People V Conrad Murray July 25th 2011

These are summaries taken from the Official Court Transcripts

APPEARANCES:

 

FOR THE PEOPLE: DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DEBORAH BRAZIL, DAVID WALGREN

 

FOR DEFENDANT: J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, NAREG GOURJIAN.

DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,

 

REPRESENTING SONY PICTURES PARTIES.   GARY L. BOSTWICK,   KEVIN L. VICK,

 

THE COURT:   WEDNESDAY, 20 JULY, THE COURT, BASED UPON THE REQUESTS OF COUNSEL, WENT TO SONY PICTURES IN THAT AFTERNOON,   I SPENT THREE HOURS REVIEWING EXTENSIVE MATERIALS FROM THE LIST OF FILES REFERENCED BY THE PARTIES.   I CAME BACK.   AND THE NEXT DAY, I WAS PRESENTED WITH A MOTION FILED BY SONY TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA WITHOUT FURTHER VIEWING BY THE COURT IN LIGHT OF STATEMENTS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL. I REVIEWED THE ATTACHMENTS TO THE APPLICATION.   I ALSO WENT ON-LINE AND REVIEWED VARIOUS MEDIA REPORTS AND ALSO LISTENED TO A TALK RADIO SEGMENT INVOLVING MR. FLANAGAN BASED UPON THOSE FACTORS, I DETERMINED I WOULD NOT GO FORWARD WITH FURTHER VIEWING OF THE MATERIALS AS I HAD PLANNED ON SATURDAY, THE 23RD OF JULY, AND SUNDAY, THE 24TH OF JULY.   AND ON THE 22ND OF JULY, I HAD MS. BENSON, THE COURT CLERK AND JUDICIAL ASSISTANT, CONTACT ALL COUNSEL BY PHONE AND SUBSEQUENTLY SEND A MINUTE ORDER TO COUNSEL INDICATING THAT I WAS CANCELING THE VIEWINGS FOR THE 23RD AND THE 24TH OF JULY, AND THAT THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA REMAINED PENDING AND WOULD BE CONSIDERED ON TODAY’S DATE. THAT IS THE UPDATE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.   I’LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR SONY’S POSITION WHICH FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION,

 

MR. BOSTWICK: THE MAIN POINT IS THAT THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS, IT SEEMS TO ME, WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT HAS BEEN ENTERED THAT PROHIBITED ANYONE FROM SPEAKING ABOUT THE MATERIALS THAT WERE VIEWED.  HAD WE HEARD THEM EARLIER, WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AVOID ANY OF THE TIME AND EXPENSE THAT HAD BEEN NECESSARY. BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF THE DEFENSE HAS WITHDRAWN ITS DESIRE TO SEE REHEARSAL FOOTAGE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THEN IN FACT NO REHEARSAL FOOTAGE SHOULD BE SHOWN OF ANY KIND AT ALL.   THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE THE COURT HAS ALREADY TOLD THE PROSECUTION THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY PUBLIC AND IT IS PART OF THE FILM “THIS IS IT.”   THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE A RULING ABOUT THAT.   AND BECAUSE THAT IS THE CASE, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY REHEARSAL FOOTAGE AT ALL FOR ANY PURPOSES.   OF COURSE, THE PROSECUTION SIMPLY DOESN’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS THAT RISE TO THE DIGNITY OF A FAIR TRIAL.   THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME AS GUARANTEEING A FAIR TRIAL OF A DEFENDANT, AND IT NEVER IS.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T KNOW IF I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY WITH THAT CONCEPT.   IF THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT MAY NOT BE INVOLVED, WE MAY DIFFER ON THAT.

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   .YOU MAY RECALL IN THE FIRST HEARING, I MENTIONED THAT THE GORDIAN KNOT SOLUTION WAS TO REVISIT THAT SOLUTION.   BUT THE FACT IS NOW THAT THE COURT HAS SEEN THE REHEARSAL, I THINK THE COURT CAN MAKE ITS OWN DECISION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE REHEARSAL FOOTAGE DOESN’T SHOW ANYTHING THAT ISN’T ALREADY SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN ON THE TWO DAYS OF “THIS IS IT” THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE COURT’S EARLIER RULING TO SHOW, AND IT WOULD BE MERELY CUMULATIVE TO SHOW THE REHEARSAL FOOTAGE. WE DO HAVE A REPLY THAT WE HAVE NEVER DONE –WE HAVE NEVER FILED.   WE HAVE ONE.   IT IS READY, BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT DIDN’T NEED TO SEE ANY MORE PAPER AT THIS POINT AND WE WOULD HOLD IT BACK AND WAIT FOR THE COURT’S THOUGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS THIS MORNING.BUT IF NECESSARY, WE COULD FILE IT AND SERVE IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHATEVER THE COURT IS ABOUT TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE CLIPS THAT WERE PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES.

