tv [untitled] July 4, 2012 2:00pm-2:30pm PDT
hur: here are my competing concerns with this issue. i am cognizant that objections to the rest of this declaration may be so general that they may not really help us actually that said, i really do not want to inconvenience the witness. finally, i am reluctant to push off testimony, if we need it, from miss madison, further than the days we have allocated in june. it seems to me that written objections would virtually necessitate that. although maybe not, now that i am thinking about this out loud. perhaps we could subpoena ms. mattison to appear. we will take the written
objections. if they are hopeful and we can resolve the issues with the declaration, miss madison could appear, and if mr. kopp does not want to cross her, we would excuse her. if we determined it would be more efficient to simply proceed with direct, we would ask that you be prepared to direct examine her. you could decide after that if you want to conduct cross- examination. >> that is a possibility. as a reported one we had a conference call regarding scheduling, my understanding is that the council is unavailable to the 30th and once you have the opportunity to prepare his client, if she is going to testify. there may be other testimony issues with ms. haines as well. it may or may not be possible to finish by the 29th. i know that taking a witness out
of the question gets us there faster. i would like to take a good run at trading objections, meeting, and conferring, and trying to bring back those objections. this is this type of testimony, so we can get some quick rulings on the 28th. chairperson hur: i propose to do submit objections, and that you respond to them. when can you submit objections? >> to be safe, not before monday. i can try to get in before then. chairperson hur: how about friday? >> i do not want to promise something i cannot deliver. if i can, i am happy to get those objections to the parties.
i would much prefer monday. even if it was monday early, so i could have the weekend. chairperson hur: are you comfortable, if miss madison testified, that it occur in july? you have been pushing for the schedule. i want to be clear that you are fine with testimony occurring later. >> i think we are probably going to have to agree to that, unfortunately. if it does turn out that, according to a her attorney, she can not be available before july 9 -- i do not know if that is because she just had a baby, or there are scheduling reasons. unfortunately, it sounds like there is going to be one date in july where there may be witnes'' testimony. chairperson hur: that being the case, i have no objection to monday, the 25th.
mr. keith? when can you respond? >> i am trying to build in time for us to meet and confer, and bundle the objections, so we can hopefully bring five or six for the commission to rule on, instead of 20. chairperson hur: it would be greatly appreciated. >> it will be hard, if i do not get them until the 25th. but i understand that we all have other cases. if i get the objections by the 25th, i could probably respond to them. if the commission is going to decide these on the 28, i think i need to get them on the 27th. and we would meet and confer. we would have something to say,
here is the package of objections. >> but if you got them at 9:00 a.m. on the 25th? could you get them to us by close of business on the 27th? >> sort of an objection, response? that would work. commissioner renne: why is it that you cannot sit down tomorrow with a declaration in front of you, cross out all the lines you do not want in, i mean -- i practice law a lot longer than you. my sense would be that you could do that in the space of an hour. i really believe you could do it
in the space of an hour. cross out everything you think should not be in. give that to mr. keith. he can say he agrees or disagrees. i do not see any reason why it takes weeks to do something on a piece of paper you have gone from page 8 and 9 now. you have 13 pages left. i appreciate that you have other cases. i am sure your client believes that his case is number one. i believe the mayor believes his case is number one. he wants to get it done. >> i appreciate your confidence in me. however, if i were to say i could have this done by close of business tomorrow, or even early
thursday, and i am able to do that, i do not want to commit to a schedule i may not be able to make. i will tell you -- can i and -- commit to friday? would that make everyone happy? commissioner renne: it might make some, but it would not make me happy. it seems to me that if i can get it to mr. keith by sometime on friday, sooner rather than later, that would solve the timing problems, would it not? chairperson hur: in light of that, when would you be able to get us in the -- >> if mr. kopp is available to meet on monday afternoon, we could try to get it on tuesday the 26th.
