P V CM March 9th 2011

APPEARANCES:

 

DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, AND NAREG GOURJIAN,

 

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

 

THE COURT:   DO WE HAVE AN UPDATED STATUS AS TO ONGOING DISCOVERY AND OTHER ISSUES?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE DO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE PROVIDED DEFENSE COUNSEL SOME ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY TODAY AS IT RELATES TO ADDITIONAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, FINGERPRINTS, AND UPDATED C.V.’S OF EXPERTS. ADDITIONALLY, DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED US REPORTS OF TWO OF THEIR EXPERTS. I BELIEVE THERE ARE STILL QUITE A FEW WITNESSES FROM THE DEFENSE WITNESS LIST WHERE THE DISCOVERY IS OUTSTANDING, BUT WE HAVE RECEIVED THOSE TWO EXPERT REPORTS TODAY.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT IS THE PEOPLE’S POSITION AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENSE IN GOOD FAITH IS COMPLYING WITH ITS DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK THE QUESTION IS, AGAIN, THESE REPORTS WERE IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE TO GET, SO WE ARE HAPPY TO GET THESE EXPERT REPORTS. THE SHEER NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON THEIR WITNESS LIST THAT IS STILL LACKING ANY DISCOVERY IS WHAT CONCERNS THE PEOPLE.   I DON’T KNOW IF THE DEFENSE SIMPLY HAS NOT INTERVIEWED THOSE PEOPLE YET, OR IF THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOCUMENTING THOSE INTERVIEWS.   WE SIMPLY DIDN’T HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS IT.   I DON’T KNOW THE STATUS OF THE OTHER WITNESSES.

 

THE COURT:   MAY I TURN IT TO MR. FLANAGAN.   YOUR POSITION ON DISCOVERY ISSUES?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE HAVE GIVEN UP EVERY STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR.   I JUST GAVE THEM TWO MEDICAL REPORTS TODAY.   ONE, I THINK, IS DATED MARCH 3RD.   THE OTHER IS DATED MARCH 8.   WE JUST RECEIVED THOSE.   I HAVE TURNED THEM OVER.   THESE MIGHT BE THE ONLY TWO MEDICAL WITNESSES THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IN THIS CASE UNLESS WE CAN GET THE CORONER’S OFFICE TO TURN OVER SOME SLIDES AND ALLOW US TO INSPECT WHAT THEY HAVE. I’VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF ELISSA FLEAK FOR TWO WEEKS.   I HAVEN’T GOT A RETURN CALL.   MAYBE SHE IS ON VACATION.   I DON’T KNOW. BUT WE HAVE ONE OTHER MEDICAL WITNESS THAT CAN’T RENDER AN OPINION UNTIL HE SEES THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CORONER’S OFFICE.   YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH GIVEN THEM EVERYTHING WE HAVE GOT AND WHAT WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH. I UNDERSTAND FROM MR. WALGREN THAT HE HAS SENT OUT INFORMATION TO TWO OTHER MEDICAL WITNESSES.   WE DON’T HAVE ANY REPORTS AS TO WHAT TYPE OF MEDICAL WITNESSES, DON’T KNOW THEIR NAMES, DON’T KNOW THEIR SPECIALTY, DON’T HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT THEY WILL TESTIFY TO.   AND WE HAVE GIVEN MR. WALGREN EVERYTHING WE HAVE GOT ON MEDICAL WITNESSES.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WELL, WE RETAINED AN EXPERT NAMED PAUL WHITE.

 

THE COURT:   DR. WHITE’S NAME HAS COME UP.   THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS MEMORIALIZING WHAT WOULD FORM THE BASIS FOR DR. WHITE’S OPINION.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I NORMALLY DON’T EVEN REQUEST A REPORT FROM A WITNESS BECAUSE IT CAUSES US INCREASED EXPENSE.   HOWEVER, I DID SUPPLY THEM A REPORT FROM DR. WHITE WITH A NEW UPDATED C.V. FROM HIM. AND I ALSO PROVIDED THEM WITH A REPORT, ABOUT 15 OR 16-PAGE REPORT, FROM A DR. HARASZTI, AN ADDICTION EXPERT AND PHARMACOLOGIST.   AND I DON’T KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT TO GO WITH AT THE TIME OF TRIAL RIGHT NOW, UNLESS WE CAN GET AN EXPERT TO ACTUALLY BE IN A POSITION TO LOOK AT THE CORONER’S EVIDENCE.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ARE INDICATING YOU HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO CONTACT MS. FLEAK, AND THEY HAVEN’T BEEN SUCCESSFUL.   HAVE YOU CALLED THE CORONER – THE CORONER — AND SAID, “WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOME INFORMATION FROM YOUR OFFICE,” AND YOU DON’T SEEM TO BE GETTING A SATISFACTORY RESPONSE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WELL, I’M GOING TO DO THAT.   WHAT HAPPENED — I’M REALLY INTERESTED IN OTHER MEDICAL REPORTS.

