12375
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION
4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE
5
6
7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )
8 CALIFORNIA, )
9 Plaintiff, )
10 -vs- ) No. 1133603
11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )
12 Defendant. )
13
14
15
16
17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
18
19 FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2005
20
21 8:36 A.M.
22
23 (PAGES 12375 THROUGH 12484)
24
25
26
27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304
28 BY: Official Court Reporter 12375
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2
3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,
4 District Attorney -and-
5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney
6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,
7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and-
8 MAG NICOLA, Sr. Deputy District Attorney
9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101
10
11
12 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU
13 BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. -and-
14 SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
15 Los Angeles, California 90067
16 -and-
17 SANGER & SWYSEN BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ.
18 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, California 93101
19
20
21 For Witness LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN GRAFF LEVINE Mark Geragos: BY:
STEVEN GRAFF LEVINE, ESQ.
22 1112 Montana Avenue, Suite 309 Santa Monica, California 90403
23
24
25
26
27
28 12376
1 I N D E X
2
3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index.
4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index.
5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index. Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index.
6 Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index.
7
8 R E B U T T A L
9 PLAINTIFF’S
10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
11 BONNER,
12 Craig (Re-called) 12413-SN 12429-SA 12453-SN
13 (Contd.)
14 ROBEL, Steve
15 (Re-called) 12464-SN 12469-SA 12474-SN 12475-SA
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 12377
1 E X H I B I T S
2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.
3
4 460 Phone link chart prepared by Craig Bonner 12454
5 889 Photos of Brett Barnes 12457
6 890 Photos of Brett Barnes
7 and Michael Jackson 12457
8 891 Photos of Michael Jackson 12457
9 892 Photos of Brett Barnes and Michael Jackson 12457
10 893 Photos Brett Barnes
11 and Michael Jackson 12457
12 894 Photos of Michael Jackson 12457
13 896 Photos of Michael Jackson
14 and buildings 12457
15 900 Sheriff’s interview of Gavin Arvizo 12467
16 907 Diagram prepared by
17 Craig Bonner 12418 12419
18 908 DVD of a portion of December 2004 Neverland
19 search 12416
20 908-A Redacted version of 908 12417 12419
21 909 Photo of sensor areas 12413 12414
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 12378
1 Santa Maria, California
2 Friday, May 27, 2005
3 8:36 a.m.
4
5 (The following proceedings were held in
6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
7 jury:)
8
9 THE COURT: Good morning.
10 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)
11 Good morning, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Let’s see, we have a motion to
13 quash a subpoena.
14 Mr. Levine, is it?
15 MR. LEVINE: Yes, Your Honor.
16 Did the Court have an opportunity to read my
17 motion?
18 THE COURT: I’ve read your motion. I don’t
19 have a copy of the subpoena.
20 MR. LEVINE: Could you --
21 MR. NICOLA: I have to get one.
22 MR. LEVINE: I faxed it over, but I didn’t
23 fax the subpoena, Your Honor. The content of what
24 they want is pretty much everything in the file.
25 And I think the Court has previously ruled twice
26 that they were not entitled to that. And I think
27 the Court told Mr. Zonen on two separate occasions,
28 on the 13th and the 20th, that the Court wasn’t 12379
1 going to order that. And I just wanted to point out --
2 THE COURT: You must understand, though, I
3 was telling them that they had to follow the proper
4 legal process. They couldn’t just, in open court,
5 ask me to order people to produce records. So
6 you’ve misconstrued my refusals.
7 MR. LEVINE: To the extent that that may
8 be -- I will accept that, Your Honor. But I think
9 what we have here is a very limited attorney-client
10 waiver. There’s been no waiver of the attorney
11 work-product privilege. And I think the law is very
12 clear that that privilege is strictly with Mr.
13 Geragos.
14 THE COURT: I think you’re mistaken there.
15 There was a waiver of the attorney work-product
16 privilege, plus it’s very limited in criminal cases
17 anyway. So it’s very, very limited, if at all.
18 MR. LEVINE: Well, 105.46 of the discovery
19 code incorporates the attorney work-product
20 privilege. I mean, I understand that the waiver
21 executed by Mr. Jackson purported to waive that
22 privilege, but case law is very clear that that
23 privilege rests solely with Mr. Geragos.
24 THE COURT: Yes. It’s also very clear it’s
25 very limited in criminal cases. We’ve been through
26 this on numerous witnesses here, Counsel. We’ve
27 been schooled well on this issue.
28 MR. LEVINE: Okay. The point that I would 12380
1 like to make, Your Honor, is that the request is
2 just for everything. And I think that --
3 THE COURT: I haven’t seen the subpoena.
4 That’s the deficiency I’m dealing with here.
5 MR. LEVINE: Could we wait, then, until
6 after you review the subpoena?
7 THE COURT: Sure.
8 MR. LEVINE: Thanks.
9 THE COURT: Okay. And somebody’s getting it
10 for us?
11 MR. ZONEN: Yes, Your Honor.
12 MR. LEVINE: Yes.
13 THE COURT: All right. There’s another issue
14 here, the -- a couple of issues I want to bring up.
15 One is the -- originally when we allowed the
16 rebuttal tape in, I gave -- I guess the takeout
17 tape. It was the takeout that -- no, it wasn’t the
18 outtakes. It was the original Bashir tape; that the
19 District Attorney asked that certain things that Mr.
20 Jackson said be admitted for the truth of the matter
21 asserted, and we instructed the jury that certain
22 things would be -- that we’d advise them later.
23 Someone brought this to my attention the
24 other day, and I think the District Attorney should
25 provide us with the portions of the tape -- not
26 right now.
27 (Laughter.)
28 THE COURT: With the portions of the tape 12381
1 that show -- that you intend to argue are
2 admissions, so that perhaps the Court should be more
3 specific; at least we should discuss in our
4 preparation of final instructions what areas the
5 jury might conceivably consider are admissions or
6 not admissions, which ones you were thinking about,
7 because it is ultimately a jury question, but there
8 is some preliminary finding, maybe, that I should
9 make.
10 MR. SNEDDON: Yes. I’ll do that, Your
11 Honor. I believe I have the notes that were made
12 the day the Court ruled as to which ones would be
13 admissible when we went through it. And I’ll take
14 the responsibility for that, and share it with
15 Mr. -- with counsel for the defense, and hopefully
16 we can just come up with something we both agree on.
17 It’s on the record. I remember we did it in open
18 court, so -- and it was by page and line number, so
19 it shouldn’t be that difficult to come by.
20 THE COURT: And in connection with that,
21 then you had asked for a special instruction along
22 the same lines on the takeout tape.
23 MR. SNEDDON: We did.
24 THE COURT: The outtakes and -- so we should
25 address -- I will give that instruction, but we
26 should address the same issue on that tape.
27 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I’ll review that
28 tape. I don’t believe there’s any in there, but 12382
1 that would be good for us to come to a consensus on.
2 THE COURT: Yeah. I would want it.
3 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I’ll do that.
4 THE COURT: And be sure that everyone agreed
5 that was the case.
