1 Q. He was irritated by doing what, by having to
2 do what?
3 A. Pointless chores that had no -- you know,
4 you have a business degree. Do you want to go down
5 to -- and get passport photos? No, you don’t.
6 Q. All right. Now, with regard to the taping
7 that you did of the Arvizos, you were asked about a
8 number of questions.
9 Based on your conversations with Janet, your
10 brief conversations with the kids, and then the
11 interview that you did that night with them, did you
12 believe that their responses were sincere that
13 Michael Jackson helped Gavin?
14 A. As far as Michael --
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; calls for a
16 conclusion.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. The District Attorney
19 asked you about various questions you asked about
20 Michael Jackson helping Gavin.
21 Did you believe that you were coaching these
22 people to say something that was not true about
23 Michael Jackson helping Gavin?
24 A. No. It was -- I felt very much so that it
25 was very sincere and very truthful.
26 Q. And when you asked questions about
27 parenting, you asked Mrs. Arvizo about her
28 relationship with her own children, right? 11031
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. And did you ask her children, or at least
3 Gavin about his relationship with his mother?
4 A. I believe I did.
5 Q. Do you remember his response to that?
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
7 MR. SANGER: That would be a “yes” or “no,”
8 first of all. And I take it he’s going to say “no.”
9 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
10 MR. SANGER: All right.
11 Q. Now, when you asked questions about Michael
12 Jackson, Michael Jackson’s parenting, first of all,
13 had you seen Michael Jackson with his own children?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you have an opinion of his abilities
16 as a parent, his relationship with his kids?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
19 calls for a conclusion; lack of foundation.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. SANGER: When you asked the question
22 whether or not Michael Jackson was a good parent,
23 did you ask that question based on any information
24 that you had about his -- whether or not he was a
25 good parent?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 But I do want you to just answer that “yes” 11032
1 or “no,” whether you had information. “Yes” or
2 “no.”
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I had information.
4 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And what was the source of
5 that information? Without telling us what the
6 information was, what was the source of that
7 information?
8 A. The source of my opinion based on Michael’s
9 parenting was based on my own interpretation of
10 things that I had witnessed with him and his
11 children. Events when they were together, that kind
12 of stuff.
13 Q. Did Janet Arvizo or the Arvizo children at
14 any time, prior to the taped interview, indicate in
15 any way that they thought Michael Jackson was not a
16 good parent?
17 A. Did they indicate that he was not?
18 Q. Yeah.
19 A. No. No, they did not.
20 Q. Okay. And then you said that -- something
21 to the effect that it took a while to get the model
22 release sorted out, and you would not have wanted to
23 spend that much time. I believe you said something
24 to that effect. Do you recall that?
25 A. That is true.
26 Q. Can you explain why that is?
27 A. Because it was getting late. And I don’t
28 want to have -- we’ve set up our equipment. I don’t 11033
1 want to send people home because of something so
2 strange to me.
3 That was part of the strangeness of the
4 night. She’s wanting to do this interview so badly,
5 but she won’t sign the model release. And I was
6 just like, “This was a joke.” And I don’t know, it
7 was stressing me out, because, you know, that was --
8 one of my jobs is -- I wasn’t supposed to start
9 until we had them done, and that never happened
10 until after. They just had to get out of the way.
11 If we couldn’t use it, we couldn’t use it.
12 Q. All right. And as to all of the questions
13 that you asked, did you have any reason to believe
14 that the answers were not the answers of the Arvizos
15 themselves?
16 A. Not at all.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as vague.
18 THE COURT: Overruled. He said “Not at all,”
19 so....
20 MR. SANGER: Okay. And then I have no
21 further questions. Thank you.
22
23 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
25 Q. Mr. Robinson, you were assigned to leave
26 that video shoot with the videotape; was that one of
27 your assignments?
28 A. That was one of the assignments. 11034
1 Q. And you were assigned to get those model
2 releases signed by the Arvizo family?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Okay. And when you left --
5 A. Well, Vinnie might have -- Vinnie might have
6 been taking care of the model releases, actually.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. But I knew it had to be done.
9 Q. And Brad Miller, too?
10 A. I didn’t -- I didn’t talk to Brad much at
11 all. If anything, it was like a hello, you know.
12 Q. But was he around when those model releases
13 were signed, if they were?
14 A. Oh, man. Like I said, you know, he was
15 staying very quiet and staying in the background.
16 He may have been there. But I don’t know if he was
17 in the room at all.
18 Q. And Hamid would not turn over that videotape
19 at the end of the evening, would he?
20 A. That’s correct.
21 Q. So you left without that videotape?
22 A. That’s right. I wasn’t going to go to jail
23 over it. He wasn’t going to give it to me no matter
24 what I did. It wasn’t something that I had any
25 power over.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you. No
27 further questions.
28 THE WITNESS: Sure. 11035
1 MR. SANGER: No further questions, Your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
5 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, can counsel and I
6 approach the sidebar before the next witness is
7 called?
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)
10 THE COURT: All right. You may call your
11 next witness.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Thank you very much,
13 Your Honor. The defense will call Mrs. Vernee
14 Watson Johnson.
15 THE COURT: When you get to the witness
16 stand, please remain standing.
17 Face the clerk here and raise your right
18 hand.
19
20 VERNEE WATSON JOHNSON
21 Having been sworn, testified as follows:
22
23 THE WITNESS: I do.
24 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and
25 spell your name for the record.
26 THE WITNESS: My name is Vernee Watson
27 Johnson. Vernee is spelled V-e-r-n-e-e, with an
28 accent. And then Watson Johnson, it doesn’t have to 11036
1 be hyphenated, W-a-t-s-o-n, J-o-h-n-s-o-n.
2 THE CLERK: Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
4
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. MESEREAU:
7 Q. Good afternoon, Miss Watson Johnson.
8 A. Hi.
9 Q. Would you please give us a brief history of
10 your career?
11 A. Okay. I started out with an acting group in
12 New York. And I did quite a few commercials in New
13 York. And I moved out to Los Angeles, and I was --
14 I appeared on Welcome Back Kotter for a while as a
15 sweathog. And then I did a couple of stuff on
16 That’s My Mama, the Love Boats, and did another
17 series called Carter Country. And Foley Square.
18 And then I did Fresh Prince. And a lot of
19 episodics, guest-starring on episodics. A few
20 films. And more commercials. And --
21 Is that enough?
22 Q. That’s enough.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you very much.
25 Do you live in Los Angeles?
26 A. Yes. I live in Los Angeles, the city of --
27 I don’t live in the City of Los Angeles, but I live
28 in the valley, San Fernando Valley. 11037
1 Q. Okay. Have you ever met someone named Janet
2 Arvizo?
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. And when did you meet Janet Arvizo?
5 A. I was teaching acting at a place called
6 The Los Angeles Academy of Fine Arts. And her
7 children were in my acting class.
8 Q. And approximately what year was this?
9 A. Back in about 1997.
10 Q. And did Mrs. Arvizo come to your school at
11 some point?
12 A. Yes. Her and David, her husband. Her
13 ex-husband, I guess.
