1 the complete statements made by Mr. Jackson at the
2 time that certain statements were edited out and
3 placed in the Bashir video.
4 And as the Court recalls, statements in the
5 Bashir video were admitted for the truth of the
6 matter as admissions of the party. And these videos
7 show the context in which those statements were
8 made, not just the particular words, but the whole
9 context in which Mr. Jackson was led to make those
10 statements. So that's our offer.
11 Now, I've talked to the District Attorney,
12 Mr. Auchincloss. I asked him if he would agree that
13 we could play this in open court without first
14 showing Mr. Moslehi to authenticate it, and he is
15 considering that; I think probably will agree to
17 The question that he asked that we address
18 right now was the admissibility of this, so I asked
19 the bailiff to ask Your Honor to come out so we
20 could talk about --
21 THE COURT: I already ruled that it wasn't
22 admissible in the direct part of the People's case,
23 because the Bashir case -- the Bashir tape was
24 introduced for the limited purpose of showing that
25 Mr. Jackson had some motive to be doing certain acts
26 that the People claimed that he did, and it had
27 nothing to do with the truth of the matter in the
28 tape, although the tape was admitted under certain 7813
1 circumstances for the truth of the matter.
2 So your request is denied. That's the
3 second time I've denied it.
4 All right. Let's bring in the jury.
5 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, could I --
6 THE COURT: No.
7 MR. SANGER: I don't mean to argue -- okay.
9 (The following proceedings were held in
10 open court in the presence and hearing of the
13 THE COURT: You may proceed.
14 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 Q. Mr. Moslehi, I believe you testified that
16 you had approximately six or seven meetings with the
17 Arvizo family at various times. Does that sound
19 A. Approximately.
20 Q. Okay. And I believe you testified that
21 Janet Arvizo told you in the phone conversation of
22 the 19th of February, 2003, that she was being
23 hassled by the media; is that right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And she was not happy about that, correct?
26 A. That's correct.
27 Q. And in your interviews with representatives
28 of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, you have 7814
1 discussed your various discussions with Janet,
3 A. Could you refresh my memory?
4 Q. Sure. Sure. Maybe I'm not being clear.
5 In your interviews with representatives of
6 the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, you have
7 discussed conversations you had with the Arvizos,
9 A. Janet and the kids?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. And in your discussions with representatives
13 of the prosecution, you have discussed conversations
14 you had with the Arvizos, right?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you she
17 thought she was going to be murdered, right?
18 A. No.
19 Q. She never said that to you, right?
20 A. No.
21 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you there
22 were death threats on she and her family, right?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you she or
25 her family were being falsely imprisoned, right?
26 A. That's correct.
27 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo ever complain to
28 you that Mr. Jackson was giving alcohol to her 7815
1 children, right?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo ever complain to
4 you that Mr. Jackson was improperly touching any of
5 her children, right?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo tell you her
8 children were being abused by Mr. Jackson, right?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. At no time did Janet Arvizo ask you to call
11 the police on her behalf, right?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Now, you testified that at Mr. Jackson's
14 request, you did a video at Neverland called
15 “Neverland Channel,” right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And was it your understanding that was
18 supposed to be a videotape featuring Star Arvizo as
19 sort of the narrator?
20 A. Well, initially my understanding was that
21 we're going to do a pilot - a pilot is like a sample
22 of an idea in a video format - of an idea that Mr.
23 Jackson have.
24 Q. And you did film that entire video, right?
25 A. That's correct.
26 Q. And the understanding was that Mr. Jackson
27 would pay for your services in filming that video,
28 right? 7816
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. You also testified that you did a video of
3 Mr. Jackson with Gavin, right?
4 A. The 2000?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And it was your understanding Gavin was
8 recovering from cancer, correct?
9 A. Well, Gavin had cancer. I'm not sure
10 whether he was recovering or not, but --
11 Q. But your understanding is he was ill?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And your understanding was that Mr. Jackson
14 also agreed to pay for your services in doing that
15 video, right?