6 MR. SNEDDON: That would be fine, Your
7 Honor.
8 MR. SANGER: I take it you’re going to give
9 us an opportunity to argue that motion. I don’t
10 think that’s actually been heard yet.
11 THE COURT: What motion is that?
12 MR. SANGER: The motion the prosecution made
13 to limit the outtake tape.
14 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. No. That’s why I
15 didn’t give -- that’s what I’m talking about.
16 MR. SANGER: Yes.
17 THE COURT: I want some actual material,
18 what we’re talking about; this piece of information,
19 that piece of information, all the information. I
20 want both sides to address that. I’m more
21 concerned -- the tape’s been shown, you know. What
22 we’re talking about is jury instructions on this
23 issue.
24 MR. SANGER: Right. Correct.
25 THE COURT: So I’m just asking you to be
26 prepared to discuss those as we get ready to discuss
27 jury instructions.
28 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. 12383
1 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, can I ask for a point
2 of clarification on that?
3 THE COURT: Yes.
4 MR. SNEDDON: I understand exactly what the
5 Court is saying, but, as I mentioned yesterday, I’m
6 assuming -- and I don’t want to assume too much, but
7 I’m assuming that some sort of a limiting
8 instruction on the tape in general is going to be
9 given; that it was not admitted for the truth of the
10 matter, except for those portions that may --
11 THE COURT: That’s the issue.
12 MR. SNEDDON: Well, it would affect our
13 rebuttal, because if the Court determines that those
14 statements come in for the truth of the matter, then
15 we obviously would be putting on evidence to show
16 some of the statements made by Mr. Jackson during
17 the course of those outtakes were not true. And so
18 that’s why we filed it prior to the time that we sit
19 down for instructions.
20 I know I’m not -- I’m not asking the Court
21 to carve out those portions of the tape where there
22 may be -- may or may not be admissions by the
23 defendant that would come in for the truth of the
24 matter. But generally speaking, there’s a great
25 deal of narrative, an interview by the defendant
26 that has nothing to do with what I would believe to
27 be an admission.
28 And so I guess that’s what I’m asking the 12384
1 Court now, because we need to know that before we
2 rest, because, I mean, if some of that stuff comes
3 in for the truth of the matter, we’re going to call
4 witnesses to prove otherwise. That’s why we filed
5 the motion, Your Honor.
6 And I believe that the understanding on the
7 original Bashir tape was that that was not for the
8 truth of the matter, except for the admissions, and
9 it seemed to me that the same thing should apply to
10 the outtakes.
11 THE COURT: That is true. That’s what the
12 Bashir tape ruling was, and that’s the reason for
13 admitting the outtakes. There really was not a
14 truth-of-the-matter admission there. It was to
15 balance the information. It was sort of the rest of
16 the story.
17 I kind of viewed it as a situation where you
18 have a conversation and only part of the
19 conversation is admitted, so you let the other side
20 admit the conversation, or the document. Sometimes
21 part of a document’s admitted. It’s not clear the
22 total meaning unless the whole conversation -- or a
23 whole document.
24 So that’s why I admitted the outtakes, was
25 to give the defense -- they had been requesting
26 that. They wanted the balance of the total picture
27 and --
28 MR. SANGER: But in that case, it would come 12385
1 in for the truth of the matter. The whole
2 conversation comes in for the truth of the matter.
3 THE COURT: Then the Bashir tape all comes in
4 for the truth of the matter, right?
5 MR. SANGER: No.
6 THE COURT: You just want your side to have
7 the truth of the matter.
8 MR. SANGER: No, I understand the irony
9 there, in a sense, but the fact is that the whole
10 Bashir tape has all sorts of other hearsay. The
11 only reason that it was admissible for the truth was
12 that --
13 THE COURT: I meant as to Mr. Jackson’s
14 statements.
15 MR. SANGER: As to his statements, yeah.
16 If his statements come in for the truth of the
17 matter --
18 THE COURT: Whether they’re admissions or
19 not. I don’t think you do understand the irony.
20 But go ahead.
21 MR. SANGER: No, no, I do. I’m wrestling
22 with the irony at the moment. Ironically, it turns
23 out.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. SANGER: I understand what the Court is
26 saying, and I was just about to concede that, but I
27 don’t know -- I’d have to think about the Bashir
28 tape. But it seems to me, if Mr. Jackson said 12386
1 things on the Bashir tape -- we had limited portions
2 of the tape --
3 THE COURT: We’ve already told them they are
4 not to take that tape for the truth of the matter
5 asserted except for certain parts, which we told
6 them we’d advise them about later.
7 MR. SANGER: Now, I’m not too worried about
8 what Mr. Jackson said in the Bashir tape. What I’m
9 worried about is -- you’re not suggesting, Your
10 Honor, that what Mr. Bashir says and other people --
11 THE COURT: No.
12 MR. SANGER: Okay. So that would still not
13 come in for the truth.
14 Then the rest of the conversation, it would
15 seem to me, whether it was on the Bashir tape or the
16 outtakes, the whole conversation would come in for
17 the truth of the matter as to what Mr. Jackson said.
18 THE COURT: Well, what Mr. Jackson said
19 there was hearsay, and it has to have an exception
20 to the hearsay rule to come in for the truth of the
21 matter asserted, and admissions is one exception.
22 MR. SANGER: Well --
23 THE COURT: Clearly you don’t let
24 out-of-court statements of the defendant in that are
25 not within the normal classifications, and that’s
26 what you’re suggesting.
27 MR. SANGER: Well, generally, under the
28 Evidence Code, if the entire statement comes in -- 12387
1 THE COURT: That doesn’t --
2 MR. SANGER: -- it generally does all come
3 in. I understand, Your Honor --
4 THE COURT: As to one limited piece of the
5 conversation. You know, if they said, “Okay. The
6 admission is, ‘I sleep in the bed with young boys,’”
7 and the other part of the conversation is, “But I
8 don’t have sex,” then, yeah, that comes -- that’s
9 it. But if, you know, part of the conversation was
10 what he did in town yesterday, no. And that’s where
11 we come in. There’s a lot of outtake material there
12 that’s not material to the parts that are
13 admissions.
14 MR. SANGER: Well, and that -- I think
15 that’s something we need to -- I don’t know that we
16 can accomplish it right now, because --
17 THE COURT: Well, the D.A. says he can’t rest
18 until -- literally he can’t rest --
19 MR. SANGER: The District Attorney is
20 restless.
21 MR. SNEDDON: That’s the most accurate thing
22 you’ve said during this whole trial, Judge.
23 MR. SANGER: Okay. Well, my first argument
24 is, under the Evidence Code -- I understand what the
25 Court just said, but under the Evidence Code,
26 generally if they let in part of the conversation,
27 the rest of it -- ordinary case, the rest of it
28 comes in and it just comes in for the truth. 12388
1 THE COURT: That’s your argument.
2 MR. SANGER: Your Honor is saying, well, we
3 need to do something to pare it down. In order to
4 pare it down, it’s going to --
5 THE COURT: We need to do something to give
6 the jury some legal instruction, some help here, you
7 know. We can talk about it, but they have to decide
8 it.
