1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 You may answer.
3 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure today.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You stated that you
5 thought the Martin Bashir film was a hatchet job.
6 Did you ever say in an e-mail that, “Ronald
7 had nothing to do with this. The man did the
8 interview himself. Not good”? Did you ever say
9 that?
10 A. I don’t remember that. It’s certainly
11 possible.
12 Q. If I show you a copy of that e-mail, would
13 that refresh your recollection?
14 A. It might.
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I approach?
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I did say that.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. LeGrand, concerning
18 your files in this case, did you ever indicate that
19 you would, “Walk away as soon as I plug a few
20 document holes”?
21 A. I may have. There were some corporate
22 paperwork pieces that needed to get finished that I
23 had -- you know, that I had the knowledge of that we
24 just hadn’t had time to finish everything that
25 needed -- that should have been done, in my opinion,
26 so I wanted to complete some of that paperwork.
27 Q. Did you ever say, “I am cleaning up
28 documents over the next few days which should help 10206
1 build a strong position for defending our actions if
2 they ever need to be defended”?
3 A. Could be. Again, there were resolutions,
4 there was some corporate paperwork that was no way a
5 fabrication that would reflect the events as they
6 occurred that, you know, should have been done.
7 Q. Did “cleaning up the documents” in this case
8 include destruction of documents, Mr. LeGrand?
9 A. No.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I have no further
11 questions.
12 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
13
14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. MESEREAU:
16 Q. Mr. LeGrand, do you have the exhibit book in
17 front of you that you had yesterday?
18 A. No, sir.
19 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor,
20 and --
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Oh. Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. LeGrand, isn’t it true the District
24 Attorney’s Office never subpoenaed documents from
25 you?
26 A. That’s correct.
27 Q. Isn’t it true that Prosecutor Auchincloss
28 never once called you and asked you to give him any 10207
1 documents in your files?
2 A. That’s correct.
3 Q. Isn’t it true that Prosecutor Sneddon never
4 called you at any time and said, “Could we please
5 have your files?”
6 A. That’s correct.
7 Q. Isn’t it true Prosecutor Zonen never called
8 you at any time and said, “Mr. LeGrand, could we
9 just take a look at your files?”
10 A. That’s correct.
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Isn’t it true that no
14 representative of the Santa Barbara sheriffs ever
15 called your office and said, “Mr. LeGrand, please
16 give us your e-mails”?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Nobody associated with the prosecution has
19 ever called you or your firm and said, “Please let
20 us see your files,” right?
21 A. That’s true.
22 Q. Now, Mr. LeGrand, the prosecutor asked you
23 some questions about you and your partners’ efforts
24 to investigate people who were around Michael
25 Jackson, right?
26 A. Yes.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 10208
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And he specifically asked
2 you questions about an attorney named John Branca,
3 right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At the time you began an investigation into
6 some of the people around Mr. Jackson that you were
7 concerned about, one of the people you investigated
8 was Mr. Branca, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And to your knowledge at
13 the time, Mr. Branca had been an attorney in Los
14 Angeles doing music work for Mr. Jackson, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You yourself, as you’ve indicated yesterday,
17 were not a specialist in music law, right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. Mr. Branca purportedly was, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, you answered some questions yesterday
22 about the Sony/ATV catalog. Remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the Sony/ATV catalog was owned 50/50 by
25 Sony and Michael Jackson, correct?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10209
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And at times Mr. Jackson
2 and Sony would have business discussions about their
3 respective ownership interests in the catalog,
4 right?
5 A. I was never privy to those discussions. It
6 would certainly seem that they would occur, but I
7 don’t have actual knowledge of that.
8 Q. But you were aware that negotiations went on
9 from time to time between representatives of Michael
10 Jackson and representatives of Sony about their
11 respective interests in that music catalog, right?
12 A. Well, absolutely, yes, because I obtained
13 files from the Ziffren law firm evidencing the
14 Ziffren law firm and Mr. Branca’s representing Mr.
15 Jackson in just such discussions over a period of
16 time.
17 Q. And just to clarify, Mr. Branca was a
18 partner at the Ziffren law firm in Los Angeles,
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That firm also represented Sony, correct?
22 A. I believe the answer is correct. Yes.
23 Q. And you were concerned that Mr. Branca and
24 that law firm might not be representing Mr.
25 Jackson’s interests properly because of their
26 connection to Sony, correct?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
28 THE COURT: Sustained. 10210
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Didn’t you investigate Mr.
2 Branca because you were concerned that he and Sony
3 had set up an offshore account to funnel money to so
4 they could defraud Michael Jackson?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you investigate
8 Mr. Branca?
9 A. I requested -- well, let me back up.
10 After consultation with my partner, Mr.
11 Gibson, and discussion with I believe Mr. Joss at
12 Paul Hastings, Mr. Gibson and I instructed the firm
13 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca, because Mr.
14 Konitzer had indicated in several conversations that
15 he was very concerned about Mr. Branca and that Mr.
16 Jackson had expressed concern about Mr. Branca’s
17 loyalty.
18 Also, there was -- Mr. Schaffel related
19 information that also was negative of Mr. Branca.
20 So we made collectively the decision to ask Interfor
21 to further the background investigation, to conduct
22 investigation into Mr. Branca.
23 Q. But at the time, Konitzer didn’t know that
24 you were also investigating him, right?
25 A. That’s correct.
26 Q. At the time, Schaffel didn’t know you were
27 also investigating Schaffel, right?
28 A. That’s correct. 10211
1 Q. At the time, Weizner didn’t know you were
2 also investigating Weizner, right?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
4 foundation.
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 THE WITNESS: That’s correct. We did not
7 inform them of the scope of -- the full scope of
8 Interfor’s actions at our request.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you also investigated
10 somebody named Tommy Motolla, correct?
11 A. I’m not sure that’s correct.
12 Q. Do you recall asking Interfor to do some
13 investigation into an offshore bank account?
14 A. It’s kind of the other way around. We asked
15 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca. They indicated
16 to us that --
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object based
18 on hearsay.
19 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of
22 mind when you investigated the possibility that an
23 offshore account had been formed by various people
24 to defraud Michael Jackson?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as
26 leading.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of 10212
1 mind when you investigated the formation of an
2 offshore bank account?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you investigate the
6 existence of an offshore bank account?
7 A. We requested Interfor to look into that
8 possibility, yes.
9 Q. Why?
10 A. Because there was a --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object based on
12 hearsay.
13 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind.
14 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
15 You may complete your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Because we had -- we, the
17 lawyers, had been given information from a source
18 that appeared to have some credibility that such an
19 account existed.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And why did you want to
21 investigate that account?
22 A. Be -- well, to me, that’s kind of obvious.
23 But if, in fact, there was an offshore account in
24 which money was being deposited for the benefit of
25 Mr. Branca or others, that would indicate very
26 serious violations of Mr. Branca’s responsibilities
27 to Mr. Jackson.