 

THE COURT:   THE DEFENSE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   IF I CAN EXPAND UPON WHAT QUOTES THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO ME IN MR. BOSTWICK’S   MOTION, I INDICATED ON AN INTERVIEW UPON LEAVING THE COURT THAT WE CONCEDE THAT MICHAEL JACKSON IS VERY TALENTED AND, EVEN ON HIS BAD DAYS, HE WAS VERY GOOD. WE EXPECTED  THERE WOULD BE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD SHOW MICHAEL VERY COMPROMISED AND NOT AT HIS BEST.     WE DON’T THINK THAT THE EDITED MOVIE “THIS IS IT” SHOULD BE SHOWN.   WE DON’T THINK IT IS RELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION. I DON’T THINK ANY EDITED FILM, AND I DON’T SEE HOW THEY CAN LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THAT FILM WITHOUT THE USE OF THE FOOTAGE, BUT WE REALLY ARE OF THE OPINION THAT “THIS IS IT” SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN AT ALL.   I THINK IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME.  IF “THIS IS IT” IS SHOWN, THEN IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW THE FOOTAGE THAT IS NOT SHOWN.   WE LOOKED AT OVER A HUNDRED HOURS LOOKING FOR MICHAEL JACKSON DANCING WHEN HE WAS NOT FEELING WELL.  HE DIDN’T REHEARSE ON THOSE DAYS.   HE  DIDN’T REHEARSE ON THE 15TH, THE 18TH, THE 19TH, THE 20TH, THE 21ST, OR THE 22ND.   THESE ARE DAYS WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT HIM TO NOT BE IN HIS TOP PHYSICAL CONDITION BECAUSE OF COMPARING DATES WITH MEDICAL RECORDS.THE ONLY FILM THAT SHOWED HIM IN REHEARSAL WAS ON THE 16TH AND THE 17TH, THE 23RD AND THE 24TH.   THOSE ARE DAYS THAT WE WOULD NOT EXPECT HIM TO BE AS COMPROMISED AS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE DAYS WHERE HE DIDN’T PRACTICE.. BUT AS FAR AS WHEN HE IS, ON THE 17TH IN PARTICULAR, ON THE 23RD IN PARTICULAR, HE IS SPOT-ON.   THAT IS WHAT  THAT FOOTAGE INDICATES.   AND I DON’T THINK — AND THAT IS ALL “THIS IS IT” REALLY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION.   AND I DON’T THINK THAT MOVIE IN ITS EDITED FORM SHOULD BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE IS IN GREAT PHYSICAL SHAPE AND GREAT MENTAL SPIRITS.

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOT ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW THE COURT’S EARLIER RULING PERMITTING THE PROSECUTION TO SHOW VERY SPECIFIC DESIGNATED CLIPS FROM THE MOVIE ARISING OUT OF REHEARSALS ON THE 23RD AND THE 24TH.   I’M ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF THE SUBPOENA AND WHAT HAS GONE ON SINCE THE DEFENSE INITIALLY ISSUED THE SUBPOENA.ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE SUBPOENA?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WE ARE NOT WITHDRAWING THE SUBPOENA,YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT IS STILL GOING TO ALLOW THE EDITED FILM FOOTAGE.   IF THE EDITED FILM FOOTAGE IS APART OF A WRITING, I THINK IF EDITED FILM FOOTAGE COMES IN, THE ENTIRE WRITING SHOULD COME IN.

 

THE COURT:   EXACTLY WHAT DOES THE ENTIRE WRITING SHOW THAT THE FILM FOOTAGE WHICH I HAVE ADDRESSED DOES NOT?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   WHAT THE ENTIRE WRITING SHOWS IS THE DAYS THAT HE IS NOT THERE.

 

THE COURT:   “THE ENTIRE WRITING SHOWS THE DAYS HE IS NOT THERE.”   HOW DO YOU PROVE THE NEGATIVE WHEN THERE IS NOTHING FROM THOSE DAYS?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   BECAUSE WE JUST WANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE.   IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT IN THAT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE IS IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION, THE IMPLICATION IS THAT WHEN HE IS NOT PERFORMING WHEN WE KNOW HE IS THERE — WE HEARD AT PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE 19TH HE WAS THERE.   HE DIDN’T PRACTICE.   HE SAT THERE.   THEY HAD TO WRAP HIM.   THEY SENT HIM HOME.   THAT IS NOT ON THE REHEARSAL FOOTAGE.   HE IS THERE.   HE GETS WRAPPED, AND THEN HE IS SUDDENLY NOT THERE.   SHOWING WHEN HE IS ON THE TOP OF HIS GAME, WHICH IS THE EDITED PORTION AND IT IS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT, YOU CANNOT DEPICT HIM IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT.   THEY HAD TO DEPICT HIM IN A POSITIVE LIGHT.   SHOWING HIM ONLY IN THE POSITIVE LIGHT IS NOT A FAIR REPRESENTATION.   THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO SHOW HE IS IN GREAT PHYSICAL CONDITION.

 

THE COURT:   THE RAW FOOTAGE OF THE 23RD AND 24TH SIMPLY IS THAT.   IT IS RAW FOOTAGE.   IS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT RAW FOOTAGE WHICH DID NOT MAKE ITS WAY TO THE EDITED MOVIE VERSION WHICH YOU BELIEVE DEMONSTRATES MICHAEL JACKSON IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION THEN.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   THE POSITION IS THAT WE WERE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE 15TH THROUGH THE 25TH.   THE 15TH, HE IS NOT THERE.   WE THINK WE KNOW WHY.   THE 18TH, HE IS NOT PERFORMING.   HE IS THERE BUT NOT PERFORMING.   THE 19TH, HE IS SENT HOME BECAUSE HE HAS GOT THE SYMPTOMS OF THE SWEAT.   THE 20TH, THERE IS NO FOOTAGE ON THAT.   THAT IS WHEN THEY HAD THE MEETING WITH HIM AT THE HOUSE AT CAROLWOOD AND TOLD HIM THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF WHAT HE HAD DONE IN THE LAST WEEK OR HOW HE HAD NOT BEEN COOPERATIVE. ON THE 21ST, THERE WAS NOT A PRACTICE.   AND ON THE 22ND, HE WAS NOT THERE FOR PRACTICE.