9 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, the tape
10 itself also came in, the outtakes. The Hamid video
11 came in also to show -- to rebut -- to rebut the
12 contention that the Bashir tape was such a disaster
13 and there was nothing that could be done except to
14 do illegal things to the Arvizos.
15 THE COURT: That’s right.
16 MR. SANGER: And so it came in to show,
17 “Well, no, we had this in the bank.” That was
18 there. That was a strong piece of information or
19 something that could be put out to the public.
20 THE COURT: Let me ask the District Attorney
21 what his --
22 What is your position on the instruction we
23 should give on the outtake tape that Mr. Sanger and
24 I have just been discussing?
25 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, our position is I think
26 outlined in the papers we filed with you; that is,
27 that the outtakes were admitted, as the Court has
28 amply pointed out, as simply a further picture of 12389
1 the entire portions of the interview of the Bashir
2 documentary which was originally shown, and that
3 they do not meet any exception to the hearsay rule,
4 and therefore the limiting instruction that you gave
5 the jury early on in this case with regard to the
6 original documentary should be given with regard to
7 the rest of the outtakes.
8 Now, what we haven’t done, and the part
9 where we addressed earlier in our conversation is, I
10 can’t tell you, as I stand here, whether there are
11 or are not any admissions by Mr. Jackson during the
12 course of those outtakes.
13 Frankly, my recollection is that there are
14 not, because I recall that the tape -- the outtakes
15 ended before the discussion began of his
16 relationship with Gavin and his relationship with
17 other boys and his -- and the questions asked by Mr.
18 Bashir about, you know -- that dialogue about,
19 “Well, isn’t it” -- “Shouldn’t an adult man not be
20 sleeping with little boys?” So I don’t believe
21 that’s on the outtakes.
22 So I don’t think -- I believe that probably
23 all of the outtakes are probably subject to the
24 limiting instruction, except for one portion. And
25 the one portion I would point out to the Court that
26 we put in independent of the outtakes, actually we
27 put in in our case, is the defendant’s statement
28 about the Jesus Juice, as an admission that he did 12390
1 use that term and it corroborates the statement of
2 the kids.
3 But other than that one statement, my
4 recollection, as I stand before the Court right now
5 is, I don’t believe there’s probably any other
6 admissions that would qualify as those that we set
7 out - when I say “we,” the Court, and counsel for
8 the defendant, and us - in open court and delineated
9 in the original Bashir, which may qualify as
10 admissions.
11 But I’ll tell you that my opinion is that
12 the bulk of that tape, the outtakes takes are
13 hearsay and should be subject to the same
14 instruction as the original Bashir documentary.
15 I hope that addresses what the Court asked.
16 THE COURT: It does. Let me ask you a
17 question now. On the tape of Garvin -- Gavin --
18 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir.
19 THE COURT: -- what’s your purpose in
20 introducing that?
21 MR. SNEDDON: Well, we indicated to the
22 Court that there were two purposes. And of course
23 one was prior consistent statements. And the other
24 was that there has been an allegation on the part of
25 the defense that this entire case, and the
26 allegations made by Gavin in particular, was
27 scripted by the mother. They presented several
28 witnesses, most particularly Mary Holzer, to try to 12391
1 infer from what happened, or what statements were
2 made in prior cases, or a prior case, that this case
3 is a similar situation.
4 And so we are offering it for two purposes.
5 One is the prior consistent under Evidence Code
6 Section 791, but more importantly, we’re offering it
7 for the -- it would be actually a nonhearsay
8 purpose, which would be for the purpose of allowing
9 the jury simply to examine the demeanor and the
10 manner in which the disclosures were originally made
11 by Gavin to the law enforcement agencies.
12 And of course I realize that is a different
13 type of a ruling for the Court. And when you ruled
14 that we could show it, I realize that you just made
15 the ruling and didn’t say on which basis. And so I
16 do -- I do recognize, and I did recognize at the
17 time, that there may be -- the way it would come in
18 and whatever instructions you would give the jury
19 may be different, and I do concede that, and so --
20 THE COURT: If I didn’t say it - and I
21 think, now that you mention it, I probably didn’t -
22 my intent in allowing that, making that ruling, was
23 to -- not for the impeachment statements, but for
24 the purpose of allowing the jury to examine his
25 demeanor and the manner in which he made the
26 disclosures.
27 And it’s been my thought to give some
28 instruction along with that, or afterwards when we 12392
1 give instructions, to limit the use of that tape not
2 for the truth of the matter asserted.
3 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I have no problem with
4 that. For us, the significance of it is simply the
5 way the disclosure occurred, and his manner and the
6 way he behaves and reacts to the officers in what he
7 says. So that’s not a problem with us. And I
8 understand the difference. And I kind of
9 anticipated that might be what the Court had in
10 mind.
11 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger?
12 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir.
13 THE COURT: Would you address that point,
14 please? You are doing that issue, aren’t you?
15 MR. SANGER: Yes.
16 I agree with the Court, it was not -- it
17 should not be let in for prior consistent
18 statements, because that should have been in the
19 case-in-chief. And that’s why we argued that on
20 this thin basis, that it’s collateral impeachment of
21 Holzer, scripted, that may or may not apply to this
22 situation.
23 And we argued that it was very -- you know,
24 to be able to play this at the end, as we cited the
25 case several times, the Carter case from the Supreme
26 Court, that says you shouldn’t be allowed to put
27 dramatic evidence on at the end for a purpose that
28 isn’t really -- or that goes beyond what the real 12393
1 lawful purpose is, and we still believe that that’s
2 the case. So that’s the first thing.
3 Secondly, as far as the truth of the matter,
4 I think the Court could frame an instruction. The
5 danger, though, would be that no matter what the
6 Court says, the jury’s going to sit here and listen
7 to Gavin’s statement at the end of the case and
8 they’re going to hear the words, and there’s no way
9 that they’re going to be able to disregard what he’s
10 saying.
11 And if the Court limits it the way the Court
12 limits it, there’s also the fact that then we can’t
13 cross-examine even on some strange remarks that are
14 made by Gavin that may not otherwise be picked up.
15 Because it is our position that this was rehearsed.
16 He had told Davellin this story. Davellin had told
17 Dr. Katz. Davellin had told the police. And then
18 he comes in, and by the end of the statement, he
19 says, “I haven’t told my sister or my brother about
20 this.”
21 If we can’t -- if we can’t inquire about
22 that -- the officer, when they put the tape on, for
23 instance, and say, “Well,” you know, “he told
24 you” -- “Isn’t it a fact that you already
25 interviewed Davellin and she already told you that,
26 and you are aware Dr. Katz interviewed Davellin and
27 she had all the details?” You know, I’m just giving
28 that as an example. 12394
1 THE COURT: And to respond to that example,
2 it seems to me that if the purpose is the
3 spontaneity and demeanor of the child reporting it
4 to the police for the first time, then in fact that
5 cross-examination would be permitted, because -- not
6 for the truth of the matter, but because it shows --
7 or it’s evidence that a jury could infer shows lack
8 of spontaneity.