16 A. Customary, sure.
17 Q. Yes. At no time was it ever your belief
18 that the Arvizos were supposed to pay for any of
19 these videos?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Okay. Now, you currently have a lawsuit
22 against Mr. Jackson, right?
23 A. Unpaid invoices, yes.
24 Q. Right. You're seeking unpaid invoices and
25 some other benefits, right?
26 A. Like?
27 Q. Well, you're asking that invoices be paid.
28 You're also -- 7817
1 A. Damages.
2 Q. Yeah. You're also talking about a profits
3 interest that you claim Dieter and Konitzer promised
4 you, right?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Now, in your lawsuit, you're also asking for
7 damages related to a -- excuse me. You're also
8 seeking damages related to some footage of what you
9 call “Michael Jackson's Private Home Videos,”
11 A. I believe so.
12 Q. And that was another FOX special that was
13 done about Michael Jackson, right?
14 A. I believe so.
15 Q. And it's your belief that some of your work
16 appeared in that show as well, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And it's your belief that you should be paid
19 for your services in that regard, right?
20 A. For -- sure.
21 Q. Yes. Was it your belief that footage you
22 did was going to appear both in the Povich
23 documentary and in another show done by FOX called
24 “Michael Jackson's Home Videos”?
25 A. No. I was never been informed that there is
26 a second documentary.
27 Q. Do you know, as you sit here today, whether
28 or not there was a second documentary? 7818
1 A. I did not know there was a second
2 documentary. Meaning nobody informed me that
3 there's a follow-up, .nother piece of documentary
4 called “Michael Jackson's Home Videos.”
5 Q. Did you learn at some point that that had
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When did you learn that there had been a
9 second documentary called “Michael Jackson's Private
10 Home Videos”?
11 A. I believe I've learned that watching T.V.,
12 been advertised.
13 Q. Okay. And that show appeared in
14 approximately April of 2003, right?
15 A. Approximately.
16 Q. Did you watch that show on television?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Okay. Your belief is you're entitled to a
19 profit participation in whatever revenues were
20 generated from that show as well, right?
21 A. Well, I guess we have to talk to my lawyer
22 in regard to that.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Because that's a technical question. I'm
25 not a lawyer to make that kind of --
26 Q. Okay. But your lawsuit is currently active,
28 A. It is. 7819
1 Q. Okay. And your claim is that the agreements
2 you had about being compensated for your services
3 and having a profit participation in these
4 television shows were primarily based on what Dieter
5 and Konitzer told you, right?
6 A. Well, the invoices, it's part of customary
7 transactions between me and MJJ Productions.
8 Q. Right.
9 A. But the percentage was between Ronald,
10 Dieter and me.
11 Q. Okay. And you don't know whether Dieter or
12 Konitzer ever discussed a profit participation with
13 Michael Jackson, right?
14 A. With Mr. Jackson himself?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. I'm not sure.
17 Q. They just told you talk to them and don't
18 talk to Mr. Jackson, right?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said that
21 approximately February 21st, 2003, Michael Jackson
22 called you to thank you, right?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Now, obviously when he called you to thank
25 you, he hadn't seen what you had filmed, right?
26 A. Filmed what?
27 Q. Well, the footage you did of the Arvizos, he
28 could not have seen, true? 7820
1 A. Oh, of the Arvizo family footage.
2 Q. But nevertheless, he called you and thanked
3 you for what you had done, right?
4 A. After seeing “The Footage You Were Never
5 Meant To See,” I believe that's why Mr. Jackson
6 called me, to thank me.
7 Q. He was talking about the Bashir footage that
8 you had done; is that correct?
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; requires
11 MR. MESEREAU: I'll rephrase it.
12 Q. When Mr. Jackson called you to thank you on
13 February 21st, was it your understanding that he was
14 thanking you about what you had done in the Bashir
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; speculation.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 You may answer.
19 THE WITNESS: My understanding for that
20 thank-you call was that Mr. Jackson saw the rebuttal
21 documentary, the entire “Footage You Were Never
22 Meant To See,” and because of what I've done --
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
24 A. -- he's calling to thank me.
25 Q. But he obviously, at that point, had never
26 seen your film of the Arvizo family, right?
