P V CM MARCH 22ND 2011


22nd March:9 am: Parties present for People David Walgren(DW), Debra Brazil(DB): For Defendant, Ed Chernoff(EC) and Nereg Gourjian(NG): Conrad Murray has waived his rights to be present:

Judge Pastor greets counsel, and thanks them for their promptness: ask for update on Discovery,

DW presented defense with discovery of two recent interviews and as well as an expert report and CV:

EC: asked if it is a new expert report or a new expert

DW: new expert and report:

Court ask DA if they are meeting their discovery obligations, replied yes

Asked EC

EC: We have already addressed two witnesses, one is a financial consultant the other is fingerprint expert: we don’t have any reports from them. I have told DW and DB today what I am going to do; it was in the air on Friday and Monday. This weekend I was with my family. This afternoon as soon as get in the office, if I don’t have reports I will get their email names address and phone so at least they have the names of these folks. There are some things we have subpoenaed that we need from the experts to actually, or at least the financial experts to get his job done, not all of which addressed today involves the expert needs. Part of what we are addressing today involves what the expert needs, in regards to finger printing examiner, since you signed the order for the fingerprints, we heave had these rolling individuals that are coming in to S.I.D. They are trying to get the stuff for us, as soon as we get that we will get that to our fingerprint expert.

I told DB and DW they will have it the same day. We just don’t know when it will be available. We are continuing, and will to meet our obligations.

Court: Mr. Walgren and or Ms Brazil what is your position on representation made by my Chernoff

DW does not think they are sitting on discovery; they just don’t have it, but are concerned, time frame.

Court: ask when do you anticipate having something in writing?

EC: once you ruled on subpoena couple days, but don’t know about fingerprinting we have requested S.I.D shouldn’t be longer than a week. But if they delay I don’t know

Court: does not understand

EC: you made the order, we asked for the fingerprints which were sent to the FBI, same quality SQ scale. We contacted S.I.D but the person is not available, we have the assistant, but now we can’t get hold of her. We are trying as soon as we get them we will comply.

DW: When seeking high quality prints you have to take your own equipment to do it, they don’t have it. Its done electronically straight to the FBI, they don’t have high quality scans, its done on their electronic databases, defense need to follow certain protocol, there is confusion between S.I.D and counsel

EC: no confusion

DW: ??

EC we asked

Court: Mr Walgren please finish

DW: S.I.D are waiting for them to arrive with correct equipment;

EC: all we want is a scan five hundred to a thousand parts per inch, they just have not done it, if they tell us they can’t do it, then we will bring over our equipment, we have not got that information, there is no confusion.

Court: either it is provided or not, I don’t understand

EC: I don’t know what the dilly dally is.

Court: I am not blaming anyone; just don’t understand the drama.

EC: there is no drama I am just telling you what is happening, I went there personally and was not allowed up, we are doing everything we can, its not a dramatic scenario once we get it we will sent it to our fingerprint expert.

Court: We certainly have had enough Subpoenas why don’t you issue another one?

EC: I wanted to talk to the person who took the video surveillance, they would not let me talk to him, and we should issue a subpoena for him! Fingerprint experts have not told us they can’t do it

Court: we have to turn this around, what about the coroner’s office

EC: we have an appointment at 1 today

Court: ask both sides if there is any other issue, both reply none. Judge wants to address evidentiary code 402 issues.

DW: will be filing a few next week.

Court: how many?

DW 6 or 7 on small issues may be agreed with defense, counsel may need court intervention, then two others.

Court: needs to know because of scheduling of other cases. Mr. Chernoff has code section 402 limine motions which Mr. Gourjian is working on

NG: five motions will be filed by April but if sooner can be done.

Court: wants everything yesterday, but understand. Has had questionnaire from both parties, but very time consuming, were personally emailed to all. But NG and EC did not get them.

DW: received the questionnaires and DB did also.

Taking too long so here is important points for now!!<< Note from TeamMichaeJackson

Questionnaire is believed to be 27 pages, comprising of 125 questions, it has subparts. There are some grammatical and typographical errors will be photocopied tomorrow by DW.



