P V M SEPT 9TH 2011

 

JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE HERE:

APPEARANCES:

 

DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT IN COURT AND BEING REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF, J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, AND NAREG GOURJIAN, MICHAEL PENA, PRIVATELY RETAINED COUNSEL; AND

 

THE PEOPLE   DEBORAH BRAZIL, DAVID WALGREN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS,

 

THE COURT:   THE COURT DELIVERED THE WELCOME ORIENTATION TO THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS THIS MORNING.   I BELIEVE WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 140 OR 150 PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THAT ORIENTATION. THAT NUMBER MAY VARY UPWARDS OR DOWNWARDS BUT APPROXIMATELY THAT NUMBER.   AND WE ARE AWAITING OUR CALL FROM THE 5TH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM WHERE WE WILL RECONVENE. AS I MENTIONED YESTERDAY, I AM ADMONISHING EVERYONE PRESENT, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE, THAT WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, THAT IS A COURTROOM. AND THE ADMONITION IS TO BEHAVE AND NOT TO ENGAGE IN ANY VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION WITH ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR, NOT REACT TO ANYTHING THAT GOES ON, NOT

IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN THIS CASE.   THAT IS A COURT ORDER TO

BE ENFORCED.

 

I ANTICIPATE THE SAME PLAN AS WE HAD YESTERDAY.   IT SEEMED TO WORK OUT.   AND THAT IS THAT ONCE WE RECONVENE IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, THE COURT WILL GO THROUGH THE INTRODUCTORY PROCESS OF SWEARING IN THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND PROVIDING THEM SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. THEN THE ATTORNEYS AND DOCTOR MURRAY AND I WILL LEAVE; THAT JURY ROOM WILL REMAIN A CLOSED JUR ASSEMBLY ROOM; AND THE JURORS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE HARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRES.   AND AFTER THEY FILL OUT THOSE HARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRES, THE ATTORNEYS AND I WILL REVIEW THEM IN CHAMBERS AS WE DID YESTERDAY. AND FOR THOSE JURORS WHO INDICATE NO HARDSHIP OR FOR THOSE JURORS WHOSE REQUEST FOR HARDSHIP IS DENIED, THOSE JURORS WILL BE GIVEN QUESTIONNAIRES.   FOR THOSE JURORS WHOSE HARDSHIP IS GRANTED, THOSE JURORS WILL BE EXCUSED.   THEN THE JURORS WILL HAVE THE REST OF THE DAY TO COMPLETE THEIR QUESTIONNAIRES AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE COURT.

 

I ANTICIPATE, AS MUCH AS I CAN ANTICIPATE ANYTHING, THAT WE WILL HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS CASE BY THE END OF TODAY.   I DO NOT THINK AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE — THINGS CAN CHANGE — BUT AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS ON MONDAY.   I THINK WE WILL HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER.   BUT THE ATTORNEYS AND I WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT FURTHER. IF THAT IS THE CASE, AS I HAVE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, AS SOON AS WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THEIR QUESTIONNAIRES, I WILL AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE TO RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC A COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.   SO THAT WILL DEPEND UPON HOW FAR WE GET TODAY. BUT REST ASSURED THAT AS SOON AS THE COURT DETERMINES IT APPROPRIATE, THAT QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE RELEASED.

 

I WANTED TO DISCUSS IN CHAMBERS JUST ONE BRIEF MATTER HAVING TO DO WITH A LEGAL ISSUE.   I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AT THIS JUNCTURE WHILE WE WAIT FOR OUR CALL.

 

MR. WALGREN:   NOT BY THE PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   BY THE DEFENSE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   NO, JUDGE.

 

THE COURT:   SO OKAY WE WILL STAND BY, AND WE WILL BE RECONVENING IN THE 5TH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM.   AND AS I MENTIONED YESTERDAY, I DON’T ANTICIPATE WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING MUCH ON THE RECORD THIS AFTERNOON, ALTHOUGH I MAY COME OUT AT SOME POINT AND SAY THAT WE’VE COMPLETED THE REVIEW OF HARDSHIPS AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE NOW IS PUBLIC.   SO I MAY DO THAT IN THE OPEN COURTROOM.   I HAVEN’T DECIDED. OKAY.   THANK YOU.

 

 

 

 (THE IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 305-308 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.)

 

 

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THE FIFTH FLOOR JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM AT 9:26 A.M.)

 

 

THE COURT:   LET ME CALL THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF, VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, DEFENDANT, CASE NUMBER S.A. 073164.   DOCTOR MURRAY IS PRESENT IN COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL.   THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR COUNSEL. THIS IS DEPARTMENT 107, AND WE ARE RECONVENING IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ JUSTICE CENTER IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES.   THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC COURTROOM AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

 

WE HAVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS PRESENT AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE MEDIA AND LAY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL. THE PROCEEDINGS ARE UTILIZING CLOSE CIRCUIT TELEVISION COVERAGE FOR THOSE JURORS WHO ARE IN LITTLE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE ACTUAL JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM.   THIS IS A CLOSE CIRCUIT SYSTEM, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.   IT’S NOT BEING BROADCAST ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF YOUR VIEWING AREA. THIS PORTION OF THE TRIAL IS CALLED VOIR DIRE.   IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS IN THIS CASE.   AND AS THE BEGINNING POINT IN THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS, THE COURT JUDICIAL ASSISTANT, MRS. SAMMIE BENSON, WILL BE ADMINISTERING TO ALL OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS A JUROR OATH.

