SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )
CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
VS. ) NO. SA073164
)
CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, )
)
DEFENDANT. )
)
___________________________________)
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: STEVE COOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: DAVID WALGREN, DEPUTY
DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTY
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: (VIA SPEAKER PHONE)
THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV
BY: JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ.
ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER, SUITE 2320
LONG BEACH, CA 90831
FLANAGAN, UNGER & GROVER
BY: J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN
1156 N. BRAND BOULEVARD
GLENDALE, CA 91202-2582
REPORTED BY: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
OFFICIAL REPORTER
1
1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01
2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY
3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010
4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
6 TIME: 12:00 P.M.
7 APPEARANCES:
8 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,
9 REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH H. LOW IV, ESQ., AND
10 J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, ESQ. (VIA SPEAKER
11 PHONE); PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID
12 WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT
13 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
14 CALIFORNIA.
15
16 (AN IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 2-7, HAS
17 BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,
18 BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT
19 HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A
20 SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY
21 NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
1 CASE NO.: SA073164-01
2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. CONRAD MURRAY
3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010
4 DEPARTMENT 107 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE
5 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812
6 TIME: 12:00 P.M.
7 APPEARANCES:
8 DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, NOT PRESENT,
9 REPRESENTED BY J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, ESQ. (VIA
10 SPEAKER PHONE); PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID
11 WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT
12 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
13 CALIFORNIA.
14
15 THE COURT: MR. FLANAGAN, LET ME PUT YOU ON THE
16 SPEAKER.
17 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
18 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
19 WE ARE, ONCE AGAIN, ON SPEAKER PHONE AND MR.
20 WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL ARE PRESENT. MR. FLANAGAN IS ON
21 SPEAKER PHONE. AND MS. THEODOROU, THE COURT REPORTER, IS
22 TAKING DOWN WHAT IS BEING SAID.
23 IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU, MR. FLANAGAN?
24 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
25 THE COURT: THANK YOU.
26 MR. LOW AND I JUST SPOKE A COUPLE TIMES. HE
27 CALLED BACK A FEW MOMENTS AGO TO INDICATE THAT YOU WOULD
28 BE CALLING. SO WHAT IS THE LATEST?
9
1 MR. FLANAGAN: THE LATEST ON WHAT SUBJECT?
2 THE COURT: ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED TESTING,
3 WHICH I BELIEVE THE DEFENSE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR.
4 WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL WHICH INCLUDED DOCUMENTATION FROM
5 THE CORONER’S OFFICE.
6 DID YOU GET THAT?
7 MR. FLANAGAN: YES, I HAVE THAT. IT IS A FOUR-PAGE
8 DECLARATION FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE AS TO DISCUSSIONS
9 THEY HAD WITH ME AND PROCEDURES THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO DO,
10 AND THE TESTING AGREEMENT.
11 MR. WALGREN THEN SENT THAT TO MR. CHERNOFF.
12 MR. CHERNOFF E-MAILED IT TO ME. I DO HAVE COPIES OF THE
13 LETTERS THAT MR. WALGREN SENT WITH THE DECLARATION.
14 IN THAT LETTER, HE SUGGESTED TWO SCENARIOS.
15 ONE IS TO SPLIT THE RESIDUE IN HALF AND HAVE US TAKE HALF
16 AND LEAVE HALF WITH THE CORONER SO THE D.A.’S OFFICE
17 COULD MAYBE HAVE IT INDEPENDENTLY TESTED ANOTHER TIME
18 AFTER WE HAD IT TESTED.
19 MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CORONER’S LETTER IS
20 THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH LEFT AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN CERTAIN