chairperson hur: do we have a midnight deadline in this case? the same midnight deadline applies. that is for both. >> understood. chairperson hur: does that cover all of the -- >> i am not clear whether you would like me to prepare a subpoena for ms. mattison and ms. martin to appear next week, in light of what you've just heard. chairperson hur: i understand they are represented by the same party. the same lawyer. is that correct? and he is with a firm, correct? i think we can handle this one
of two ways. i think the commission can subpoena these witnesses. i appreciate the attorneys desire to be there. but if he has partners at the firm, i do not have qualms with requesting the appearance of the witnesses with the other attorney. that said, if we are going to have additional testimony in july, i do not want to unnecessarily inconvenience the witness. i think we could handle this one of two ways. we could subpoena her for the 29. rule on the objections on the 28. if it turns out we do not need her on the 29th, we could release her. or we could rule on the objections on the 28, and then make a decision as to whether to subpoena her for a different date in july.
i welcome the views of the parties on the proposals. >> we prefer the latter, out of consideration of the independent witnesses and their counsel. i think if we are going to have a hearing in july anyway, we might as well wait until july to see if it is necessary. >> it might force some of these issues by subpoenaing these witnesses for the next hearing. i do not necessarily have a strong view. i do not know how to interpret what was said, but it makes me wonder whether this witness, if subpoenaed, will appear. the sooner we know that, the better. >> from my communications with mr. roberts, i do not have any indication she does not intend to appear. i am just relating what i know. >> i did not get any indication
to that effect. >> commissioners, views on whether we should subpoena on the 29th, or whether we should await resolution of the objections prior to doing so? >> the information we have is that the attorney for those witnesses is not available until sometime in july. >> he did not express that? >> he did express that to me. he is not available the last week in june and the first week in july. >> i think that is in this -- is ms. haynes's unavailability as well, or her counsel. chairperson hur: in light of that, i think we should withhold issuing a subpoena for
ms. madison, as of now. unless there are dissenting views, i do not feel particularly strongly about it. does that address all of the objections to the mayor's fact witness list? i am sorry. we did not address ms. williams. i think, with ms. williams, because the issues are similar -- it is a shirker declaration. we could go through it, if the parties wanted to. or if you think it would be
helpful to meet and confer, so you can reach whatever stipulations' you may be able to reach with ms. williams that result from your discussions of the other witnesses. we might be happy to hear that, too. >> i could offer that i would be willing to prepare my objections and submit them at the same time as the other objections to the merchants and madison declarations. >> you submitted objections to williams already. >> thank you for reminding me. if they needed to be expanded upon, if we needed to meet and confer, we would be willing to do that. otherwise -- commissioner liu: i do think it
might be useful, rather than general objections to mostly all of the paragraphs. >> i am sorry. you are saying that i could the tell the objections with a bit more specificity to particular sentences within paragraph stacks -- paragraphs? chairperson hur: -- commissioner hayon: -- commissioner liu: correct. >> i suspect there will be fewer issues than with ms. mattison. we may be able to get through it very quickly. chairperson hur: if we dealt with it tonight? >> i would suggest going through right now. chairperson hur: we can give that a shot. i think we need to take a quick break. the court reporter certainly needs a break. let us take 10 minutes. we will then resume.
during the break, i met with the parties to discuss scheduling issues, as per the authority granted to me by the full commission. we will address those toward the end of the proceeding. we did have some discussions about scheduling. i wanted to make that clear on the record. before we took our break, we were going to address the objections to ms. williams. >> exhibit for bang -- exhibit four is the video. we were deferring video on that. now that we have discussed some of these similar issues about excited utterances, i want to make sure we get a ruling on the record. chairperson hur: i have that on my list, and i do intend to get to it. thank you.
ms. williams, we received objections to the sheriff. the you care to respond to that? >> that argument is that ms. lopez is basically giving an account of what happened on the 31st. we are not arguing that the excited utterance applies any more. ms. lopez's demeanor on the fourth was not distraught. it was not to the same extreme and it was before ms. mattison. we are not arguing that these are admissible for the truth of the matter. we do think it is admissible for legitimate and limited purposes, and i would like to argue those. as we outlined in our brief, this conversation with miss williams happened around 1:00 p.m.. ms. lopez related the incident
and told ms. williams some of her intentions that she had, coming out of the incident, that she was thinking about reporting it, about going to her document -- to her doctor. it is clear what her plan was. as we laid out in the brief, ms. lopez underwent a big change in her state of mind, from being ready to report this incident in the morning to around noon still wanting to report it but being iffy. and later in the day, is essentially recanting, trying to stop anybody from reporting it. our argument is that on the fourth there were intervening communications with ms. haines and the sheriff which are relevant to our charges. what is relevant is how that may have changed ms. lopez's mind
about how she was going to behave. chairperson hur: who is going to create that link for you? who is going to testify? i am following your argument, with respect to, you want to set up the state of mind and the activities. but who'll should i expect will testify that there was coercion by the sheriff to ms. lopez? >> we do have phone records which show a series of telephone calls, including long telephone calls with ms. haines, on the fourth, continuing to the afternoon. we also have text messages between the sheriff and ms. haynes that day that would tend to show what role ms. haines was taking monday.
