRES THE 24TH AND 25TH, AS NEEDED.

 

THE COURT:   AND POTENTIALLY EVEN TO THE 28TH, DEPENDING HOW MANY PROSPECTIVE JURORS I GET.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE THEN WOULD HAVE THE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR BASICALLY A MONTH OR SO AND START JURY SELECTION MAY 9.

 

THE COURT:   WAS IT GOING TO GO THAT FAR OUT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THURSDAY, FRIDAY, BEING APRIL 28, 29, QUESTIONNAIRES.   THE NEXT WEEK DARK.   START JURY SELECTION MAY 9.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I THOUGHT IT WAS MARCH 23 AND 24 WAS THE QUESTIONNAIRES.

 

THE COURT:   I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN’T BRING IT TO THE VERY, VERY BEGINNING OF MAY INSTEAD OF THE 9TH. LIKE, WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK IS THE 28TH?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS A THURSDAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THE VERY BEGINNING IS GOING TO BE THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS OKAY.   WHY CAN’T WE START LIKE THE — WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK IS THE 30TH?

 

MR. WALGREN:   MAY 9 IS A MONDAY.

THE COURT:   I’M TALKING ABOUT THE WEEK BEFORE.

 

MS. BRAZIL:   MAY 2ND IS A MONDAY.   THE FIRST MONDAY IN MAY IS THE 2ND.

 

THE COURT:   WE CAN START THE MIDDLE OF THAT WEEK, THE 4TH OR 5TH.   THIS IS AGAIN FOR VOIR DIRE.   IT IS NOT FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, SO THAT PRESUMABLY WE COULD BE READY TO START WITH PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK THEREAFTER.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   MAY 9.

 

MR. WALGREN:   SO ALL OF THIS IS SET WITH KIND OF THE GOAL OF EVIDENCE PRESENTATION BEGINNING MAY 9.

 

THE COURT:   YES.

MR. WALGREN:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   I AGAIN HAVE TO TALK WITH THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE.   MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THEY THINK THIS IS VERY DOABLE, AND I THINK IT IS BECAUSE I THINK IT ACTUALLY GIVES THE JURORS A BENEFIT IN THE SENSE THAT THE JURORS CAN CLEAR THEIR SCHEDULES.   THEY ARE NOT GETTING EVERYTHING DUMPED ON THEM THE DAY THEY APPEAR IN THE COURTHOUSE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WORST CASE SCENARIO, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT THAT WAY, WE WOULD START THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON APRIL 27 OR 28, WHATEVER THOSE DATES WERE.   BUT WE WILL DO IT A MONTH EARLIER FOR CONVENIENCE.

 

THE COURT:   I WANT TO SEE HOW THE JURY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE REACTS TO THIS PROPOSAL.   THIS IS OUR PLAN.   THERE IS STILL A LOT OF THINGS WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.   IT IS 21 MINUTES AFTER THE HOUR.   THIS IS ALL ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.   I DON’T KNOW WHY WE COULDN’T HAVE DONE THIS IN PUBLIC OPEN COURT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE DIDN’T WANT TO SPRING IT ON YOU. THAT’S ALL.

 

THE COURT:   YOU SPRUNG IT ON ME. BUT I NEED A CLEAR AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS FOR PREPARATION AND INVESTIGATION.   I DON’T WANT DR. MURRAY TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE HE FEELS THAT HE IS NOT GETTING A SPEEDY JURY TRIAL.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   HE DOESN’T.

 

THE COURT:   THAT WE ARE USING SOME SORT OF ARTIFICE IT IS FOR INVESTIGATION AND INVESTIGATION. DR. MURRAY, YOU HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   IS THIS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   IT IS ONLY ACCEPTABLE TO ME IF THIS IS NOT STRUNG ALONG OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.   I DON’T WANT TO LOSE OR WAIVE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.   BUT IF THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION AGREE TO A NEW START DATE AND IT IS STIPULATED FOR THE CONDITIONS YOU MENTIONED, I’LL ACCEPT.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT BEGRUDGINGLY BECAUSE I’M READY TO START THIS CASE.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   ONCE WE HAVE FIXED START DATES, YOUR HONOR, AND WE CAN AGREE NOW, I WILL AGREE.

 

THE COURT:   WOULD YOU AGREE YOU ARE RECEIVING A SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   I WILL ACCEPT THAT AS SPEEDY.