I THINK HIS PHYSICAL RECORDS KIND OF EXPLAIN WHY THESE OCCURRENCES WERE THERE.   SO JUST USING WHAT HE IS ABLE TO DO FOR TWO HOURS ON THE 23RD AND TWO HOURS OF THE 24TH AT PRACTICE DOESN’T ACCURATELY DEPICT HIS CONDITION THAT WE THINK IS VERY COMPROMISED FROM THE USE OF SOME SUBSTANCES THAT HE HAD HAD ON THE 16TH AND THE 22ND.

 

THE COURT:   CERTAINLY MR. JACKSON’S PERFORMANCE, HIS PRESENCE ON THE 23RD AND THE 24TH, ARE SIGNIFICANT WHEN, A MATTER OF

HOURS LATER ON THE 25TH, MR. JACKSON IS DECEASED.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   ON THE 24TH, ACCORDING TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT, HE GOT HOME ABOUT 1:30 AND HE WAS UNABLE TO SLEEP.  FOR ABOUT NINE HOURS DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAD BENZODIAZEPINES, HE HAD VALIUM, HE HAD LORAZEPAM, HE HAD MIDAZOLAM.   NINE HOURS, HE WAS UNABLE TO SLEEP.   THAT HAS GOT TO SEEM SOMEWHAT STRANGE.   HE IS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPOFOL UNTIL 9:30.   WE GO NINE HOURS.

 

THE COURT:   WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE YOUR TAKE ON THE EVIDENCE.   THAT IS WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ABOUT.

I’LL HEAR, IF I HAVE TO, FROM THE DEFENSE IN A LITTLE BIT.PEOPLE, DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.   DOES THE COURT HAVE PARTICULAR ISSUES IT WANTS PEOPLE TO ADDRESS?

 

THE COURT:   THE PARTICULAR ISSUE IS WHETHER I SHOULD ALLOW THE SUBPOENA TO REMAIN OUTSTANDING AND WHETHER CERTAIN RAW FOOTAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO EITHER ONE OF THE PARTIES IN THE CRIMINAL LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE.

 

MR. WALGREN: IN REGARD TO THE PEOPLE’S POSITION ON THE   FOOTAGE, THE PEOPLE SOUGHT AND THE COURT RULED ADMISSIBLE FOOTAGE FROM THE 23RD AND24TH. IT WAS THE PEOPLE’S POSITION THEN, AS IT IS NOW, THAT FOOTAGE DEMONSTRATED THAT MICHAEL JACKSON WAS OPTIMISTIC, ENGAGED, COMPETENT, PHYSICALLY WELL, DANCING ON STAGE WITH DANCERS PROBABLY HALF HIS AGE WITH MICHAEL KEEPING UP WITH THEM AND BESTING THEM.   THAT IT WAS VERY POWERFUL AND REAL EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S CONDITION ON THOSE DAYS, SHOWING, WITHOUT ANY INTERPRETATION FROM ANY WITNESS, SHOWING THE ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF HIM DANCING, SHOWING HIM DISCUSSING STAGE PROPS, LIGHTING, BEING FULLY IMMERSED IN THE PRODUCTION, GIVING EVERY INDICATION THAT THE PLANNED ON PURSUING THIS TOUR TO THE END, THAT HE HAD EVERY DESIRE TO MAKE THIS TOUR AS SUCCESSFUL AS POSSIBLE AND THAT HE HAD EVERY INTENTION TO PROCEED WITH THE “THI IS IT” TOUR THROUGH LONDON AND HAVE IT BE A GREAT SUCCESS.

IN REVIEWING NOW ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE, WHAT WE CALL THE RAW FOOTAGE, THAT SIMPLY CORROBORATES WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, AND WHAT THIS RAW FOOTAGE SHOWS IS NOT ONLY ON THE 23RD AND 24TH THAT THAT WAS THE CONDITION OF MICHAEL, BUT THAT HE WAS IN THAT CONDITION ON NUMEROUS DAYS THROUGHOUT THE REHEARSAL.   THAT HE WAS REPEATEDLY ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS.   HAD DIALOGUE WITH THE DANCERS.   THE CAMERA PEOPLE.   AND WITH VARIOUS ASSISTANTS, KENNY ORTEGA. THAT HE HAD OPINIONS ON WHERE PEOPLE SHOULD PERFORM, HOW THEY SHOULD PERFORM.   HE HAD ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE OTHER DANCERS, SAYING THINGS LIKE, “THAT IS WHAT REHEARSAL IS FOR.   WE WILL GET IT.”