28 Q. Did you think at one point that Sony was 10213
1 paying Mr. Branca money to sell out Mr. Jackson?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
3 opinion; leading.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did your investigation
6 involve anyone you thought was involved in
7 transferring money to that bank account?
8 A. The best way I can answer that is to say we
9 asked the investigators to do as complete a job as
10 they could with the financial resources we had
11 available for them. And I didn’t delineate who they
12 should or shouldn’t look into with respect to such
13 an account.
14 Q. But at your direction, they looked into the
15 existence of that account, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it was your direction that they look
18 into that account because you were concerned that
19 Michael Jackson’s attorney and Sony were putting
20 money in that account so Mr. Jackson’s lawyer would
21 essentially sell him out, right?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
23 argumentative.
24 THE COURT: Sustained; foundation.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where was the offshore
26 account, if you know?
27 A. I’m sorry, I don’t recall. I believe it was
28 in the Caribbean. 10214
1 Q. Okay. And did your investigation get far
2 enough to establish that, in fact, this lawyer was a
3 signatory on that account?
4 A. I don’t believe so, no.
5 Q. But the investigation did indicate he was
6 somehow involved in the account, correct?
7 A. The investigator’s report so indicated.
8 Q. And the investigator’s report indicated it
9 appeared that Sony was involved in that account,
10 right?
11 A. The investigator’s report indicated that
12 Sony had transferred money to the account.
13 Q. Sony had transferred money to that account
14 for the benefit of Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, right?
15 A. That’s what was indicated in the report.
16 It -- I need to be very clear here that that
17 was not verified, with a reasonable degree of
18 certainty, that I would have acted upon that
19 information. And Mr. Branca’s a fine lawyer. And,
20 you know, there is no -- I have no proof of these
21 statements.
22 Q. You investigated Mr. Branca because, in your
23 words, you thought he was involved in self-dealing,
24 right?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
26 opinion; no foundation; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 THE WITNESS: Again, you know, I want to be 10215
1 clear. I consulted with my partner and, you know,
2 other lawyers, and we collectively made a decision
3 to -- that it was prudent to have our investigator
4 look into the possibility of such actions being
5 taken by Mr. Branca.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were concerned that
7 all of the individuals you investigated were
8 involved in self-dealing, right?
9 A. No. That’s not right. For example, I did
10 not suspect Mr. Malnik of self-dealing in any way.
11 Q. Then why did you have an entirely separate
12 and more comprehensive investigation done of Mr.
13 Malnik?
14 A. I had done an Internet search on Mr. Malnik
15 before I met him. That Internet search indicated
16 that he had ties to organized crime; that he was
17 rumored to be the, you know, quote, heir of Meyer
18 Lansky.
19 There were, you know, sufficient clouds in
20 the public record of Mr. Malnik’s past that, again,
21 we, the lawyers, made a collective decision that it
22 was prudent to further investigate Mr. Malnik. We
23 did not know who he was. And he was becoming a more
24 and more powerful figure in Michael Jackson’s life.
25 Q. Did you at any point determine that Malnik
26 had ties with Sony?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;
28 improper opinion; leading. 10216
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not
3 Mr. Malnik has ever had a position with the Sony
4 corporation?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same
6 objection. Add relevancy.
7 THE COURT: Relevancy, sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you did your
9 investigation, you and your partner, both former
10 prosecutors, were you concerned about Mr. Malnik’s
11 relationship with Sony?
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: I really don’t recall that we
15 had any concern over Mr. Malnik’s relationship with
16 Sony. In fact, I’m not aware that he had a
17 significant relationship with Sony.
18 Our concern about Mr. Malnik was simply
19 based upon the, you know, public records indicating
20 these, you know, vague relationships to criminal
21 figures. And those -- you know, those are all long
22 in the past, but still, you know, in the public
23 domain.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you were concerned
25 that all of these characters were trying to steal
26 money and take advantage of Michael Jackson, right?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
28 argumentative. 10217
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you and Prosecutor
3 Auchincloss ever had a discussion about this
4 investigation that you and your partner began?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Has Mr. Auchincloss ever tried to approach
7 you to find out why you were investigating all of
8 these people while you were Mr. Jackson’s lawyer?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Isn’t it true that you were trying to
11 investigate offshore accounts owned by Branca and
12 someone named Tommy Motolla?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who was Tommy Motolla?
15 A. He was a very powerful figure in the record
16 industry at one time. I believe he was the
17 president of the Sony Entertainment Division in the
18 U.S. I’m not sure of his exact title or position.
19 Q. Were you concerned that Tommy Motolla and
20 Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, John Branca, were working
21 together to defraud Michael Jackson?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
23 assumes facts; leading.
24 THE COURT: You may answer.
25 THE WITNESS: Based on the suspicions that
26 were expressed to me and my partner, we asked
27 Interfor to look into these rumors.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you had known 10218
1 Konitzer for how many years at that point?
2 A. I’m not sure. Six, seven, eight maybe.
3 Q. But you had never investigated Konitzer
4 before you started this investigation, right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Even though you knew Konitzer all those
7 years, you had never hired an investigative firm to
8 check out his background, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. You were concerned that Konitzer was engaged
11 in self-dealing at the expense of Michael Jackson,
12 true?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
15 improper opinion.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I think the prosecutor’s gone
17 through all this, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
19 THE WITNESS: My answer is yes, I was
20 concerned.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were also concerned
22 that Dieter Weizner was engaging in self-dealing at
23 the expense of Michael Jackson, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You were -- you asked for an investigation
26 into Konitzer’s background in Canada, right?
27 A. Canada and Germany, yes.
28 Q. And you also asked for an investigation into 10219
1 Weizner’s background in Germany, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you ever met Tommy Motolla?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Ever spoken to him?
6 A. No.
7 Q. To your knowledge, did Al Malnik have any
8 relationship with Tommy Motolla?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. Did you ever talk to him about that?
11 A. I don’t believe I ever talked to Al about
12 whether or not he knew or had met Tommy Motolla.
13 Q. Was it your belief when you started this
14 investigation that Al Malnik, Tommy Motolla, John
15 Branca and people at Sony were trying to find a way
16 to get Mr. Jackson’s interest in that music catalog?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
18 leading; relevancy.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure that I would
22 include Al Malnik in that group, but I certainly was
23 concerned that Branca and Motolla, in particular,
24 had set the stage, so to speak, for Sony to be able
25 to obtain Michael’s interest in the Sony/ATV joint
26 venture.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And as a former prosecutor
28 and as Michael Jackson’s attorney, you thought the 10220
1 ethical and professional thing for you and your law
2 firm to do was to investigate these people to
3 protect Mr. Jackson as best you could, right?
