P V CM SEPT 19TH 2011

APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY NAREG GOURJIAN,

 

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

 

THE COURT:   LET ME CALL THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, SA073164.   DR. MURRAY IS NOT PRESENT.   PRESENT IN COURT IS MR. GOURJIAN ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE.   ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL. MR. GOURJIAN, YOU WILL BE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. WHEN LAST WE WERE IN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE PEOPLE MENTIONED SEVERAL ISSUES THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING. THE FIRST ISSUE THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS AN ISSUE INVOLVING A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND MR. WALGREN MADE SOME BASIC STATEMENTS.   MAY WE DO THAT FIRST?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR, AND IT WILL BE QUITE BRIEF.   WE ACTUALLY WILL ASK TO TAKE THAT OFF CALENDAR. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE MADE CONTACT WITH THE WITNESS, AND WE ARE COMFORTABLE THAT HE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY. AND AT THIS TIME I DON’T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE UP ANY MORE OF THE COURT’S TIME ON THAT ISSUE.

 

THE COURT:   HAVING SPENT THE ENTIRE WEEKEND ADDRESSING THIS, THANK YOU.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.   WE DID WANT TO BRING IT TO THE COURT’S ATTENTION LAST WEEK AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.

 

THE COURT:   YES, OF COURSE.   THE DEFENSE IS AWARE OF THIS?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, WE ARE.

 

THE COURT:   THAT IS AN EXCELLENT WAY TO BEGIN THE MORNING.   KEEP IT UP.

 

MR. WALGREN:   OKAY.

 

THE COURT:   SECOND ISSUE, PLEASE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I’LL START WITH THE OFF CALENDAR ONES, IF THE COURT PREFERS.

 

THE COURT:   OH, YES, PLEASE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PHOTOS THAT WE WERE WAITING FOR THE DEFENSE TO PROVIDE US.   THEY DID SO OVER THE WEEKEND, SO THAT ISSUE IS RESOLVED. REGARDING THE HENSON TOXICOLOGY REPORT, WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TYPED NOTES ON THAT ISSUE SO I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE RESOLVED.

 

THE COURT:   I’M UNAWARE OF THAT, THE TERM HENSON.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THERE ARE HANDWRITTEN NOTES BY MR. FLANAGAN INVOLVING A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH A MIKE HENSON.   THEY WERE NOT ALL THAT CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE.   WE REQUESTED THEY BE TYPED UP SO WE COULD READ THEM.   THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

 

THE COURT:   FINE.   THANK YOU.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE PEOPLE WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE OF KAREN FAYE, YOUR HONOR.   FROM OUR READING OF HER INTERVIEWS AND INFORMATION, IT SEEMS CLEAR BY HER OWN STATEMENT SHE RELIES GREATLY ON HEARSAY.   NOT ENTIRELY ON HEARSAY, BUT RELIES TO A GREAT DEAL ON HEARSAY. AND WE HAD RAISED THAT ISSUE TO THE COURT, BUT I DON’T THINK IT IS ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED TODAY.   IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD BE ASKING THE COURT TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL AND INSTRUCT MS. FAYE, SHOULD THE DEFENSE CALL HER, THAT HER TESTIMONY NEEDS TO BE LIMITED TO HER OWN OBSERVATIONS AND NOT ON HEARSAY. BUT I DON’T THINK — I THINK IT IS PREMATURE TO DEAL WITH THAT TODAY IN HER ABSENCE.   THAT, I THINK, CAN BE DEFERRED TO ANOTHER DAY.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   FAIR ENOUGH, MR. GOURJIAN?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE DEFENSE HAD APPARENTLY REQUESTED ANALYSIS OF SOME URINE SAMPLES.   THAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING.   I DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM MR. FLANAGAN.   I BELIEVE IT WAS HIS REPRESENTATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT TODAY, BUT THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE IN COURT TODAY.   SO I WOULD EXPECT TO HEAR FROM HIM LATER ON TODAY AND, HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL BE RESOLVED AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   DO YOU FEEL THAT IS REASONABLE, MR. GOURJIAN?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.   MR. FLANAGAN INDICATED TO ME HE WOULD HAVE THE RESULTS EITHER LATE THIS MORNING OR EARLY THIS AFTERNOON, AND WE WILL IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE IT TO THE PEOPLE AS SOON AS WE GET IT.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE FROM THE PEOPLE’S POINT OF VIEW WAS THAT PEOPLE’S PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION RAISING OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED TESTIMONY TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN PUSTILNIK, THE PEOPLE IN OUR PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION INDICATED OUR POSITION THAT IT WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER 350 AND 352.  THAT THERE WERE NO CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THAT REPORT. IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE TOUR OF THE CORONER’S OFFICE THAT DR. PUSTILNIK TOOK TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT, TWO YEARS AFTER ANY TESTING WAS DONE, AND THE PEOPLE FELT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT REPORT THAT WAS ADMISSIBLE OR RELEVANT AND WE ARE SEEKING TO EXCLUDE HIS TESTIMONY. THE COURT HAD DEFERRED RULING ON THAT BECAUSE THE DEFENSE OBJECTED TO THE COURT REVIEWING THE REPORT SHOULD IT BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION.   WE SUGGESTED, BUT THE DEFENSE ALSO REPRESENTED, THAT EVERY ONE OF HIS OPINIONS IS EXPRESSED IN HIS REPORT THAT HE AUTHORED. THE PEOPLE DIDN’T THINK THERE WAS ANY USE TO HAVING A FORMAL 402 TAKING HIS TESTIMONY SINCE THE DEFENSE ALREADY REPRESENTED EVERYTHING IS CONTAINED IN HIS REPORT. THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING THE COURT TO REVIEW THE REPORT.   SHOULD THE DEFENSE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT REPORT BECOMING PUBLIC, WE WOULD ASK IT BE SEALED.   AND WE WOULD SEEK COMPLETE EXCLUSION OF HIS TESTIMONY AGAIN UNDER 350 AND 352.