9 MR. SANGER: Okay.
10 THE COURT: So it’s tricky business, I
11 understand. You know, that’s why I --
12 MR. SANGER: We can live with that. That
13 would -- that makes sense. I appreciate what the
14 Court just said. And that would make sense if we’re
15 at least allowed to cross-examine on a couple of
16 those issues like that.
17 I still -- I don’t know if the Court was
18 inviting a further argument it shouldn’t come in at
19 all, but I certainly would argue that. I think the
20 Court ruled previously, so I don’t mean to be
21 arguing with the Court.
22 THE COURT: I did. And I understand that.
23 And all of these issues are -- they’re similar legal
24 concepts, and that’s why it’s good to be discussing
25 all of them at the same time, because invariably one
26 side wants to produce evidence that’s very similar
27 to what the other side wants to produce, and they
28 both oppose the evidence. 12395
1 MR. SANGER: Right. That’s our job.
2 THE COURT: Well, but I like to make you look
3 at it that way.
4 MR. SANGER: No, I understand that.
5 Well, and so in this -- if the Court was
6 going to let it in -- I don’t know if the Court’s
7 considering revisiting that decision.
8 THE COURT: Well, I would consider -- since
9 we’re rediscussing it, I would consider anything new
10 that you want to say on that issue, if you felt that
11 you were cut short. I don’t want to hear the
12 argument again. I heard the argument. But if
13 there’s something you thought of later, or in this
14 conversation we’ve just had this morning, if there’s
15 something else you want to say about that ruling,
16 say it.
17 MR. SANGER: What I would add to everything
18 else I said is that -- and it’s actually become more
19 clear right now, is that, by playing the tape, that
20 could well lengthen the -- the surrebuttal process
21 considerably. By not playing the tape, it would
22 eliminate a good amount of surrebuttal that I don’t
23 think -- I think by the time all the dust settles
24 with that rebuttal and the surrebuttal, I don’t
25 think the jury is going to be any further ahead in
26 their process of finding out what happened, but --
27 THE COURT: Well, in that regard -- let’s
28 talk about your surrebuttal. If it’s admitted -- if 12396
1 the tape’s admitted only for the purpose of the
2 demeanor, spontaneity, that type of issue with
3 Gavin, and not for prior consistent statements or
4 the truth of the matter asserted, you’ll be required
5 to address for me each issue, each witness that you
6 intend to call on surrebuttal as to what the
7 significance, relevance of that witness would be.
8 MR. SANGER: Well, I understand. I could
9 address that briefly so the Court has an idea. I
10 mean, for instance, Gavin would be called and could
11 be cross-examined on circumstances leading up to
12 giving this interview, and whether or not he’s
13 spontaneous during the particular interview. And
14 there’s some particular issues I --
15 THE COURT: I’m not really concerned about
16 Gavin. I could clearly see that. But why would you
17 re-call Mrs. Arvizo?
18 MR. SANGER: Mrs. Arvizo, because she has --
19 let me answer my part first, and I think Mr.
20 Mesereau wants to add something there.
21 But the -- but we’d call Mrs. Arvizo because
22 that is the reason it’s called -- I mean, the reason
23 it’s presented by the prosecution is they’re saying
24 this rebuts somehow Holzer’s implication that
25 because J.C. Penney’s was coached, that this was
26 coached. Well, we can -- we would like to call her,
27 now that we’ve had some further evidence in this
28 case, and confront her with some issues that 12397
1 suggested this was coached. And so --
2 THE COURT: When you say that “this was
3 coached,” you’re saying that this interview with the
4 sheriff was coached.
5 MR. SANGER: That’s correct.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. SANGER: And then we have Dr. Katz,
8 because Dr. Katz did the prior interviews where
9 Davellin also told him all the details. And that
10 obviously flies in the face of the idea that this is
11 spontaneous and the police officers are somehow
12 dragging this out of him. And Gavin also told
13 all -- different details, but generally the same
14 story, with some striking inconsistencies, but
15 generally the same story he told to Dr. Katz.
16 So we would need to go through and show that
17 this is not as spontaneous as it appears. And I
18 think if it’s looked at in those eyes, it isn’t
19 spontaneous. But if it isn’t looked at through
20 those eyes, then, you know, the People are going to
21 say, “Well, look and see how spontaneous he is.”
22 And so we need to do that.
23 We also have Mr. Feldman --
24 THE COURT: What I really wanted to be sure
25 of was that you weren’t going down the street of now
26 you have to impeach him with statements he made
27 post. I mean, that’s how we -- you see what I’m
28 saying? 12398
1 If they’re not admitted for the truth of the
2 matter asserted, we’re not -- we’re not admitting
3 them for prior consistent statements, then we’re not
4 going to admit them for inconsistent statements.
5 MR. SANGER: And if the Court does that, if
6 that’s -- if the Court’s going to allow the tape --
7 and I’m urging the Court to reconsider that, because
8 I think at this point it’s -- it shouldn’t be. But
9 if the Court were to admit the tape, then I think
10 that would be a good part of the instruction to give
11 the jury, to let them know that we are not going to
12 be attempting to impeach his statement, because it’s
13 not offered for the truth. We’re not going to be
14 attempting to impeach it at this time. Counsel’s
15 not being allowed to, or however the Court would
16 phrase it, go into the subsequent statements that
17 were made.
18 Now, we have introduced evidence of some of
19 those previously, so they’re in evidence, but I
20 think that would be fair. Otherwise, it will appear
21 that we’re just kind of giving up or not challenging
22 what was said. And I don’t think that would be fair
23 to the defense.
24 Could I have a second, just to see if Mr.
25 Mesereau wanted --
26 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, may I have a chance to
27 respond just briefly to something?
28 THE COURT: Yes. 12399
1 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll wait for Mr. Mesereau.
2 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, I heard Mr.
3 Sneddon’s voice, but I didn’t hear what he said
4 because I was talking to Mr. Mesereau.
5 THE COURT: Well --
6 MR. SANGER: Too bad, I missed it?
7 THE COURT: Well, I don’t know. It was
8 pretty important.
9 MR. SANGER: All right. Let me respond to
10 that, Your Honor. Once again, Mr. Sneddon is wrong.
11 THE COURT: He said, “Let me be” -- he wants
12 to be heard.
13 MR. SANGER: On this issue.
14 THE COURT: On this issue.
15 MR. SANGER: I would like to just remind the
16 Court, please, on the outtakes, I did have a
17 response. I would like to respond to what Mr.
18 Sneddon said on that. But we are now talking about
19 this other issue, so I’ll -- as long as you give me
20 an opportunity to do that before we’re through.
21 THE COURT: No, go ahead and respond to the
22 outtakes.
23 MR. SANGER: Okay. Switching gears here to
24 the outtakes, Mr. Sneddon said the outtakes ended
25 before the discussions about Gavin. Well, that’s
26 not correct. That’s not even close to being
27 correct. The outtakes are outtakes that were done
28 in June, the end of June of 2002, the first two 12400
1 tapes, and then the third disk is in January of
2 2003. The third disk, actually, is at the very end.