14 Q. And did they approach you about her children
15 going to your school?
16 A. Well, they -- you know, the director of the
17 school just lets me know who’s coming into my acting
18 class. So, you know, I met them, and their kids
19 attended my classes.
20 Q. And how long did the Arvizo children attend
21 your acting classes?
22 A. I think they were there for maybe a session,
23 a session and a half, “a session” being six months
24 to a year. And they --
25 Q. And are those children Gavin, Star and
26 Davellin?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Do you know all three children? 11038
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you see Janet Arvizo from time to time
3 when you were teaching her children?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And would she come to your class?
6 A. Come in my class? I don’t allow the parents
7 in my class.
8 Q. Where would you see her?
9 A. Out in the waiting area or in her car.
10 Q. And would she, as far as you knew, typically
11 bring her children to the class?
12 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object.
13 No, I’ll withdraw the objection.
14 THE WITNESS: Her and her husband brought the
15 kids to class. Yes.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your understanding
17 that Janet and her husband would pick up the kids
18 and take them home from your class?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Did you ever learn at some point that
21 Gavin was ill?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How did you learn that?
24 A. They had not been in my class for a while.
25 Actually, I had actually stopped teaching at LAAFA.
26 That’s the L.A. Academy of Fine Arts. And the
27 director called me and said that, “Vernee, do you
28 remember Gavin?” 11039
1 I was like, “Hmm, okay. Yeah, I think so.”
2 And she said, “Well, his mother called me
3 and said that, “You know, you used to be very” --
4 “you were very nice to him, and he’s very sick right
5 now, and she wants you to come and visit him in the
6 hospital.”
7 Q. Did you speak to Janet about any
8 fund-raisers for Gavin?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what did she say to you about a
11 fund-raiser for Gavin?
12 A. We -- you know, we -- you know, I had --
13 there were -- I had seen David a lot at the
14 hospital. And we knew that they -- David -- you
15 know, sometimes they didn’t eat and stuff, so we
16 were trying to get some money together to -- you
17 know, a fund-raiser for them.
18 And I had -- but I was a little suspicious
19 of, because of some other things that had happened,
20 where the money was going.
21 So anyway, we -- I asked Janet to open an
22 account. I said, “We’re going to do a fund-raiser
23 but we need Gavin to have his own account, a trust
24 account.”
25 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as --
26 THE WITNESS: What? I’m sorry.
27 (Laughter.)
28 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to withdraw the 11040
1 objection.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You can continue to
3 answer.
4 A. Okay. And --
5 MR. ZONEN: Now I will object --
6 THE WITNESS: There’s so much back story
7 here --
8 MR. ZONEN: I will object now to continuing
9 the answer as a narrative.
10 THE COURT: All right. Next question.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Who first mentioned
12 the word “fund-raiser” to you regarding Gavin?
13 A. Myself and Carol Lamir and -- me and Carol
14 were going to put a fund-raiser together for her.
15 Q. Okay. Was it your idea to do that?
16 A. I guess. I mean, we were all in -- we were
17 all in agreement that we would try to raise money
18 for them, yes.
19 Q. And did you discuss the idea of a
20 fund-raiser for Gavin with Janet?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And what did you say to Janet about a
23 fund-raiser?
24 A. I told her that we were going to try to do a
25 fund-raiser for her, but we needed a separate
26 account opened up for Gavin.
27 Q. Why did you say that to Janet?
28 A. Because I -- 11041
1 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
2 irrelevant, the explanation.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You may answer.
5 A. Because I had found out from talking to
6 Carol that the moneys --
7 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay, Your
8 Honor.
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of
11 mind?
12 A. I didn’t trust her.
13 Q. Why not?
14 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay
15 and lack of foundation. And opinion, improper
16 opinion.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What did you say to Janet
19 about an account for Gavin?
20 A. I told her I needed a separate account for
21 Gavin. I wanted her to open an account in his name
22 so that the money could be deposited in that
23 account.
24 Q. And with respect to that particular issue,
25 what was her response?
26 A. She said, “Don’t worry about it. You can
27 put it in my account.”
28 Q. What was your reaction to that? 11042
1 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
2 irrelevant, her reaction to it.
3 THE WITNESS: Is that objection sustained?
4 THE COURT: I’m thinking.
5 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, sir.
6 (Laughter.)
7 THE COURT: Are you asking her to tell you
8 something she said? If so -- if not, I’ll sustain
9 the objection. If so, rephrase the question.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. You’ve indicated
11 that Janet did not want to set up a separate account
12 for Gavin, correct?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. You wanted her to, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And I believe you said Janet said she
17 would take the money, right?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. Did you then continue efforts to put
20 together a fund-raiser?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Why not?
23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 You may answer.
26 THE WITNESS: I didn’t hear you, sir. Your
27 Honor, I didn’t hear you.
28 THE COURT: You may answer. 11043
1 THE WITNESS: Okay.
2 What was the question again? I’m sorry.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why didn’t you continue to
4 set up the fund-raiser when Janet said she would put
5 the money in her account?
6 A. Because I had a strong feeling that the
7 money would not be used for the purposes --
8 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
9 speculative, lack of foundation, and improper
10 opinion.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You may answer.
13 A. Because I didn’t trust her.
14 Q. Why not?
15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
16 irrelevant, improper opinion, immaterial.
17 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in.
18 Next question.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said you didn’t trust
20 Janet, right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Why?
23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; improper opinion.
24 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone’s off.
25 THE COURT: Excuse me. I couldn’t hear you.
26 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry.
27 Objection. Irrelevant and improper opinion.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 11044
1 You may answer. Do you remember the
2 question at this point?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Why didn’t I --
4 THE COURT: Trust her.
5 THE WITNESS: -- trust her.
6 Because I feel -- and I don’t know if this
7 is just my opinion, but I feel like if you want to
8 raise money for someone, and the person that’s doing
9 the fund-raiser feels that it should be in an
10 account for your child, and you tell me to put it in
11 your account, then something is wrong.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. At the time you had
13 this discussion with Janet --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- about a possible fund-raiser, had you
16 done anything to put the fund-raiser together?
17 A. Myself personally? I had called some
18 people, yes.
19 Q. Okay. And had you spoken to Janet about who
20 you were going to call?
21 A. No, I don’t -- we didn’t get that far in our
22 conversation. I mean, she knew Carol. And she knew
23 Miss Kennedy, who was also involved in --
24 MR. ZONEN: Object to what she knew as
25 nonresponsive.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who did you call about
28 getting people to a fund-raiser for Gavin? 11045
1 A. Carol Lamir. Arlene Kennedy. That was
2 about it.
3 Q. And after Janet made that comment to you,
4 did you stop all efforts to put together a
5 fund-raiser?
6 A. Yes, we did.
7 Q. Okay. Now, had you been visiting Gavin at
8 the hospital?
9 A. Had I been?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And how many times do you think you visited
13 Gavin at the hospital?
14 A. Many times. I went there two, three times a
15 week for his -- the extent of his hospitalization,
16 yes.
17 Q. Was there a particular time of day that you
18 often went to see Gavin at the hospital?