IT SHOWS SOMEONE COMPLETELY INVOLVED, ENGAGED, AND ARGUABLY STILL AT THE PEAK OF HIS ABILITIES AS A PERFORMER, A DANCER, AND AS A HUMAN BEING. SO WHAT THIS FOOTAGE HAS SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE IS THAT IT CORROBORATES OUR POSITION THAT WE ALREADY HAD. AND MORE OVER, IT CORROBORATES THE POSITION OF KENNY ORTEGA ON NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS.IN LIGHT OF THAT, THE PEOPLE DO SEEK, AND I WILL SAY FOR THE COURT’S AND COUNSEL’S BENEFIT, MS. BRAZIL AND I SPENT A GOOD PART OF THE WEEKEND GOING THROUGH THE NOTES AGAIN OF THE FOOTAGE AND TRYING TO THIN OUT OUR REQUEST TO THE BEST WE COULD ASSUMING, BASED ON MR. FLANAGAN’S COMMENT TO THE PRESS, THAT THE DEFENSE WAS NO LONGER SEEKING FOOTAGE.WE TRIED TO LIMIT OUR REQUEST.   AND OUR REQUEST, AS IT STANDS NOW, IS THAT THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS WE WOULD SEEK TO OBTAIN.   THAT IS, DVD NO. 113, WHICH IS REHEARSAL FOOTAGE FROM 6-23-09; DVD NO. 117, WHICH IS REHEARSAL FOOTAGE FROM 6-24-09; FOOTAGE FROM BACKUP DRIVE NO. 31, WHICH SHOWS REHEARSAL FOOTAGE FROM 6-16-09; AND REHEARSAL FOOTAGE FROM DVD NO. 106, SHOWING REHEARSAL FOOTAGE FROM 6-16-09.ADDITIONALLY, ACTUALLY A FIFTH ONE, IN LIGHT OF MR. FLANAGAN’S COMMENTS HERE TODAY, BACKUP DRIVE NO. 031, SHOWING REHEARSAL FOOTAGE FROM 6-19-09, WHICH WE WOULD DIFFER DOES NOT SHOW MICHAEL JACKSON CURLED UP WITH A BLANKET ON HIM, OR HOWEVER THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS MADE BY MR. FLANAGAN.   AGAIN, SHOWS A HEALTHY AND ENGAGED MICHAEL JACKSON.   AND WE WOULD ASK FOR THESE FIVE DISTINCT ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE.I WOULD STATE TO THE COURT, AS TO RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY, IF THE COURT WANTS TO LITIGATE THAT ON THE 6-16 AND 6-19 DATES, I THINK THAT IS FOR ANOTHER DAY.OUR

CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE IN TRIAL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL RAISES THESE ARGUMENTS OR TRIES TO MISREPRESENT WHAT THEY KNOW IS ON THE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS A HEALTHY MICHAEL JACKSON.   AND AT THAT POINT, THEN TIME BECOMES AN ISSUE AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET THESE FROM SONY, HAVE THEM CONVERTED IN TIME, AND HAVE THEM PROVIDE TO THE JURY. WHAT WE ARE ASKING RIGHT NOW IN REGARD TO THE DATES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED IS SIMPLY THAT ALL OF THIS FOOTAGE BE PROVIDED SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE IT IN CONVERTED FORMAT SO THAT THE COURT, SHOULD IT RULE  IT RELEVANT OR ADMISSIBLE, WE WILL HAVE IT AND BE PREPARED

TO SHOW THE TRUTH TO THE JURY AND NOT MISREPRESENTATIONS BY ANY PARTY.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.MR. BOSTWICK?

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   YOUR HONOR, THE WORD “CORROBORATE” ALREADY BEGINS TO IMPLY CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE.   IF THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY THERE, THE FACT IS THAT THE PROSECUTION MIGHT BE SEEKING REHEARSAL FOOTAGE WHICH NOW IS SOMETHING THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US, AND IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO OUR CLIENTS BECAUSE OF THE FUTURE PRODUCTIONS THAT CAN BE MADE OF THE VERY THINGS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THESE FIVE EXCERPTS. NOW, THE FACT IS THAT YOUR HONOR SAW THESE VERY CLIPS AND TOOK NOTES ON THESE CLIPS.   THE FACT IS —

 

THE COURT:   I DIDN’T TAKE NOTES, NOR DID I SEE THE

PRE-JUNE 23RD MATERIALS BECAUSE WE HAD RUN OUT OF TIME.

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.   I’M

SORRY, YOUR HONOR.   YOU ARE CORRECT.

 

 

THE COURT:   IT WAS GETTING LATE, AND WE MANAGED TO

VIEW ALL MATERIALS FROM THE 23RD AND 24TH.   MY PLAN WAS

TO COME BACK ON SATURDAY AND VIEW THE EARLIER MATERIALS.

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   THE NEXT POINT I THINK IS THAT DVD 113 IS ONE AND A HALF HOURS TOTAL.   117 IS 1.25 HOURS TOTAL.   DVD 106 IS 1.5 HOURS TOTAL.   HAVING THAT MATERIAL IN THE SYSTEM OR IN THE TRIAL THEN RISKS THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND OUR CLIENTS HAVE PUT INTO THE MOTION TO QUASH WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERESTS THAT SONY HAS IN MAINTAINING THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THIS, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SO MANY OUTLETS OUT THERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON IT IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. AND ALTHOUGH WE DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING ILLEGAL TO BE HAPPENING IN THIS COURTROOM, THE FACT IS THAT PEOPLE, JOURNALISTS ARE EXTREMELY CREATIVE IN WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DO AND WHAT THEY CAN TRY TO GET.   AND TO LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT MATERIAL SIMPLY IN ORDER TO CORROBORATE WHAT KENNY ORTEGA IS ALREADY GOING TO SAY AND WHAT “THIS IS IT,” WHICH HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC IN THE PAST, IS GOING