21 THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO DO THE TEST. WITH THEIR LACK OF
22 CERTAINTY AND HAVING ENOUGH NOW TO DO THE TEST, I DON’T
23 THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO FURTHER SPLIT WHAT IS
24 AVAILABLE FOR THE TESTING PROCEDURES.
25 AND I THINK OPTION TWO, THAT BOTH SIDES
26 STIPULATE TO HAVE THE CORONER DO THE BEST THEY CAN WITH
27 WHAT THEY HAVE GOT, WOULD BE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. I
28 HAVE NO REASON NOT TO TRUST THE CORONER’S OFFICE USING
10
1 THEIR BEST EFFORT, AND I DON’T THINK MR. WALGREN WOULD
2 THINK THEY WOULD NOT USE THEIR BEST EFFORT.
3 IN TALKING TO JAIME LINTEMOOT, I TALKED WITH
4 HER PROBABLY A WEEK AGO. I TALKED WITH HER IN JULY. I
5 TALKED WITH HER BACK IN MAY. SHE THINKS THAT SHE MIGHT
6 BE ABLE TO DO IT. SHE IS NOT POSITIVE SHE CAN DO IT
7 BECAUSE ONE OF THE SAMPLES IS DRIED UP AND THERE IS ONLY
8 CRYSTALS LEFT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DILUTED AND TESTED.
9 ONE OF THE SYRINGES DOES HAVE LIQUID SAMPLE
10 IN IT, AND THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY EXACTLY
11 WHAT THE QUANTITY WAS IN THE SYRINGES BUT THEY MIGHT BE
12 ABLE TO PROPORTIONALLY DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP OF HOW
13 MUCH LIDOCAINE TO HOW MUCH PROPOFOL THERE WAS AT ONE
14 POINT IN TIME.
15 SO I THINK IN VIEW OF THE FACT THERE IS
16 HARDLY ANY SAMPLE LEFT, WHY COMPROMISE IT IN TERMS OF
17 ANYONE BEING ABLE TO TEST IT AND LET THE CORONER GO AHEAD
18 AND TEST IT. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED ON BEHALF OF
19 DR. MURRAY.
20 THE COURT: BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO THE PEOPLE, DO
21 YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR DECLARATION IN FRONT OF YOU, BY
22 ANY CHANCE?
23 MR. FLANAGAN: NO, I DO NOT.
24 THE COURT: AT THE TOP OF PAGE 3, CAPTIONED
25 DECLARATION OF DANIEL T. ANDERSON AND JAIME LINTEMOOT,
26 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORONER, THERE IS A
27 SUBDIVISION (A):
28 “THE DEFENSE COUNSEL CANNOT
11
1 LOCATE ANOTHER MUTUALLY AGREED
2 UPON LABORATORY TO PERFORM THESE
3 QUANTITATIVE TESTS FOR LIDOCAINE
4 AND PROPOFOL IN THESE ITEMS OF
5 INTEREST.”
6 MR. FLANAGAN: THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE IS ANOTHER
7 LABORATORY THAT CAN DO IT. THEY ARE OUT OF STATE, THE
8 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATES THAT I NORMALLY USE ON