3 All of the other filming for the entire video, for
4 the entire Bashir video, has been done at that time.
5 In June, some of the videotaping has been done.
6 But -- and the last -- the last one, all of it was
7 done.
8 Secondly, not all of the statements of
9 Mr. Jackson were taken by Mr. Bashir’s film crew
10 during the same time that Hamid was taping. So in
11 other words, Bashir also taped at other times,
12 obviously in Las Vegas and other places, at the
13 ranch, at other dates undisclosed. We don’t know
14 because he’s asserting the shield and won’t answer.
15 So he has other material that he got, and we don’t
16 have outtakes from that.
17 So, first of all, on the outtakes, let me
18 give an example here. If the Court is going to
19 limit it, our first position is the outtakes come in
20 for the truth of the matter because it’s part of the
21 overall conversation. And there were cuts from that
22 that were played in the actual Bashir, so the whole
23 thing comes in.
24 Second, if the Court says it doesn’t come in
25 for the truth of the matter entirely, then we would
26 ask that the Court look at this liberally. For
27 instance - I was just thinking of an example -
28 there’s a point at which Mr. Jackson talks about his 12401
1 former wife, Debbie Rowe. And you recall there’s
2 questions about the children and -- a number of
3 questions that related to the children.
4 If the Court is going to start carving
5 things out, I suppose there could be an order that
6 the statement as to the circumstances of the birth
7 of his children would not be offered for the truth
8 of the matter. But the statements that relate to
9 his love for his children and his relationship with
10 his children, particularly in direct response to
11 questions from Mr. Bashir, would be admitted for the
12 truth of the matter, because that goes directly to
13 the issues in the Bashir tape where he talks about
14 his love for children.
15 What Bashir did is, he cleverly and
16 surgically took out what he thought was the most
17 sensational clips from all the footage he had, which
18 included all of this, and he did not include
19 extensive commentary by Mr. Jackson about how he
20 loves children, and Mr. Bashir encouraging him, and
21 Mr. Bashir saying, “Oh, this is wonderful. I’ve
22 seen your relationship,” and he’s responding to it.
23 Because that truly does put the statements on the
24 tape in context. So, if we’re going to do it
25 surgically, it would have to be somewhere along
26 those lines.
27 Now, the Court could probably -- if our
28 motion to admit it all for the truth is denied, the 12402
1 Court could probably give a general instruction,
2 without going through and saying, “The tape up to
3 this part is admissible for the truth of the matter,
4 and then from this counter number to this counter
5 number it isn’t.” And the Court could probably
6 fashion something that covers the subject matter, in
7 other words, saying that the entire tape -- give
8 examples, perhaps.
9 THE COURT: I understand your position.
10 MR. SANGER: Okay. Very good.
11 All right. So unless there’s a response to
12 what Mr. Sneddon has on the other thing, I’ll submit
13 it.
14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sneddon?
15 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I’m done on the Bashir
16 thing. I think the Court has our position on it.
17 And we’ll look at the tape. If there’s something on
18 there, there’s something on there. If there’s not,
19 there’s not. I think I made that clear.
20 With regard to the second part, however, I
21 do want to say this, because I think there’s been
22 the creation of a misimpression with this Court, and
23 that is that -- the question that you asked about
24 Dr. Katz and the reason that Dr. Katz would be
25 called, and counsel’s reference of a fact that
26 Davellin made statements to Dr. Katz about there had
27 been previous disclosures, based upon my
28 recollection of the testimony, is untrue. 12403
1 There had been discussion by Gavin with
2 Davellin with regard to certain incidents, including
3 the showing of the pornography, adult materials, the
4 drinking, the mannequin incident, but there had been
5 no disclosure of the sexual activities between the
6 defendant and Gavin. And I think Dr. Katz was very
7 clear that, in Gavin’s conversation with him, there
8 was no disclosure, and when he got to that point he
9 just dropped his head and he wouldn’t talk anymore,
10 and that’s why Dr. Katz felt he needed to make a
11 mandated report.
12 So I think what I’m saying to the Court
13 simply is, before the Court opens up a lot of
14 avenues for cross-examination or bringing these
15 witnesses in, I think it’s incumbent on the defense
16 to show where there’s some testimony in this case
17 that there really was a disclosure of the sexual
18 conduct between the defendant and the victim in this
19 case on a prior occasion, before he disclosed on the
20 video that we’re about to play.
21 I believe the state of the evidence in this
22 case is there was absolutely none. This was it.
23 And that this would be collateral to the main issue
24 as to why this tape is being shown. So --
25 THE COURT: I think, so that you understand,
26 I will require both sides, but in this case
27 specifically the defense, to -- before a witness is
28 called, to make an offer of proof on surrebuttal as 12404
1 to why they’re calling the witness and how it
2 relates to your rebuttal. I’m not opening up this
3 trial again for anybody.
4 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.
5 THE COURT: So -- and at that time you’ll
6 have an opportunity to address it. I just wanted --
7 and I appreciate that Mr. Sanger gave me a picture
8 of some of the material he thought he was going to
9 be bringing in, and most of what he said seemed
10 relevant. But I will look at each piece, and I’m
11 going to hold people tight to this, because we’re on
12 surrebuttal. The case is over. You’re on rebuttal.
13 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Thank you, Your
14 Honor.
15 THE COURT: On your subpoena, come forward.
16 MR. LEVINE: Yes, my more boring issue, Your
17 Honor.
18 Just to keep it very brief --
19 THE COURT: I don’t think your issue is
20 boring, Counsel.
21 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 Compared to the others.
23 With the benefit of hindsight, it seems
24 that Mr. Geragos testified pretty much that he
25 ordered surveillance in this case and the reasons
26 why he did that. And I think that’s the extent of
27 what both sides were getting at during the cross.
28 We have here an attempt to basically try to 12405
1 get billing statements, everything related to his
2 representation. A lot of that, the Court can see,
3 is irrelevant to what has occurred. It would be
4 beyond the scope of both cross and direct. And I
5 think to even -- and I think what he stated in his
6 testimony is that he didn’t take any notes. He
7 didn’t have any tapes. Whatever e-mails there were,
8 the Court -- they have been provided by the defense
9 to the prosecution.
10 And I think that Brad Miller, who did the
11 surveillance and would be the relevant witness as to
12 what occurred during the surveillance, I think he
13 was raided, and I think that there was a search
14 warrant served on his offices. I don’t really think
15 that the records, his billing records and what are
16 other extraneous items that may be in the file, are
17 really relevant at this point.
18 I think both sides -- Mr. Zonen did a very
19 effective cross-examination that lasted almost five
20 hours. And I think that there’s really nothing left
21 to do in this particular area. So, it appears that
22 the request, as it’s framed in their subpoena, is
23 just overbroad, putting aside any privileges or any
24 other issues. And I think that it would be better
25 if there was something specific that we can respond
26 to.