19 A. During the day, you know, anytime I had an
20 audition or -- I would just go down there. I would
21 go there quite often.
22 Q. And did you see Janet at the hospital with
23 Gavin?
24 A. I saw her the first time I went down there.
25 And I saw her maybe once again.
26 Q. Did you see Gavin’s father David at the
27 hospital?
28 A. Yes. All the time. 11046
1 Q. Okay. Did you stay in contact with Janet
2 during the time that Gavin was in the hospital?
3 A. She would call me, and actually she would
4 have Star call me.
5 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as speculative, lack
6 of foundation.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet herself continue
9 to call you while Gavin was in the hospital?
10 A. She called me. I mean, I’m going to say the
11 same thing I said the last time, so I don’t know --
12 Q. Let me just ask you about Janet only.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. I’ll get to the others.
15 A. All right.
16 Q. Was Janet calling you while Gavin was in the
17 hospital?
18 A. She may have called me several times, yes.
19 Q. And did you talk to her about efforts to
20 raise money?
21 A. Yes. When the fund-raiser -- the
22 fund-raiser effort came up, yes.
23 Q. Do you know whether or not Janet herself
24 ever asked you for money?
25 A. Um, I gave them money.
26 MR. ZONEN: Objection; nonresponsive.
27 THE WITNESS: But I’m not sure --
28 MR. ZONEN: Objection; nonresponsive. 11047
1 THE COURT: She’s answering.
2 Go ahead, finish your answer.
3 THE WITNESS: -- if it was, you know, because
4 she directly asked me for it or because I just felt
5 that they needed some help, and she didn’t refuse it
6 when I gave it to her.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me just go one step at
8 a time, okay?
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. Did Janet ever directly ask you for money,
11 that you recall?
12 A. I don’t recall.
13 Q. Did Janet ever indirectly suggest she’d like
14 money?
15 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object to that as vague.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet ever say
18 anything to you that suggested that she wanted money
19 from you?
20 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 THE WITNESS: That means I can answer?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay.
25 Say that again, please. I’m sorry.
26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet ever suggest
27 anything to you in your conversations that made you
28 think she wanted money? 11048
1 A. She would -- I mean, whenever I would talk
2 to her, it would be a lot of what they needed and
3 how they didn’t have anything, and how they were
4 struggling, and didn’t have a place to live really,
5 and, you know, all that kind of stuff. So it was
6 heavy-handing there going on.
7 Q. And how often did you give the Arvizos
8 money?
9 A. I gave David money a couple of times. I
10 didn’t have much money, so it wasn’t like I was --
11 you know, so -- I just gave him money a couple of
12 times, yes.
13 Q. Do you recall whether or not David himself
14 ever asked you for money?
15 A. David -- no, I offered it to him. I mean, I
16 just -- I wrote a check to them a few times and I
17 gave him some cash and that’s it, yeah.
18 Q. Did you give him this money at the hospital?
19 A. Yeah. I also gave him food.
20 Q. Okay. Who did you give the food to?
21 A. David, because he was always there. He
22 never went home to shower. He didn’t go -- he was
23 hungry. And I would say, you know, “You should get
24 up out of here sometimes.” I never saw Janet there
25 after that, but I saw him there all the time. And I
26 would -- and he wouldn’t eat, so I would prepare
27 food for him and bring it to him.
28 Q. Okay. Now, did Gavin ever call you on the 11049
1 phone?
2 A. When he was in the hospital, do you mean?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I mean, David would call me and say that
5 Gavin would want to see me. I don’t remember
6 hearing Gavin’s voice on the phone. I don’t know.
7 I know I did -- they would call me and say, “Well,
8 when are you coming over again?” And, “When are you
9 coming to visit us again?” You know, that kind of
10 stuff.
11 Q. Do you recall whether or not Star ever
12 telephoned you?
13 A. Uh-huh. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And was this around the time Gavin was ill?
15 A. Yes. He had -- yes. Gavin would get out of
16 the hospital sometimes and then he’d have to go
17 back, you know.
18 And when he got out, they would want to come
19 over to my house. And I would -- you know, Star
20 would call me and I could hear Janet in the
21 background prompting him, you know.
22 Q. Did the family ever come to your house?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And on how many occasions?
25 A. I didn’t allow it after the first time --
26 well, they came there once, and it was just
27 ridiculous. You know, they were just all over my
28 house. And I couldn’t stand the energy that they 11050
1 had. And I wouldn’t allow all of them to come at
2 one time. It was just, “Okay. If you want to come
3 visit me, just David and Gavin.”
4 Q. Now, you say you didn’t like the energy.
5 What do you mean?
6 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why didn’t you want the
9 family to return to your house after that first
10 visit?
11 MR. ZONEN: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: Because they were not --
13 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 THE WITNESS: They were not ruly kids. They
16 were very unruly. And they were all into my stuff.
17 They would walk around my house, they would be all
18 in the other rooms. They were jumping on my son’s
19 bed. Just very disruptive.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did the family ever spend
21 the evening at your house?
22 A. Do you mean like spend the night?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you ever asked if they could?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. By who?
28 A. By them. 11051
1 Q. Who is “them”?
2 A. Well, I -- Star would call me. I could hear
3 Janet in the background, “Tell her you love her,
4 Star. Tell her you love her.” And I was like,
5 “O-kay.”
6 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
7 nonresponsive and irrelevant.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who in the family asked
10 you if the family could spend the night? Just give
11 the name.
12 A. The children would ask me.
13 Q. All right. So this happened more than once?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Did you ever hear Janet directly ask
16 you if the family could spend the night at your
17 house?
18 A. I heard her telling Star to ask me.
19 Q. Okay. Did Janet herself ever ask you, if
20 you remember?
21 A. No, I don’t remember that.
22 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether or not David
23 ever asked you if the family could spend the night
24 at your home?
25 A. No.
26 Q. You have -- I didn’t --
27 A. I mean -- no, he didn’t. That I recall. I
28 don’t remember that. 11052
1 Q. Now, you’ve indicated that Star called you
2 on some occasions and you heard Janet in the
3 background; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. How many times did that happen?
6 A. Several times.
7 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether or not Davellin
8 ever called you on the phone during this time
9 period?
10 A. Oh, excuse me. One second. Let me think
11 about this. Davellin.
12 No. Davellin didn’t call me. It was
13 usually Star. And -- I’m sorry, I think Gavin did
14 call me a couple of times when he was out of the
15 hospital. Yeah.
16 Q. Okay. And did you ever visit the Arvizos at
17 their home?
18 A. No.
19 Q. How long were the Arvizo children enrolled
20 in your class?
21 A. Like I said before, maybe a session or so.
22 Q. And how long would a session be?
23 A. We kind of went from September to June, you
24 know, during that time. So, six, nine months or
25 something.
26 Q. Okay.
27 A. Uh-huh.
28 Q. Now, this was a school that you taught at, 11053
1 right?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. And who owned the school?
4 A. Her name was Belinda Johnson. Her name is
5 Belinda Johnson. It was a nonprofit performing arts
6 center. And she had after-school tutoring, and
7 actually had some -- she had some academics going on
8 there, too. And we did performances with the young
9 children for Christmas and stuff.