TO SHOW, DOESN’T SEEM LIKE THAT IS A PROPER BALANCING OF

THE INTERESTS IN THIS CASE.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU. MR. FLANAGAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD FURTHER, OR MR. GOURJIAN.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   NO, YOUR HONOR. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS ONLY REQUESTING APPROXIMATELY FOUR HOURS OF FOOTAGE WHICH INCLUDED FOOTAGE FROM THE 15TH, 16TH, THE 18TH, AND THE19TH, FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE ALREADY EXPLAINED BY MR FLANAGAN AS FAR AS THE RELEVANCE, AND WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ORDER SONY TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH THE REQUESTED MATERIALS.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN IS SAYING IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I’M NOT SAYING IT IS WASTE OF TIME

IN THE EVENT YOU WILL SHOW THE FOOTAGE FROM THE 23RD AND24TH, BECAUSE THE 23RD AND 24TH FOOTAGE DOES NOT PORTRAY HIS OVERALL PHYSICAL CONDITION.HIS ABSENCES ON THE 15TH, THE 18TH, 19TH, AND 20TH ARE SIGNIFICANT.   HE IS NOT PERFORMING ON THOSE

DAYS.   AND THERE IS SOME FOOTAGE OF HIM ON THE 18TH AND

19TH TO SHOW THAT HE IS THERE, NOT PERFORMING, BUT NOT EVEN THERE ON THE 15TH, THE 20TH, AND THE 21ST. AS KENNY ORTEGA TESTIFIED TO IN THE TRIAL, ON THE 19TH, HE WAS SO BAD, SO ILL, THAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT HIM.   THEY SENT HIM HOME.   AND ON THE 20TH, THEY HAD THE MEETING WITH HIM ABOUT CANCELING THE SHOW

BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO COOPERATE.I JUST DON’T THINK YOU CAN USE A FILM TO SHOW AT ONE POINT IN TIME HE IS DANCING GREAT TO SHOW THAT DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME HE IS IN GREAT PHYSICAL CONDITION WHEN THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE ACTUALLY THERE SAY HE WASN’T.   HE OBVIOUSLY HAD A CHANGE OF DEMEANOR ON THE 23RD AND 24TH.   AND THAT MEANS HE CAME BY TO CREATE THAT, WE DON’T KNOW.   BUT WE DO KNOW THAT HE WAS NOT HEALTHY DURING THIS ENTIRE TEN-DAY PERIOD OF TIME BOTH FROM TESTIMONY AND FROM THE ABSENCE OF MICHAEL JACKSON ON REHEARSAL FOOTAGE DURING THE PREVIOUS TIMES.

 

THE COURT:   OKAY.   FINAL COMMENTS, MR. WALGREN AND/OR MS. BRAZIL.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I WILL SAY I’M VERY CONFUSED.   I’M STILL NOT QUITE CLEAR ON WHAT THE DEFENSE POSITION IS.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY RULED THE

FOOTAGE FROM THE 23RD AND 24TH WAS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE.   WE WERE PLAYING THAT TO THE JURY.WITH THAT IN MIND, MR. FLANAGAN SAID THE DEFENSE VIEWED ALL FOOTAGE.   AND MR. FLANAGAN, KNOWING THE 23RD AND 24TH FOOTAGE WAS GOING TO BE PLAYED TO THE JURY, MR. FLANAGAN REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS NOT DISPLAYING ANY ILL HEALTH IN THE VIDEO AND THAT IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO PLAY ANY FURTHER VIDEO.SO FOR HIM NOW TO SAY HE IS TAKING BACK THOSE STATEMENTS IF THE COURT IS GOING TO ADMIT THE 23RD AND24TH, I DON’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE COURT WAS ALREADY ADMITTING FOOTAGE FROM THE 23RD AND 24TH WHEN MR.FLANAGAN SAID ANY ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE IS A WASTE OF TIME. SO I’M CONFUSED.

 

THE COURT:   SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   BY SONY?

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   YES, YOUR HONOR, ALTHOUGH — I’M

SORRY.   I DO HAVE ONE THING TO ADD.   THE FOOTAGE IS NOT

NECESSARY TO SHOW THE ABSENCE OF MICHAEL JACKSON.   THERE IS ALREADY TESTIMONY TO THAT.   AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PARTIES COULD EVEN STIPULATE TO THAT ONCE THEY HAD TALKED TO THEIR WITNESSES.   SO THAT FOOTAGE IS NOT NECESSARY.WITH THAT, WE WOULD SUBMIT.

 

THE COURT:   MR. FLANAGAN, SUBMITTED?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   NO.

 

THE COURT:   GO AHEAD.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I SAID THE FOOTAGE FROM THE FILM IS

IRRELEVANT.   THE FILM BEING “THIS IS IT.”   I DON’T THINK IT SHOULD BE SHOWN.   I DO THINK IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.AND IN ORDER TO GET THE ENTIRE PICTURE OF WHAT IS GOING ON, THERE IS ABOUT A HUNDRED HOURS THAT WE LOOKED AT.   AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW HOW GREAT HE IS ON THE 23RD AND 24TH, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW HOW HE WASN’T SO GREAT ON THE TIME BEFORE.

 

THE COURT:   SUBMITTED?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I DON’T THINK YOU CAN SHOW AN EDITED MOVIE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   MAY I BE HEARD?