 

THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF, ARE YOU SATISFIED?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I THINK THAT IS FANTASTIC.

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN?

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES, IT WORKS.

 

THE COURT:   DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO.   THAT IS AGREEABLE.

THE COURT:   MS. BRAZIL?

MS. BRAZIL:   NO, YOUR HONOR.   IT IS AGREEABLE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I THINK IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IF JURY SELECTION STARTS EITHER THE 24TH OR 25TH OF MARCH; OR, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, I DON’T THINK WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO GOING TO THE FOLLOWING MONTH, THE 24TH, 25TH, OR WHATEVER WORKS OUT IN APRIL IF THE JURY COMMISSIONER SAYS THAT.   I THINK WE CAN WORK IT OUT WITH OUR GOAL TO START EVIDENCE ON MAY 9.

 

THE COURT:   YES.   BUT IF WE GO PAST THE 28TH OF APRIL, THEN I WOULD NEED A WAIVER OF SPEEDY JURY TRIAL AND DR. MURRAY IS SHAKING HIS HEAD.   SO UNLESS THE DEFENSE WANTS TO DO THAT, THEN I’M JUST GOING TO STICK WITH THAT ORIGINAL DATE OF MARCH 24. I MEAN THERE ARE ISSUES UNDER 1054.3.   I STILL HAVE TO RESOLVE CERTAIN ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS ANY SANCTIONS INVOLVED.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHY DO YOU SAY 1054.3 AS OPPOSED TO 1054.1?

 

THE COURT:   THAT WAS THE MOTION RAISED BY THE PEOPLE.   THE PEOPLE WERE SAYING THEY WANTED A CONTINUANCE, THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE UNDER 1054.3.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I DON’T THINK THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR, IS IT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE WERE SAYING WE WANTED TO VACATE THE TRIAL DATE BECAUSE WE DID NOT FEEL THAT DEFENSE WAS READY.   THE DEFENSE HAD INDICATED ON THE RECORD THEY WERE NOT READY, AND WE DID NOT HAVE OUR DISCOVERY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   CAN I RESPOND TO THAT SINCE I WASN’T HERE.   IT IS A BIT INSULTING TO SAY THE DEFENSE IS NOT READY. IT IS TRUE THAT THE DEFENSE HAS NOT PRODUCED TO THE PROSECUTION CERTAIN DISCOVERY AS A RESULT OF THE TIME SITUATION, BUT TO SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE READY ON THE START OF TRIAL IS NOT TRUE.   THAT IS LIKE SAYING THE PROSECUTION IS NOT READY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T PRESENTED SOMETHING.   THEY ARE WILLING TO STIPULATE THEY ARE NOT READY.   THAT IS FINE. I THINK WE CAN GET THIS THING RESOLVED IN A FAIR AND AMICABLE WAY THAT WILL GET US ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AT THE SAME TIME.   I THINK THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU MADE MAKES IT SO.

 

THE COURT:   THE FACT REMAINS THIS HAS BECOME AN ISSUE.   AND WHILE MR. FLANAGAN INDICATED THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD BE READY BY THE TRIAL DATE, MR. FLANAGAN INDICATED IN OPEN COURT AND ALSO APPARENTLY TO AT LEAST ONE MEDIA OUTLET THAT I READ, WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT, THAT WHILE THE DEFENSE HAS TO BE READY BEFORE TRIAL, IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE READY 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL AND DOESN’T HAVE TO GIVE PEOPLE NECESSARY INFORMATION.   WE DISAGREED.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT.   I DID NOT SAY THAT.   THE PEOPLE HAVE REPORTS TO GET.   THEY HAVEN’T — IF YOU WANT TO CALL US A 1054.3 VIOLATION, THERE IS ALSO A 1054.1 VIOLATION.   THE PEOPLE ARE STILL GETTING REPORTS. I’VE REPRESENTED THAT WE WOULD BE READY ON DAY OF TRIAL.   I STILL FEEL THAT WE COULD BE READY ON DAY OF TRIAL EVEN IF THE PEOPLE GET US THE REPORTS.   BUT TO SAY THAT EVERYBODY, EVERY BIT OF DISCOVERY HAS TO HAVE BEEN DONE 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL, I’VE NEVER EVEN SEEN A CASE WHERE THAT WOULD BE TRUE.   WHAT WOULD WE DO? TAKE 30 DAYS OFF BEFORE WE GO TO TRIAL FROM THE TIME WE HAVE PRODUCED EVERYTHING? I MEAN A LOT OF THE STUFF WE WILL PRODUCE IS DOCUMENTARY.   I MEAN WE HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO GET THE PEOPLE OUR DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.   I THINK MR. WALGREN RIGHT NOW IS MAKING AN EFFORT TO GET US DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.   BUT NEITHER ONE OF US HAS GIVEN 100 PERCENT OF OUR DOCUMENTS.   NEITHER ONE OF US IS A HUNDRED PERCENT READY.   I THINK BOTH SIDES ARE IN THE GET READY STAGE AND DOING SO IN GOOD FAITH AND WOULD BE READY ON DAY OF TRIAL. BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE ECONOMICAL TO THE COURT AND BE MORE ORDERLY IF WE START A LITTLE BIT LATER BECAUSE BOTH OF US HAVE THINGS TO DO.   IT IS NOT JUST THE DEFENSE.