27 I mean, you have to understand, the file
28 with Mr. Jackson, the brunt of it is just box -- I 12406
1 don’t know how big it is. I haven’t seen it. But
2 most of it is after he was arrested. So there would
3 be a lot of --
4 THE COURT: That seems to be one of the
5 problems with the subpoena, now that I see it, is
6 that the -- there’s not a limitation to the time
7 period that the waiver purports to. You know, it
8 appears to be overly broad from the standpoint that
9 they subpoena everything, which, you know, clearly
10 they are not entitled to subpoena records beyond the
11 time waiver.
12 MR. LEVINE: Even if we limit it to records
13 within the time waiver, I mean, let’s say they add
14 that sentence and it’s in there, which I think
15 they -- I think that was their intent. Again, it’s
16 just a situation here where, at this very late stage
17 of the trial where everybody has rested, and we’re
18 getting back into what seems to be very
19 insignificant information. Mr. Geragos’s testimony
20 was very collateral to -- it’s just ancillary, a
21 very small part, and he just basically ordered
22 surveillance. And it seems that --
23 THE COURT: It’s a little more complicated
24 than that.
25 MR. LEVINE: I understand. I read --
26 THE COURT: You didn’t see the trial, so
27 I’ll accept --
28 MR. LEVINE: I did see parts of it. It was 12407
1 very compelling, Your Honor. I was here last week.
2 But I think that it would be better if we
3 can just have --
4 THE COURT: One of the things I’m addressing
5 is there was some testimony just yesterday about the
6 number of phone calls between Mr. Geragos and other
7 people involved during this period, which flies in
8 the face of your assertion that he was just -- that
9 he just ordered surveillance. You know, that’s not
10 true. He was very involved in a lot of that, you
11 know, what was going on, and that -- so I just --
12 you know, I just have to tell you, your assertion
13 doesn’t stand up. But --
14 MR. LEVINE: I’m not suggesting that he
15 didn’t talk to people. The fact that a phone call
16 was made, again, I’m just really -- just seems --
17 again, what the defense called him for was for that
18 purpose. That other items came up, I understand.
19 I’m just trying to --
20 THE COURT: You have to realize that, until
21 the defense called him, he claimed the privilege,
22 and he -- the District Attorney couldn’t call him.
23 They couldn’t subpoena his records. In fact, I had
24 a special master spend months going through the
25 e-mails, the computer hard drives that were seized,
26 and segregating out the privileged material, only to
27 have him come into court and have the privilege
28 waived. So what may appear to you to be a late 12408
1 subpoena isn’t late at all, considering when Mr.
2 Geragos and Mr. Jackson waived the privilege.
3 MR. LEVINE: All right. We didn’t like that
4 argument. We didn’t like the attorney-client and
5 not the attorney work-product. I understand that.
6 THE COURT: I’ll just make this easy for
7 you. I’m going to -- I’ll make it easy for me,
8 excuse me, not for you.
9 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: I’m going to allow the subpoena,
11 but I’m going to limit it to materials that are
12 within the scope of the waiver.
13 MR. LEVINE: Okay. Is there a time frame as
14 far as -- I know that the boxes are in storage
15 somewhere and they have to be pulled out.
16 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Geragos actually said
17 he didn’t think there was much material.
18 MR. LEVINE: I agree.
19 THE COURT: So it can’t be very burdensome.
20 He didn’t think there was hardly anything.
21 MR. LEVINE: Well, that would be me, though.
22 I would have to go through the boxes, Your Honor,
23 so --
24 THE COURT: All right. We’re back in session
25 Tuesday. That’s when I want it here.
26 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor.
27 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, would it be possible
28 to get it earlier than that? Given the reality of 12409
1 our case, we’re going to be done Tuesday.
2 THE COURT: They can’t hear you back there.
3 MR. ZONEN: One of these days I’ll remember
4 this.
5 We believe that we will likely be resting on
6 Tuesday. If we don’t get the materials until that
7 time -- and frankly, if we have to wait till
8 Tuesday, we would probably need Mr. Geragos’s
9 presence here. If we could have it before Tuesday,
10 we might be able to resolve a stipulation where he
11 wouldn’t actually have to come; that we could
12 perhaps stipulate to the admissibility of some
13 materials. But we would need the materials in
14 advance of that date. Otherwise, I’m afraid Mr.
15 Geragos would have to be here on Tuesday, as he
16 would be the only one to lay the foundation for the
17 introduction of those documents, assuming there’s
18 some relevant documents among the file.
19 MR. LEVINE: I really have nothing to do
20 this weekend, it being Memorial Day weekend. I’m
21 happy to accommodate this request to go through it.
22 I don’t really think there is much, because I think
23 his testimony was he didn’t take notes, he didn’t
24 have tapes. And I know that --
25 THE COURT: That’s pretty much what he
26 testified to.
27 MR. LEVINE: He also turned over a lot of
28 stuff to the defense, which I would assume they have 12410
1 possession of and they would be obligated to turn
2 over to the prosecution, given the fact that they
3 waived the privilege that they had.
4 THE COURT: They have different obligations.
5 You’re only required to turn over what you have, not
6 what’s been forwarded to other people.
7 So in order to help bring this case to an
8 end, and to ruin your weekend, I’ll order that you
9 present it on Monday to the district attorneys.
10 MR. LEVINE: It’s a lovely drive here from
11 Los Angeles, Your Honor.
12 MR. ZONEN: He’ll only have to go to Santa
13 Barbara.
14 MR. LEVINE: Okay.
15 THE COURT: You should make an agreement how
16 you’re going to get together.
17 MR. ZONEN: I’ll do that. Thank you, Your
18 Honor.
19 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Thank you.
21 What I want to do is -- you want to say
22 something?
23 MR. SANGER: I do. I just missed the last
24 part there.
25 These are documents that are subpoenaed to
26 the Court, not to the District Attorney’s Office.
27 I don’t mind them being delivered to the District
28 Attorney’s Office if we have an agreement that they 12411
1 will immediately provide us with a copy.
2 THE COURT: So ordered.
3 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
4 THE COURT: But I don’t think they were
5 listening this time either.
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I was listening.
7 THE COURT: Oh, you were. Okay.
8 Oh, it was you that wasn’t listening last
9 time. I get confused about who’s not listening.
10 Don’t bring the jury in. I want to just
11 take a couple minutes and look at some material here
12 before you bring the jury in.
13
14 (The following proceedings were held in
15 open court in the presence and hearing of the
16 jury:)
17
18 THE COURT: (To the jury) I know what you’re
19 thinking.
20 JUROR NO. 7: Uh-oh.
21 THE COURT: You’re probably thinking, “Well,
22 if you don’t want us to come in until 9:15, then why
23 do you have us here at 8:30?” Right?
24 This is just a little bit more complicated.
25 We’re in the rebuttal stage, and the legal issues
26 become more complicated, and I’m just trying to take
27 care of them as quickly as they come up and then get
28 you in here. 12412
1 Just think of it this way: You only have 15
2 more minutes till the break.
3 Counsel, you may proceed.
4 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor.