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE OATH.   THESE AREN’T BALD WORDS.   THEY HAVE TREMENDOUS SIGNIFICANCE FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND FOR YOUR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY AS JURORS. ANY AND ALL ANSWERS THAT YOU PROVIDE TO US FROM NOW ON ARE PROVIDED UNDER PAIN AND PENALTY OF PERJURY.   WHEN YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS IN WRITING OR ORALLY, IT IS JUST AS THOUGH YOU WERE A WITNESS ON THE WITNESS STAND.   SO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE EXACT WORDS OF THE OATH.

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE OATH, EACH OF YOU WILL BE STANDING.   WOULD ALL OF YOU PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO REMAIN STANDING AT THAT POINT. AND ALL OF US IN THE COURTROOM, JURORS AND THE REST OF US ALIKE, PLEASE STAND AND FACE THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.   AND WE CAN OBSERVE A FEW MOMENTS OF SILENCE TO HONOR THIS COUNTRY AND ALL THE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT STANDS ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF SEPTEMBER 11, A DATE NO AMERICAN SHOULD EVER FORGET. THANK YOU. MRS. BENSON, PLEASE ADMINISTER THE OATH.

 

THE CLERK:   WOULD ALL THE JURORS PLEASE RISE. PLEASE, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT. DO YOU AND EACH YOU HAVE UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY ANSWER 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 JURORS RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.)

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. PLEASE REMAIN STANDING, AND THE REST OF US WILL JOIN YOU TO FACE THE FLAG.

 

 (A MOMENT OF SILENCE WAS TAKEN.)

 

 

THE COURT:   LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. HOPEFULLY, YOU REMEMBER US.   I DID THE JUROR ORIENTATION ABOUT AN HOUR AGO.   AT THAT TIME, THANKED ALL OF YOU ON BEHALF OF THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT.   I START OFF AGAIN BY THANKING YOU. I DO WANT TO INTRODUCE THE CASE.   AS   INDICATED A LITTLE EARLIER, IT IS A CRIMINAL CASE.   IT IS BROUGHT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS THE PLAINTIFF VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, THE DEFENDANT.   IT IS CASE NUMBER S.A. 073164.   AND IN THIS CASE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE THE PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.   THE DEFENDANT IS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY. IN THIS CASE, THE PEOPLE HAVE CHARGED DOCTOR MURRAY WITH THE CRIME OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 192 SUBDIVISION B. WHICH ALLEGES THAT ON THE DATE OF JUNE 25, 2009, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THAT CRIME, THE ALLEGED VICTIM MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON.   THIS CASE INVOLVES THE DEATH OF THE ENTERTAINER MICHAEL JACKSON.

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO HAS NOT HEARD OF THIS CASE?   IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO HAS NOT HEARD OF THIS CASE, RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE?

 

BAILIFF PARRA:   NONE ON THIS SIDE.

 

MS. GOMEZ:   NONE ON THIS SIDE.

 

THE COURT:   NONE IN FRONT OF ME. NO PROSPECTIVE JUROR HAS INDICATED THAT HE OR SHE HAS NOT HEARD OF THE CASE.   THAT IS NOT A SURPRISE TO US, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WHEN WE CHOOSE JURORS, AS A GENERAL RULE, JURORS DON’T HAVE ANY FAMILIARITY WITH A CASE.   THIS CASE HAS RECEIVED EXTENSIVE ATTENTION OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.   WE DON’T CHOOSE JURORS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN LIVING IN CAVES OR UNDER ROCKS OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE ON THEIR SPACE TRAVELS STOPPED OFF IN THE PLANET EARTH FROM ANOTHER PLANET.

 

WE KNOW THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE LIFE EXPERIENCES, AND YOU’VE HAD EXPOSURE TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF

THIS CASE.   THE ISSUE IS NOT FINDING PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO HAVE BEEN HIDING UNDER A ROCK BUT PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO CAN SERVE AS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURORS IN A CASE, DECIDE THE CASE BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A COURTROOM, AND FOLLOW THE LAW THAT IS PROVIDED TO THEM. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

 

LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CASE.   LET ME START WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPUTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAVID WALGREN.

DEBORAH BRAZIL.

 

THE DEFENDANT DOCTOR ROBERT CONRAD MURRAY.

REPRESENTED BY HIS COUNSEL, EDWARD CHERNOFF. MICHAEL PENA. J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN. AND NAREG GOURJIAN.