 

THE COURT:   THERE STILL ARE DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, AND READINESS AND COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY MAY BE TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS BUT THEY ARE RELATED. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THUS FAR THERE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY.   SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE ARE GOING TO GO OUT THERE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   ARE YOU SAYING THAT JUST AS TO THE DEFENSE?

 

THE COURT:   I’M DEFINITELY SAYING THAT AS TO THE DEFENSE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   JUST AS TO THE DEFENSE?

 

THE COURT:   NO.   EVERYTHING IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AS WE HAVE DECIDED, BUT THERE WAS PENDING AND IS PENDING AN ISSUE UNDER 1054, IT IS POINT ONE OR POINT THREE.   I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO NOW.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I HAD THOUGHT WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT.

MR. CHERNOFF:   I THOUGHT WE WERE, TOO.

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

 

THE COURT:   I’LL BE ASKING DR. MURRAY IN OPEN COURT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.   THIS IS NOT SOME SORT OF WAIVER IN PERPETUITY WHICH IS APPARENTLY WHAT CONCERNS YOU, DR. MURRAY; IS THAT RIGHT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   CORRECT.

 

THE COURT:   YOU UNDERSTAND THIS IS YOUR CASE.   THIS IS NOT THE ATTORNEYS’ CASE.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   ABSOLUTELY.

 

THE COURT:   IT IMPACTS YOU MORE DIRECTLY THAN IT DOES ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS ROOM.   RIGHT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, SIR.

 

THE COURT:   YOU WANT YOUR ATTORNEYS TO BE READY TO REPRESENT YOU IN A CAPABLE, PROFESSIONAL, CONSCIENTIOUS FASHION; IS THAT CORRECT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT:   THAT IS WHAT PROFESSIONALS DO.

THE DEFENDANT:   SURE.

 

THE COURT:   SO IF THERE IS STILL A NEED FOR FURTHER PREPARATION, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS THEIR OBLIGATION TO TAKE THAT TIME TO REPRESENT YOU.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   AND THE TIME FRAME THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED HERE IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   IT IS ACCEPTABLE, BUT IT IS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEFENSE IS READY AND COULD BE READY ON THE DATE THAT IS SET. WHAT I WOULD AGREE TO IS IT APPEARS THERE IS INFORMATION STILL REQUIRED FROM THE PROSECUTORS AND VICE VERSA FROM THE DEFENSE.   AND I WILL AGREE TO THE STIPULATIONS, STILL SAYING THAT IT FALLS OUT OF THE STARTING BOX BUT NONETHELESS DOES NOT WAIVE MY RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.

 

THE COURT:   THE TRIAL IS GOING TO COMMENCE WITH THE BEGINNING OF JURY SELECTION ON THE 24TH OF MARCH.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   OF MARCH, OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   NOW, IF IN THE NEXT TIME FRAME WE GET TO ANOTHER ISSUE, WE WILL ADDRESS IT.   BUT YOU AGREE TO THAT?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   I WILL AGREE TO THAT.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   WE CAN GO ON THE RECORD IN OPEN COURT.   THEN WHAT DO WE DO ON THIS CASE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   AS FAR AS SCHEDULING, WHAT DO WE WALK OUT OF HERE TODAY WITH? NUMBER ONE, WE ARE OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IS GOING TO WORK WITH THE JURORS.   SO ASSUME IT IS ALL FINE.   THEN OUR AGREEMENT HERE TODAY IS THAT THE PLAN IS THE 24TH AND 25TH OF MARCH, THE QUESTIONNAIRES.   AND THEN WE COME BACK IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY, I THINK THE COURT SAID MIDWEEK AROUND MAY 4TH, TO DO VOIR DIRE AND EVIDENCE.