 

THE COURT:   YES.

 

MR. WALGREN:   JUST TO ELABORATE BRIEFLY, ON THE FIVE ITEMS THE PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED, IT ENTAILS MORE THAN SIMPLY DANCING FOOTAGE.   IT ACTUALLY SHOWS COMMUNICATION, DIALOGUE BETWEEN MICHAEL JACKSON AND OTHERS THAT IS IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL DANCE FOOTAGE.   THE FOOTAGE WE FEEL IS HIGHLY RELEVANT AND WOULD SUPPORT OUR REQUEST FOR THESE ADDITIONAL ITEMS.

 

THE COURT:   THANK YOU.AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE FACTORS, BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE, THE PROSECUTION, AS WELL AS SONY, I AM SATISFIED THAT SONY’S

MOTION TO QUASH IS MERITORIOUS.   I QUASH THE SUBPOENA

DUCES TECUM FOR THE MATERIALS SOUGHT IN ITS ENTIRETY.SONY ORIGINALLY POSITED THAT THIS WAS A FISHING EXPEDITION.   I HAPPEN TO CONCUR.   AND I DON’T WANT THIS TO CONTINUE ANY LONGER BECAUSE WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT WHERE I FIND

INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DEFENSE POSTURE.   I DON’T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS WHICH, AT TIMES, SEEM TO BE CONTRADICTORY.BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THERE ARE MATERIALS WHICH I VIEWED WHICH I WOULD REGARD AS EXTREMELY VALUABLE TO SONY, MATERIALS THAT I VIEWED THAT WERE NOT CONTAINED IN THE PRODUCTION AND, I THINK, HAVE A SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO SONY, AND I AM NOT OBLIVIOUS TO THAT. I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE AND THE PEOPLE, BUT I AM NOT IRRESPONSIBLE IN MY RECOGNITION OF SONY’S INTERESTS.THEY ARE A VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPANY.   AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE MONEY DOESN’T MEAN THEY SHOULD GIVE IT UP UNNECESSARILY. I THINK TO ALLOW THE FOOTAGE THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY EITHER PARTY TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARILY BURDENSOME TO SONY AND WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES.SO THE MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.   I VIEWED THE MATERIALS FROM THE 23RD AND THE 24TH, AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THOSE MATERIALS WHICH COULD BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE DEFENSE.   QUITE THE CONTRARY.   I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE PEOPLE MIGHT WANT THOSE MATERIALS.   I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHY THE PEOPLE MIGHT WANT EARLIER MATERIALS, BUT I AGAIN INDICATE THIS CASE IS GOING TO FOCUS ON THE VERY SHORT TIME FRAME INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, NOT ON WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED A WEEK OR EVEN EARLIER BEFOREHAND.I DON’T KNOW IF, IN VIEW OF ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS CASE, THAT SONY IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR ITS EFFORTS LAST WEDNESDAY.   I KNOW FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THIS COURT, THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA ARE NOW FACING A SHORTFALL OF ALMOST THREE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS.   WE HAVE EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL

PROBLEMS.   THE LAST THING I NEEDED WAS, IN VIEW OF MY CALENDAR AND MY RESPONSIBILITIES, TO TRAIPSE OVER TO SONY, SPENDING AN ENTIRE AFTERNOON WITH THE PROSPECT OF SPENDING TWO MORE DAYS THERE, EXPENDING EXTRAORDINARY FUNDS IN TERMS OF SECURITY AND COURT STAFFING, TO RESPOND TO ALL THIS.SO I DON’T KNOW IF SONY IS ENTITLED TO SEEK SOME SORT OF RESTITUTION FOR THEIR EFFORTS LAST

WEDNESDAY.   I SUPPOSE IT IS PART OF BEING A RESPONSIBLE ENTERPRISE THAT THEY DO.   BUT AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, IT WAS A WASTE OF MY TIME TO GO OVER THERE.SO THE MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED, AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE.   I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY FURTHER

RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF SONY.THERE HAS BEEN A PROTECTIVE ORDER.   I THINK MR. FLANAGAN’S COMMENTS GO RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF WHETHER THERE MAY BE A VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER BECAUSE THE PARTIES SIMPLY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT WHAT THEY MAY HAVE SEEN OR HEARD.   AND I BELIEVE MR. FLANAGAN’S STATEMENTS MAY VERY WELL BE VIOLATIVE OF THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEN HE COMMENTS ON THE MERITS OF CERTAIN FOOTAGE.   SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THE COURT MAY HAVE TO ADDRESS.I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER REASON FOR YOU TO REMAIN, MR. BOSTWICK AND MR. VICK.

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   I DON’T WANT TO THROW YOU OUT OF HERE.

 

MR. BOSTWICK:   WE ENJOY BEING HERE.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THAT, IN LIGHT OF THE COURT’S RULING, I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ORDER SONY

TO PRODUCE THE MATERIALS UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE COURT THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE AND THE PEOPLE. AT A MINIMUM, THE MATERIALS THAT WERE VIEWED BY THE COURT AND COMMENTED ON THIS MORNING, JUST TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE AN ACCURATE AND SUFFICIENT RECORD ON APPEAL, IN THE EVENT EITHER SIDE WISHES TO TAKE A WRIT ON THIS.