10 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the
11 children paid for their schooling?
12 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Irrelevant; lack of
13 foundation.
14 THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was your role at the
16 school strictly to teach or were you involved in the
17 business affairs as well?
18 A. Well, I mean, if someone came in and wasn’t
19 going to pay, I would, you know, be asked, or, you
20 know, “Is it okay that they take class?” And that
21 kind of stuff. So, yeah. That way I was. And --
22 but I got a check -- well, not much, but I got paid
23 a little bit for teaching.
24 Q. All right. Now, at some point in time, did
25 you learn that the Arvizos were visiting Neverland?
26 A. Yeah, I helped set that up.
27 Q. What did you do?
28 A. Well, when I was visiting Gavin in the 11054
1 hospital, I had been to Neverland, and I knew, you
2 know, what a nice -- what a wonderful place it was
3 and that Michael would have kids come out there,
4 especially children who were sick.
5 And I asked my friend Carol if she could
6 possibly set it up for Gavin to go out there. And
7 she -- do you want to hear any more?
8 Q. I’ll just go a little bit at a time, if I
9 may.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. And did you ever learn whether or not Carol
12 Lamir had helped arrange for the Arvizos to go to
13 Neverland?
14 A. Oh, yeah, she did. She did that -- with a
15 little reluctancy, but she did it.
16 Q. Now, is Carol Lamir a friend of yours?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is she still a friend of yours?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. At some point in time, did you ever
21 learn whether Davellin was living with Carol Lamir?
22 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Lack of foundation;
23 irrelevant.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 You may answer.
26 THE WITNESS: Yes.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what did you learn
28 about that? 11055
1 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay.
2 THE COURT: Sustained.
3 THE WITNESS: I saw her there.
4 I’m sorry.
5 THE COURT: Next question.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase the question.
7 Q. Did you ever discuss with Davellin whether
8 or not she was staying with Carol Lamir?
9 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Hearsay; relevancy.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Impeachment.
11 MR. ZONEN: Collateral impeachment.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever visit Carol
14 Lamir at her home?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Would you do that on a regular basis?
17 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 You may answer.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see Davellin
22 at Carol’s house?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.
25 MR. MESEREAU: Impeachment, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
27 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many times did you see 11056
1 Davellin at Carol Lamir’s home?
2 A. When I was there?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. She was there all the time when I -- during
5 a time period of a couple of months.
6 Q. Did you actually see her there during those
7 couple of months?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did Davellin herself ever tell you she was
10 staying at Carol Lamir’s?
11 A. Did she tell me? Do you mean like call me
12 up and say, “Vernee, I’m at Carol’s,” or --
13 Q. Did Davellin ever tell you, “I’m living at
14 Carol Lamir’s house”?
15 A. Well, I -- no, I mean, I just knew it. She
16 was there.
17 Q. Did she ever discuss with you the fact that
18 she was living with Carol Lamir?
19 A. No. Not really, no.
20 Q. Okay. When did you first learn that
21 Davellin was staying at Carol Lamir’s home?
22 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Lack of foundation;
23 irrelevant.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 You may answer.
26 THE WITNESS: When she first got there. I
27 mean, I don’t know the date. But I -- I know she
28 was having some problems and that she needed -- 11057
1 MR. ZONEN: Objection.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 MR. ZONEN: Lack of foundation;
4 nonresponsive.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: I’m simply asking you --
7 A. Oh, I’m sorry.
8 Q. -- if you know that Davellin --
9 A. Carol called me as soon -- when she --
10 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as to
11 hearsay.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 THE WITNESS: Oh, boy.
14 MR. MESEREAU: I’m sorry. Let me try and
15 rephrase it.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Davellin ever say
18 anything to you that indicated she was living at
19 Carol Lamir’s house?
20 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you first learn,
23 through observation, that Davellin was staying at
24 Carol Lamir’s home, if you know?
25 A. Do you mean when did I first look in her
26 face in the house?
27 Q. Sure.
28 A. When I visited Carol after she moved in 11058
1 there.
2 Q. Okay. And do you know approximately when
3 that was?
4 A. Well, the only thing I can say is that it
5 was during a time when Carol’s son was in school,
6 because it was -- yeah, because Davellin wasn’t and
7 he was. So that’s during that time. I don’t
8 remember exactly.
9 Q. And if you can estimate, how many times do
10 you think you saw Davellin at Carol Lamir’s house?
11 A. 10, 15 times. I don’t know.
12 Q. Did you ever speak to Davellin inside Carol
13 Lamir’s home?
14 A. Oh, yeah.
15 Q. Did you do that many times?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. Okay. Did she ever tell you why she was
18 living at Carol Lamir’s house?
19 A. Not me, no.
20 Q. Okay. Did you ever talk to Gavin about his
21 experiences at Neverland?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Approximately when was this?
24 A. The first time he went.
25 Q. What did he say?
26 MR. ZONEN: Objectionl; irrelevant.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
28 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your 11059
1 Honor.
2 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
3 MR. ZONEN: I have no questions, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
5 step down.
6 MR. MESEREAU: We have no further witnesses
7 for today, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: (To the jury) All right. We’ll
9 excuse you until tomorrow morning. The Court will
10 use the time. We’ll take up some motions that are
11 pending.
12 Remember the admonition. I’ll see you at
13 8:30 tomorrow morning.
14
15 (The following proceedings were held in
16 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
17 jury:)
18
19 THE COURT: All right. We have some motions
20 pending that we can take up.
21 All right. The first issue I’ll take up is
22 the plaintiff’s brief re admissible evidence of
23 defendant’s character.
24 Do you wish to be heard?
25 MR. SNEDDON: Not unless you’re willing to
26 change your mind. Let me just say this, because you
27 already indicated --
28 MR. SANGER: Excuse me, I’m sorry. 11060
1 MR. SNEDDON: -- you’ve already made a
2 tentative indication.
3 THE COURT: I gave you both a tentative
4 indication. That’s correct.
5 MR. SNEDDON: And so I would just say that
6 we put everything in our brief, and nothing’s
7 changed. I would just ask the Court, if you’re
8 going to continue to make that ruling, that you give
9 us the option, if at some point some witness comes
10 in and opens the door, that we have the ability to
11 renew the motion.
12 THE COURT: That would be the case. The
13 Court -- the issue that’s raised here is whether or
14 not the defense has put Mr. Jackson’s character at
15 issue with some of the testimony concerning
16 witnesses testifying that they have never seen Mr.
17 Jackson do anything untoward towards children.
18 And under certain circumstances, that could
19 raise character testimony. But I think that in this
20 case, where the Court’s allowed testimony under
21 1108, which was the testimony of alleged prior
22 similar acts of sexual activity or that type of
23 activity towards children, that that creates a
24 situation where they’re not raising character.
25 They’re just dealing with the 1108 material and
26 rebutting the 1108 material.
27 So I’m not going to put them in a position
28 where they’re -- they can’t try to rebut the 1108 11061
1 material without being -- without being accused of
2 raising character. So that’s really why I’m ruling
3 the way I am.