it is proved, more or less, that she was intending to protect the sheriff, based on what was coming out of this incident. chairperson hur: you have conversations suggesting the sheriff had talked to ms. haines about providing pressure? >> we expect to get something out of this testimony, at least about contact regarding this incident, and also their relationship and ms. haines statement of their purpose. the kelly williams statement is first offered to show state of mind with regard to reporting this incident. less so, what happened on the 31st. the second reason the statement
is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose is that there are substantial similarities between the account that ms. lopez gives to ms. williams and gave to ms. madison on the first. that tends to defeat the claim,, a claim of fabrication are in accuracy. it essentially gives greater weight to their testimony, in that they independently say that ms. lopez was relating to them the same basic facts about what happened. it tends to corroborate the credibility of these witnesses. the third reason we think it is admissible is we already have evidence that there was an incident on the 31st. we have other admissible evidence about what happened in that incident, in the form of the statement to ms. madison on
the first. this is basically under the administrative hearsay exception. it is here say that is allowed to be considered. there is no fact exclusively based on it, but it can be considered by the commission, to add greater weight to the evidence that is admissible. those are our major arguments. chairperson hur: although this may not make me popular, i do think we have to go through this, particularly with respect to four through 18. there was an objection lodged to paragraph 4. the objection was relevance. mr. keith, what is your view, with respect to pare graph for?
-- paragraph 4? >> this is basically recording the past relationship, establishing the relationship and the existence of loud arguments, which is about what is going on in the background of this relationship, leading to the incident on the 31st. chairperson hur: i think paragraph 4 is irrelevant. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. i do not see why we need to get into what the person could or could not hear, prior to december 31, 2011, particularly when the statement is he never personally had seen ross acting
physically abusive toward eliana. any dissent from the commissioners? paragraph 4, objection sustained. it shall be excluded. paragraph five, mr. kopp has objected on hearsay grounds. i have heard the objection, based on hearsay. do you have a view, as to the need for paragraph 5? >> there is not a here say problem. it is just saying what the witness knows about. >> i will withdraw my objection. chairperson hur: ok.
herger of 6, there was an objection based on hearsay. could you address that objection, specifically? >> properly, the tears that objection is only to the statements she is relating that ms. lopez told her. starting on line 10, finishing on line 12, beginning with the word she. actually, the middle sentence is not her. >> i am sorry. i do not know what you mean. chairperson hur: i am sorry. starting with the word "she" on line 10, and ending with "then o" on line 12?
>> yes. those of the portions we object to. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. again, cautioning that it has been conceded that it is here say, we could be -- is here say -- hearsay, we likely would not rely on it as sole evidence to establish the fact. is there descent from the commission? -- dissent from the commission? that objection is overruled. paris graphs 7? >> hugh -- paragraph 7? >> hearsay, as to the entire paragraph. also, withdrawn.
just here said. -- hearsay. >> as i stated before, this is offered as an administrative hearsay, and to bolster the reliability of the other statements, not for the truth of the matter. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule. any dissent from the commissioner specs -- commissioners? paragraph 8? >> i am sorry, chairperson. i am not sure if you want me to -- i have already launched these objections. i could probably tell you -- if you would just give me a moment, i could tell you whether or not
i am sorry. i do have some additional objections. chairperson hur: let us talk about paragraph eight. your objection is here said. anything beyond your arguments with respect to how to handle here say? >> -- hearsay? i would be inclined to overrule the objection with the same caveat. any dissenting view from the commission? paragraph nine, maybe i will first to view the opportunity, if there are other attractions besides here say -- hearsay. >> in paragraph 9,