 

YOU PREVIOUSLY HAVE MET THE MEMBERS OF OUR FAMILY AND OUR COURT STAFF IN DEPARTMENT 107. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 25 COURT DAYS.   IT’S APPROXIMATELY FIVE WEEKS.   THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT TODAY, THE 9TH OF SEPTEMBER.   PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK ABOUT THE YEAR.   SO I WANT TO MAKE IT REAL CLEAR. 2011. AND WE WOULD BE RESUMING IN TERMS OF YOUR SERVICE AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THIS CASE TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY ON THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AND THEN PICK THE JURY ON THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER.   AND IF WE RAN INTO SOME SCHEDULING ISSUES, WE HAVE ALLOTTED PERHAPS THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER WHICH IS THE FOLLOWING MONDAY WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD BEGIN WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TUESDAY, THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011.

 

YOUR SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED THROUGH APPROXIMATELY THE LAST FRIDAY IN OCTOBER, OCTOBER 28, 2011.   SO WE COUNT 25 DAYS.   I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE, BUT WE WANT TO BE AS CONSERVATIVE AS WE CAN. SO LET ME REPEAT.   YOUR SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 COURT DAYS, TODAY, COMING BACK THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER, POSSIBLY THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY, THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER, IF WE ARE NOT THROUGH WITH JURY SELECTION.   IF WE ARE THROUGH WITH JURY SELECTION ON THE 23RD, THEN WE WOULDN’T HAVE YOU COME BACK UNTIL TUESDAY, THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011.   THAT’S WHEN THE EVIDENCE PORTION OF THE CASE WOULD START. I WILL REPEAT.   TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2011 WITH YOUR SERVICES REQUIRED THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER, OCTOBER 28, 2011.

 

DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, WE WILL BE IN SESSION MONDAY’S THROUGH FRIDAY’S.   WE ARE NOT IN SESSION ON WEEKENDS.   WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION ON MONDAY, THE 10TH OF OCTOBER 2011.   THAT IS COLUMBUS DAY, AND THAT IS A FEDERAL, STATE, AND COURT HOLIDAY.   SO YOUR SERVICES WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED ON THE 10TH OF OCTOBER. BUT FROM THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER, THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER, THEN THE 27TH OF SEPTEMBER THROUGH THE 28TH OF OCTOBER 2011, YOUR SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED.   ONCE AGAIN, THAT’S APPROXIMATELY 25 COURT DAYS. YOUR SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED FROM APPROXIMATELY 8:30 TO 8:45 IN THE MORNING THROUGH NOON. THEN WE TAKE A LUNCH PERIOD FROM NOON TO 1:30.   WE RESUME AT 1:30, AND WE’LL BE HOLDING COURT UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 4:15.   SO THE USUAL COURT HOURS ARE APPROXIMATELY 8:45 IN THE MORNING TO NOON AND THEN 1:30 THROUGH 4:15. THAT CAN VARY DEPENDING UPON A PARTICULAR DAY, BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU A ROUGH IDEA FOR PERHAPS THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHILDCARE ISSUES, ET CETERA, OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WORK DAY OR AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY.

 

BEFORE ANY JUDGE CAN EXCUSE A PROSPECTIVE JUROR FROM JURY DUTY WHICH IS AN OBLIGATION OF CITIZENSHIP, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU THIS MORNING, ANY HARDSHIP THAT A JUROR CLAIMS TO BE EXCUSED MUST BE EXTREME.   AND IT MUST BE PERSONAL TO THE PARTICULAR JUROR. WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE INVALUABLE TO YOUR EMPLOYERS, AND WE ALSO KNOW YOU HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES. ANY HARDSHIP EXCUSE MUST BE PERSONAL TO YOU, AND IT MUST BE EXTREME.   AND ULTIMATELY, IT’S MY CALL AS TO WHETHER ANY CLAIMED HARDSHIP JUSTIFIES THAT YOU ARE BEING EXCUSED.   AND I MAKE MY CALL. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER WE LEAVE YOU IN A LITTLE BIT IS MRS. GLORIA GOMEZ, MRS. FRAN JOHNSON, AND THEIR STAFF MEMBERS ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU AN INTRODUCTION TO A GREAT HARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE.   IT ASKS IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO SERVE ON THIS CASE WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY HARDSHIP.   THAT IS THE VERY FIRST QUESTION.   IT’S REALLY BOLD.   IT’S GOT A BIG YES.

 

I URGE YOU TO CHECK THE YES COLUMN.   ONCE YOU CHECK THE YES COLUMN THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO SERVE AND WOULD NOT BE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP, YOU SIGN A CERTIFICATION AT THE END UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND YOU STOP.   AND AT A LATER POINT IN TIME, YOU THEN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH AN EXTENSIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH YOU WILL FILL OUT. FOR THOSE JURORS WHO ARE CLAIMING AN EXTREME HARDSHIP, YOU ARE INDICATING YOU ARE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP. AND THERE ARE VARIOUS COLUMNS FOLLOWING IT WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ANY HARDSHIP. IS IT A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP?   IS IT A HEALTH ISSUE?   IS IT SOME OTHER RESPONSIBILITY TO FAMILY, ET CETERA?   IS IT A PREPLANNED VACATION OR A BUSINESS TRIP? AND THERE IS, ALSO, A LAST COLUMN FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN TERMS OF A HARDSHIP.