4 And so in a different context, they could
5 raise character, and of course this ruling wouldn’t
6 have anything to do with what happens in the future,
7 but I don’t believe that they have at this time. So
8 that’s my ruling. Character’s not at issue.
9 The next item that I’ll take up is the
10 testimony regarding -- the District Attorney’s
11 motion regarding testimony of David Conn.
12 Again, I gave a tentative ruling on that.
13 The tentative ruling was that I would allow the
14 cross-examination suggested by the District
15 Attorney.
16 And do you wish to be heard on that?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.
18 As I mentioned at sidebar, based upon the
19 tentative ruling, we have withdrawn him as a
20 witness.
21 THE COURT: All right. Then that moots
22 that. If you change your mind, then I would
23 reconsider their motion.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Thank you.
25 THE COURT: The next issue I want to take up
26 is an issue that we keep going back to, the 400
27 series of exhibits, but every time I think we’ve put
28 them to rest, I find out we have not. 11062
1 The defense has notified me that they --
2 that even though the prosecution withdrew Exhibit
3 414 and 416, that they had asked that they be
4 admitted into evidence. And I do remember -- when
5 you reminded me of that, I now remember that you did
6 make that request.
7 So it seems to me that 416 was -- there was a
8 lot of testimony about 416.
9 Do you want to respond? Who’s going to
10 respond to this?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll respond to that, Your
12 Honor.
13 If I could have the exhibit, please. Thank
14 you.
15 THE COURT: Was there a foundation laid for
16 416?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can’t recall if the
18 detective indicated whether or not he located these
19 documents in Mr. Schaffel’s home. If memory serves,
20 I believe counsel did ask a couple of questions
21 about that on cross-examination.
22 The problem with these exhibits is that it
23 appears to be a writing or an accounting in
24 someone’s personal handwriting. No one has been
25 identified, and it purports to be literally dozens,
26 if not 100 receipts and additional accountings for
27 items, with no testimony concerning the authenticity
28 of the individual receipts, which probably is not of 11063
1 any great moment. They appear to be what they look
2 like, receipts from various businesses, restaurants,
3 stores.
4 But the purpose of this evidence, ostensible
5 purpose for the defense is to attempt to prove that
6 these purchases were made for the Arvizo family.
7 And if that’s the case, there’s absolutely no
8 connection. There’s no authentication or foundation
9 for that position, given that we don’t know who was
10 present when these receipts were created. We don’t
11 know who the purchases were made for. We don’t know
12 who created the receipt, and therein lies the
13 problem.
14 I’ll also address the second question. Can
15 you direct me to the exhibit that you were inquiring
16 about, Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: 414 and 416 are the two
18 exhibits. They really, I think, are the same.
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: They’re pretty much the
20 same thing.
21 THE COURT: Let me hear what -- who’s
22 speaking for the defense?
23 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, that was with regard
24 to a witness issue, and I couldn’t hear what you
25 said. Did you ask to respond?
26 THE COURT: Yeah.
27 MR. SANGER: That was my guess, but I don’t
28 want to guess before talking. 11064
1 THE COURT: Yes, thanks. Right. Thank you.
2 MR. SANGER: Can I inquire of the clerk, was
3 415 received?
4 THE CLERK: Yes.
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. SANGER: Was the answer to that “Yes,”
7 Your Honor?
8 THE COURT: The answer was “Yes.”
9 MR. SANGER: Okay. 415 was offered -- and I
10 just want to make sure that was one of them. There
11 were several exhibits, including 415, that were
12 offered by the prosecution based on the fact that
13 these documents were found in Mr. Schaffel’s house,
14 and therefore indicated that they were business
15 records that were kept for some purpose.
16 THE COURT: Well, and you know that on most
17 of those, I made them put in an additional
18 foundation. Although there were some -- I can’t
19 remember how many now, but a few that I felt that
20 that was sufficient. Do you think this comes within
21 that clarification?
22 MR. SANGER: Well, I think if you look at
23 414, for instance, where there’s just accountings,
24 and I believe there was a couple of other exhibits
25 in this book that come in that same category, that
26 they’re just general accountings or accounting
27 documents that were found in Mr. Schaffel’s file
28 cabinets. And I think where the Court made a 11065
1 particular delineation was where you had documents
2 that purported to be, for instance, contracts that
3 may or may not have been signed, may or may not have
4 been seen. There was a fax cover that didn’t match
5 the fax, you know.
6 THE COURT: And there were e-mail addresses
7 that hadn’t been verified and that kind of thing.
8 MR. SANGER: That’s correct.
9 But I believe this would be consistent,
10 allowing 414 -- I mean, 414 and 416 in would be
11 consistent with the Court’s other rulings where you
12 had documents which appeared to be an accounting or
13 financial documents that were kept in the business
14 records at the Schaffel residence, that they would
15 be admissible.
16 The fact is that 415 is a business record --
17 I’m sorry, I’m looking at the tab. 414 is a
18 business record. It comes off the computer, just as
19 415 did, and includes a list of expenses that says,
20 “Janet cash account. Vinnie, Frank.”
21 And then when you go to 416, you have a
22 “Summary of petty cash expenditures, Vinnie, for
23 Janet and children.” They’re itemized, and then you
24 have a whole bunch of receipts, some of which the
25 subject matter has been covered by testimony of even
26 Janet Arvizo, where she admitted that certain of
27 these expenditures were made on her behalf.
28 So it would seem to me that it comes within 11066
1 the same category of items that were admitted, as I
2 understood the Court’s ruling, as business records
3 that appeared to have been kept in the ordinary
4 course of business at the Schaffel residence
5 relating to what we’ve now heard from other
6 testimony apparently was part of what he was
7 involved in. And Vinnie and -- Vinnie was involved
8 in purchasing things for Janet and the children.
9 Based on that, I think there’s an adequate
10 showing that this is not only a business record, but
11 it’s reliable. It’s been testified to by the police
12 officer. As I stand here, I think we asked somebody
13 else about this too, but I can’t be sure.
14 THE COURT: I think so, too.
15 Let’s take our break. I’ve got the argument.
16 (Recess taken.)
17 THE COURT: All right. On the issue of where
18 we left, I’ll admit 414 and 416.
19 Let’s see, an issue came up during the break
20 about Larry King. And counsel had asked me to allow
21 him not to appear tomorrow because his attorney’s
22 father was ill. And now I understand that his --
23 her father has passed away.
24 MR. MESEREAU: That’s what I’ve just
25 learned, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: But what I told you, just so
27 it’s clear, is that you fill up the space. He can
28 come whenever you want him. I’m not telling him 11067
1 when he can come, when he can’t come. But I want
2 this court operating, not shut down, and I want that
3 clear. We’ve shut down twice, now, for you. So you
4 have your witnesses lined up, just like I made the
5 D.A. have their witnesses lined up.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: All right.
8 MR. MESEREAU: If I may, Your Honor --
9 THE COURT: The next item --
10 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, if I may.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Some issues have come up with
13 regard to motions in limine filed recently, and as
14 often as today or as current as today, involving
15 certain witnesses we propose to call. And we have
16 tried to work out some understandings in that
17 regard, Your Honor, as we discussed in chambers
18 briefly.