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to the
5 prefatory remarks as argumentative.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 You may answer.
8 THE WITNESS: The investigation was one of
9 the tools we employed to try to be effective in
10 representing our client’s interest.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In response to Prosecutor
12 Auchincloss’s questions, you said you wanted --
13 excuse me, let me rephrase that.
14 In response to Prosecutor Auchincloss’s
15 questions about why you started this investigation,
16 you said you wanted Michael Jackson to be empowered.
17 Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what did you mean by the word
20 “empowered”?
21 A. I wanted him to have a higher degree of
22 detail and knowledge about the people who were
23 becoming influential in his business and financial
24 affairs, so that, having that knowledge, he could
25 then make better decisions about those people and
26 the positions they would occupy in his life.
27 Q. Did you feel that Michael Jackson had made
28 poor decisions in trusting certain people in his 10221
1 life?
2 A. No disrespect intended to Mr. Jackson, but
3 it’s -- it was apparent from any review of the
4 lawsuits against him and some of his well-publicized
5 history that he’s been taken -- you know, that
6 people have attempted to gain significantly from
7 being associated with him.
8 Q. And you felt, looking at his history, that
9 he’d been taken advantage of repeatedly, right?
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
11 argumentative.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you make a
14 determination whether or not Mr. Jackson had been
15 taken advantage of?
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; improper
17 opinion.
18 THE COURT: Relevancy; sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you feel that one of
20 your responsibilities as Mr. Jackson’s new attorney
21 was to try and stop people from taking advantage of
22 him?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you have concerns that all of the people
25 that you were investigating were taking advantage of
26 Michael Jackson?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
28 relevance. 10222
1 THE COURT: Asked and answered.
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Asked and answered.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know that Mark
5 Geragos was investigating the Arvizos?
6 A. I don’t know. I don’t remember -- as I sit
7 here today, I don’t remember specifically that I
8 knew he was investigating them. I’m just not sure
9 about that. I’m sorry.
10 Q. I’m sorry. Did I stop you?
11 A. No. I just -- I don’t remember.
12 Q. Well, Prosecutor Auchincloss asked you if
13 you had ever talked to an investigator named Brad
14 Miller, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I believe you thought you might have,
17 but you weren’t sure; is that right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. At some point, you were one of the lawyers
20 responsible for hiring Mark Geragos, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recall ever discussing with Mark
23 Geragos his decision to investigate the Arvizos’
24 background in extortion and fraud?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
26 assumes facts; hearsay.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever talk with 10223
1 Mark Geragos about what he learned about the J.C.
2 Penney suit filed by the Arvizos?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
4 exceeds the scope.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you were
7 communicating with Mr. Geragos, did you ever
8 discuss, you and he, a J.C. Penney suit, that you
9 recall?
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Prosecutor
13 Auchincloss asked you some questions yesterday about
14 Janet Arvizo turning down an offer of $25,000 from
15 you. Do you remember that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And at the point in time when you offered
18 $25,000 to Janet Arvizo, Janet Arvizo was being
19 represented in England by the same law firm that
20 represented Michael Jackson, right?
21 A. With respect to the British broadcasting
22 administrative complaint process, yes.
23 Q. If you know, who was paying Janet Arvizo’s
24 legal fees in that action?
25 A. Ultimately Mr. Jackson. I’m not sure which
26 exactly the source of funds was. But ultimately Mr.
27 Jackson.
28 Q. Do you have any idea how much money Mr. 10224
1 Jackson spent paying Janet Arvizo’s legal fees in
2 England?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you discussed the
6 possibility of giving Janet Arvizo $25,000, you were
7 talking to her new lawyer named Bill Dickerman,
8 right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When you spoke to Bill Dickerman, did you
11 know that he had a profit-sharing arrangement with
12 an attorney named Larry Feldman?
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
14 hearsay.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: If Janet Arvizo was going
17 to file a lawsuit against Michael Jackson with
18 Attorneys Larry Feldman and Bill Dickerman, it
19 wouldn’t make sense to be joined with him in a suit
20 in England, would it?
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Approximately when did you
24 talk to Attorney Bill Dickerman about your offer of
25 $25,000 to Janet Arvizo?
26 A. As I think I said yesterday, it was I think
27 spring of ‘04. And whether that was March, April,
28 May or June, I’m not sure. Mr. Dickerman and I 10225
1 corresponded over a period of, I’m not sure whether
2 it was two weeks or six weeks. But there was a
3 little period of time. And I’m pretty sure it was
4 late spring of ‘04.
5 Q. Did the name Attorney Larry Feldman ever pop
6 up in your discussions with Bill Dickerman?
7 A. No.
8 Q. How about Jamie Masada?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How about Stan Katz?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Beyond the
12 scope; relevancy.
13 MR. MESEREAU: I believe counsel explored
14 this issue, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Attorney Dickerman
17 communicated to you his desire that Mrs. Arvizo not
18 be represented by any of Michael Jackson’s
19 attorneys, right?
20 A. Not exactly. What he communicated was that
21 he wanted the -- the representation with respect to
22 the British Standards Board complaint to be
23 terminated and he wanted the complaint withdrawn.
24 Q. And that was a complaint that Mr. Jackson
25 and Mrs. Arvizo had filed complaining about Mr.
26 Bashir’s actions and tactics, right?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts
28 not in evidence. 10226
1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 THE WITNESS: Originally, as I said
3 yesterday, there was one complaint filed on behalf
4 of the Jacksons and the Arvizos. The Standards
5 Board subsequently instructed the lawyers in the UK
6 that the Arvizo complaint was a separate and
7 distinct matter and needed to be the subject of its
8 own complaint.
9 So that’s -- I mean, so there were two
10 separate complaints. Ultimately one for the Arvizos
11 and one for Mr. Jackson. And those complaints
12 alleged that Granada and Martin Bashir, as Granada’s
13 agent, had violated various aspects of the British
14 broadcasting standards with respect to their actions
15 in the video presented and produced by Granada.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At any point, did you feel
17 that you were a lawyer for Janet Arvizo?
18 A. No.
19 Q. At any point, did you feel you were giving
20 any legal advice to Janet Arvizo?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Now, Prosecutor Auchincloss showed you a
23 couple of model release forms that you had prepared,
24 right?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And when you prepared those release forms,
27 it was your understanding that Ms. Arvizo and her
28 family would sign them authorizing the family to be 10227
1 filmed in the “Take 2” production, right?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
3 assumes facts not in evidence.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you prepare model
6 releases to be signed by the Arvizos?
7 A. Because we -- because there could not be a
8 broadcast use of any video containing their images
9 without a release.
10 Q. And at some point, did you learn that Janet
11 Arvizo was bargaining for better terms in those
12 releases?