9 CHEMICAL TESTING. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO
10 THIS TEST. THEY WOULD SEND IT TO, I THINK IT IS,
11 SOMETHING CALLED AMERICAN NATIONAL LABORATORIES. IT IS
12 OUT OF STATE.
13 AND THE LOGISTICS FOR GETTING THAT DONE WOULD
14 BE VERY DIFFICULT IN VIEW OF WHAT I PERCEIVE IS JUST
15 RESIDUE LEFT IN ONE OF THE SYRINGES AND A VERY SMALL
16 QUANTITY, SPLITTING IT IN HALF. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE
17 BETTER JUST GO WITH THE CORONER’S OFFICE.
18 THE COURT: MR. WALGREN AND/OR MS. BRAZIL, YOUR
19 THOUGHTS?
20 MR. WALGREN: WELL, THAT IS WHY WE PUT IT IN A
21 LETTER AND HAD THEM PREPARE THE DECLARATION, YOUR HONOR,
22 SO THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY CONFUSION.
23 MR. FLANAGAN: SOME THINGS DIDN’T OCCUR. MOST OF
24 THE CONVERSATION WITH LINTEMOOT IS CORRECT, AND I CAN’T
25 TELL YOU. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SHE
26 ATTTRIBUTES TO HAVING TOLD ME AT THE TIME OF OUR MEETING
27 IN JULY, BUT I THINK THAT IS NOT ALL COMPLETELY ACCURATE.
28 I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE IS LET’S GET IT TESTED
12
1 BY THE CORONER’S OFFICE. NOBODY WILL DISPUTE THEIR
2 CREDIBILITY. I THINK THEY ARE NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT
3 LABORATORY. THEY TELL ME THEY ARE TOTALLY INDEPENDENT.
4 THAT IS WHY THEY WOULD TALK TO ME WITHOUT FIRST GETTING
5 PERMISSION TO TALK TO ME FROM MR. WALGREN. THEY SAID,
6 “NO, WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT LABORATORY. WE WILL TELL YOU
7 WHAT OUR PROCEDURES ARE.”
8 AND JAIME LINTEMOOT HAS BEEN QUITE OPEN WITH
9 ME. SO WE HAVE NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN
10 GET HE BEST POSSIBLE RESULTS. I REALLY THINK WE ARE
11 PROBABLY LIMITED TO THAT DUE TO THE LACK OF QUANTITY THAT
12 REMAINS.
13 THE COURT: AND THIS IS BASED UPON YOUR OWN
14 DISCUSSIONS WITH EXPERTS ON THEIR EXPERTISE?
15 MR. FLANAGAN: YES.
16 THE COURT: BECAUSE I DON’T WANT THE SITUATION TO
17 ARISE WHERE AT A LATER POINT IN TIME ONE SIDE OR THE
18 OTHER SAYS THAT SOMETHING WAS MISHANDLED AT THE OUTSET
19 AND THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE WHICH WERE NOT
20 UTILIZED.
21 MR. FLANAGAN: OH, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN’T
22 ESCAPE THAT. I THINK THAT THE CONTENTS OF BOTH SYRINGES
23 AND THE I.V. SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUANTIFIED IN THE VERY
24 BEGINNING WHEN THEY WERE QUANTIFYING THE SUBSTANCES IN
25 THE BODY OR THE FLUIDS IN THE BODY.
26 JAIME EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THEY ONLY DO
27 QUANTIFICATION WHEN IT IS RELEVANT FOR CAUSE OF DEATH AND
28 I’LL AGREE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SYRINGE WOULD HAVE
13
1 NOTHING TO DO WITH CAUSE OF DEATH, BUT IT MIGHT HAVE
2 SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE INSTRUMENTALITY THAT WAS USED TO
3 CAUSE THE DEATH. THEY DON’T NORMALLY QUANTIFY UNLESS IT
4 IS DIAGNOSTIC.
5 I DON’T THINK AT THE TIME — THEY PROBABLY
6 DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTENT OF THE
7 SYRINGES. WE THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE THINK IT
8 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE OUTSET. FROM WHAT I’VE BEEN