 

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

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THERE ARE TWO OTHER DOCTORS THAT ARE BEING CONSULTED BY THE PROSECUTION, APPARENTLY.   I’D LIKE TO KNOW, I THINK I’D BE ENTITLED TO KNOW NOW, MAYBE THE IDENTITY, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE PREPARED A REPORT OR REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION. I’D LIKE TO KNOW KIND OF WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST IN TERMS OF SPECIALTY AND WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT EVIDENCE THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO REVIEW.   I HAVE PROVIDED THE PROSECUTION WITH ALL THAT STUFF.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS DEFENSE POSITION THAT AS OF THIS DATE, YOU ARE NOT ANTICIPATING CALLING MORE THAN TWO MEDICAL EXPERTS?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   TWO.   MAYBE THREE.

 

THE COURT:   AND YOU HAVE GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AS TO DRS. WHITE AND, IS IT, HARASZTI?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE OUT THERE WHO SHOULD BE ON THE LIST?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THERE IS ANOTHER DOCTOR THAT IS A CORONER FROM GALVESTON THAT CANNOT — MR. CHERNOFF IS IN TOUCH WITH HIM, AND HE DOESN’T — IT IS A POTENTIAL WITNESS FROM CANADA, TOO.   BUT THEY CANNOT RENDER OPINIONS.   THEY JUST WANTED TO SEE THE SLIDES OF THE EXAMINATION OF MR. JACKSON.

 

THE COURT:   I WOULD THINK, BY NOW, WE WOULD BE FURTHER ALONG.   AND THAT IF MS. FLEAK IS NOT AROUND, THERE MAY BE REASONS.   SHE MAY BE ILL.   SHE MAY BE ONVACATION.   SHE MAY NOT BE ANSWERING HER PHONE, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CORONER’S OFFICE WHO I WOULD THINK COULD ACCOMMODATE YOU. DO THE PEOPLE HAVE ANY INFORMATION?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO, BUT I DID OFFER TO MR. FLANAGAN FOLLOWING THIS HEARING THAT I COULD PUT SOME CALLS IN TO CHECK ON HER STATUS, BUT I DON’T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THIS TIME.

 

THE COURT:   DO THE PEOPLE WANT TO RESPOND ON MR. FLANAGAN’S EXPRESSION OF CONCERN REGARDING SOME POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE’S WITNESSES?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I CAN RESPOND REGARDING THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR.   BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT, BY OUR CALCULATION OF THE DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, INCLUDING THE TWO REPORTS TODAY, THERE ARE OUTSTANDING 80 WITNESSES ON THE WITNESS LIST FOR WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DEFENSE DISCOVERY. SO IF THE DEFENSE — I BELIEVE WE HAVE ABOUT NINE CHARACTER WITNESSES AS FAR AS DISCOVERY, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE TWO REPORTS PROVIDED TODAY WHICH WOULD LEAVE ABOUT 80 WITNESSES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EVIDENCE. SO IF THEY HAVEN’T BEEN TALKED TO AND THEY ARE NOT BEING CALLED, THAT IS ONE ISSUE.   IF THESE ARE WITNESSES THAT THE DEFENSE EXPECTS TO TALK TO AND CALL AS WITNESSES, THAT IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF DISCOVERY OUTSTANDING AND HIGHLIGHTS AGAIN SOME OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEED FOR 402’S IN REGARD TO A LOT OF THESE WITNESSES.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, THERE IS A GREAT VARIATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO MAY BE LISTED AS POTENTIAL WITNESSES AND DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   AS I SAID LAST TIME, WE HAD ABOUT 30 CHARACTER WITNESSES AS POTENTIAL WITNESSES.   I THINK WE HAVE GIVEN STATEMENTS, I THINK IT IS NINE, AND WE HAVE LIMITED THE 30 CHARACTER WITNESSES TO THOSE NINE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN.