19 We were planning to call an expert named
20 Mrs. Minnow, and she would take a considerable
21 amount of time. The prosecution has filed a motion
22 to preclude her testimony and have said that if she
23 is allowed to testify, they will be calling an
24 expert in the rebuttal case. And we’re trying to
25 work things out like that. And it appears there may
26 be a mutual agreement not to call either one, for
27 example.
28 THE COURT: Okay. 11068
1 MR. MESEREAU: So as Mr. Sanger did mention
2 to the Court earlier, we’re trying to make sure the
3 witnesses we call have a valid and clear and
4 definite purpose. We’re not just trying to call
5 witnesses to make sure we have witnesses.
6 THE COURT: I understand.
7 MR. MESEREAU: And I want the Court to know
8 that. We’re trying to pare things down.
9 THE COURT: Both sides do that. And both
10 sides, you know, have to have their witnesses lined
11 up. I said this from day one. And that means if I
12 exclude a witness’s testimony, right then you still
13 have to have a witness available to testify. So
14 it’s -- the burden on you is no greater than the
15 burden was on the District Attorney. If anything,
16 it’s less. You’ve had a lot more time since the
17 trial started to have your witnesses lined up.
18 I understand the fact that situations change,
19 and I appreciate you’re trying to do a good job with
20 that, but we have to think about the fact that we’ve
21 had a jury. We’ve taken them out of their lives.
22 We’ve still got several weeks to go, and not using
23 the times available, we’ve got law enforcement
24 standing around in the outer areas. We’ve got all
25 sorts of funds committed to this trial that, when we
26 shut down, costs us, and that’s why I encourage you
27 to -- strongly encourage you to keep the witnesses
28 coming. 11069
1 MR. MESEREAU: I understand, Your Honor, and
2 we’ll try to do that.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 MR. MESEREAU: Appreciate it.
5 THE COURT: And any of the matters that we’re
6 deciding that you don’t want me to decide because
7 you think you’re trying to work something out, tell
8 me. They’re not really formal in limine motions.
9 They’re really motions that are just being made as
10 quickly as either side can make them, just -- and I
11 appreciate it. What you’re doing is giving me a
12 heads-up on an issue that’s going to come up on an
13 issue that I’m going to need to rule on, and that
14 really helps me because we can spend the time to do
15 that.
16 MR. SANGER: I was waiting for the
17 opportunity to tell you that one of them is taken
18 off the table with an agreement, and I’d just like
19 to refer to that. It’s the motion that was -- one
20 of them I believe was filed this morning by the
21 District Attorney to exclude the testimony of Mary
22 Minnow, and Mr. Mesereau referred to that. I
23 believe Mr. Sneddon would agree.
24 Part of their response was, if we called
25 Miss Minnow, they would call their expert, and we
26 would mutually agree to withdraw our expert on the
27 agreement that they withdraw their expert.
28 Obviously subject to some other change in 11070
1 circumstances, but basically --
2 THE COURT: That would be --
3 MR. SANGER: If we called another expert,
4 for instance, that would change the ballgame.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Do you agree with that?
6 MR. SNEDDON: I do.
7 THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll accept the
8 stipulation, and I will not make a ruling on those
9 issues.
10 MR. SANGER: And I think that’s what Mr.
11 Mesereau was respectfully referring to was that was
12 a big hole for tomorrow, so we’re doing our best to
13 fill it.
14 THE COURT: Part of the problem here, too,
15 is that I’m going to try to end early Friday. You
16 know, we had Friday set aside as not going so you
17 could go to your appointment, and now, because of
18 the issue that has arisen involving the testimony of
19 Geragos, I’ve had to use that time.
20 To the extent that we can finish Mr. Geragos
21 on Friday, then I won’t expect you to call any more
22 witnesses on Friday so that Mr. Sanger can go to the
23 event that he had made a commitment to go to.
24 But --
25 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
26 THE COURT: -- that means it’s all the more
27 important that we use today and tomorrow and Monday,
28 okay? 11071
1 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir.
2 One other thing that might factor in. You
3 said “quite a number of weeks” or “a number of
4 weeks,” something like that. We have pared down our
5 witness list even more since yesterday, so things
6 are going even more quickly, and I think it’s safe
7 to say that “a number of weeks” is probably an
8 overstatement on the amount of time that we’re going
9 to be taking up, here.
10 THE COURT: Well --
11 MR. SANGER: Just to point that out. I’m
12 not criticizing the Court.
13 THE COURT: That’s one place I would really
14 like to be wrong.
15 MR. SANGER: Yes.
16 THE COURT: There’s -- to overestimate when
17 the trial will be completed, that would be great to
18 be wrong.
19 MR. SANGER: We had talked generally where
20 we were, and we have eliminated a number of
21 witnesses since we had that discussion with the
22 Court.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I know you’re
24 working hard. I’m not accusing you of not working
25 hard to get this done. I’m just saying get it done.
26 The James -- let me see. Let me take up the
27 next thing. What was I going to take up? We’re not
28 going to take up the Geragos issue until Friday, 11072
1 because I believe he should be here and has standing
2 to be involved in that.
3 Take up the plaintiff’s motion to exclude
4 hearsay testimony of defense witness Michael Viner.
5 I’ll give you a tentative. Do you want a tentative,
6 or --
7 MR. ZONEN: I believe you already had, Your
8 Honor.
9 THE COURT: I gave a sidebar tentative; is
10 that right?
11 MR. ZONEN: You gave an open court
12 tentative.
13 THE COURT: Open court tentative.
14 MR. ZONEN: Yes.
15 THE COURT: All right. Does either side
16 wish to say anything before I make a ruling on that
17 issue?
18 MR. SANGER: I’m not sure what the Court’s
19 tentative was on this one. You had given a
20 tentative on two others.
21 MR. MESEREAU: To grant the motion to
22 exclude.
23 MR. SANGER: Okay. Yes, it was before we
24 had filed the brief.
25 THE COURT: That’s correct.
26 MR. SANGER: It was the same day that they
27 filed --
28 THE COURT: That’s correct. 11073
1 MR. SANGER: So you have not given a
2 tentative since you’ve had a chance to look at the
3 transcript cites that we --
4 THE COURT: Correct.
5 MR. SANGER: Does that change the Court’s
6 tentative?
7 THE COURT: Well, a little bit.
8 You know, to the extent that this may apply
9 to Larry King also, since he was -- if I remember
10 the testimony correctly, he was at a table with
11 Viner or next to Viner, and they may have overheard
12 the same thing. So to the extent that we’re talking
13 about the same conversation, then this ruling would
14 be the same, you know; apply to both of these
15 people.
16 And I think that the testimony would be --
17 the part that I would allow would be that Mr.
18 Feldman was heard to express opinions contrary to
19 his assertion that anyone that said that he
20 expressed opinions about his clients would be a
21 liar.