9 WAITING FOR WHEN I WAS WAITING FOR DISCOVERY ON THE
10 TOXICOLOGY, I WAS VERY ANXIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE TOXICOLOGY
11 SHOWED.
12 I’VE GONE THROUGH THE GRAPHS AND THE CHARTS
13 OF THE GAS-CHROMATOGRAPH AND THE SPECTROMETRY. I WAS
14 THINKING WHY CAN’T YOU QUANTIFY WHAT IS THERE BECAUSE OF
15 WHAT IS THERE. THAT IS WHY I GOT ANOTHER LAB TO CHECK
16 THEIR CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS. WE THINK THE QUANTITY IS SO
17 IMPORTANT. I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
18 TO DO NOW.
19 BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO I FEEL THAT,
20 YOU KNOW, THAT IT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN DONE RIGHT FROM THE
21 VERY BEGINNING. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BACK IN JUNE OR
22 JULY OF 2009.
23 THE COURT: WELL, THE ISSUE IS WHERE DO WE GO FROM
24 HERE.
25 MR. FLANAGAN: DO THE BEST WE CAN TO GET THE TEST
26 DONE NOW.
27 MR. WALGREN: OF COURSE, THE DEFENSE, MR. FLANAGAN,
28 YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS AS SOON AS YOU HAD
14
1 WISHED. YOU COULD HAVE SUBMITTED A COURT ORDER AT THE
2 DAY OF ARRAIGNMENT. SO THIS TIMING ISSUE IS KIND OF A
3 RED HERRING, BUT WE ARE BEYOND THAT.
4 WE HAVE A DECLARATION EXPLAINING EVERYTHING
5 FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE, SO NOW WE DECIDE WHICH WAY YOU
6 WANT TO GO. YOU HAVE INDICATED YOU WANT THE CORONER TO
7 DO IT. YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND YOU CAN ALSO HAVE YOUR OWN
8 LAB DO IT. IF YOU HAVE A LAB TO DO IT, THEY CAN GO AHEAD
9 AND TAKE THE SPLIT. WE DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY
10 LAB OF YOURS THAT SAYS THEY HAVE INSUFFICIENT MATERIALS
11 TO DO A TEST.
12 MR. FLANAGAN: I DON’T KNOW THAT THERE IS ENOUGH
13 MATERIALS TO DO THE TEST. MAYBE I SHOULD TALK TO JAIME
14 LINTEMOOT AGAIN. BUT AS FAR AS GETTING MY LAB, GETTING A
15 COURT ORDER THE DATE OF ARRAIGNMENT, REMEMBER WE WERE NOT
16 GIVEN THE TOXICOLOGY STUFF UNTIL, I THINK IT WAS,
17 PROBABLY APRIL SOMETIME. AND I WAS VERY ANXIOUS TO GET
18 IT BECAUSE I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TOXICOLOGY WAS.
19 WE DIDN’T KNOW THAT IT HADN’T BEEN DONE. THIS CASE
20 WASN’T FILED FOR SIX MONTHS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE
21 CHANGE HAS BEEN IN THE LAST TEN MONTHS. BUT I JUST
22 ASSUMED THAT THE QUANTIFICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE
23 BECAUSE THE QUANTIFICATION WAS DONE FOR PURPOSES OF THE
24 AUTOPSY WHEN THEY ARE TESTING SOLUTIONS. I JUST ASSUMED
25 THAT IT WAS ALREADY DONE.
26 I FOUND OUT IN APRIL THAT IT IS NOT DONE.
27 AND THEN I CONTACT THE CORONER’S LAB AND SEE IF AN
28 INTERPRETATION BASED UPON THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS, SEE
15
1 IF THERE WAS AN INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD BE QUANTIFIED.
2 AND SHE TELLS ME, NO, THE TESTING PROCEDURE SHE OUTLINED
3 IN HER PROPOSED PROCEDURES OF DILUTING THE PROPOFOL AND
4 LIDOCAINE 50-50 AND THEN TESTING IT, SEEING WHAT IT LOOKS
5 LIKE, AND LETTING IT SIT THERE FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS, WAS
6 THE EXACT PROCEDURE THAT I PROPOSED BE DONE BECAUSE I
7 KNOW PROPOFOL DISSIPATES QUICKLY.
8 AND I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT IT LOOKS