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
14 assumes facts not in evidence; and leading.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You indicated in response
17 to Prosecutor Auchincloss’s questions that there was
18 a point in time where Janet Arvizo didn’t want to
19 sign the release you had drafted, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I believe you said that that refusal to
22 sign was communicated to you by Vincent Amen,
23 correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I believe you said that you then
26 redrafted a release for Janet Arvizo to sign,
27 correct?
28 A. Yes. 10228
1 Q. Why did you redraft that release for Janet
2 Arvizo to sign?
3 A. Because I needed -- because it had to be in
4 a simpler, more readable, user-friendly,
5 plain-English format, based on what had been
6 presented to me as the concerns and reservations
7 about executing the more formal release that I think
8 is two big paragraphs of like, you know, one
9 sentence per paragraph. It’s very legalese, so to
10 speak, and my understanding was that the Arvizos
11 would sign releases if they were drafted in a
12 fashion that were understandable by them.
13 Q. And was it your understanding that that was
14 Janet Arvizo’s request?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who communicated that request to you?
17 A. I think it was Vincent Amen.
18 Q. How many drafts did that release go through
19 before you learned that Janet had signed it?
20 A. I think it was just the one revision
21 process. We went from the more complex document
22 that I described that we looked at in the exhibits
23 earlier to a more simpler document I think titled
24 “Model Release,” and it’s much simpler, less
25 elegant.
26 Q. And did you ever learn whether or not the
27 Arvizos had even appeared in the “Take 2”
28 documentary? 10229
1 A. I’m not sure that they did, to tell you the
2 truth. I mean, I did watch it once, but that was
3 two years ago, and I don’t remember whether they’re
4 in it or not.
5 Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. LeGrand, that documentary
6 appeared on television, was a great success, and
7 they weren’t even in it?
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Counsel? I have this picture of this lawyer
11 upstairs walking back and forth, pulling his hairs
12 out of his head, wondering why the heck I ordered
13 him up here today under threat of warrant while Mr.
14 Mesereau goes on and on. What’s wrong with that
15 picture?
16 MR. MESEREAU: It’s pretty accurate, I
17 think, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Can we get on with it?
19 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Yes, I will. Okay.
20 (Laughter.)
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: All right. Prosecutor --
22 Prosecutor Auchincloss --
23 THE COURT: Thank you for laughing. That
24 relieves some tension here.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Prosecutor Auchincloss
26 asked you a question yesterday about Mr. Jackson’s
27 music career. Do you remember that?
28 A. Not precisely, no, sir. 10230
1 Q. Well, didn’t he say something about you were
2 all working on a “Take 2” documentary because you
3 were trying to shore up a falling music career for
4 Michael Jackson?
5 A. I think there was a question that had that
6 implicit in it. But I can’t recall the details of
7 the question. It’s been quite a few questions in
8 the last day.
9 Q. In the Bashir documentary, do you remember
10 Mr. Jackson received a BAMBI award?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In fact, in that
15 documentary Bashir talks about Michael Jackson as
16 the greatest musical artist of all time, right?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You indicated you spoke to
20 representatives of the Bank of America about the
21 Fire Mountain LLC, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it was your understanding they had no
24 objection to money from the “Take 2” documentary
25 being placed in the Fire Mountain account, correct?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
27 leading.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 10231
1 You may answer.
2 THE WITNESS: I had a conversation, I’m not
3 sure which individual at Bank of America. There
4 were two or three that I spoke with. And after
5 discussing with them the overall circumstances, the
6 uses in paying the attorneys and funding the
7 litigation in the UK and such, they indicated that
8 they would not view that as a default under the
9 loan, and to the best of my knowledge, they
10 subsequently extended the loan in negotiations with
11 Mr. Malnik.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And certainly Mr. Jackson
13 was not working with you in any effort to defraud
14 Bank of America, right?
15 A. That’s right.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions,
17 Your Honor.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just a few. I’ll be
19 brief.
20
21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
23 Q. Mr. LeGrand, you spoke to Attorney
24 Finkelstein at least two times. You testified to
25 that yesterday, correct?
26 A. I think that’s right.
27 Q. And Mr. Finkelstein was an attorney for Mr.
28 Jackson, true? 10232
1 A. Today I’m not sure who he was acting for.
2 Q. That was your understanding, that he was an
3 attorney for Mr. Jackson, correct?
4 A. It was my understanding he was being engaged
5 to handle the funds with respect to Fire Mountain,
6 which was --
7 Q. My question is, he was an attorney for
8 Michael Jackson; true or false?
9 A. I don’t know that.
10 Q. Was that your understanding?
11 A. I am not aware that Mr. Finkelstein believed
12 he was representing Mr. Jackson as an individual.
13 Q. Who was he representing?
14 A. I thought he was acting for Fire Mountain.
15 Q. And Fire Mountain is completely owned by MJJ
16 Productions?
17 A. Yes, a corporation.
18 Q. Which is completely owned by Michael
19 Jackson?
20 A. Yes. That was my understanding.
21 Q. So he would be answering to Michael Jackson,
22 true?
23 A. Ultimately, yes.
24 Q. Okay. Mr. Finkelstein is a specialist in
25 offshore money, isn’t he?
26 A. I don’t know what he specializes in.
27 Q. Well, isn’t it true that you transferred two
28 million dollars to Mr. Finkelstein on Michael 10233
1 Jackson’s behalf so that Michael Jackson could
2 establish offshore bank accounts, true, or for
3 deposit in offshore bank accounts for Mr. Jackson?
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevancy;
5 foundation.
6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: True?
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 THE WITNESS: I have, and had, no knowledge
9 of establishment of offshore accounts for the
10 benefit of Mr. Jackson at that time.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, you were
12 entrusted with this two million dollars, correct?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And you were entrusted with that two million
15 dollars to act in Michael Jackson’s interests,
16 correct?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And when you transferred that two million
19 dollars to Mr. Finkelstein, Mr. Jackson’s interests
20 were what you were serving when you did that,
21 correct?
22 A. That was my intent, yes, sir.
23 Q. And are you telling us you had no idea where
24 that two million dollars was going?
25 A. I thought it was going to be used to pay the
26 expenses that were being incurred on Mr. Jackson’s
27 behalf in terms of the Granada litigation, to pay
28 bills, and would be delivered to the money manager 10234
1 once we got the new money manager firmly
2 established. That’s what I believed.
3 Q. But it wasn’t, was it?
4 A. Actually, I believe a significant portion of
5 the funds ultimately were delivered to Allan
6 Whitman.
7 Q. Do you know that?
8 A. I’m not sure today, but I thought -- I
9 certainly thought that the residual of the money
10 after that $965,000 was disbursed, I thought that
11 was delivered to Mr. Whitman. But I could be wrong
12 about that.
13 Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla
14 investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any
15 evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged
16 in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
17 A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered
18 with that report to substantiate those claims.