22 But I’m not going to allow the specific
23 statements that are opinions of the credibility of
24 the witnesses, accepting the D.A.’s argument that
25 it’s improper to give opinions about the credibility
26 of other people. And this is -- I’m not going to
27 let it in through the side door which I wouldn’t --
28 what I wouldn’t let in through the front door, in 11074
1 spite of your “They opened the door.”
2 You know what I’m talking about?
3 MR. MESEREAU: Yeah.
4 MR. SANGER: So may I respond?
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. SANGER: Okay. Sounds like there’s
7 quite a breeze going through this house here.
8 I understand the Court’s ruling. I’ll just
9 try to go right to the exact point that I think is
10 the sticking point, and we’ll see if it is or it
11 isn’t.
12 I think the impeachment of Mr. Feldman is
13 not just that he said that and just to show that he
14 then said something different, that he did express
15 opinions about a client’s case in public when he
16 said he didn’t, but also to show, to the contrary of
17 what the prosecution was trying to show on the
18 merits of this, that Mr. Feldman’s testimony was
19 being offered to show that he -- that Janet Arvizo
20 abandoned the case and that they were no longer
21 seeking money, something to that effect.
22 And that’s certainly what was argued in the
23 opening statement, and it was a fair interpretation
24 of Mr. Feldman’s testimony under direct examination
25 by the prosecution; that he was saying, “Gee,” you
26 know, “This case was given up because the Arvizos
27 just didn’t really want to pursue it.” It is
28 contrary to what we believe to be the case and we 11075
1 have some other evidence on that. But in this
2 particular instance, you have Mr. Feldman expressing
3 an opinion indicating that he’s not taking a case
4 because he doesn’t think they’re credible.
5 Now, for that purpose, it would be offered
6 for, in that regard, not for the truth of the matter
7 that they’re not credible, so it doesn’t go to the
8 issue of credibility per se, which the prosecution
9 is objecting to, but it does go directly to the
10 contention of the prosecution that they, for some
11 reason, had this contingent fee arrangement for a
12 lawyer and they were not seeking money. I mean, it
13 makes no sense, but that’s their contention.
14 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, in the Simmons
15 California Evidence Manual, it reads as follows:
16 “Counsel often mistakenly believe that if they allow
17 the other party to admit objectionable evidence by
18 refraining from making the objection, they will then
19 be entitled to admit relevant evidence that is
20 otherwise inadmissible. The so-called ‘open the
21 door’ or ‘open the gates’ argument is a popular
22 fallacy.” And it quotes a number of different cases
23 including People vs. Gambos and People vs. Williams.
24 The questions were asked by Mr. Mesereau on
25 cross-examination. It was done for purposes of
26 soliciting information that is not relevant to this
27 proceeding, that is not material, and that is
28 inadmissible for purposes simply because it’s 11076
1 opinion, improper opinion, to then be able to set up
2 an opportunity to be able to engage in impeachment.
3 That’s improper impeachment. You can’t do that.
4 In that regard we’re going to be asking that
5 the matter be kept out in total. In total. We do
6 not feel that any of that is admissible.
7 One other issue we have to deal with is that
8 I don’t know if Mr. King actually is going to come,
9 Larry King. But my conversation with his attorney,
10 Kelli Sager, who is the attorney who represented Ian
11 Drew in this proceeding, and I think the Court
12 remembers her contribution to this proceeding,
13 unless they can show in advance that any of that
14 statement actually was aired and published,
15 published in the journalist sense, in other words,
16 it appeared on the television or in radio or
17 newsprint coming directly from Mr. King, I don’t
18 believe Mr. King is going to say one word in this
19 proceeding without Miss Sager standing up and
20 yelling, and I suspect that the result will be
21 exactly the same as what happened with Mr. Drew.
22 And he is the witness to this encounter.
23 And in the absence of that witness, I think it’s one
24 more factor for the Court to put into this equation
25 in terms of whether or not this material should come
26 before the jury, because one of the witnesses, I
27 suspect, will simply not be testifying based on the
28 shield law. 11077
1 MR. SANGER: May I respond to that?
2 THE COURT: Yeah. Yeah.
3 MR. SANGER: And Miss Sager unfortunately is
4 the person who lost her father just now. But I did
5 talk to her day before yesterday specifically about
6 this, and she said that this is not covered by the
7 shield law. She agrees, because it was a
8 conversation being had in a restaurant, and she is
9 not objecting to Larry King’s testimony as to this.
10 She would object to anything we attempted to
11 elicit with regard to any reporting that he was
12 doing, but she agrees that this is not -- this is
13 not reporting.
14 So I -- I pass that along as being what she
15 did tell me, and I believe she will show up or her
16 partner will show up at the appropriate time and say
17 exactly that.
18 The other thing is that Larry King -- we’ve
19 got both Larry King and Michael Viner lumped
20 together here. I believe Larry King is going to say
21 that -- something to the effect -- I don’t have the
22 exact quote, but something to the effect that he --
23 that he was discussing the case, saying, “She’s
24 crazy and all she wants is money.”
25 So it goes directly to the money issue as to
26 whether or not Janet Arvizo is involved in wanting
27 money. She says all she wants is zero. And Major
28 Jay Jackson says, “All we want is zero,” using the 11078
1 same terms. That is not evidently what they told
2 Mr. Feldman, and it would run contrary to any
3 lawyer’s observation that Mr. Feldman is not going
4 to take a case like this on a contingent fee if
5 somebody doesn’t want money. This, however, for the
6 jury’s purpose, is evidence showing that what he
7 said is, in fact, contradicted by his own
8 statements.
9 And so we’d ask to admit it.
10 THE COURT: That’s a little different than
11 the problem I was having with the opinions as to his
12 opinion that they were only in the case for money,
13 as opposed to her saying -- someone reporting -- I
14 guess he’s reporting. That’s double hearsay, right?
15 He’s reporting that Feldman said that she said? Is
16 that what you’re -- how you’re putting it now?
17 MR. SANGER: Well, I suppose that -- that
18 wasn’t how I was putting it, but I understand the
19 Court’s construction of that. However, the
20 important thing is that Feldman said it, because
21 Feldman on the stand said that wasn’t the case. So
22 whether -- let’s assume for the moment --
23 THE COURT: Well, the question is, are you
24 offering an opinion by Feldman that -- are you
25 offering a statement that he gave an opinion that
26 all she wanted was money, or are you offering a
27 statement that she said all she wanted was money?
28 MR. SANGER: I believe he will say she said 11079
1 that.
2 THE COURT: That’s not what you have in your
3 brief.
4 MR. SANGER: Well, the brief -- of course
5 the brief was very brief.
6 THE COURT: Right.
7 MR. SNEDDON: It was done very quickly.
8 THE COURT: The quote --
9 MR. SANGER: That’s true.
10 THE COURT: You didn’t leave any ellipsis in
11 there.
12 MR. SANGER: The door was opened and it
13 could have gotten away.
14 Quite frankly, the brief was with regard to
15 Viner, and now we have King. But anyway, that’s
16 what we believe that Mr. King will say. However,
17 either way, I understand what is the distinction.
18 THE COURT: The safest way to handle this is
19 to have a little 402 hearing before you -- before
20 either of those people testify, so there’s
21 nothing -- so that I know exactly what they say they
22 heard.