5
6 CRAIG BONNER
7 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
8 stand and testified further as follows:
9
10 MR. SNEDDON: First of all, I’d like to
11 begin by having another photograph marked as 909 for
12 identification purposes. I’ve shown it to counsel
13 and I’d like to approach the witness, with the
14 Court’s permission.
15 THE COURT: You may.
16
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
18 BY MR. SNEDDON:
19 Q. Detective Bonner, yesterday, we were talking
20 during your testimony about the location of the two
21 areas where the sensors were located in the
22 downstairs area of Mr. Jackson’s bedroom suite,
23 okay? And I’ve handed you the exhibit marked as
24 People’s 909. Do you recognize that photograph?
25 A. Yes, I do.
26 Q. And have you seen that area before?
27 A. Yes, I have.
28 Q. And is that photograph an accurate depiction 12413
1 of what it purports to represent?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’d move that 909
4 be admitted into evidence.
5 MR. SANGER: No objection.
6 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
7 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, could we have the
8 input for the Elmo, please?
9 Q. We put on the board the photograph -- excuse
10 me. There we go -- the photograph marked as 909,
11 which is now in evidence. And do you recognize that
12 photograph?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Okay. And in that photograph, do you see
15 the areas where the -- what you call the -- what do
16 you call them? -- the enunciators are located?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I guess I should give you the red --
19 that’s the laser. Would you, first of all, point
20 out the locations of what you call the enunciators?
21 A. The two enunciators, or alarm speakers, were
22 located, the first one, underneath this
23 bookcase/cabinet, right down here.
24 Q. You’re indicating in the lower left-hand
25 corner of the Exhibit 909?
26 A. Correct. Underneath it.
27 Q. All right.
28 A. The second enunciator was located underneath 12414
1 this chair, or throne.
2 Q. Okay. Now, I’m going to show you another
3 photograph marked as 54, which is in evidence. Do
4 you recognize that photograph?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And that’s the same chair -- the chair
7 that’s depicted in that photograph is the same chair
8 depicted in photograph 909; is that correct?
9 A. That’s correct.
10 Q. And was that the location of the chair the
11 time that you were out at the house in November of
12 2003?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And was that the location of the sensor --
15 or the enunciator that you mentioned on that
16 occasion?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the same thing in December of 2004?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So -- and this is -- which door is this?
21 A. This is the doorway that leads from the
22 hallway into the private area of Michael Jackson’s
23 room, or the living space downstairs.
24 Q. All right. Now, the next photograph is
25 People’s 69, which is in evidence. You recognize
26 that photograph?
27 A. Yes, I do.
28 Q. And is the cabinet depicted in that 12415
1 photograph the same cabinet that you referenced
2 earlier in your testimony?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. And the room just to the left of that
5 cabinet is what room? What is that?
6 A. That’s the bathroom with the Jacuzzi tub.
7 Q. Okay. And again, was this the same
8 location -- was this cabinet and the enunciator in
9 the same location as depicted in this photograph on
10 the 18th of November, 2003?
11 A. Yes. However, due to the angle that the
12 film -- or the photograph is taken at, you cannot
13 see it in this photograph.
14 Q. But you did see it personally?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in December when you went out there in
17 2004, was that cabinet still in the same location?
18 A. Yes, it was.
19 Q. And the enunciator was still in the same
20 location?
21 A. Yes, it was.
22 MR. SNEDDON: We can have the lights, Your
23 Honor.
24 Now, Your Honor, I have an exhibit which has
25 been marked as 908 for identification purposes, and
26 I’ve indicated to counsel what portion of the
27 exhibit that we want to play, and we have it pre-set
28 to that portion. And what I’ve told counsel that we 12416
1 would do, if this is okay with the Court, is that we
2 will take the portion that’s played in court out of
3 this exhibit and provide that, simply that portion,
4 for the Court in case the jury wants to look at it
5 later. In other words, we’ll substitute -- not --
6 we won’t substitute. We will provide a 908-A, which
7 will have just the portion that’s shown to the jury.
8 THE COURT: That’s good.
9 MR. SNEDDON: Because there’s other matters
10 on here, and we didn’t have time to do the editing
11 on it. And I think that’s acceptable to the Court
12 and I think that’s acceptable to counsel.
13 MR. SANGER: Yes, it is.
14 THE COURT: All right. That’s good. I’d
15 like you to do that.
16 MR. SNEDDON: We will do that, Your Honor.
17 So this is Exhibit 908, and we’re going to -- let me
18 ask a few foundation questions and then we’ll show
19 it.
20 Q. Detective Bonner, you had occasion to review
21 a DVD disk of some portions of the search warrant
22 that was executed in December of 2004, correct?
23 A. That’s correct.
24 Q. And you were present when those portions of
25 the video that the jury is about to see were filmed;
26 is that correct?
27 A. Yes, I was.
28 Q. In fact, your voice can be heard on the 12417
1 video?
2 A. Correct.
3 MR. SNEDDON: And with regard to the
4 portions that we are about to see, Your Honor, I
5 have another exhibit that I’d like to have marked as
6 People’s 907 for identification purposes. I’ve
7 shown it to counsel, and it’s a diagram. And I’d
8 like to show it to the witness and authenticate it
9 before we show the video.
10 THE COURT: You may. How long is the video
11 now?
12 MR. SNEDDON: Very short. It’s --
13 THE WITNESS: About 40 seconds, 45 seconds.
14 MR. SNEDDON: 40 seconds. What’s the number
15 on that? 907?
16 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, can I ask the
18 questions here? I’ll talk real loud, if that’s all
19 right.
20 I’ll go back and forth. I could use the
21 exercise.
22 Q. 907, do you recognize that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Did you prepare that?
25 A. Yes, I did.
26 Q. And is that -- does that purport to be to
27 scale or just an illustration of the various
28 locations of the rooms of the defendant’s master 12418
1 bedroom?
2 A. This is not in any way to scale. It’s just
3 a quick drawing just to show relative location.
4 MR. SNEDDON: With the Court’s permission, I
5 move that be admitted for illustrative purposes of
6 the witness’s testimony that he’s about to give.
7 MR. SANGER: No objection.
8 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
9 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I think we’ll play
10 the video and then we’ll go back to this exhibit.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, People’s
13 Exhibit 908 (to be later marked as 908-A) was played
14 for the Court and jury.)
15 MR. SNEDDON: All right. For the record,
16 that portion of the video that was shown was 19:20
17 to 19:55.
18 Now, we could have the lights again, Your
19 Honor.
20 Q. Mr. -- Sergeant Bonner, where was the
21 cameraman located at the time that those chimes were
22 going off?
23 A. He was standing directly in front of or on
24 top of the area where the enunciator was located
25 underneath the bookcase/cabinet.
26 Q. All right. Let’s put this Exhibit 907 up on
27 the board, if we can.
28 Okay. This is Exhibit 907, correct? 12419
1 A. That’s correct.
2 Q. All right. Now, on the particular exhibit -
3 you have the laser there - you have an “Enunciator
4 1,” with a little square; is that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Where is that located in relationship to the
7 room?
8 A. Enunciator 1 is located right here. This
9 was where the bookcase was. And the enunciator was
10 underneath the bookcase.
11 Q. All right. And could you illustrate to the
12 ladies and gentlemen of the jury the approximate
13 location of the cameraman at the time that they
14 heard the chimes going off in the Exhibit 908?