 

THE COURT:   FURTHER VOIR DIRE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   FURTHER VOIR DIRE WITH THE IDEA THAT OPENING STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE WOULD COMMENCE ON MAY 9.

 

THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS FAIR, JUDGE.

THE COURT:   DR. MURRAY?

THE DEFENDANT:   AGREED.

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN?

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

THE COURT:   MS. BRAZIL?

MS. BRAZIL:   YES.

MR. WALGREN:   ALL RIGHT.

 

THE COURT:   NOW, WE HAVE TO SET UP SOME INTERIM DATES BECAUSE AGAIN I HAVE THESE ISSUES ABOUT DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS, ET CETERA.   I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT IN OPEN COURT.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.

THE COURT:   SO WE CAN GO OUT THERE.   OKAY?

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   AND I HAVE THE ISSUE WITH MR. GOURJIAN. I DID GET THE MATERIALS FROM MR. GOURJIAN.   I’M GOING TO SEAL ALL THE MATERIALS THAT I RECEIVED BECAUSE I HAVE MATTERS TOMORROW AFTERNOON WITH MR. WEITZMAN AND MR. GERAGOS. SO THE QUESTION IS WHEN NEXT DO WE COME BACK. CAN YOU THINK ABOUT IT AS YOU LEAVE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   MAYBE WE COULD, DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE AREN’T STARTING EVIDENCE RIGHT AWAY, COULD WE SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY AND SEE IF EITHER SIDE HAS ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT RIGHT AROUND MARCH 24TH?

 

THE COURT:   OH, NO.   I NEED A MUCH BETTER HANDLE ON THIS BECAUSE IT WILL IMPACT THE QUESTIONNAIRES.   NOW, THE DEFENSE HAS GIVEN ME ITS PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE.   I’VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND I NEED TO GET INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE.   AND WE HAVE TO FIND OUT THE STATUS OF COUNSEL, WHETHER COUNSEL, IN FACT, IS GOING TO BE COMING IN THIS CASE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS IMPORTANT, YES.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOUR HONOR, MAY I INQUIRE OF THE COURT, I KNOW AT 11:00 MR. GERAGOS AND MR. WEITZMAN WILL BE HERE.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS AT 1:00.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   WHAT TIME DO YOU WANT ME HERE?   I’M ASSUMING YOU WILL GO IN CHAMBERS WITH ME AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   I WOULD PROPOSE TO DO THAT ABOUT THAT TIME.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   SAME TIME.   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   SO WE WILL DISCUSS OUR NEXT APPEARANCE, BUT I WANT TO KEEP A MUCH BETTER LEASH ON THIS CASE TO SEE WHERE WE ARE GOING.

 

MR. WALGREN:   DOES THE COURT THINK MAYBE THE WEEK OF MARCH 14?

 

THE COURT:   I’M THINKING OF NEXT WEEK, SOMETIME NEXT WEEK.   I NEED TO SEE YOU FOLKS ON A MUCH MORE REGULAR BASIS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BUT MR. WALGREN HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE TEN DAYS, MAYBE TWO WEEKS, BEFORE HE HAS HIS EXPERT REPORTS. I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE TEN DAYS TO TWO WEEKS BEFORE WE WILL HAVE OUR EXPERT REPORTS FROM CERTAIN PEOPLE.   I THINK IF WE COME NEXT WEEK, IT IS JUST – I THINK THE NEXT WEEK WOULD BE BEST.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WASN’T ONE DONE?

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

THE COURT:   DR. WHITE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   DR. WHITE, HE IS NOT DONE BECAUSE OF WHAT WE FOUND OUT YESTERDAY.   APPARENTLY, WE CONFUSED SOME INFORMATION.   THE INFORMATION HE GOT WAS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRELIM, AND IT IS NOT TRUE.   BUT THAT IS COMING SOONER THAN ANYBODY ELSE. AND HARASZTI, I DON’T KNOW IF WE WILL HAVE HIM BY NEXT WEEK.   IF WE DO, IT IS GOING TO BE LATER IN THE WEEK.   BUT I THINK WITHIN TWO WEEKS, WE SHOULD HAVE THEM ALL THERE, DONE, REPORTS, FULL REPORTS.