23 MR. SANGER: That’s fair enough, because we
24 have been dealing through lawyers with them, and so
25 I think that’s a fair enough way to --
26 THE COURT: So you haven’t had a one-on-one
27 conversation? Okay.
28 MR. MESEREAU: That’s not -- 11080
1 THE COURT: And I will instruct them, and I
2 would like you to let them know, if I rule certain
3 things cannot come in, they cannot blurt that out.
4 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, that statement is
5 not completely true. I was at -- having lunch at
6 The Grill one day in Los Angeles, and Larry King was
7 there, and he told me that.
8 THE COURT: You were having lunch at --
9 MR. MESEREAU: I was. Larry King was there.
10 THE COURT: They can’t hear you back there.
11 You’re --
12 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. All right.
13 MR. ZONEN: We have not been furnished a
14 report of counsel’s conversation with this witness.
15 And before it’s broadcast to the press, I think we
16 ought to be given a written comment of this.
17 THE BAILIFF: They didn’t hear you either.
18 MR. MESEREAU: I happened to be having lunch
19 one day --
20 MR. ZONEN: I have a request, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: I deny your request.
22 Go ahead.
23 MR. MESEREAU: -- at The Grill restaurant in
24 Beverly Hills. And Mr. King, I believe, came over
25 and introduced himself and blurted out this
26 statement. I then asked my investigator to follow
27 up on it. And I have had no further discussions.
28 The investigator has talked to Mr. King’s 11081
1 attorney, I believe, and got from him what he’s
2 going to say and that was a statement turned over.
3 But I want to make sure the Court knows what
4 happened.
5 THE COURT: Thank you.
6 So it would behoove all of us to start
7 having lunch at The Grill.
8 (Laughter.)
9 THE COURT: All right. We’ll do that with
10 402 hearings.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, if I may, just
12 for the record, I didn’t interview him.
13 THE BAILIFF: Please use the microphone.
14 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
15 All right. I did not interview Mr. King.
16 THE COURT: I understand. He came over and
17 voluntarily told you.
18 MR. MESEREAU: And I asked an investigator
19 to follow up on it. Thank you.
20 THE COURT: Okay. The next item I’ll take
21 up is the James Newton. That was on -- handed to me
22 just a little while ago.
23 MR. SANGER: It’s the People’s motion, but
24 if I could be heard, because I think I can focus the
25 issue much more.
26 THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead.
27 MR. SANGER: It was just handed and so
28 therefore I don’t have the document in front of me. 11082
1 And we obviously have not had a chance to file
2 anything in writing, but the motion talks about a
3 number of conclusions in the article that relate to
4 the wrapping up of the Michael Jackson case and
5 there are quotes from Gil Garcetti and other people
6 in there that the People object to. None of that is
7 what we intend to introduce.
8 There is a statement by Larry Feldman, a
9 quote in the article. And I don’t know if the Court
10 has a copy of the article there. I don’t think it
11 was attached to their moving papers.
12 THE COURT: It’s not attached, no.
13 MR. SANGER: We can provide that. But
14 there’s a quote in the article, basically two
15 different quotes by Mr. Feldman, where he was quoted
16 verbatim saying that he was, in 1993 -- this is an
17 article written in 1994. He said in the 1993-1994
18 case, that he had -- he was disappointed that the
19 prosecution did not go ahead and prosecute, and that
20 he would much rather have had the District Attorney
21 prosecute so that it would help him in his civil
22 case.
23 And Your Honor may recall that on the stand
24 here, he said something to the effect, “You’d have
25 to be nuts to do that. You don’t want to have the
26 prosecution go first.” So it’s an absolute
27 contradiction. That’s the only thing from that
28 article that we want to bring in. 11083
1 I’m paraphrasing this off the top of my
2 head, but I think it’s pretty close. There are two
3 different quotes. They’re in two different
4 paragraphs, I think. But they essentially add up to
5 what I just said. And that’s the only thing we want
6 to offer, and I think it’s admissible for the
7 reasons stated.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. SNEDDON: First of all, Judge, there’s
10 been no verification with regard to what context
11 that statement was made and when that statement was
12 made. But if you look at the history of that case,
13 as everybody knows it, the fact of the matter is,
14 that Mr. Feldman’s case was completed and the money
15 was already in the bank before we had ever finished
16 our investigation.
17 So the statement makes no sense at all. He
18 had already obtained a civil settlement from the
19 defendant prior to the time we had finished our
20 investigation. The time of that press conference is
21 not until seven months later, after Mr. Feldman had
22 already completed his case. So it has nothing to do
23 with that statement. Nothing whatsoever. He
24 couldn’t be disappointed about anything. He’s
25 already got his money and he’s already got his
26 settlement.
27 THE COURT: Do you have the article? Have
28 you seen it. 11084
1 MR. SNEDDON: I had it. We got it last
2 night at -- we just saw it. Maybe it was this
3 morning, I don’t know. We just got it. And we
4 immediately -- it may have been last night we got
5 it. But I might -- I don’t have it here. I
6 actually thought it was attached, but it’s not.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Miss Yu has it on her system.
8 She can print it out for you.
9 MR. SANGER: Or perhaps she’s got to go
10 upstairs.
11 MR. SNEDDON: The timing of this makes no
12 sense in light -- it’s attributed to him, and of
13 course he was never asked about this particular
14 statement at any point in time, so it wouldn’t be
15 impeaching.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Would you like to just see
17 the screen, Your Honor?
18 THE COURT: That would be fine, if I can just
19 see the quote.
20 MS. YU: Which quote do you want?
21 MR. SANGER: May I approach, or to deliver
22 the laptop?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 Do you want to look at this, Mr. Sneddon?
25 MR. SANGER: I’m just going to scroll down a
26 little bit and then I’ll turn it around for you.
27 THE COURT: Okay.
28 MR. SANGER: Let me just make sure. Yes, 11085
1 okay. I believe that’s the quote we’re talking
2 about.
3 Do you want me to take it?
4 THE COURT: That’s fine.
5 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: Okay. I think what I’ll do on
7 that is, if you would give me a printed out copy,
8 I’ll look at Mr. Feldman’s testimony, which I have
9 in my office, and see how it fits, how the two
10 things fit.
11 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir.
12 THE COURT: If you want to help me with
13 that, Mr. Sneddon, if you’d find the -- either of
14 you.
15 MR. MESEREAU: Miss Yu is getting you a
16 copy.
17 THE COURT: I was just saying, I remember --
18 at this point I remember the essence of Mr.
19 Feldman’s statement. I don’t remember his exact
20 statement, and I want to see -- compare the two and
21 see if they are truly inconsistent, which I need to
22 do.
23 MR. SNEDDON: Yeah, it would have been
24 easier to pinpoint the exact statement, but when I
25 asked Mr. Sanger if that was the subject of the
26 person’s testimony, he didn’t pinpoint that for me,
27 so we just had to file the motion the way we did,
28 otherwise I would have done that beforehand. 11086
Subject: May 18, 2005 
Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:09 am