 

 THAT FORM WHETHER YOU ARE CLAIMING A HARDSHIP OR NOT IS PROVIDED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. THAT’S THE LAST PAGE OF THE FORM.   I’LL GET ALL THOSE FORMS.   I WILL MEET WITH THE ATTORNEYS, AND I WILL DECIDE IF I AM GOING TO HONOR ANY CLAIM FOR HARDSHIP OR IF I AM NOT.   AND THEN YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED. FOR THOSE JURORS WHO ARE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT STAGE, YOU WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE.   IT IS AN EXTENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRE.   THE REASON WE ARE USING A QUESTIONNAIRE IS BECAUSE IT MAKES THE PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT RATHER THAN HAVE ATTORNEYS AND I ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL JUROR ON A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF SUBJECTS, ONE AFTER ANOTHER, WHICH CAN TAKE FOREVER.

 

THE QUESTIONNAIRE, IT’S A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS YOU WOULD BE ANSWERING VERBALLY — YOU WILL BE ASKED VERBALLY AND GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THEM AT YOUR OWN PACE. THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU FILL OUT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.   IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD JUST AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE PUBLIC.   YOUR IDENTITIES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND ANONYMOUS.   THE ATTORNEYS, PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO KNOW YOUR IDENTITIES.   THOSE IDENTITIES ARE SEALED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.

 

WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR PRIVACY AND YOUR CANDOR, AND THAT’S THE REASON WHY WE ARE ENGAGED IN A PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROCESS.   BUT REMEMBER, THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT ITSELF.   YOU WILL BE PROVIDING JUST DIGITAL INFORMATION IN TERMS OF YOUR JUROR I.D. NUMBER ON ANY OF THE PUBLIC PARTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU SIGN THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.   IT’S THE LAST PAGE.   THE LAST PAGE IS REMOVED, AND THAT PARTICULAR PAGE IS SEALED.  IT IS NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT ABSENT FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.

 

NOW WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU WILL BE GIVEN AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED TO FINISH THE QUESTIONNAIRE.   AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE REFRESHMENTS AND LUNCH TODAY THAT’S NOT BAD ACTUALLY. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE YOUR TIME AND TO BE AS THOROUGH AS YOU CAN IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. BECAUSE THE MORE THOROUGH YOU ARE IN TERMS OF YOUR ANSWERS, THE LESS I AND THE ATTORNEYS HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON TERMS OF ANY QUESTIONS IN THE OPEN COURTROOM WHEN YOU COME BACK ON THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER.   SO PLEASE BEAR THAT IN MIND AS WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE, WE LIVE IN DIFFERENT TIMES.   NO BIG SURPRISE, IS IT?   UP UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO, JUDGES HISTORICALLY WOULD ADMONISH, WHICH MEANS ORDER, PROSPECTIVE JURORS NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO ANYTHING ABOUT A CASE.   AND WE WOULD END IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. WELL, THOSE KIND OF OLD RULES DON’T FIT INTO THE NEW ORDER OF THINGS.   THE ELECTRONIC AGE IS UPON US, AND THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF MECHANISMS FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION OUT THERE.   AND FOR MANY OF US, WE CAN’T SEEM TO AVOID SHARING OUR MOST INTIMATE DETAILS WITH THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION PEOPLE EVERY MORNING WHEN WE GET UP.

 

WE DON’T KNOW THESE PEOPLE.   THEY DON’T KNOW US.   AND WE LISTEN TO THEM.   AND WE SEEMINGLY TRUST THEM. AND WE TAKE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY WITH GOSPEL TRUTH.   AND THEY SEEM TO THINK THE SAME ABOUT US.   AND WE DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE AGENDAS AND WHAT BIASES OR PREJUDICES OR GAME PLANS THEY MAY HAVE.   WE DON’T KNOW HOW HONEST OR DISHONEST THEY ARE.   BUT IT SEEMS THAT A LOT OF US FUNCTION THAT WAY.

 

THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MUST BE DECIDED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS.   AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS, EVIDENCE IS NOT WHAT YOU MAY HAPPEN TO HEAR ON TALK RADIO PROGRAM OR HEAR FROM A FRIEND OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR EVEN A STRANGER OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM. IT’S NOT WHAT YOU WATCH ON ANY TELEVISION PROGRAM OR IN A MOVIE OR ON A DVD OR WHAT YOU MAY SEE ON THE SIGN OR IN A NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE ARTICLE.   THAT’S NOT EVIDENCE.   WHAT’S EVIDENCE IS WHAT’S PRESENTED IN A COURTROOM UNDER THE SPECIFIC RULES OF THE CASE.