19 Q. And in fact, that report only indicate that
20 Sony was depositing money in some offshore account,
21 apparently for Mr. -- on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, true?
22 A. I’m not sure about the “Mr. Jackson’s
23 behalf.” I would need to see the report.
24 Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe
25 that any funds transferred to an offshore account by
26 Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds
27 were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
28 A. I was given no credible evidence to support 10235
1 those charges. I would be doing Mr. Branca and Mr.
2 Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.
3 Q. Did you consult with Mr. Jackson before you
4 took two million dollars of his money and sent it to
5 Mr. Finkelstein?
6 A. I don’t think so.
7 Q. Did you ever talk to him about that, ever?
8 A. I believe we talked about it when we were at
9 Al Malnik’s house in Florida later.
10 Q. And Mr. Finkelstein -- or Mr. Jackson had
11 knowledge of that two million dollars being
12 transferred to Mr. Finkelstein, didn’t he?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: He never indicated that
16 he didn’t know that you had transferred two million
17 dollars of his money to Mr. Finkelstein without his
18 permission or without his agreement, did he?
19 A. He never indicated to me that he was
20 dissatisfied with what -- with those transfers.
21 Q. As far as this litigation or complaint, or
22 whatever was going on in England regarding the
23 airing of the Bashir special, Janet Arvizo never
24 authorized her joinder in that action, did she, as
25 far as you know?
26 A. The only evidence I saw of her authorization
27 for that action was the page you showed me earlier
28 that Mr. Dickerman subsequently stated was a 10236
1 forgery.
2 Q. And as far as you know, Janet Arvizo has
3 never authorized any law firm in England to
4 represent her, as far as you know today, based on
5 everything?
6 A. Yeah, that’s true.
7 Q. And Janet Arvizo was reluctant to sign those
8 consent forms because she felt that she was burned
9 in the Martin Bashir special; that her family was
10 hurt because Gavin appeared in that special without
11 anybody’s consent. Isn’t that one of the reasons
12 why she was reluctant to sign those consent forms?
13 A. I don’t know what was in Janet Arvizo’s
14 mind.
15 Q. No one ever communicated to you that that
16 was part of her reluctance in signing those forms?
17 A. I don’t remember that. I think Mr.
18 Dickerman said words to that effect in 2004. But I
19 don’t remember anybody at the time, the week or ten
20 days or so that we were engaged in getting
21 appearance consents and releases from various
22 people, I don’t believe I heard that kind of
23 statement at that time.
24 Q. As far as the allegations of double-dealing,
25 self-interest involving the Interfor investigation,
26 Interfor never came up with anything substantial,
27 substantive, about Mr. Konitzer, did they?
28 A. I’m not sure what you mean by “substantive.” 10237
1 Q. Well, in terms of his double-dealing with
2 Michael Jackson, was there ever any indication that
3 he was double-dealing with Michael Jackson based
4 upon that report?
5 A. No, but that wasn’t -- the report wasn’t
6 about that.
7 Q. Was there ever any indication that he was
8 double-dealing -- that Dieter Weizner was
9 double-dealing with Michael Jackson in any way,
10 shape or form?
11 A. Not in that report.
12 Q. That report was basically full of rumors and
13 unsubstantiated allegations, true, because it was
14 incomplete?
15 A. Ultimately that was my view.
16 Q. And if Bank of America knew that you were
17 sending two million dollars to Mr. Finkelstein, do
18 you think they would have gone ahead and authorized
19 the handling of these funds through the Fire
20 Mountain account?
21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. Well, didn’t you know that they were
23 concerned about paying bills and not putting money
24 offshore?
25 A. I don’t know. I can’t speak for Bank of
26 America, I’m sorry, sir.
27 Q. Janet Arvizo, based upon everything you
28 knew, was going to get nothing for this film, video, 10238
1 of her and her family that was taken at Mr.
2 Moslehi’s house, true?
3 A. I don’t know.
4 Q. Well, you didn’t disburse any funds to her
5 from the account that you pulled in three million
6 dollars from FOX on, correct?
7 A. That’s true.
8 Q. And she didn’t get a dime of that, did she?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. And you knew she was a poor individual,
11 indigent, her family did not have money?
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
13 misstates the evidence.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did it ever occur to
16 you that you were engaging in an exploitation of
17 Janet Arvizo along with Michael Jackson?
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
19 leading; misstates the evidence.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. LeGrand, as far as
22 any requests from the People regarding files or any
23 requests from law enforcement regarding files, the
24 reason why no requests were made is because that
25 would have been futile, because there’s an
26 attorney-client privilege that protects those files;
27 isn’t that accurate?
28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the 10239
1 evidence; foundation.
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 You may answer.
4 THE WITNESS: I’m not an expert in that area
5 of law, but I think generally you’re correct, that
6 the prosecution in this case could not have
7 compelled me to produce those files without Mr.
8 Jackson’s consent.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And in fact, you were
10 contacted by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office and
11 asked to be interviewed, and you refused; isn’t that
12 true?
13 A. I informed your -- I’m not sure what his
14 title was, but I informed the investigator who
15 called from the office that I would only be able to
16 be interviewed if they obtained Mr. Jackson’s
17 consent.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.
19
20 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. MESEREAU:
22 Q. Mr. LeGrand, do you know whether or not Mr.
23 Jackson has waived the attorney-client privilege as
24 far as you’re concerned?
25 A. Yes. I received documents signed by Mr.
26 Jackson waiving privilege so that I could appear
27 here today and yesterday.
28 Q. In fact, you were informed quite a while ago 10240
1 that Mr. Jackson had waived the attorney-client
2 privilege, correct?
3 A. Well, I was informed that he was prepared to
4 waive it with respect to my testimony, yes.
5 Q. Nobody from law enforcement has ever asked
6 you if there was any waiver of the attorney-client
7 privilege, right?
8 A. That’s correct.
9 Q. Nobody from the prosecution has ever asked
10 you if there was any waiver of the attorney-client
11 privilege?
12 A. That’s correct.
13 Q. Mr. Jackson doesn’t even know who Mr.
14 Finkelstein is, right?
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Assumes facts;
16 foundation; argumentative.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
19
20 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
22 Q. As far as this waiver goes, when did you
23 ultimately obtain a waiver from Mr. Jackson on the
24 attorney-client privilege?
25 A. I believe it was Wednesday morning, this
26 week.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.