 

THE COURT:   I JUST DON’T WANT TO RECEIVE ANY MORE SURPRISES.   I’D LIKE TO SET SOME DATE NEXT WEEK.   WE APPEAR, DISCUSS MATTERS, THEN WE MOVE ON.   AS I’VE EXPLAINED TO YOU, I HAVE A LOAD OF OTHER CASES IN THIS COURTROOM AND I’M IN A SITUATION WHERE THOSE OTHER CASES ARE ON HOLD, INCLUDING TWO CAPITAL CASES, AND IT IS PUTTING A REAL BURDEN ON THE STAFF BECAUSE OUR SCHEDULE IS UNKNOWN.   SO I NEED MORE CLARITY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   GIVE US A DATE.   WHAT DATE WOULD YOU LIKE?

THE COURT:   IT WILL BE SOMETIME MIDDLE OR END OF NEXT WEEK.

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE WILL TRY TO GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER BY THEN.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.   ALL RIGHT.   NOW, I DON’T KNOW WHO ELSE IS GOING TO SHOW UP TOMORROW AFTERNOON. THE DEFENSE TEAM, THE EXISTING DEFENSE TEAM, MR. CHERNOFF AND/OR MR. FLANAGAN, MAY WANT TO BE HERE AS WELL.   THAT IS UP TO YOU.   AND THE PEOPLE CERTAINLY CAN BE OUTSIDE BECAUSE I’M GOING TO BE DOING IN CAMERA WITH MESSRS. WEITZMAN AND GERAGOS AS WELL, IF NECESSARY.   SO YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.   THANK YOU.

 

(PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT.)

 

THE COURT:   IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD MURRAY, DR. MURRAY IS PRESENT WITH MR. CHERNOFF, MR. FLANAGAN, AND MR. GOURJIAN.   THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR COUNSEL, MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL. GOOD AFTERNOON.   THE COURT HAS BEEN MEETING WITH DR. MURRAY AND ALL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE IN CHAMBERS. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT PRIVATE PROCEEDINGS.   THEY ARE TRANSCRIBED.   THEY ARE ON THE RECORD. COUNSEL JUST WANTED TO BE A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE OF SOME DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS MATTER, AND I DON’T KNOW WHO WANTS TO ARTICULATE THEM. DO YOU WANT TO START, MR. WALGREN, OR SHOULD I PUT IT IN MR. CHERNOFF’S COURT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WELL, YOUR HONOR, I CAN CERTAINLY ARTICULATE WHAT I BELIEVE WE HAVE AGREED ON IN CHAMBERS. BASED ON CONCERNS OF BOTH SIDES, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE HAVE AGREED THAT THE BEGINNING OF JURY SELECTION WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL CONTINUE TO COMMENCE ON THE PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON DATE OF MARCH 24TH.   IT WILL PROCEED INTO MARCH 25, AND POSSIBLY INTO MARCH 28 AS IS NECESSARY. THAT UPON COMPLETION OF OBTAINING ALL THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES FROM THE JURY, WE WOULD THEN BE IN RECESS AND RECONVENE VOIR DIRE AND JURY SELECTION ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 4TH WITH THE GENERAL GOAL AND IDEA OF ALL PARTIES THAT OPENING STATEMENTS AND COMMENCEMENT OF EVIDENCE WOULD BEGIN ON MONDAY, MAY 9. I THINK THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS RIGHT.   THAT WAS OUR CONVERSATION AND OUR AGREEMENT.

 

THE COURT:   DR. MURRAY, THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT?

THE DEFENDANT:   IT IS.

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN?

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   MR. GOURJIAN?

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   MS. BRAZIL?