 

I HAD A CHOICE IN THIS CASE, I HAD A CHOICE OF WHETHER I SHOULD SEQUESTER THE JURORS.   AND THE WORD “SEQUESTER” ESSENTIALLY MEANS IN THE BLUNTEST TERMS, KEEP YOU IN CUSTODY FOR A FIVE-WEEK PERIOD SO THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS UNDER OUR CONTROL.   YOU ARE HOUSED AT A HOTEL.   YOU DON’T HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS TELEVISION OR RADIO, THE INTERNET, CELL PHONES. YOU DON’T HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE ANY INTIMATE CONTACT WITH FRIENDS OR FAMILY.   AND ANY COMMUNICATION YOU HAVE WITH FRIENDS OR FAMILY OR ANYBODY ELSE IS MONITORED. BECAUSE ACTUALLY THEY ARE NOT THERE WITH YOU.

 

I DON’T WANT TO DO THAT TO YOU.   I DON’T WANT TO TREAT YOU LIKE PRISONERS.   I DON’T THINK IT’S HEALTHY.   I DON’T THINK IT’S HEALTHY FOR YOU.   I DON’T THINK IT’S HEALTHY FOR YOUR RELATIONSHIPS, AND I DON’T THINK IT’S HEALTHY FOR THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT BRINGS IN A LAYER OF STRESS AND ANXIETY AND INHUMANITY THAT IS COUNTER TO YOUR OBLIGATIONS AS JURORS.

 

I HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY, AND I THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LONG TIME.   AND I SAID I DON’T WANT TO DO THIS TO THESE PEOPLE.   BUT I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF DOCTOR MURRAY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO HOW DO I DO THAT?   BECAUSE THAT IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION. AND I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION BASED UPON MY VERY FEW YEARS OF DOING THIS AS A JOB AND MY INTERACTION WITH JURORS OVER THESE DECADES THAT I WANT TO CALL UPON THEM TO TAKE THE HIGHEST ROAD IN TERMS OF THEIR INTEGRITY NOT TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM TALKING WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY, FROM UNDERTAKING THEIR NORMAL RESPONSIBILITIES, FROM WATCHING TV, OR LISTENING TO THE RADIO OR MUSIC OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT BUT TO PRECLUDE THEM FROM HAVING ANY CONTACT OR COMMUNICATION OR OUTSIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE. AND IT REQUIRES JURORS TO EXERCISE DISCIPLINE AND RESTRAINT AND AVOID TEMPTATION.   AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF FOLLOWING THAT TYPE OF PATH.   IF YOU ARE THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO SIMPLY IS NOT PREPARED TO ALTER YOUR LIFESTYLE TO AVOID COMING INTO CONTACT WITH ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM, THEN TELL US THAT.

 

I AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO SELL YOU A BILL OF GOODS.   WE WANT TO KNOW IT.   AND IT’S ONLY FAIR TO EACH PARTY IN THIS CASE THAT WE KNOW IT.   BUT WE CALL UPON YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE ARE DEPENDING UPON YOUR INTEGRITY AND SO AM I.   SO LET ME READ SOME THOUGHTS TO YOU.

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A COURTROOM IS MORE THAN A STERILE AND BEAR INTERIOR ROOM IN A BUILDING.   IT IS IN THE TRUEST SENSE A TEMPLE OF JUSTICE.   WHAT HAPPENS IN A COURTROOM SYMBOLIZES A COMMITMENT TO OUR DEMOCRATIC   PRINCIPLES AND THE RULES OF LAW. YOU WILL BE THE ONLY JUDGES OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.   I AM A JUDGE OF THE LAW.   AND FOR THAT, I GET A BLACK ROBE AND CLEANING BILLS.   BUT EACH JUROR IS AND ALWAYS REMAINS AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGE OF THE FACTS.   EACH JUROR DECIDES THE FACTS WHAT HAPPENED AND THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS.   THAT IS YOUR JOB AND YOUR JOB ALONE.   BUT YOU ARE JUDGES WHEN YOU UNDERTAKE THAT COMMITMENT.

 

IN PREPARING THIS CASE, THE PARTIES HAVE HADAN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ONLY LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO YOU.   AS THE JUDGE OF THE LAW, IT HAS BEEN AND REMAINS MY ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE   DECISIONS AS TO WHAT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AND WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU AS JUDGES OF THE FACTS.

 

THE REASON I AM RELATING THESE BITS OF INFORMATION TO YOU IS THAT YOU ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND YOU MUST FOLLOW MY DIRECTIONS AS TO YOUR CONDUCT. THE UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEE PROTECTIONS TO THE PARTIES. BEFORE YOU CAME INTO THIS COURTROOM, THE PARTIES AND I HAVE DISCUSSED ISSUES, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS ISSUES.   JUST AS NEITHER SIDE IS ALLOWED TO SANDBAG THE OTHER BY SPRINGING A SURPRISE OR ENGAGING IN SECRETS, JURORS MAY NOT, CANNOT, AND MUST NOT SANDBAG THE PARTIES WHO HAVE ENTERED THE COURTROOM SEEKING JUSTICE.