Motion to quash presented by their attorney MR. DOUGLAS.

But Defense withdrew their subpoenas.

NG confirmed that after discussing with Mr. Douglas, Defense withdrew their subpoena, Mr. Douglas withdrew his motion to quash;



Mr. Paul Malingagio appeared on behalf of Tohme Tohme,

Mr. Malingagio filed motion to quash subpoena, received by court, asked if defense filed opposition, court does not have it, asked if defense filed one, Gourjian replied NO.

Gourjian wants to discuss some issues in private, does not want to discuss in open.

Judge replied, there are a lot of things we don’t want to discuss, is it privacy or privilege?

{Defense counsel confer}

Mr. Gourjian tells the court, Tohme was Michael manager up to a month before MJ’s passing so his observations of Mr. Jackson are relevant, wants to discuss the rest in chambers, why he was served.

Judge is concerned about issue of service or lack thereof.

Mr. Malingagio tells the court the subpoena was found on Tohme Tohme front lawn. Was handed to a workman, Tohme was not served, and it is not appropriate under code section 1328.

Attorney argues Tohme was not served so is not required to respond and that it should be quashed. Judge was not happy with defense counsel.

EC: explained they have proof of service but it is at the office. Can get it within 30 minutes scanned and sent to court, does not know if Tohme is a doctor but did try to avoid being served for quiet some time. We followed a fed ex employee inside his house, handed it to him in his hand verified by process server.

Judge said to Tohme counsel that may come as a surprise to you.

Mr. Malingagio agues his motion was filed last week, but judge did not hear it; there was no mention of service.

Judge said he was going to quash just because it was not service without even getting into merits! Then asked defense for proof of service, asked if Mr. Malingagio wanted to contact anybody since he was not on service.

Mr. Malingagio wanted the judge to rule right away but will wait if judge wants to see proof of service.

Judge asked Mr. Chernoff how long it would take to get proof of service, counsel stood down to get it.


Mr. Putnam has motion to quash because the two people who were served do not work for that entity, AEG.

They have do not have documents in their possession; I put the address ET CETERA in the papers to get it to the right people that AEG can address. They have not done that. They do not work; absolutely do not work for AEG. They will not be able to sign the affidavit saying custody and control under 1561, so if they do show up, they will show up with nothing.

Mr. Gourjian tells the court these were served on Mr. Phillips and Mr. Trell requesting certain agreements that were prepared by Mr. Phillips or Mr. Trell with Mr. Jackson in their capacity as employee of AEG Live.

Judge asked Mr. Putnam if his position is those are two separate entities,

Mr. Putnam says it’s not my position. It’s a matter of factual records.

Mr. Gourjian tells the court they want to see document prepared by Mr. Phillips and executed by Michael Jackson, any documents he prepared in his capacity with AEG or AEG live. Those are relevant pursuant to SDT.

Mr. Putnam states the servers hung outside the homes to the individuals and waited for them to come home, that being said they do work for AEG Live. If they need records for AEG they need to go and seek them from AEG not these individuals.

Court asks if the individuals can be subpoenaed, attorney replied yes but they can not bring any documents.

Mr. Gourjian tells the court, the personal appearance is also requested pursuant to subpoena.

Mr. Putnam argues though they seek records what are we doing here, there are rules. We are here for the second time, yet they have not shown us proof of service. I am not playing games with them I have given them a clear path to take; this subpoena should be quashed on its face, unless they do it properly.

Mr. Gourjian argues the code does not require service on custodian of records, code is clear. Can be any witness of a business.

Court states that is a problem if they are not employed by them. AEG and AEG Live are different entities.

Mr. Putnam tells the judge if they want to serve a subpoena once it is done properly they must look at the scope of what they are asking.

Mr. Chernoff: AEG Live is a part of AEG family according to their own literature, will they accept service if we serve AEG Live without (as Mr. Putnam puts it) hiding out in the bushes? To Phillips and Trell?

Mr. Putnam says if he receives a phone call to receive service for these people he will.