 

THE COURT:   YOU KNOW WHAT.   THEN YOU TAKE A WRIT

AND THEN WE GO TO THE NEXT STEP.   I DON’T WANT THESE

MATERIALS  IN COURT FILES.   WE HAVE A HARD ENOUGH TIME

KEEPING  INDIVIDUAL PAGES OF OUR COURT MINUTES TOGETHER. I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE HAVING THESE SENSITIVE, EXTREMELY VALUABLE, POTENTIALLY, MATERIALS IN ANY COURT FILES.   THEY ARE NOW IN VAULTS.   THEY HAVE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION INVOLVED.   THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT SECURITY.   THE COURT SYSTEM, AT LEAST IN L.A. COUNTY,FACING BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS IT HAS, DOES NOT HAVE THAT ABILITY. SO I VIEWED THE 23RD AND 24TH.   I HAVE EXTENSIVE NOTES WHICH I WILL PRESERVE.   IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY, IT WON’T BE AT ALL DIFFICULT TO RECONSTITUTE IF WE HAVE TO.   I RATHER TAKE THAT ROUTE THAN A ROUTE WHERE I FEEL LESS COMFORTABLE.   SO I DECLINE THAT INVITATION.

 

(MESSRS. BOSTWICK AND VICK THEN EXITED THE COURTROOM.)

 

THE COURT:   NOW, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.   ONE FURTHER MATTER I WANTED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE GET INTO SCHEDULING WAS AN INTERVIEW WHICH I HEARD BETWEEN MR. FLANAGAN AND A TALK RADIO PROGRAM.   AND IN THAT INTERVIEW, MR. FLANAGAN COMMENTS ON MR. JACKSON AND HIS “DETRACTORS,” AND THEN PROCEEDS TO ADDRESS TWO ISSUES INVOLVING EXCLUDED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.I THINK THAT IS APPALLING.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I’M NOT –

 

THE COURT:   NOTHING IS MENTIONED, OF COURSE, ABOUT

EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT THE PEOPLE WANTED WHICH I

EXCLUDED, BUT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENSE SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE WHICH I ULTIMATELY EXCLUDED.   AND YOU MENTIONED IT, AND

THE COMMENTATOR SAYS, “WELL,” AND HE IS JOKING ABOUT IT,

SAYS, “NOW YOU HAVE GOT IT OUT THERE

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YOUR HONOR, EVERYTHING I SAID WAS A

MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

 

THE COURT:   YOU KNOW WHAT.   THE PUBLIC RECORD IS

GOING TO GO JUST SO FAR.IN 28 YEARS AS A JUDGE, I NEVER IMPOSED A GAG ORDER, BUT I HAVE ALSO DEPENDED UPON COUNSEL TO ACT RESPONSIBLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE.AND WHETHER MR. FLANAGAN IS A DESIGNATED OR UNDESIGNATED HATCHET MAN, AND WHETHER HE IS AN EXCELLENT ATTORNEY AND A FORCEFUL ADVOCATE, IS ANOTHER.   BUT I THINK IT ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR ANY PARTY IN THIS CASE AND ANY LAWYER IN THIS CASE TO BE GOING ON A RADIO OR  A TELEVISION PROGRAM OR BE INTERVIEWED AND START MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCEEDINGS, IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THE PROSECUTION WERE TO START HARPING ON CERTAIN

EVIDENCE WHICH WAS EXCLUDED BY THE COURT WHICH THE DEFENSE WANTED EXCLUDED.WHAT IS THE PURPOSE IN BRINGING INTO THE INTERVIEW EVIDENCE THAT IS EXCLUDED?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   I WAS ASKED FOR AN EXAMPLE.   I DON’T RECALL IT WORD FOR WORD, BUT I WAS ASKED FOR AN EXAMPLE OF THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT BE HEARD BY THE JURY, THAT COULD BE HEARD, COULD BE PLAYED ON THE RADIO OR ON THE TV, OR COMMENTED UPON BY COMMENTATORS DURING THE TRIAL. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF SEQUESTRATION.   WHEN JURORS ARE HEARING A CASE AND THE COURT SETS THE GUIDELINES AND THE STANDARDS FOR WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HEAR, IF THEY ARE GOING HOME AT NIGHT AND HEARING THINGS ABOUT THIS OTHER STUFF.   AND I SAID IT COULD ALSO HURT THE PROSECUTION.   IT COULD HURT THE DEFENSE..   WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE JURORS MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON WHAT IS HEARD IN THIS COURTROOM, WHAT IS ARGUED IN THIS COURTROOM WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO ITS DISCRETION AND GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN THE EVIDENCE CODE. THAT IS ALL.

 