9 LIKE BECAUSE WE THINK IN THAT ORIGINAL SYRINGE, THE ONE
10 THAT IS IN THE I.V., THAT YOU SHOULD FIND A SOLUTION THAT
11 WILL BE 50-50 PROPOFOL AND LIDOCAINE AND THAT IS WHAT WE
12 ANTICIPATE.
13 THERE IS SOME FLUID IN THAT SYRINGE. I THINK
14 THE CRIME LAB, OR IF THE CORONER’S OFFICE IS ALLOWED TO
15 LOOK AT IT, THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL COME UP WITH.
16 THE COURT: SHOULD YOU BE SUBMITTING A LETTER IN
17 RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF THE CORONER WHERE YOU SAY
18 THE CORONER MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR DISCUSSIONS?
19 MR. FLANAGAN: I COULD. I COULD SUBMIT THAT,
20 ANOTHER DECLARATION, IN WRITING. AS SOON AS I GET BACK
21 TO THE OFFICE, I COULD GET ON IT THIS AFTERNOON.
22 THE COURT: I WANT TO AVOID A WAR OF DECLARATIONS.
23 SOME OF US ACTUALLY WATCH FORENSIC FILES, AND I DON’T
24 KNOW IF THERE IS OR IS NOT SOME OTHER LABORATORY
25 SOMEWHERE ON THE PLANET THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THE
26 ANALYSIS WHICH YOU SAY CAN OR CAN’T BE DONE BY THE
27 CORONER.
28 I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT I SHOULD BE DOING IN
16
1 TERMS OF THE FUTURE OF THESE SAMPLES.
2 MR. FLANAGAN: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS DONE IS
3 DONE. WHAT HASN’T BEEN DONE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THAT IS
4 WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE AT THE PRESENT TIME FOR PURPOSES
5 OF DOING THIS ANALYSIS.
6 WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO DO IS WE ARE WILLING
7 TO STIPULATE THAT THE CORONER USE ITS BEST EFFORTS. I DO
8 NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT ANOTHER LAB CAN DO IT. THERE
9 WAS THIS OTHER LAB. MIKE HENSON OF FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY
10 ASSOCIATES SAID IT WOULD BE EXPERIMENTAL. HE MIGHT BE
11 ABLE TO DO IT.
12 WELL, I HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION WITH JAIME
13 LINTEMOOT, AND SHE SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING. “I THINK
14 WE CAN DO IT. I’M NOT CERTAIN.”
15 YOU KNOW, NOBODY CAN TELL YOU RIGHT UP FRONT
16 THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. NOBODY HAS
17 PROBABLY EVER DONE THIS BEFORE. NOBODY EVER HAD TO DO
18 THIS, TO EXAMINE THE CRYSTALLINE LIDOCAINE AND PROPOFOL.
19 BUT REGARDLESS OF THE STATUS OF EVERYBODY’S
20 KNOWLEDGE, PROBABILITY OR LACK OF PROBABILITY, NOW THE
21 BEST THING TO DO IS THE BEST WE CAN WITH THIS. FOR
22 PURPOSES OF DEALING WITH THIS, WE ARE WILLING TO
23 STIPULATE TO THE LOS ANGELES CORONER’S OFFICE BE THE
24 AGENCY THAT MAKES THEIR BEST EFFORTS. THEY ARE THE ONLY
25 ONES THAT CAN DO IT WITH THE FULL AMOUNT OF SAMPLE THAT
26 IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. AND I WOULD THINK IF ANYBODY
27 COULD DO IT, THEY CAN DO IT.
28 THE COURT: PARAGRAPH 16 OF THE DECLARATION READS
17
1 AS FOLLOWS. IT IS PAGE 4 OF 4:
2 “IN CONCLUSION, THE LAC/DOC
3 TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY IS
4 NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR
5 TOXICOLOGY ANALYSIS PERFORMED
6 AND IS FULLY CAPABLE OF HANDLING
7 THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
8 FLUIDS. HOWEVER, THE TWO
9 PRINCIPAL ANALYSTS CONCEDE THAT