28 10241
1 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. MESEREAU:
3 Q. Mr. LeGrand, do you remember learning that
4 we had turned over your files to the prosecution
5 last December?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did they ever ask you to
9 follow up, give them some more documents after they
10 got your files last December?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I had no contact from the
15 prosecutor’s office other than that one phone call
16 from the sheriffs a long -- or investigator a long
17 time ago. But since December, no.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And were you aware that
19 Mr. Auchincloss had your files as of last December?
20 A. I didn’t even know who Mr. Auchincloss was
21 before yesterday, but I had been informed by you
22 that my files had been delivered to the office
23 headed by Mr. Sneddon.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I have no further
26 questions, Your Honor. But there is one
27 housekeeping matter that I don’t think is
28 appropriate for me to mention in front of the jury. 10242
1 THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll excuse the
2 jury for lunch. We’ll take our break now, and I’ll
3 remain for a moment.
4 (To the witness) Just a moment. I’m not
5 sure if this involves you or not.
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.
7
8 (The following proceedings were held in
9 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
10 jury:)
11
12 THE COURT: Go ahead.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, this witness
14 has indicated that he turned over five boxes of
15 documents to the defense. He has indicated that
16 there should have been e-mails in that -- in those
17 files, as well as his personal notes regarding
18 communications with his client.
19 I would like to state for the record, we
20 have none of those items. We have what I would say
21 would probably be one banker’s box of materials.
22 And I would like this witness ordered back. I would
23 like him ordered to produce the entire file
24 regarding Mr. Jackson. And I would like an
25 opportunity to review those documents and, if
26 necessary, have him brought back on
27 cross-examination concerning those documents.
28 THE COURT: As I understood his testimony, 10243
1 he’s turned over everything that he had to somebody
2 else. I mean, he doesn’t claim that he has any of
3 the documents.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And if that is the state
5 of the record, then I’d ask that the Court order the
6 defense to produce the documents that I’ve
7 mentioned.
8 THE COURT: Is that your position, that
9 you’ve already turned over everything you have on
10 this case to someone else?
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, with respect -- I
12 am no longer associated with the firm of Hale Lane.
13 THE BAILIFF: No one can hear you, sir.
14 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
15 I am no longer associated with the law firm
16 of Hale Lane. And I have no control over any of the
17 files that remain at Hale Lane. I have no access to
18 any of those materials.
19 I did, when I left Hale Lane, have a few
20 legal pads of notes. I don’t know whether those
21 notes include any references to Mr. Jackson or not.
22 And I will be pleased to, you know, look through
23 those and see if there are. But I have no access or
24 control.
25 THE COURT: Other than that, is it your
26 belief that all the file was turned over, or do you
27 have any way of knowing that?
28 THE WITNESS: I really have no way of 10244
1 knowing that. I mean, I -- when my representation
2 was terminated originally back in March of 2003, I
3 prepared copies of all the files at that time and
4 delivered them, I believe to Mr. Malnik in Florida,
5 who at the time I understood to be the primary
6 attorney serving Mr. Jackson.
7 Subsequently, I was re-engaged for the
8 limited purpose of continuing to manage the Granada
9 litigation in the United Kingdom, and continued in
10 that role until -- for quite a while, until the
11 charges were brought against Mr. Jackson in this
12 case, at which time the litigation in the UK was put
13 on hold.
14 Shortly thereafter, I communicated with Mr.
15 Malnik, asked him what I should do. And I
16 corresponded with, I think it was Steve Cochran, Zia
17 Modabber, whom I knew from the dealings with Mr.
18 Jackson, and indicated that I felt it appropriate to
19 turn over my records to the Katten Muchin law firm,
20 which at the time seemed to have a continuing
21 representation of Mr. Jackson.
22 I instructed my staff to prepare, you know,
23 copies of files. I -- this discussion of
24 completeness is somewhat baffling to me. Nobody
25 ever requested that I turn over every single piece
26 of paper, e-mail or document, that we make, you
27 know, a thorough search of every crevice and cranny
28 of our firm. We simply did our best to, you know, 10245
1 compile the files and deliver them. A lot of --
2 THE COURT: Have you turned over everything
3 that you have control of at this point to somebody,
4 other than --
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think so.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 THE WITNESS: It’s possible I have some
8 boxes that may contain some notes.
9 THE COURT: I’ll ask you to look through
10 whatever records you have, and if you find that you
11 have some, prepare -- notify both sides and give
12 both sides access to those documents.
13 THE WITNESS: Very good, sir.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: There was one other thing.
15 He mentioned that he delivered a CD of
16 e-mails to the defense, which we have not received.
17 THE COURT: Well, my recollection of the
18 testimony was that he thought he did.
19 Did you --
20 MS. YU: Your Honor, I believe everything
21 was produced. We printed everything from a CD
22 that, it is correct, that Mr. LeGrand -- and we
23 printed it out and we produced them.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MS. YU: Every page.
26 THE COURT: So you should have those.
27 So the Court will -- you may step down.
28 Thank you. 10246
1 The Court will go in recess.
2 THE WITNESS: There’s still a binder here.
3 Somebody -- I’m not sure whose it is.
4 (Recess taken.)
5
6 (The following proceedings were held in
7 open court in the presence and hearing of the
8 jury:)
9
10 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. The defense will call
12 Mr. Mark Geragos.
13 THE COURT: Come forward, please. When you
14 get to the witness stand, remain standing.
15 Face the clerk and raise your right hand.
16
17 MARK GERAGOS
18 Having been sworn, testified as follows:
19
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 THE CLERK: Please be seated.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 THE CLERK: State and spell your name for the
24 record.
25 THE WITNESS: Mark Geragos. G-e-r-a-g-o-s.
26 THE CLERK: Thank you.
27 DIRECT EXAMINATION
28 BY MR. MESEREAU: 10247
1 Q. Good morning, Mark.
2 A. Good morning, Tom.
3 Q. Would you please give a little summary of
4 your education?
5 A. I went to college, I went to law school, I
6 passed the bar.
7 Q. Okay.
8 (Laughter.)
9 Q. That was kind of long-winded, wasn’t it?
10 A. It was not a very distinguished
11 undergraduate or graduate career, so....
12 Q. And you are a lawyer in Los Angeles,
13 correct?
14 A. I am. I’ve got a firm in Los Angeles, which
15 I share with my father and my brother, named
16 Geragos & Geragos. We stayed up all night thinking
17 it up.
18 Q. All right. Do you know the fellow seated at
19 counsel table to my right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And who is he?
22 A. Michael Jackson, who was a client of mine
23 for about 16 months.
24 Q. And when did you first meet Mr. Jackson?
25 A. It would have been probably about
26 February -- the first week of February of 2003, I
27 believe.
28 Q. And at some point, you were retained to 10248
1 represent Mr. Jackson, right?
2 A. That’s correct.
3 Q. And how did that come about?
4 THE WITNESS: Although I know you’ve told me
5 out of court that there is a waiver, Your Honor, I
6 have not seen nor heard it on the record, and I’m
7 more comfortable if I have that first.
8 THE COURT: Certainly.
9 MR. MESEREAU: I can represent to the Court
10 there is a waiver of the attorney-client privilege
11 so Mr. Geragos can testify.