BUT he will have to ask them, I can’t just accept without asking them.

Mr. Chernoff: so this is about gamesmanship??

Judge not happy.

Mr. Chernoff: will serve AEG Live but Phillips and Trell have been served to appear, if we have to serve them again, we need to know if Mr. Putnam will accept.


TeamMichaelJackson>> at this point Putnam is just playing around with words, I would also like to point out, case Jackson V AEG, Putnam is the attorney representing AEG

Judge quashed Subpoena Duces Tecum as improper; they seek to subpoena individual in corporate capacities for different entities for which they work.

Judge tells Putnam he hopes he will make it easy for them to be served again!

Motion to quash Subpoena for Dr Arnold Klein: counsel Mr. Ghazarian.

Judge tells counsel: lets cut to the chase, has document been provided to third party as requested,

Answer if it is coroner, then yes.

Court: Yes

Answer, yes on a limited basis not on the basis with Murray counsel.

Court: Murray counsel indicates The sum of total of records provided to the corner which are not public and therefore, we contend they are not really within the realm of having been provided to a third party. Therefore, a waiver has taken place. For all intented purposes, the coroner subpoena is not deemed public under any circumstance

Court ask if they were provided subjects to subpoena, answer YES> in response to coroner subpoena. 22 pages from time of Michael Jackson death going back 105 days,

And note almost entire month of May, Dr Klein was out of the country not the treating physician. I am offended Mr. Gourjian would indicate we are engaging in gamesmanship or perpetrating a fraud upon the court, I am shocked, I object vehemently.

In camera hearing, request of records and to suggest they now be provided publically is contrary to California Supreme Courts decision in Hammond.

Court points out; patient privilege does not apply in criminal proceedings.

Mr. Ghazarian says that is a general rule but balance by court and to take into account the degree of privacy and need to disclose records. And before Mr. Gourjian joined the defense team asked for any and all medical records, going back how long, one doesn’t know. Nevertheless reference to Dr. Klein being Michael’s physician, Dr. Klein was his dermatologist there is a distinction.

Furthermore there are presentations made without any foundations, due to Dr. Klein’s actions Michael became physiologically and psychologically dependant on Demerol, I don’t know what basis of that, there is no medical declarations of an expert indication as that being anything biased in fact.

It speaks of Mr. Jackson receiving injections of Demerol and Midazolam for several months, that is incorrect there was another physician treating Mr. Jackson in the month of May.

Don’t know if provided to coroner, not our concern.

I take offense to these characterizations, if your honor would like to continue in chambers I am happy to do that, anything beyond would be violations of patient physician privileges.

Mr.Weitzman has indicted the court has ordered him before and he can do so if they see fit.

Court states, Weitzman will not be waiving any privileges. Would you like me to shift through some documents?

Mr. Ghazarian told the court he would never argue with the courts decision.

Court: I’m not asking you to argue.

Mr. Ghazarian implores the court to look at the subpoena Duces Tecum and at the responsive pleading.. a prima facie.. to conduct an in camera hearing to take a look at the records.

If defense can make a proper foundation, records are essential and necessary to their defense under People V Hammond court can order to comply with the subpoena.

Judge ask how many pages of records, answer, don’t know only has access to what was supplied to the coroner.

Mr. Chernoff does not know why the counsel for Klein is so upset, records were never asked for to be made public, page 2/3 of subpoena asked to produce for the court to inspect, records given to coroner was not 22 pages it was 130 pages, we have copies form the coroner.

Court: defense has as part of discovery records from coroner. But want more.

Klein attorney states he is not aware of 130 pages only 22 pages, Chernoff spoke with him outside court regarding scope of medical records, to suggest they want records for treatment that took place two to three years ago, has this any relevance to the case, NONE!

Court asks defense what they want; answer records from Oct 08 to June 09, the 130 pages are to February 09. Michael came back from Vegas Oct 08 immediately took up with Dr. Klein.

Court agreed the documentation should be at least produced to the court for in camera review under ~Hammond and other cases. Mr. Weitzman will be ordered to attend, Judge is happy to hear further but first step is to have records from Oct 08 to June 09.