 

HAVING EVEN ONE JUROR CONSIDER SOMETHING OR MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE OF THE EVIDENCE IN SECRET VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF BOTH PARTIES AND UNDERMINES THE PUBLIC PROCESS GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION.

 

AS I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER THIS MORNING DURING MY WELCOME ADDRESS, THERE ARE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENSHIP.   AND I MENTION THAT, I’M SURE, GETTING THE SUMMONS AND HAVING TO COME IN ON A FRIDAY WASN’T A HIGHPOINT OF YOUR WORKWEEK.   THERE ARE BURDENS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITIZENSHIP.   I DON’T APOLOGIZE FOR THEM.   QUITE FRANKLY, I FEEL IT’S AN HONOR TO BE A JUROR.

 

WE HAVE YOUNG WOMEN AND YOUNG MEN RIGHT NOW WHO ARE REPRESENTING THIS COUNTRY IN SOME PRETTY GODAWFUL PLACES AROUND THIS GLOBE PUTTING THEIR SAFETY ON THE LINE EVERYDAY FOR US.   I THINK IF GIVEN THE CHOICE THEY’D RATHER BE ON JURY DUTY.

 

A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE COURT’S ORDERS CAN RESULT IN AN UNJUST VERDICT, A MISTRIAL, AND CAUSE EXTRAORDINARY INCONVENIENCE, EMOTIONAL TURMOIL, AND EXPENSE.   SUCH A VIOLATION WOULD BE TERRIBLY UNFAIR TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN OR AFFECTED BY THE CASE. AS YOU UNDOUBTEDLY KNOW AND AS I HAVE MENTIONED BUT WILL REITERATE SOME INFORMATION AVAILABLE OR OUTSIDE SOURCES SUCH AS THE INTERNET OR OTHER SOURCES OUT THERE IS INACCURATE, MISLEADING, OR PRESENTED IN UNRELATED CONTEXT.   SUCH OUTSIDE INFORMATION CAN BE INFLAMMATORY,

PREJUDICIAL, OR SIMPLY UNRELATED TO THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR COURTROOM TRIAL.

 

ALSO, CERTAIN INFORMATION MAY NOT BE LEGALLY PERMITTED.   IT SIMPLY IS NOT FAIR TO THE PARTIES AND OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO HAVE EVEN ONE JUROR MAKE A DECISION BASED ON SOMETHING DISCOVERED OR COMMUNICATED OUTSIDE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS COURTROOM.   SO PLEASE BEAR ALL OF THAT IN MIND.

 

WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE, THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTION THAT ARE INVOLVED.   FIRST OF ALL, THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT ACCUSEDOF A CRIME SUCH AS THE ONE IN THIS CASE HAS A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. THERE ARE MANY, MANY COUNTRIES AROUND THIS GLOBE WHICH DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.   OUR COUNTRY DOES.   IT IS ONE OF OUR VERY MOST CHERISHED CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES, SOMETHING OF WHICH WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY PROUD. THERE ARE OTHER SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AS WELL, AND THAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF.

 

I NOW WILL EXPLAIN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF.   DOCTOR MURRAY HAS PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO THE CHARGE OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.   THE FACT THAT A CRIMINAL CHARGE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST DOCTOR MURRAY IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE CHARGE IS TRUE. YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT JUST BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH A CRIME, OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL.

 

A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT.   THIS PRESUMPTION REQUIRES THAT THE PEOPLE PROVE A DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. WHENEVER I TELL YOU THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE SOMETHING, I MEAN THEY MUST PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IS PROOF THAT LEAVES YOU WITH AN ABIDING CONVICTION THAT THE CHARGE IS TRUE.   THE EVIDENCE NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT.

 

IN DECIDING WHETHER THE PEOPLE HAVE PROVED THEIR CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU MUST IMPARTIALLY COMPARE AND CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRIAL.   UNLESS THE EVIDENCE PROVES THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, HE IS ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL.   AND YOU MUST FIND NOT HIM NOT GUILTY. A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE ALSO HAS AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY AND TO REMAIN SILENT.   AND IN FACT, THE DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAS NO BURDEN OR OBLIGATION OR RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER TO DO OR SAY ANYTHING.   THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT, DOCTOR MURRAY, IS INNOCENT.   THIS IS A CASE ABOUT WHETHER THE PEOPLE CAN PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AS I HAVE DEFINED THE TERM FOR YOU, THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY. AND NO LACK OF TESTIMONY ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT, DOCTOR MURRAY, OR NO LACK OF EVIDENCE BY THE DEFENSE GENERALLY CAN MAKE UP FOR A MISSING ELEMENT IF AT THE END OF THE CASE THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT PROVEN TO YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY.