THE COURT:   I THINK YOU BETTER LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW.   THE INTERVIEW WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEQUESTRATION ISSUE AND ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JURY PROCESS AND PROTECTING THE JURORS PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY, AND IN TERMS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW.YOU VOLUNTEERED THIS INFORMATION, MR.FLANAGAN, AND YOU DIDN’T VOLUNTEER INFORMATION THAT COULD BE UTILIZED IN A HARMFUL WAY AGAINST DR. MURRAY.   THE RESPONSE OF THE INTERVIEWER WAS VERY TELLING BECAUSE IT ALMOST SEEMED LIKE HE WAS SURPRISED THAT THE ISSUE SOMEHOW MOVED FROM THE FOLLOWING HOME OF JURORS, FROM SPOTTING THEIR CARS, FROM HARASSING JURORS FOR THEIR SAFETY, INTO SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ISSUES, AND TWO OF WHICH YOU HIGHLIGHTED.   NONE OF WHICH WAS WHAT MIGHT BE REGARDED AS SOMETHING THE PROSECUTION WANTED TO ADDRESS. I CAUTION THE PARTIES, BE VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS.   BE AFRAID, PLEASE, BECAUSE I AM RELYING UPON THE PARTIES TO ACT RESPONSIBLY.   THIS IS GOING TO BE A LEGAL AND FACT BASED CASE.   THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A CASE TRIED IN TERMS OF INTERVIEWS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS SPINS THROUGH COUNSEL.SO IF COUNSEL WANT TO SPEAK, JUST PAUSE FOR A MOMENT AND IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE THE VICE PRESIDENT BEFORE YOU START TALKING.NOW FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.   WE ARE STARTING ON THE 8TH OF SEPTEMBER.   COUNSEL HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE OF MODIFICATION OF THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, AND THERE ARE 402 ISSUES.   THERE ARE BENCH WARRANTS THAT ARE HELD, ET

CETERA.   WHAT TO DO AND WHEN NEXT? YOUR THOUGHTS, PEOPLE?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK WE CAN GET PEOPLE’S VERSION OF A MODIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE COURT THIS WEEK.   I WOULD ASK IF WE MAYBE COME BACK AUGUST 5 OR AUGUST 8 TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE ISSUES THE COURT JUST RAISED.

 

THE COURT:   I’M IN TRIAL.   WE STARTED A TRIAL ON THURSDAY.   THE EVIDENCE WILL BEGIN TODAY, AND IT WILL LAST ABOUT A MONTH.   AUGUST 5 IS MISERABLE  HERE.   HOW ABOUT AUGUST 8? DEFENSE, MR. FLANAGAN, MR. GOURJIAN?   THAT IS A MONDAY, I BELIEVE.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   IT IS.

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   PRIOR TO AUGUST 8, WAS IT THE INTENTION OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE US WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, OR SHOULD WE BOTH JUST BE PREPARED TO PRESENT MODIFICATIONS ON THAT DAY?

 

THE COURT:   I WANT THEM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   OUR INTENT WAS TO GET COURT AND COUNSEL A COPY THIS WEEK.

 

THE COURT:   WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHAT ABOUT IT, OF COURSE.   THE WHOLE PROCESS OF REFINING AND PHOTOCOPYING IS TIME CONSUMING.   CAN WE DO IT THAT WEEK OF THE 1ST?   HOW IS THE 4TH?   DO YOU NEED THE WEEKEND?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I THINK WE NEED THE WEEKEND.   I THINK WE WOULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE.

 

THE COURT:   AGAIN, COUNSEL CAN SHARE IT.   THIS IS AGAIN SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.   THERE WAS AN EARLIER PROTECTIVE ORDER.   IT DIDN’T SEEM TO DO MUCH GOOD, BUT THIS ONE IS GOING TO DO SOME GOOD. I EXPECT THAT COUNSEL WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY THE

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOT FLOAT THIS BEYOND THEIR STAFFS. AND I DON’T KNOW IF THE DEFENSE HAS A NEW P.R. FIRM, BUT I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO SEE ANY PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE UNDERSTAND FULLY THE RAMIFICATIONS OF DISOBEDIENCE, WHICH IS CONTEMPT OF COURT AND OTHER SANCTIONS. RIGHT.  

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MODIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE, OTHER 402 ISSUES.   THERE ARE BODY ATTACHMENT HOLDS FOR VARIOUS WITNESSES IN THIS CASE.   I DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE.I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS A REVISED TIME ESTIMATE.   NOW IT WAS 30 TO 45 DAYS, THE PEOPLE SAID,FOUR TO SIX WEEKS?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   I JUST DON’T SEE THIS TAKING THAT LONG, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN EDUCATE ME.

 

MR. WALGREN:   I LIKE TO BE CONSERVATIVE IN MY ESTIMATES.

 

THE COURT:   I RATHER AS WELL, BUT THE DIFFERENC SOMETIMES BETWEEN FOUR WEEKS AND SIX WEEKS CAN REALLY BE SIGNIFICANT WHEN IT COMES TO AVAILABILITY OF JURORS.DEFENSE, YOUR THOUGHTS?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   AUGUST 8 IS FINE WITH ME.

 

THE COURT:   AUGUST 8, MR. FLANAGAN?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   AUGUST 8 IS FINE.

 

THE COURT:   WILL MR. CHERNOFF BE HERE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES, I WOULD IMAGINE SO.

 

THE COURT:   YOU WILL ANTICIPATE DR. MURRAY WILL NOT BE HERE?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION?

 

MR. FLANAGAN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, AUGUST 8, 2011, 8:30 A.M. AT WHICH TIME COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR.   THE DEFENSE REPRESENTS DR. MURRAY WILL REMAIN PENAL CODE SECTION 977, WHICH MEANS HE IS AUTHORIZED NOT TO APPEAR.   BOND TO STAND IN HIS ABSENCE.

 

8:30 A.M., AUGUST 8, 2011.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO USE ANY INFO FROM THIS SITE, PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK BACK TO THIS SITE!!! CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT HONORING THE COPYRIGHTS DISCLAIMER ON THIS SITE!   USE A FEW LINES ONLY WITH LINK BACK!   PLEASE DONT SPOIL IT FOR THE REST OF THE FANS!!