10 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
11 LIMITED VOLUMES OF MEDICAL
12 EVIDENCE FLUIDS WOULD BE
13 EXPERIMENTAL AND INTERPRETATION
14 OF DATA MAY,” CAPITAL M-A-Y, “BE
15 DIFFICULT BASED ON FACTORS SUCH
16 AS DEGRADATION AND DILUTION
17 FACTORS.”
18 DO YOU HIM CONCUR WITH THAT?
19 MR. FLANAGAN: I REREAD THAT, AND I THINK IF
20 FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY WAS APPROACHING THIS PROBLEM, THEY
21 WOULD STATE THE EXACT SAME THING.
22 THE COURT: WELL, ARE THE PEOPLE PREPARED TO
23 STIPULATE TO WHAT MR. FLANAGAN SAID HE WOULD STIPULATE
24 TO?
25 MR. WALGREN: I DON’T KNOW ABOUT A STIPULATION. I
26 WOULD PROPOSE IF MR. FLANAGAN HAS INDICATED HERE AND
27 INDICATED TO ME ON THE TELEPHONE EARLIER HE WANTED TO
28 PROCEED WITH THE TESTING WITH THE CORONER’S OFFICE, I
18
1 WOULD SUGGEST, MR. FLANAGAN, IF YOU COULD DRAW UP AN
2 INITIAL DRAFT OF THE COURT ORDER, THEN WE CAN MAKE ANY
3 AMENDMENT WE THINK APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE DECLARATION.
4 WE CAN GO FROM THERE.
5 MR. FLANAGAN: IF I DREW UP A PROPOSED COURT ORDER,
6 IT WOULD BE BOTH SIDES WOULD AGREE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
7 CORONER’S OFFICE BE ALLOWED TO DO THE TESTING IN THE
8 MANNER THEY SET FORTH IN THEIR DECLARATION. WHAT ELSE
9 NEEDS TO BE AGREED TO?
10 THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE IN
11 THERE INCORPORATING THAT PARAGRAPH 16, THAT IT IS
12 UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TESTING IS EXPERIMENTAL. IT MAY
13 RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OR DEGRADATION OF WHATEVER IS
14 LEFT, AND THE PARTIES RECOGNIZE THAT THERE DOES NOT
15 APPEAR TO BE ANY OTHER LABORATORY WHICH IS CAPABLE OF
16 DOING IT, ASIDE FROM ANY OTHER LANGUAGE YOU CAN THINK OF.
17 MR. FLANAGAN: DOES THAT ADD ANYTHING TO THE
18 CORONER’S ABILITY TO DO THE TEST? I THINK WE WANT TO GET
19 THE FLUIDS AND CRYSTALS INTO THE HANDS OF SOMEBODY WHO
20 CAN AT LEAST MAKE A STATEMENT. IT SHOULD BE CONDITIONED
21 UPON OUR ACQUIESCING AND THE FACT THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD
22 DO IT. I DON’T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE COULD DO IT, BUT WE
23 ARE WILLING TO AGREE THAT IN VIEW OF THE SITUATION RIGHT
24 NOW WITH LIMITED SAMPLE AVAILABLE, BEING AN EXPERIMENTAL
25 PROCEDURE, THAT THE CORONER HAS THE BEST CHANCE OF BEING
26 ABLE TO DO IT.
27 MR. WALGREN: WHICH AGAIN I FALL BACK TO I THINK
28 YOU SHOULD WRITE A DRAFT. WE WILL AMEND IT AS WE THINK
19
1 IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE DECLARATION. IF WE CAN REACH
2 AGREEMENT ON THE TERMINOLOGY, OPTION TWO WILL WORK.
3 IF NOT, YOU ALWAYS HAVE OPTION ONE WHERE YOU
4 CAN GO FIND YOUR OWN LAB. WE ARE NOT REQUESTING THIS
5 TESTING. WE DON’T THINK IT IS RELEVANT, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE
6 OUR THOUGHTS WHY THE DEFENSE WANTS IT. WE ARE NOT
7 REQUESTING IT. IT SHOULD BE A DEFENSE REQUEST, DEFENSE
8 ORDER. BUT IT SHOULD BE, I THINK, CONSISTENT WITH THE
9 DECLARATION SO EVERYONE KNOWS AND EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES
10 THEY WERE PUT ON NOTICE UP FRONT REGARDING THE RISKS AND
11 LIMITATIONS OF THIS TESTING.
12 MR. FLANAGAN: I DON’T THINK THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT
13 THE LIMITATIONS AND DECLARE OUR KNOWLEDGE AT THIS PRESENT
14 TIME. I THINK ALL WE WANT TO DO IS GET IT TESTED AND LET
15 THE CORONER MAKE THEIR BEST EFFORT.
16 THE COURT: WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IN THE FIRST
17 INSTANCE IS DRAFT A PROPOSED ORDER. RUN IT BY THE
18 PEOPLE, THEN I GET INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER I SIGN THE
19 ORDER IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM OR WITH SOME CHANGES. BUT
20 CLEARLY, IT HAS TO BE IN THE FORM OF A PROPOSED COURT
21 ORDER.
22 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
23 THE COURT: RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN STATUS QUO WHERE
24 THERE IS NOTHING BEING DONE. MY ORIGINAL ORDER REMAINS.
25 MR. FLANAGAN: RATHER THAN PHRASE THE ORDER AS A
26 STIPULATION BASED ON A STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO HAVE
27 THE CORONER DO IT, HAVE THE ORDER BASED UPON THE DEFENSE
28 REQUESTING THAT THE CORONER DO FURTHER TESTING.
20
1 THE COURT: WELL, NO. I THINK THE DEFERRING OF THE
2 TESTING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.
3 MR. FLANAGAN: NO. THAT THE CORONER DO FURTHER
4 TESTING.
5 THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU SAID DEFER TESTING. I
6 APOLOGIZE.
7 THAT IS WHAT IS CHANGING THE STATUS QUO. SO
8 THAT THE CORONER ENGAGE IN TESTING.
9 MR. FLANAGAN: WE WILL HAVE A STIPULATION THAT THE
10 CORONER WILL DO THE TEST. YOU WANT IT TO BE AT DEFENSE
11 REQUEST THAT THE CORONER DO IT?
12 THE COURT: ANY TIME A COURT CAN GET A STIPULATION,
13 IT IS HAPPY WITH A STIPULATION. I DON’T SENSE, HEARING
14 FROM MR. WALGREN, THAT THE PEOPLE AT THIS JUNCTURE ARE
15 PREPARED TO STIPULATE.
16 WHAT I DO HEAR THEM SAYING IS THEY WANT TO
17 REVIEW ANY PROPOSED DEFENSE ORDER AND THEN COMMENT ON IT,
18 AND ULTIMATELY I’LL HAVE TO CALL IT.
19 MR. FLANAGAN: I WANTED TO GET IT AS CLOSE TO BEING
20 ACCURATE THE FIRST TIME I SEND IT OVER. MR. WALGREN, DO
21 YOU WANT ME TO FRAME IT AS A DEFENSE REQUEST AS OPPOSED
22 TO STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES?
23 MR. WALGREN: YES.
24 MR. FLANAGAN: THAT IS A YES?
25 MR. WALGREN: YES.
26 THE COURT: OKAY. SO WHAT I’LL DO, I’LL WAIT. AND
27 WHEN I GET IT, YOU SHOULD BE SENDING ME A COPY. I’LL NOT
28 ACT ON IT UNTIL I HAVE INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE. THEN I’LL
21
1 MAKE UP MY DECISION AS TO WHAT, IF ANYTHING, I WANT TO DO
2 WITH IT.
3 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
4 THE COURT: I BELIEVE THE CONCERN THAT YOU
5 EXPRESSED AT ONE TIME IS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. I DON’T
6 KNOW IF THAT IS THE SAME CONCERN RIGHT NOW.
7 MR. FLANAGAN: I THINK IT MIGHT NOT BE, ALTHOUGH
8 THE FLUID, I THINK, IS DIMINISHING. THE SYRINGE DOES
9 HAVE FLUID IN IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT EFFORTS THEY ARE
10 MAKING TO KEEP IT IN FLUID FORM, BUT ONE HAS ALREADY
11 CRYSTALLIZED.
12 OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO TEST
13 IT BACK IN JUNE OR JULY OF 2009, BUT NOW WE ARE STUCK
14 WITH WHAT WE CAN DO AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IT AS SOON AS
15 POSSIBLE.
16 MR. WALGREN: I’M CURIOUS. YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID YOU
17 DON’T KNOW OF ANY LAB THAT IS CAPABLE OF DOING THIS
18 TESTING.