 

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY HAVE SERVED ON A CIVIL CASE, THERE IS A STANDARD OF PROOF CALLED PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT RING A BELL WITH SOME OF YOU?   I SEE SOME HEADS SHAKE. IN A CIVIL CASE, EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED BY EACH SIDE.   AND WHICHEVER SIDE PRESENTS JUST A LITTLE MORE THAN THE OTHER JUST ENOUGH TO TIP THE SCALES, THAT SIDE WILL PREVAIL.   IN A CIVIL CASE, A VERDICT CAN BE REACHED WHEN 9 OUT OF 12 JURORS REACH A DECISION.   THEN THERE’S A VERDICT. CONTRAST THOSE RULES OF LAW IN CIVIL CASES IN CALIFORNIA WITH THE RULES AND LAW THAT APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES.

 

IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.   THERE IS NO RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY.   YOU MAY NOT CONSIDER OR DISCUSS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THE DEFENDANT’S DECISION NOT TO TESTIFY.   YOU EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE AS YOU ARE GIVEN IT, AND THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS I HAVE DEFINED AND WILL DEFINE THE TERM FOR YOU. YOU HAVE NOT HEARD ME TELL YOU THAT THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, OR TO 100 PERCENT CERTAINTY.   THEY HAVE NO SUCH RESPONSIBILITY.   RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROVE THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

I MENTION THESE ASPECTS OF THE LAW TO GIVE YOU AN INTRODUCTION BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN QUESTIONS ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH CALL FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT WILL APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO WITH REGARD TO EVERYTHING I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU FOLKS SO FAR, I NOW WILL BE PROVIDING YOU WITH A FORMAL ADMONISHMENT AND ORDER TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS.

 

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WILL BE REMAINING AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN THIS CASE, YOU ACTUALLY WILL RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS WRITTEN ORDER.   IT’S ON 2 PAGES.   SO DON’T JUST STOP AT THE END OF THE FIRST PAGE.   JUST TURN IT OVER TO THE SECOND PAGE.   BUT IT’S AN ORDER THAT IS GOING TO APPLY TO YOUR CONDUCT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE CASE FROM NOW ON, AND I AM GOING TO READ IT TO YOU SO THAT IT’S AN ORDER I AM GIVING TO YOU RIGHT NOW.

 

ADMONISHMENTS/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 ADMONISHMENTS/ORDERS THAT APPLY TO YOUR CONDUCT FOR THE DURATION OF THE CASE UNTIL YOU ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE JURY SERVICE:

 

YOU ARE NOT TO TALK OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATE 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, COWORKERS, SPIRITUAL LEADERS, OR ADVISORS, THERAPISTS, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, SPECTATORS, OR EVEN TOTAL STRANGERS.   DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEFENDANT, THE ATTORNEYS, ANY WITNESS, OR ANY SPECTATOR AT ANYTIME 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   PHONE, ON THE INTERNET, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER. AT SOME POINT, I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS PEOPLE MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE. SO I HAD TO PUT THIS IN THERE.   AND I ALSO HAVE SAID THAT INCLUDES TELEPATHIC COMMUNICATION, IF YOU DO THAT.

 

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 NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE ARTICLE REGARDING ANY ASPECTS OF THE CASE.   DO NOT ACCESS ANY INTERNET WEBSITE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY SEARCH ENGINE SITE.   THAT INCLUDES GOOGLE, ASK, BING, ET CETERA, OR POST ANY MESSAGES OR ACCESS ANY BLOGS ON ANY SITE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MYSPACE OR FACEBOOK, ET CETERA, OR SEND OR READ ANY TEXTS OR TWEETS AS TO ANY ASPECTS OF THIS CASE WHERE THE PERSONS OR SUBJECTS MENTIONED OR INVOLVED IN IT.

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I DON’T WANT YOU TO PUT YOUR COMPUTERS DOWN OR TO TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES FOR FIVE WEEKS, NO, COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE.   DO YOUR JOBS.   BUT JUST ADJUST YOUR LIFESTYLE SO YOU DON’T COME INTO CONTACT WITH ANYTHING INVOLVING THIS CASE.   THAT’S WHAT WE ASK YOU.

 

I DON’T WANT TO IMPRISON YOU IN A COCOON SO THAT YOU HAVE NO OUTSIDE RELATIONSHIPS OR CONTACTS.   NO. YOU GET THE IDEA.   WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.   SO INSOLATE YOURSELVES FROM ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.

 

DO NOT CONDUCT 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 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 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 PERSONAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO YOU AS WELL.   IT CAN RESULT IN YOUR BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, SENTENCED TO JAIL, AND/OR FINED.   WITH THAT IN MIND, PLEASE TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND FOLLOW TO THE LETTER EACH OF THESE ADMONISHMENTS/ORDERS.

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION. MRS. GOMEZ.

 

MRS. GOMEZ:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   IS THERE ANY OTHER MATTER WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING?