 

THE COURT:   SO IS IT THE DEFENSE POSITION THEN THAT AS TO SO-CALLED CHARACTER WITNESS TESTIMONY, THAT YOU HAVE MET YOUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS —

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

THE COURT:   — AS TO ANTICIPATED WITNESSES?

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

THE COURT:   NINE?

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

THE COURT:   NOT TEN, NOT 30?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   MR. WALGREN SAYS HE HAS STATEMENTS FROM NINE, AND WE TOLD HIM LAST WEEK WE ARE LIMITING OUR POTENTIAL TESTIMONY TO WHATEVER STATEMENTS WE HAVE GIVEN HIM. AS FAR AS A LOT OF THESE WITNESSES, PROBABLY 50 OF THEM ARE ALL IN THE POLICE REPORT.   AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE SUBPOENAED LINTEMOOT.   WE HAVE SUBPOENAED FU FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE.   WE HAVE SUBPOENAED ROMO FROM SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT.   WE HAVE SUBPOENAED A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WE REALLY WOULD DEEM THEM HOSTILE. FU WAS AN ANALYST.   THEY KNOW WHO HE IS.   WE HAVE SUBPOENAED HIM.   WE HAVE PUT HIM ON FOUR-HOUR CALL. WE HAVE GOT NOW SUBPOENAS TO ABOUT 35 PEOPLE. WE HAVE TALKED TO MOST OF THEM.   SOME OF THEM ARE FAIRLY HOSTILE.   WE ARE TRYING TO SUBPOENA ALL THE SECURITY PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE AT THE HOUSE THAT DAY.   THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO, BUT THEY HAVE GIVEN STATEMENTS TO THE PROSECUTION IN THE PAST.

 

THE COURT:   IT IS ONE THING TO SAY, “THESE PEOPLE ARE POTENTIAL DEFENSE WITNESSES.   WE HAVE NO STATEMENTS FROM THEM.   WE DON’T ANTICIPATE HAVING ANY STATEMENTS FROM THEM AT THIS TIME AND ARE GOING TO BE RELYING UPON WHAT THEY TOLD THE PROSECUTOR.”

 AND THE SAME THING WITH THE PEOPLE.   IF THEY HAVE SUBPOENAED SOMEONE, THEY SAY, “THIS IS A WITNESS AND THESE ARE THE ONLY STATEMENTS WE HAVE.” WE NEED CLARITY IN TERMS OF WITNESSES IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE DEFENSE AND THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO

BE PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCOVERY ALREADY

PROVIDED OR WHETHER THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE.

SO I THINK FOR OUR NEXT —

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE ESSENTIALLY PROCEEDING ON WHAT WE HAVE PROVIDED, BUT YOUR HONOR’S INQUIRY IS ONLY TO ME.

 

THE COURT:   NO.   I ALSO ASKED THE PEOPLE.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHAT ABOUT THEY HAVE TWO MEDICAL WITNESSES.   THEY HAVE TWO MEDICAL WITNESSES THAT THEY AREINTERVIEWING.   WE NOT ONLY DON’T HAVE A STATEMENT FROMTHEM, WE DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND I HAVEN’T HEARD YOUADDRESSING THAT PROBLEM.

 

THE COURT:   I DIDN’T GET TO THAT POINT YET, MR. FLANAGAN.   YOU ARE GETTING VERY DEFENSIVE ON THE ISSUES. I CAN ONLY DEAL WITH ONE AT A TIME.   I’VE ASKED ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY, AND I WAS ASKING THE PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR TAKE, AND THEN I WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT YOUR TAKE. AND YOU HAVE RAISED THE ISSUES OF YOUR COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, AND THEN YOU HAVE JUST POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL PEOPLE’S WITNESSES OUT THERE.   I CAN ONLY DEAL WITH ONE THING AT A TIME. RIGHT NOW, I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, AND THEN I’LL BE HAPPY TO ASK THE PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THE LAST ISSUES YOU RAISE AND I DID AND I DIDN’T GET AN ANSWER. SO YOU SAID NINE CHARACTER WITNESSES, AND YOU HAVE COMPLIED WITH YOUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO THOSE, CORRECT?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   SO FAR, TWO MEDICAL/FORENSIC EXPERTS,AND YOU HAVE PROVIDED OF ALL THE DISCOVERY YOU HAVE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   POTENTIALLY TWO OTHER MEDICAL/FORENSIC EXPERTS WHO ARE AWAITING INFORMATION FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   RIGHT.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT ABOUT ANY OTHER CIVILIAN WITNESSES, MEDICAL, FORENSIC, LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES OUT THERE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE STILL ATTEMPTING TO INTERVIEW.   WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE TAKING ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS, BUT WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET CONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS WITH OTHER WITNESSES WHO WE WOULD DEEM TO BE SOMEWHAT HOSTILE.   AND WHEN WE DO INTERVIEW THOSE, THE NOTES OF THE INTERVIEWS WILL BE PROVIDED IF THEY CONSENT TO AN INTERVIEW.