12 THE COURT: You have a written waiver you’ll
13 provide him with after court today?
14 MR. MESEREAU: We will do that, Your Honor,
15 sure.
16 THE COURT: Is that satisfactory?
17 THE WITNESS: That is, Your Honor. Thank
18 you.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When were you first
20 retained to represent Mr. Jackson?
21 A. It would have been sometime shortly before I
22 met him the first time. The first time I met
23 Michael was at Neverland, and I was contacted by
24 somebody from, I think, Paul Hastings. And then was
25 sent -- or there was a series of transactions, I
26 guess, or faxes back and forth, and ultimately I was
27 retained and then went up to Neverland and met
28 Michael for the first time. 10249
1 Q. And why were you retained?
2 A. At that point, there were allegations that
3 were being made in the media and there was also, as
4 I remember, complaints that were being made to Child
5 Services about him, his fitness as a parent, as
6 well.
7 Q. And did you represent Mr. Jackson in those
8 two areas?
9 A. I did. I was given the role, so to speak,
10 among a cast of thousands, to kind of coordinate and
11 be a person who would look out for his interests in
12 those areas.
13 Q. And when you began to represent Mr. Jackson,
14 were you reporting to anyone in particular?
15 A. Well, when I first came on board, there was
16 a gentleman, who I saw in the hallway just a minute
17 ago, David LeGrand, who was there, who was a lawyer
18 who was coordinating a lot of the stuff.
19 There was a gentleman who he introduced me
20 to named Ronald Konitzer. And there was a gentleman
21 over at Paul Hastings. And I feel awful, I can’t
22 remember his name, because he’s the person who
23 referred me over there in the first place. But
24 there was another lawyer there.
25 But generally what would happen is, it
26 wasn’t so much reporting as we would have these
27 interminably long conference calls.
28 Q. And generally who was involved in those 10250
1 calls?
2 A. It seemed like everyone. There were all
3 kinds of people on the conference calls. There were
4 PR people. Paul Hastings lawyers. David LeGrand
5 would be on the conference call. I would plug into
6 the conference call. Ronald Konitzer would be on
7 the conference call, among others. Those are the
8 ones that come to mind.
9 Q. And were these conference calls occurring on
10 a daily basis?
11 A. It seemed like it.
12 Q. Typically who would initiate the conference
13 call?
14 A. I think David’s office would be my --
15 would -- but that would be a guess. I really don’t
16 know.
17 Q. Was Michael Jackson usually involved in
18 these conference calls?
19 A. Usually not.
20 Q. Was he involved in any of them?
21 A. He -- there were a couple of calls. You’re
22 talking about February of ‘03.
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. There were a couple of calls where Michael
25 would get on the phone for brief periods of time,
26 but generally were not the same as what I’m talking
27 about with these conference calls. Those would be a
28 call where maybe Ronald would put him on the phone, 10251
1 there would a brief discussion. It wouldn’t be more
2 than, I don’t know, 45 seconds or a minute, usually,
3 it seemed like. It was very quick.
4 Q. And I believe said your work involved
5 response to the Bashir documentary?
6 A. Well, the lawyers who were responding to the
7 Bashir documentary, as I understood it, was there
8 was -- I think it was Paul Hastings English
9 barristers who were dealing with the documentary
10 there and dealing with some issue that they kept
11 talking about, some board that was involved that
12 they were making complaints about.
13 And then here, my role was to see if there
14 was any kind of -- anything that needed to be done
15 to protect him in terms of his parental rights or
16 anything else from the accusations that were being
17 made against him.
18 Q. Was your firm exclusively involved in the
19 area of child custody, parental rights?
20 A. No. There was -- he had a -- I don’t know
21 if he still has, but there was a lawyer by the name
22 of -- I think his name was Lance Spiegel, from a
23 firm on the west side of Los Angeles, and he was
24 clearly primarily with the custody issues.
25 My role was if there was any DCFS
26 involvement, if there was anybody who was trying to
27 do anything else. Basically to see if there was
28 anything else that he needed protection against. 10252
1 Q. Was a potential DCFS investigation the only
2 investigation you were concerned about at the time?
3 A. No, no, I was concerned about -- obviously
4 at the same time that the documentary came out, at
5 the time, there were people making all kinds of
6 accusations about Michael, and specifically with one
7 young man who was involved in that documentary, and
8 I was supposed to look into that as well.
9 Q. And was his name “Gavin Arvizo”?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. At some point, did you ever hear the
12 name “Janet Arvizo”?
13 A. At the very -- probably before I heard the
14 name “Gavin.”
15 Q. And how did you hear her name?
16 A. Initially there was a rundown of exactly
17 what the situation was. And I couldn’t tell you
18 exactly if it was Paul Hastings or if it was the
19 English counterpart or the American counterpart or
20 if it was David, but there was a rundown of the
21 situation. I was told about the Arvizos.
22 I was also told and the first thing that was
23 done that had any urgency is there was a 60 Minutes
24 taping that was scheduled, and they wanted me to be
25 up there to make sure that Michael didn’t make any
26 statements or questions weren’t asked that were
27 inappropriate.
28 Q. And was this at Neverland? 10253
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you see Janet Arvizo at Neverland on
3 that day?
4 A. I remember seeing Gavin at Neverland that
5 day. And then we were there for, I don’t know,
6 maybe 12 hours or so. And during that time there, I
7 was getting downloaded with information as well from
8 a number of people at the ranch itself.
9 Q. And what was your role as far as your
10 representation of Mr. Jackson went on that occasion?
11 A. Well, that was really -- they just wanted
12 me, I guess, as a backstop on the interview.
13 And ultimately, after sitting there for
14 about 12 hours, it was my decision, or I told them
15 that, look, if I was going to be involved, I didn’t
16 want him doing the interview, and I pulled the plug
17 on it.
18 Q. So ultimately that interview with 60 Minutes
19 did not take place, correct?
20 A. On that occasion in February of 2003, it did
21 not. I -- I said that it was not going to happen,
22 and asked that they -- politely asked Mr. Bradley,
23 and there was another producer, whose name I think
24 was Radotsky, Michael Radotsky, who was there, told
25 them that this was not going to happen.
26 Q. And you say you were at Neverland
27 approximately 12 hours that day?
28 A. It seemed like it, yeah. 10254
1 Q. And did you see Ms. Janet Arvizo there the
2 whole time?
3 A. Well, portions, is my memory. I remember --
4 I have vivid memories about Gavin Arvizo talking
5 with Ed Bradley and Gavin Arvizo talking with
6 Radotsky, which I think is his name, the producer,
7 and then seeing what was going on there. And also
8 hearing these stories that people were telling me,
9 and trying to just take it in and sort out whatever
10 it was.
11 Q. And was it your understanding that the
12 Arvizos wanted to have a role in that 60 Minutes
13 documentary?