Mr. Chernoff indicates he also wants to see business records, certifications on all those documents.

Court: understand some were provided to corner but does not know what else is out there. Mr. Weitzman can interpose whatever objections he has as can Mr. Ghazarian.

Mr. Ghazarian is leaving the country tomorrow so next court date is discussed.

Further proceeding set for April 6th at 9 am

The subpoena remains outstanding for the requested documents, any motion to quash are denied without prejudice.

Court asks Chernoff about the proof of service, Chernoff needs to call his office, needs to turn on his phone. Request if it can be faxed to court.

Walgren has one issue to raise regarding additional subpoena by defense, requesting print analysis appear on March 24th and provide all documents relating to the death of Michael Jackson is this for CV with print documentation in its entirety or do they have to be here in person? We are doing questionnaire and they have other things to do.

Mr. Chernoff informs court that subpoena was sent out a long time ago, it was to Diego Tabares, which is covered by a direct court order so the subpoena is withdrawn.

Court wants to know estimation of how long the trial will be, for the benefit of the jurors, they are coming in Thursday possibly Friday, and then on May 4th for the resumption of VOIR DIRE.

Opening statements jury instructions beginning of evidence are set for 9th May.

Walgren answered trial may go on till end of June but not expecting it to go on that long.

Judge asks will it go past July 4th holidays.

Walgren answered anything beyond that is speculations because they don’t know what they have to respond to in defenses discovery.

Chernoff says we are expecting everything to be over by June.

Judge will let jury know trial may be till end of June and will insert it into hardship questionnaire jury gets.


Proof of service has been received by the court,

Mr. Malingagio confirms it shows to be a proof of service on Tohme Tohme signed by someone CLAIMING to be a process server. I have declaration from Tohme Tohme he was not personally served. Proof of service is very generic merely says I, this process server, served Tohme Tohme on March 3, 2011.

There is not mention of how it was served or delivered, does not state address, does not state any information we heard in open court.

Following a FedEx guy, going in the door compared with the details declaration by Tohme Tohme nothing served, did find something lying around handed to someone else not him.

Your honor should quash.

Chernoff states the form is under penalty of perjury that the court provides,

Court decides to have the process server come into court.

Mr. Malingagio is concerned there is no description of the person, who was served,

Court appreciates the concerns. And the fact its face of proof of service

Mr. Malingagio understands.

Court states this is not the first time they have come across this, server will be called.

Mr. Malingagio lets the court know Tohme Tohme is traveling and won’t be back until end of March, so can’t get hold of him. He wants to consult with him before any further proceedings.

Judge lets him know he can consult him by phone.

Mr. Malingagio does not know where he is,

Judge does not want this to go on to April, Mr. Malingagio will have to come back 28? Reply I am in another court in the morning; Judge wants him to come afternoon. 1:30, agreed:

Court: 28th March 2011, in the interim jurisdiction of the court remains, just for the jurisdictional purposes, any bench warrant or body attachment is ordered but held.

Judge is not saying there is an intentional disregard; there was a valid service,

Judge has told counsel to get a hold of his client discuss whatever it is he wants to and be sure to be in court for hearing set forth.

Mr. Malingagio wants to get beyond that in addition to the service issues there are other objections, number 1 Tohme Tohme does not have the records asked of him, so can’t provide them. Number 2, he has no material information to provide. So we can quash on those grounds pursuant to case law that allows this.

Mr. Chernoff lets the court know, quash is not necessary a declaration from Tohme Tohme he does not have those records would be sufficient. However he still request his personal presence at the trial.

Mr. Malingagio said the subpoena does not call for appearance at trail, calls for appearance tomorrow.

Mr. Chernoff : he is aware the problem is we had to keep changing the dates.

Judge: particular date can not be expected by parties,

Finds jurisdictional issues whether he has record or not. Will be discussed after the server has been called.

Regroups Thursday, 8 am. Defendant is ordered to appear as is counsel.

24th commencement of Foir Dire.


Comments are closed.