 

THE COURT:   SO THE 35 SUBPOENAS THAT YOU HAVE SENT ARE TO WITNESSES WHO ARE ON THE PEOPLE’S LIST, AND YOU ARE SENDING OUT THE SUBPOENAS BASED UPON THE DISCOVERY YOU RECEIVED FROM THE PEOPLE, NOT UPON ANY OF YOUR OWN DISCOVERY?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   NOW, MR. WALGREN, MR. FLANAGAN HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE, AND I DON’T KNOW IF WE DEALT EXPRESSLY WITH THE ISSUE OF TWO POTENTIAL PEOPLE’S EXPERTS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.   MR. FLANAGAN INQUIRED OF ME IN THE HALLWAY BEFORE THE HEARING IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL EXPERTS.   I INDICATED I SENT A PACKAGE OF MATERIALS TO ONE MEDICAL EXPERT.   I HAD NO SUBSTANTIVE INTERVIEW WHATSOEVER.   HE IS ANALYZING IT AND IS NOT A WITNESS AT THIS POINT I CAN REPRESENT WE INTEND TO CALL AT TRIAL.   IT IS TOO PREMATURE. AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY DISCOVERY ON HIM, BUT I EXPECT TO HAVE A REPORT OR A RESPONSE OF HIS AVAILABILITY WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, AND WE WILL CERTAINLY COMPLY WITH ALL DISCOVERY AND TURN IT OVER IMMEDIATELY, CONSISTENT WITH OUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS. THE SECOND WITNESS HE IS EVIDENTLY REFERRING TO, AS I SAID, WE MAY SEND OUT MATERIALS TO AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS, BUT WE HAVEN’T MADE A DECISION ON THAT.   SO

THERE IS NOTHING OUTSTANDING.   IF WE GET A REPORT, IF THIS EXPERT IS AVAILABLE AND PROVIDES A REPORT, AND ISGOING TO BE A WITNESS, THE PEOPLE WILL CERTAINLY COMPLY AND TURN IT OVER IMMEDIATELY.   BUT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS.

 

THE COURT:   WITH REGARD TO THE TWO POTENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS WHO WERE MENTIONED BY MR. FLANAGAN, WOULD YOU THINK MR. FLANAGAN IS IN THE SAME POSITION AS YOU ARE IN TERMS OF REALLY NOT HAVING ANYTHING TO GIVE UP?

 

MR. WALGREN:   BASED ON HIS REPRESENTATIONS, YES.

 

THE COURT:   I THINK THE PARTIES ARE ON EQUAL FOOTING THEN. WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. FLANAGAN?   THEY DON’T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION, NOR DO YOU.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I WOULDN’T ADD ANY COMPLAINT ABOUT MR. WALGREN IN THIS CASE ABOUT NOT PROVIDING US THE WITNESSES.   I’M SURE HE IS PROCEEDING AS QUICKLY AS HE HAS.   WE HAVE GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE GOT.   I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET WHAT THEY HAVE GOT IN TERMS OF MEDICAL. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THIS OTHER POTENTIAL MEDICAL WITNESS IS, AT LEAST KNOW HIS SPECIALTY OR WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY, BECAUSE IF HE SAYS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS NOT TOTALLY CORRECT, WE MIGHT HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER WITNESS AFTER WE GET THAT INFORMATION.

 

THE COURT:   MR. WALGREN INDICATES AT THIS TIME YOU SIMPLY DON’T HAVE STATEMENTS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT’S CORRECT.   WE WILL TURN IT OVER.