14 A. I watched as --
15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as to
16 speculative.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Referring only to your
19 state of mind at the time, Mr. Geragos, did you have
20 any knowledge one way or the other whether or not
21 the Arvizos were supposed to be involved in the
22 documentary?
23 MR. ZONEN: I object as irrelevant to this
24 question.
25 THE COURT: You have to let him finish the
26 question so I know what you’re objecting to.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Geragos, just
28 directing my question to your state of mind at the 10255
1 time, did you have any understanding one way or the
2 other whether or not Janet Arvizo and the children
3 were supposed to appear in a 60 Minutes documentary?
4 MR. ZONEN: Objection to his state of mind
5 as being irrelevant to this proceeding.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In your capacity as Mr.
8 Jackson’s attorney on that day, did you have any
9 understanding as to why the Arvizos were at
10 Neverland?
11 A. The -- I saw an interaction between Gavin
12 Arvizo --
13 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to any
14 vision of interaction as being irrelevant to this
15 proceeding, and the question is irrelevant and
16 lacking in foundation.
17 MR. MESEREAU: He’s cutting off the witness,
18 Your Honor, I object.
19 THE COURT: I think that question can be
20 answered “yes” or “no,” and we can go from there.
21 Do you want the question read back?
22 THE WITNESS: God, I hate to say “no.”
23 Did I see -- did I see an interaction? Yes.
24 THE COURT: I’ll have the question read back
25 so you understand it.
26 (Record read.)
27 THE WITNESS: Yes.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your 10256
1 understanding?
2 MR. ZONEN: Objection; lack of foundation.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: As Mr. Jackson’s attorney,
5 were you under any instructions to do anything with
6 the Arvizos at Neverland on that particular day?
7 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague. Instruction
8 from whom?
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you talk to Janet
11 Arvizo that day?
12 A. Briefly, I believe. But -- I know that I
13 didn’t talk to her. I watched her interact or
14 converse with Mr. Radotsky, who was the producer.
15 I believe Mr. Bradley.
16 Q. Did you see Ms. Arvizo talking to Mr.
17 Radotsky for any length of time that day?
18 A. I don’t know if I would say a length of
19 time. I saw at least on two occasions, I think.
20 Q. And why were you at Neverland that day?
21 A. I was asked to come up by Mr. LeGrand
22 specifically to, I guess, monitor the interview.
23 Q. And were you under the impression, as you
24 arrived, that the Arvizos were going to be there?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Why?
27 A. It’s what I was told.
28 Q. Is that by Mr. LeGrand? 10257
1 A. I believe it was.
2 Q. And were you told why they were going to be
3 there?
4 A. I believe Mr. LeGrand told me that --
5 MR. ZONEN: That would be “yes” or “no,”
6 Your Honor. I object to any answer beyond that.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 “Yes” or “no.”
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what was your
11 understanding as to why they were going to be there?
12 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Hearsay; lack of
13 foundation.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you give any advice to
16 the Arvizos on that particular day?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you talk to Gavin Arvizo on that
19 particular day?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Who else do you recall being at Neverland on
22 that particular day, other than the people you’ve
23 identified?
24 A. Dieter Weizner was there. I think a
25 gentleman by the name of Jack Sussman from CBS was
26 there. There was a woman which -- also with CBS
27 with the last name of Simon, I think was there.
28 There was another lawyer from my office with me. I 10258
1 can’t remember which lawyer it was. And there was
2 a -- I don’t know, a cast of probably 30 or 40
3 people, production people, who were there as well.
4 Q. And what time did you arrive there that day?
5 A. I couldn’t tell you. It was light outside.
6 But I don’t -- I would imagine late morning, early
7 afternoon, but that’s just a guess.
8 Q. What time do you think you left?
9 A. Whatever, eight, ten, twelve hours after I
10 arrived.
11 Q. When you left, do you know whether or not
12 Janet Arvizo was still there?
13 A. I do not.
14 Q. Do you know whether or not Gavin Arvizo was
15 still there?
16 A. I do not. Not as I sit here today.
17 Q. Did you hear Janet Arvizo say anything to
18 Mr. Radotsky?
19 A. Not that I can remember as I sit here.
20 Q. Did you see Janet Arvizo talk to Ed Bradley
21 of 60 Minutes?
22 A. I believe that I did.
23 Q. Did you hear what she said?
24 A. Not that I can remember.
25 Q. Okay. Did you see either Mr. Bradley or Mr.
26 Radotsky talking to Gavin Arvizo?
27 A. Yes. I think Radotsky, with Mr. Bradley. I
28 don’t know that he was actively participating, but I 10259
1 do believe Radotsky was talking.
2 Q. And approximately what date was this, Mr.
3 Geragos?
4 A. I want to say February 7th, and I just -- I
5 don’t know if that was a Saturday. I don’t believe
6 it was a court day. So it was either a Saturday or
7 a Sunday, but I’d just be guessing again.
8 Q. Have you seen the Bashir documentary at this
9 point?
10 A. I have seen it. But not recently.
11 Q. No, had you seen it at this particular point
12 in time?
13 A. No, I had not.
14 Q. Did you ever see Janet Arvizo again?
15 A. No, I don’t believe that I have.
16 Q. Have you ever spoken to her on the phone?
17 A. No, I don’t believe that I have.
18 Q. Okay. Following that visit to Neverland,
19 you continued to represent Mr. Jackson, right?
20 A. That’s correct.
21 Q. And what were the things you were doing as a
22 lawyer for Mr. Jackson?
23 A. Well, one of the first things that I did
24 after that was to get ahold of the -- a copy of the
25 documentary by Mr. Bashir. I watched it. We
26 were -- on these conference calls, they would talk
27 about what the various allegations were against
28 Michael. 10260
1 One of the first things I did is involve a
2 private investigator. And I involved a private
3 investigator and I had some associates in the firm
4 do some database searching on various players
5 involved.
6 Q. Now, was it your understanding at that point
7 that Mr. Sneddon had started any investigation?
8 A. No. It was not my understanding that he
9 had.
10 Q. Had you heard of any statements Mr. Sneddon
11 had made anywhere about an investigation into
12 Michael Jackson at that point?
13 A. In early February, no. The only thing
14 that -- as I remember, in early February, that
15 sticks out in my mind now as I sit here, was
16 something about somebody complaining to DCFS.
17 Q. Now, you said you started your own
18 investigation, right?
19 A. That’s correct.
20 Q. And why did you do that?
21 A. I was -- the things that I was hearing about
22 the Arvizos gave me great pause.
23 Q. What were you hearing?
24 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay and
25 irrelevance and lack of foundation and vague as to
26 time.
27 THE COURT: I’m going to overrule the
28 objection and I’m going to allow the witness to 10261
Subject: May 13, 2005 
Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:25 am