19 MR. FLANAGAN: NO. THE L.A. CORONER’S LAB WAS VERY
20 WELL CAPABLE OF DOING THE TESTING TO PROPORTION PROPOFOL
21 AND LIDOCAINE WHEN THEY HAD AN ABUNDANCE OF SAMPLE. THEY
22 USED ABOUT A POINT NINE OR .09 CC TO DO THE QUALITATIVE
23 ANALYSIS. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
24 AT THE SAME TIME THEY WERE DOING THE QUALITATIVE. THEY
25 DID QUANTITATIVE ON URINE, BLOOD, AND ALL OTHER
26 SUBSTANCES AT THE VERY SAME TIME.
27 MR. WALGREN: THAT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC
28 PROTOCOL. MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS DIFFERENT THAN, OBVIOUSLY,
22
1 THE BLOOD SAMPLES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
2 MR. FLANAGAN: I DON’T THINK IT IS. YOU ARE
3 EXAMINING A FLUID FOR CHEMICAL CONTENTS, WHETHER IT IS
4 URINE, WHETHER IT IS VITREOUS HUMOR, OR A SOLUTION IN THE
5 SYRINGE.
6 THE COURT: RIGHT NOW, I’M GOING TO WAIT. WHEN DO
7 WE BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROPOSED DEFENSE ORDER?
8 MR. FLANAGAN: PROBABLY TOMORROW.
9 THE COURT: OKAY. YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT,
10 BY 4:00 P.M. TOMORROW, THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER?
11 MR. FLANAGAN: WHEN I GET BACK TO THE OFFICE TODAY,
12 I’LL WORK ON IT IMMEDIATELY.
13 THE COURT: SHOULD WE HAVE SOME OTHER CONFERENCE
14 ESTABLISHED TO DISCUSS THIS? SHOULD I LEAVE IT UP TO
15 BOTH OF YOU TO FOLLOW UP ON IT, THEN YOU TO NOTIFY ME
16 WHEN YOU WANT ME TO HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL OR OTHER
17 DISCUSSION?
18 MR. FLANAGAN: I’LL FORWARD IT. I’LL JUST FORWARD
19 IT TO MR. WALGREN, AND THEN MR. WALGREN AND I WILL
20 PROBABLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT.
21 THE COURT: SHOULD YOU BE FORWARDING IT TO ME THEN?
22 MR. FLANAGAN: I WILL FORWARD A COPY TO YOU, TOO.
23 THE COURT: HOW ARE YOU WITH THAT, MR. WALGREN?
24 MR. WALGREN: EITHER WAY. WE CAN EITHER HAVE
25 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS, OR THE COURT CAN BE INVOLVED ON
26 THE OUTSIDE, WHATEVER THE COURT PREFERS.
27 THE COURT: FORWARD IT UNDER SEAL. ULTIMATELY, IT
28 IS GOING TO BE UNDER SEAL.
23
1 MR. FLANAGAN: I’LL HAVE SOMEONE PERSONALLY DELIVER
2 IT TOMORROW MORNING.
3 THE COURT: I’LL WAIT FOR COUNSEL TO GET BACK TO
4 ME. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND I WILL NOT BE HERE DURING
5 THANKSGIVING WEEK.
6 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
7 THE COURT: FROM THE 22ND THROUGH THE 26TH. SO IF
8 THERE IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO THIS WEEK, THAT WOULD BE
9 BETTER.
10 MR. FLANAGAN: OKAY.
11 THE COURT: I’LL GET IT AND LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO
12 GO FURTHER.
13 MR. FLANAGAN: I’LL TRY TO GET IT DOWN THERE
14 TOMORROW.
15 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS
16 NOW, MR. FLANAGAN?
17 MR. FLANAGAN: NO.
18
19 (AN IN CAMERA HEARING, PAGES 24-26, HAS
20 BEEN PREPARED UNDER SEPARATE COVER,
21 BY ORDER OF THE COURT; SAID TRANSCRIPT
22 HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK IN A
23 SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED CONFIDENTIAL – MAY
24 NOT BE EXAMINED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)
25
26
27
28
27
1 (IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28