 

THE COURT:   WE ARE DEALING WITH HYPOTHETICALS, AND THAT IS NOT A BASIS FOR DISCOVERY FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE DEFENSE. I WANT TO CORRECT A MISIMPRESSION IF I GAVE IT.   THAT IS, THAT SOMEHOW I’M DENYING ANY SANCTIONS AS TO ANY PARTY IN THIS CASE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY.   I NEVER DENIED SANCTIONS.   THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS POTENTIALLY IS STILL BEFORE THE COURT.   SO ANY INFERENCE OR EXPRESSION THAT SOMEHOW I HAVE DENIED IMPOSING SANCTIONS IS SIMPLY NOT CORRECT. THE PARTIES ASKED TO SPEAK WITH ME LAST WEEK.   THEY WANTED TO UPDATE DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE, AND I GOT THE CLEAR, DISTINCT IMPRESSION FROM THE PARTIES THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON RESOLVING ANY DISCOVERY RELATED ISSUES AND APPEARED TO BE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.   I ACCEPTED THAT REPRESENTATION, BUT IN NO WAY DOES THAT LEAVE OFF THE HOOK ANY PARTY, EITHER THE PEOPLE OR THE DEFENSE, FROM THE IMPOSITION OF DISCOVERY SANCTIONS IF WE DON’T GET A MOVE. I HAVE JURORS COMING IN TWO WEEKS AND ONE DAY.   I HAVE A PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS SUBMITTED SOMETIME AGO BY THE DEFENSE.   I DON’T HAVE ANY PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE AND I HAVE TO DRAFT IT.   I NEED TO WORK WITH THE JUROR SERVICES REPRESENTATIVES IN TERMS OF PRODUCING AN ACCEPTABLE QUESTIONNAIRE. OBVIOUSLY, THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE INPUT AND WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT, AND THEN WE SHOULD DEAL WITH IT. WHEN DO THE PEOPLE THINK THEY COULD PROVIDE ME WITH A PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   HOW ABOUT TUESDAY?

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   TUESDAY, THE 15TH OF MARCH, PLEASE.

MR. WALGREN:   AND, YOUR HONOR —

THE COURT:   YOU CAN FILE IT UNDER SEAL —

MR. WALGREN:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   — AS THE DEFENSE PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS.   AND THE DEFENSE HAS THE OBLIGATION, AS THE PEOPLE DO, TO KEEP THE MATTERS IN THE PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE CONFIDENTIAL.

 

MR. WALGREN:   AND I KNOW THE COURT HAD INDICATED AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING, HAD INFORMED THE PARTIES THAT THE COURT HAD BEEN WORKING ON A DRAFT OR A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF ITS OWN.   IS THAT SOMETHING THE COURT WOULD SHARE WITH THE PARTIES AT THIS DATE?

 

THE COURT:   NO.

MR. WALGREN:   THANK YOU.

 

THE COURT:   I JUST AS SOON HAVE YOUR INPUT BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT STEP.   I’LL BE UTILIZING YOUR PROPOSED QUESTIONS AS WELL AS MY OWN, BUT I RATHER HAVE YOUR INPUT BEFORE I SHOW MY CARDS.   I JUST THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE BE IN A POSITION TO ADDRESS THIS. THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLICATED MATTERS HAVING TO DO WITH SCHEDULING HERE, AND NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS ISSUES IN LIMINE TYPE MOTIONS, AND I DON’T HAVE ANY. SO WHEN NEXT SHOULD WE SET THIS?   THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE BY WHAT TIME?   NOON, DO YOU THINK, ON TUESDAY, THE 15TH?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES CAN REVIEW THE MATERIALS.   SHOULD WE COME BACK WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE WITH THE PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS ONE WEEK AND ONE DAY BEFORE OF JURY SELECTION.   WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR.   MAYBE WE COULD HAVE MEDICAL REPORTS, HOPEFULLY, BY THEN.

 

THE COURT:   FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BOTH PARTIES, THE PARTIES HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE IT RAPIDO.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE HAD ONE OTHER ISSUE.   THAT IS THE SURVEILLANCE TAPES.   WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THE SURVEILLANCE TAPES ON THE HARD DRIVES, WHEREVER THEY ARE, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE TO GET THEM.

 

MR. WALGREN:   ACTUALLY, I HAVE SPOKEN PERSONALLY TO MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. FLANAGAN TODAY, AND I TOLD THEM THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE VIDEO FROM THE SURVEILLANCE TAPE THAT WAS DOWNLOADED.   I DID HAVE LAPD DETECTIVES LOOK INTO THIS AND GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE SECURITY COMPANY THAT INSTALLED THE SYSTEM TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY AVENUES TO EXPLORE THERE.   I EXPECT TO HAVE THE RESULTS OF THAT WITHIN A DAY OR TWO. THE ISSUE IS THAT APPARENTLY THE SECURITY SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE OR THE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM WAS NOT THE PROPERTY OR OWNED BY MICHAEL JACKSON OR ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES.   IT WAS A RENTAL HOME, AND THE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE BY THE HOMEOWNER THAT RENTED THIS HOME.