MS. BRAZIL:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT IS My UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE THAT THERE STILL IS ONGOING DISCOVERY.   THAT THE PARTIES ARE ENDEAVORING IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS.  BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, COUNSEL WANTED A LITTLE MORE TIME FROM THE BEGINNING OF VOIR DIRE UNTIL THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.   THAT WAS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF OUR DISCUSSION IN CHAMBERS. IT IS NOT ALL THAT SINISTER OR DRAMATIC.   IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF FACT THAT COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY IN THIS CASE BELIEVE, AS DO I, THAT THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ARE SERVED BY A REVISION OF CERTAIN PARTS OF THE SCHEDULE. I INDICATED TO COUNSEL MY POSITION THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF JURY SELECTION ON MARCH 24TH BECAUSE SEVERAL HUNDRED PROSPECTIVE JURORS HAVE RECEIVED SUMMONSES TO APPEAR FOR GENERAL JURY DUTY ON THAT DATE AND I DID NOT WANT TO BURN PROSPECTIVE JURORS.   THEY ARE VERY A RARE COMMODITY IN THIS ECONOMIC CLIMATE. I WANTED TO BEGIN WITH THE HARDSHIP QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS ON THE ORIGINAL DATES AND RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR REVIEW OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND PREPARATION OF FURTHER VOIR DIRE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANY OTHER ISSUES IN THIS CASE.   SO WE WOULD FOLLOW A REVISED SCHEDULE WITH COMMENCEMENT OF JURY SELECTION ON THE 4TH OF MAY AND REALISTICALLY BE LOOKING AT THE BEGINNING OF OPENING STATEMENTS AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ON THE 9TH OF MAY. WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE PREPARATION OF APPROPRIATE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANY MOTIONS HAVE TO BE HEARD, BUT I THINK THIS IS A VERY REALISTIC VIEW OF THE CASE. FAIR STATEMENT, MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

MS. BRAZIL:   YES.

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

THE COURT:   AND, DR. MURRAY?

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. SO WE ARE STILL ON THAT SCHEDULE FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF VOIR DIRE.   I INDICATED TO COUNSEL I WANTED TO COME BACK SOMETIME NEXT WEEK, ALTHOUGH COUNSEL DON’T THINK IT WILL BE ALL THAT PRODUCTIVE.   I STILL WANT TO HAVE A HANDLE ON WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHAT IS NOT GOING ON. WE KNOW THAT TOMORROW MESSRS. WEITZMAN AND GERAGOS ARE COMING TO ADDRESS THE COURT IN CHAMBERS ON CERTAIN ISSUES RELATED TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THAT IS AT 2:00 P.M.   MR. GOURJIAN WILL BE HERE AS WELL. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME DAY NEXT WEEK FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.   COUNSEL, WHAT DO YOU THINK?   ANY DAY EXCEPT THE 8TH, PLEASE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR, WOULD IT BE OKAY IF I REPRESENT THE DEFENSE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF DR. MURRAY AND MR. CHERNOFF?

 

THE COURT:   AGAIN, DR. MURRAY, YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING ALL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.   YOU PREVIOUSLY HAVE SIGNED AN AUTHORIZATION THAT IS AT YOUR REQUEST, ACTUALLY —

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, SIR.

 

THE COURT:   — THAT YOU BE EXCUSED FROM ATTENDING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 977. IS THAT STILL YOUR DESIRE?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, SIR.

 

THE COURT:   YOU AGREE MR. FLANAGAN CAN CONTINUE TO REPRESENT YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND MR. CHERNOFF AS WELL AS YOU DEEM NECESSARY.

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, SIR.

THE COURT:   IS THAT OKAY, MR. CHERNOFF?

MR. CHERNOFF:   OF COURSE.

THE COURT:   OKAY WITH THE PEOPLE?

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. THERE ONCE AGAIN IS A PENAL CODE SECTION 977 WAIVER.   BOND IS TO STAND DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. SO WHAT DATE?   THE 9TH, 10TH?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK WE ARE OKAY THE 9TH, 10TH, OR 11TH, WHATEVER IS AGREEABLE WITH THE COURT AND COUNSEL.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE 11TH.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS PROBABLY ANOTHER DAY I CAN’T DO IT.   I HAVE A POTENTIAL FULL DAY HEARING ON THAT DAY. THE 9TH IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST DAY.   THE 10TH IS DOABLE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   ARE YOU THINKING AFTERNOON OR MORNING?

THE COURT:   EITHER.

MR. FLANAGAN:   AFTERNOON ON EITHER DATE IS FINE WITH ME.

THE COURT:   1:30 P.M. ON THE 9TH, MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL?

MR. WALGREN:   FINE.

MS. BRAZIL:   YES.

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   PROCEEDINGS ARE SET THE AFTERNOON OF THE 9TH OF MARCH 2011 AT 1:30 P.M. IN THIS DEPARTMENT. BOND IS TO STAND, AND THE COURT IS CONTINUING TO HOLD FOR DISCUSSION ANY ISSUE OF DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, ANY SANCTIONS AGAINST ANY PARTY IN THIS CASE, OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

 

                    PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED TO 1:00 P.M., MARCH 4, 2011