 

THE COURT:   WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST WEEK, I THOUGHT MR. FLANAGAN WAS GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOME MORE GOOD NEWS FOR THE COURT.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT IS THAT?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   WE CAN TAKE THIS OFF CALENDAR AS WELL.   THE DEFENSE IS NO LONGER CALLING DR. PUSTILNIK AS A WITNESS.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   BASED ON THAT REPRESENTATION, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   PEOPLE ARE SATISFIED, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   ARE WE ZERO FOR SIX THEN, SO FAR AS I

 DO THE COUNT?   ALL RIGHT.   NEXT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS ALL WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH TODAY FROM THE PEOPLE’S POINT OF VIEW.

 

THE COURT:   WELL, I’D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT I WAS RESPONSIBLE IN SOME MEASURE FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THESE MATTERS, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE EXCELLENT COUNSEL.   SO THERE WE GO. I DO WANT TO JUST CHAT INFORMALLY WITH COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS ABOUT JURY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATED ISSUES, A VERY BRIEF CONVERSATION, NOTHING OF ANY REAL SUBSTANCE.   JUST IN TERMS OF OUR MEETING SCHEDULE BECAUSE WHAT I DID REQUEST OF COUNSEL LAST WEEK IS THAT WE ADVANCE OUR INITIAL DISCUSSION OF FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES FROM THURSDAY TO FRIDAY SINCE WE REALLY WEREN’T GOING TO BE IN SESSION WITH JURY QUESTIONNAIRES TODAY.   I WANT TO GO OVER THAT AND SEE IF THERE IS A WAY WE CAN DO THAT.

 

MR. WALGREN:   YOU WERE SEEKING TO ADVANCE IT FROM THURSDAY TO WEDNESDAY.

 

THE COURT:   WHAT DID I SAY?   FRIDAY?   PLEASE EXCUSE ME.   I MEANT FROM THURSDAY TO WEDNESDAY, TO SEE IF WE CAN GET GOING.   THIS HAS TO DO WITH JUROR SERVICES AND THE REAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE LABOR INTENSIVE RESPONSIBILITY THEY HAVE TO POTENTIALLY CALL OFF PROSPECTIVE JURORS.   I WANT TO GIVE THEM AS MUCH CHANCE AS WE CAN. SO IF I COULD SEE COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS, THAT WOULD HELP US OUT.   SHOULD WE THEN PLAN ON RESUMING THIS WEDNESDAY, IS IT?   WE SAID TWO O’CLOCK, DIDN’T WE?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   IS THAT REALISTIC?   SHOULD WE TRY A LITTLE EARLIER, OR DO YOU FEEL YOU NEED UNTIL 2:00?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK WE NEED UNTIL 2:00, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   I DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.   OKAY WITH THE DEFENSE, MR. GOURJIAN?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:   AND DR. MURRAY WILL BE HERE AT THAT TIME.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   HE WILL.

 

THE COURT:   SO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE SET FOR 2:00 P.M. THIS COMING WEDNESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2011, AND COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY WILL BE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN OPEN COURT.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE 21ST.

 

THE COURT:   THE 21ST.   YOU LOOK AT THIS CALENDAR AND GET HOPEFUL IT IS ALMOST OCTOBER.   I’M LOOKING AT OCTOBER, JUST FLIPPING THE PAGES.   I MEANT THE 21ST AT 2:00.   OKAY.   THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.   WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL THEN.

 

(FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CHAMBERS AND ORDERED SEALED BY THE COURT.)

 

 

(NEXT HEARING 2:00 P.M., SEPTEMBER 21, 2011.)