SO LAPD HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT.   AS I INDICATED, I EXPECT TO HAVE INFORMATION FOR DEFENSE PROBABLY BY TOMORROW.

 

THE COURT:   AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED A LONG, LONG TIME AGO.

 

MR. WALGREN:   IT WAS, YOUR HONOR.   IT WAS DISCLOSED A YEAR AGO.

 

THE COURT:   WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WAS DOWNLOADED, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RAW MATERIALS THAT WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE THIRD PARTY?   ARE THEY STILL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE THIRD PARTY?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I DON’T BELIEVE SO.   I DON’T BELIEVE THEY EXIST ANYWHERE, BUT I HAD LAPD LOOK INTO IT FURTHER SO I COULD GIVE A MORE CONCRETE ANSWER.

 

THE COURT:   SO YOU WILL HAVE THAT INFORMATION WHEN?

MR. WALGREN:   I EXPECT TO HAVE IT TOMORROW.

 

THE COURT:   BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW, PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO MR. FLANAGAN.   IF THERE IS SOME ISSUE, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO REGROUP SOONER BECAUSE MR. FLANAGAN HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED.   IF IT EXISTS, IT EXISTS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   IT COULD BE IMPORTANT.   WE DON’T KNOW.   WE HAVEN’T SEEN IT.

 

THE COURT:   WELL, YOU WANT IT, AND IT IS NOT IN YOUR POSSESSION. MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   AND IT IS NOT IN OUR POSSESSION.   I HAVE TOLD THEM THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR THAT THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.   I’M LOOKING INTO IT FURTHER, NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS GOING TO NECESSARILY RESULT IN ANYTHING BUT JUST SO I COULD GIVE MORE CONCRETE ANSWERS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS LAPD DOWNLOADED WHAT THEY DOWNLOADED.   THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE.   THAT IS EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS AND IS ALL THAT WILL EVER EXIST, BUT I AM HAVING THEM LOOK INTO IT FURTHER.

 

THE COURT:   THE SECURITY SYSTEM APPARENTLY WAS MONITORING THE RESIDENCE ON A 24-HOUR BASIS.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE EXTERIOR.

 

THE COURT:   THE EXTERIOR.   HOW MANY MINUTES OR HOURS WORTH OF VIDEO HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED?   DO WE KNOW?

 

MR. WALGREN:   AGAIN, I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY BUT IT IS MINUTES.   IT IS MINUTES.   I DON’T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING THAT IS INACCURATE.   I EXPECT TO HAVE INFORMATION TOMORROW.

 

THE COURT:   I’VE BEEN CURIOUS, AND I STILL REMAIN CURIOUS ABOUT WHERE IN THE UNIVERSE THE OTHER VIDEO HAPPENS TO BE LOCATED, IF IT IS.   MAYBE IT IS NOT.   MAYBE IT WAS NEVER RECREATED SOMEWHERE.

ANYTHING ELSE, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.   WHAT TIME WEDNESDAY?

 

THE COURT:   WE DIDN’T GET TO THAT POINT.   I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ELSE TODAY, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO.

THE COURT:   MS. BRAZIL?

MS. BRAZIL:   NO.   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   MR. GOURJIAN?

MR. GOURJIAN:   NO, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   HOW ABOUT IN THE MORNING?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I’M AVAILABLE AT CONVENIENCE OF THE COURT AND MR. WALGREN.

 

THE COURT:   I HAVE ANOTHER CASE THAT WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.   TEN O’CLOCK, PLEASE.   I HAVE OTHER MATTERS.   I DON’T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I’M NOT GETTING TO WORK AT AN EARLIER POINT, BUT THIS CASE MAY TAKE A LITTLE TIME.   10:00 A.M. NEXT WEDNESDAY, WHICH IS THE 16TH.

 

MR. WALGREN:   FINE WITH THE PEOPLE.

MR. FLANAGAN:   FINE.

 

THE COURT:   SO WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY THEN, AND PLEASE DO BE PROVIDING NECESSARY DISCOVERY.   IT REMAINS A CONTINUING OBLIGATION, SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL SANCTIONS, PURSUANT TO ALL THE PROVISIONS OF PENAL CODE SECTION 1054.

 

                   

THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED TO 10:00 A.M., MARCH 16, 2011