 

MRS. GOMEZ:     I DON’T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT WITH ME, AND I THANK YOU FOR IT.   I LEAVE YOU   NOW IN THE CAPABLE HANDS OF MRS. GOMEZ AND MRS. JOHNSON AND THEIR STAFF FROM JUROR SERVICES TO ADDRESS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES YOU ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN. AND AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, THANK YOU FOR UNDERTAKING THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE THIS GREAT COUNTRY. THANK YOU.

 

ALL RIGHT.   DEPARTMENT 107 IS IN RECESS FROM THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM ON THE FIFTH FLOOR.   AND WE WILL REASSEMBLE IN DEPARTMENT 107’S HOME COURT ON THE 9TH FLOOR. THANK YOU.

 

I WANT TO THANK THE JURORS IN THE OUTLYING AREAS.

 

THANK YOU.

 

 (THE PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:05 A.M.)

 

 

 (THE PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 11:15 A.M.)

 

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN DEPARTMENT 107, 9TH FLOOR:)

 

 

(WHEREUPON, THE IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 334-383 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.)

 

 

 

 

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

 

THE COURT:   IN DOCTOR MURRAY’S CASE, MR. DOCTOR MURRAY IS PRESENT WITH COUNSEL MR. CHERNOFF, MR. GOURJIAN. PEOPLE BY MISS BRAZIL AND MR. WALGREN.   IT IS TEN MINUTES TO 1:00.

 

COUNSEL AND I HAVE FINALIZED DISCUSSIONS REGARDING HARDSHIP, AND COUNSEL HAVE AGREED TO PUT THE MATTER OVER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO NEXT THURSDAY WHICH IS THE 15TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AT 9:00 A.M. IN THIS DEPARTMENT. DEFENSE COUNSEL DO NOT BELIEVE IT’S NECESSARY THAT DOCTOR MURRAY APPEAR.   BUT RATHER HE BE EXCUSED, AND THAT IS FINE WITH ME. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU, DOCTOR MURRAY?

 

DEFENDANT MURRAY:   YES, SIR.

 

THE COURT:   BUT DOCTOR MURRAY, YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK HERE AS A CONDITION OF YOUR BOND WHICH STANDS AT 9:00 O’CLOCK A.M. ON THE 22ND OF SEPTEMBER 2011.   AND FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK. IS THAT OKAY?

 

DEFENDANT MURRAY:   YES, IT IS.

 

THE COURT:   THAT WILL DO IT.   AND WHAT WE WILL DO

ON THE RECORD, WE WILL INDICATE THIS AFTERNOON THAT WE COMPLETED THE PROCESS OF HARDSHIP SCREENING.   AND THAT AS SOON AS THE COURT RECEIVES ALL OF THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES, THE COURT WILL RELEASE THROUGH THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION THE BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE AS WELL AS THE ADMONITIONS FORM WITH THE STIPULATION OF COUNSEL. AND WE’LL INDICATE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NEXT THURSDAY AT 9:00 A.M.   IN THE MEANTIME, HAVE A NICE WEEKEND AND WEEK, EVERYBODY.   WE WILL BE PROVIDING COUNSEL WITH THE RANDOM JURY LIST WHICH WILL BE THE AMALGAMATION OF THE JURY LIST FROM YESTERDAY AND TODAY AND THE QUESTIONNAIRES THEMSELVES BY MONDAY MORNING, BY EARLY MONDAY MORNING SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM TO THE D.A.’S OFFICE FOR PHOTOCOPYING AND DISTRIBUTION. AND I WANT A COPY FOR THE D.A, A COPY FOR THE DEFENSE, THE ORIGINALS FOR THE COURT, AND TWO EXTRA COPIES, ONE FOR ME PERSONALLY AND ONE FOR POSSIBLE

 DISSEMINATION TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.   SO 5 COPIES.

 

MR. WALGREN:   4 COPIES PLUS THE ORIGINAL.

 

THE COURT:   IS THAT HOW IT WORKS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   D.A, DEFENSE, YOU PERSONALLY,

 

THE COURT:   AND PUBLIC INFORMATION.

 

MR. WALGREN:   4 COPIES.

 

THE COURT:   AND THE ORIGINAL, YES.   THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY.   AND THE D.A. CAN PICK UP THE MATERIALS, PHOTOCOPY THEM, AND HAVE THEM DISTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENSE. AND ONCE AGAIN, A PROTECTIVE ORDER REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.   THE DEFENDANT AND ALL COUNSEL AND MEMBERS OF THEIR TEAM ARE NOT TO DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE TEAMS AND TO ADMONISH THOSE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEAMS OF THIS VERY SIGNIFICANT ADMONITION.

ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   AGREE, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   DEFENSE?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   DOCTOR MURRAY AS WELL?

 

DEFENDANT MURRAY:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   VERY WELL.   THANK YOU.

 

HAVE A NICE WEEKEND.

 

 (THE PROCEEDINGS ENDED AT 12:55 P.M. UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.)