15 A. Our cameraperson was standing right above
16 that bookcase pointing down, at one point in time
17 directly, the camera pointing directly at where that
18 enunciator was at.
19 Q. You’re indicating just to the top left of
20 the small square, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Or rectangle?
23 A. Through the video, he moves -- he starts out
24 approximately right here, and I believe he ends
25 right about here.
26 Q. Okay. And then with regard to the
27 “Enunciator 2,” what does that relate to in your
28 previous testimony? 12420
1 A. Enunciator 2 was the nonworking enunciator
2 that was underneath that red and gold chair.
3 Q. Now, using this diagram as a further
4 illustration, you were shown a photograph yesterday
5 that showed one of the sensors up in the ceiling
6 prior to -- close to the entrance of Mr. Jackson’s
7 bedroom door, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And would you show us the location of that
10 on the diagram?
11 A. It is right here, and I have called it
12 “Curtain Sensor 1.”
13 Q. Now, in November and December -- November of
14 2003, let’s take them one at a time, was that
15 curtain sensor working?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And in December of 2004, was that curtain
18 sensor working?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. SANGER: I’ll object, asked and
21 answered, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question.
23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: With regard to the exhibit,
24 907, you have a second curtain sensor located on
25 that exhibit, correct?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. And why don’t you show the jury where that’s
28 located? 12421
1 A. That’s located prior to the doorway leading
2 into the foyer. Right there.
3 Q. And was that sensor active on November 18th,
4 2003?
5 A. It did not activate any alarms.
6 Q. And with regard to December of 2004, was it
7 working?
8 A. Again, it did not activate any alarms.
9 Q. You weren’t out at the ranch in February and
10 March of 2003, correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. All right. I’m just going to ask you one
13 other thing and then we’ll be done.
14 I’ve handed you the exhibit that -- it’s
15 907, correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And would you please put on Exhibit 907,
18 with the red pen I’ve given you, the approximate
19 location of the sheriff’s department cameraman at
20 the point where the video was played to the jury?
21 So with regard to Exhibit 907, you’ve placed
22 a little red figure on that; is that correct?
23 A. Two circles with a line between the two,
24 approximating the positions that you observe him to
25 be in.
26 Q. So he moved during the course of the
27 filming; is that right?
28 A. Correct. 12422
1 Q. But in that area. That was the area during
2 the entire time that the chimes were ringing?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Okay. You’ve had occasion to view the
5 defense video of the three scenes where the chimes
6 were filmed?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Okay. And with regard to the time that
9 those were filmed, could you determine, from your
10 experience of being out there twice, whether both of
11 the enunciators were working on that day?
12 A. I believe both enunciators were working when
13 the defense did their video.
14 MR. SANGER: I’m going to move to strike
15 that. I didn’t understand the question. I move to
16 strike the answer for the purpose of objecting.
17 That would call for speculation. There’s no
18 foundation. He wasn’t there.
19 MR. SNEDDON: I’m about to ask him that
20 question.
21 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain the
22 objection and strike the answer so you can --
23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Have you reviewed that
24 video?
25 A. Correct.
26 Q. And from reviewing that video, are you able
27 to determine whether or not both of those
28 enunciators were working at the time that the 12423
1 defense conducted their experiment?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SANGER: Objection. He answered. He
4 just answered “yes” or “no,” so that’s fine.
5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And are you able to reach
6 that opinion based upon your prior experiments and
7 familiarity with how this system works?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When you were actually out there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I would ask you how -- what is the basis of
12 your opinion that both enunciators were working the
13 day that the defense filmed their exhibit concerning
14 the chimes in the Jackson suite?
15 MR. SANGER: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes
16 facts not in evidence. There’s no evidence as to
17 his opinion, only that he had one. And I object to
18 his opinion, to any opinion, as not being based on
19 an adequate foundation.
20 THE COURT: Overruled. I’ll allow the
21 answer.
22 THE WITNESS: There are two different
23 enunciators located in two different locations.
24 There are two different curtain sensors located in
25 two different locations.
26 We know, based upon our being there in
27 December of ‘04 and on November 18th of ‘03, that
28 Curtain Sensor 1 activated Enunciator 1, which is 12424
1 located furthest from the stairwell, and that would
2 presumably have a lower volume than if Enunciator 2
3 was activated, based upon the filming with the
4 individual in the upstairs.
5 When you listen --
6 MR. SANGER: Excuse me. First of all, it’s
7 a narrative. And second of all, I move to strike
8 the last part as being an opinion without a
9 foundation.
10 THE COURT: I am going to sustain the
11 objection and strike the opinion.
12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Are you able to tell, from
13 a review -- based upon your familiarity with the
14 system and your having been out there, are you able
15 to determine, “yes” or “no,” from a review of those
16 films, that both enunciators were working that day?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And are you able to determine that based
19 upon your review of the sounds, the differing sounds
20 that the chimes make at certain portions during
21 those scenes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Were you also able to determine, when you
24 were out there before, that the enunciators have
25 three volume settings on them?
26 A. No.
27 Q. Multiple volume settings?
28 MR. SANGER: Objection. Leading; asked and 12425
1 answered.
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 THE WITNESS: No.
4 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you determine that at
5 some other point in time?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I have no further
8 questions on this subject, Your Honor. But I
9 believe at this point I would have this witness --
10 I’ll ask one question, and then I think we have a
11 stipulation to offer to the Court. And we can have
12 the lights.
13 MR. SANGER: First of all, I want to object
14 to the last question and move to strike the last
15 answer for the purpose of objecting to the question
16 on the grounds there’s no foundation.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: During the course of your
19 role in this investigation, was it your
20 responsibility to review the items that had been
21 obtained through the course of the search warrant
22 process?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And was one of the assignments that you had
25 to determine the items that were seized from the
26 office of Investigator Brad Miller?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And during the course of that review, did 12426
1 you determine whether or not there was a tape that
2 was recovered from Mr. Miller’s office that dealt
3 with an interview between Janet Arvizo and the
4 Department of Child & Family Services in Los Angeles
5 on February the 20th of 2003?
6 A. There was not.
7 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I believe the
8 stipulation, Your Honor, is that --
9 MR. SANGER: Tom?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Oh.
11 MR. SNEDDON: Do you want to read it?
12 That’s fine, thank you.
13 I’ll read the stipulation, Your Honor, into
14 the record, if that’s appropriate for the Court.
15 THE COURT: You may.
16 MR. SNEDDON: Both sides are willing to
17 stipulate to the following: That prior to the
18 trial, both the prosecution and the defense
19 exchanged documents and other evidence with each
20 other, and on December the 6th of 2004, the defense
21 provided to the prosecution a copy of the DCFS
22 interview of February the 20th of 2003.
23 THE COURT: Is that your agreement, Mr.
24 Mesereau?
25 MR. MESEREAU: The stipulation reads we
26 provided the prosecution with our copy of that
27 interview, I believe.
28 THE COURT: All right. 12427
Subject: May 27, 2005 
Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:25 pm