27 A. No.
28 Q. Because you had control of that, right? 7821
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. You had never released that, right?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And he was thanking you for what was on that
5 Maury Povich documentary, true?
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your
11 THE COURT: Counsel?
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
16 Q. During the period of time that you were
17 working with the Arvizos on this rebuttal film,
18 you've told us about Christian Robinson, Brad
19 Miller, Paul being present, Vinnie being present,
20 you and your crew.
21 As far as you know, was anybody else
22 involved in this rebuttal video?
23 A. Being involved or being present at my house?
24 Q. That's a good question. Let's add a few
26 You mentioned that Frank was involved in it;
27 is that correct?
28 A. He was involved with it, yes. 7822
1 Q. And Mr. Schaffel was involved in it?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And Mr. Konitzer was involved in it?
4 A. I'm -- sure.
5 Q. He talked to you about it, right?
6 A. I think most of the conversation was going
7 through Dieter than Ronald in regard to that.
8 Q. Was Ronald present in that conversation?
9 A. It was a phone conversation, so I don't know
10 whether Ronald was listening to that or not, or
11 whether they had conversation within themselves.
12 Q. Okay. But you also mentioned a conversation
13 you had in Florida with Ronald and Dieter?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Did they discuss filming the rebuttal film
16 at that time?
17 A. At that time, the discussion was about what
18 I had already filmed of Martin Bashir.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. There was nothing on the table as far as
21 project goes.
22 Q. Okay. So as far as the project goes, they
23 just told you to talk to Mr. Schaffel?
24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; assumes
25 facts not in evidence.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'll strike the question.
27 Q. So as far as the project goes, what did they
28 direct you to do? 7823
1 A. Once we discussed what I have as far as the
2 footage that I shot of Martin Bashir interview with
3 Mr. Jackson, and once we agreed to certain terms,
4 they informed me and advised me to go to L.A. and
5 talk to Marc Schaffel.
6 Q. Okay. And the purpose of this, you've
7 testified, was to make Michael Jackson look good
8 ultimately, the whole rebuttal film?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Okay. So other than the names I've
11 mentioned, were -- were there any other people
12 involved in this enterprise of making the entire
13 rebuttal film, as far as you know?
14 A. Um -- okay, can we go through those names
15 one more time? Just so I don't misunderstand.
16 Q. Okay. Mr. Jackson, Ronald, Dieter. We've
17 got Mr. Schaffel, Frank, Vinnie, Christian, Paul --
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the question.
19 I don't think it's -- I think it's a compound
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'm asking him for other
23 THE COURT: He's clarifying an earlier
25 Overruled. Go ahead.
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Paul. Brad Miller.
27 You and your crew.
28 A. Well, there was another production company 7824
1 called Brad Lachman Productions --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- which FOX hired to put the final editing
5 Q. Very good. Anybody else other than that?
6 A. Not that I remember right now.
7 Q. When you were engaging in the production or
8 the putting together the various videos that were
9 going to make up this rebuttal film, what were the
10 issues that you were trying to address specifically?
11 A. Comments that Martin Bashir made on his own
13 Q. Were there comments that Mr. Jackson himself
14 made that you were attempting to address?
15 A. On the Martin Bashir documentary?
16 Q. In your rebuttal, yes.
17 A. Well, we tried to clarify certain statements
18 that Mr. Jackson made which, for example, if Martin
19 Bashir would have continued rolling, I mean, or
20 editing that -- let me try this again.
21 Q. Sure.
22 A. There were certain statements that were made
23 by Mr. Jackson in the Martin Bashir documentary --
24 Q. Uh-huh.
25 A. -- that the way it was edited, what happened
26 is Mr. Jackson sounded different than if they would
27 have continued another two or three seconds of that
28 statement. 7825
1 Q. Give me an example.
2 A. Um -- um --
3 THE COURT: Counsel, I have to ask a
4 question. Why are you going into an area that I
5 told the defense they couldn't go into?
6 My objection's sustained.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Thank you, Your
8 Honor. I'll move on.
9 Q. What was the level -- well, let me ask you
10 this: Was there any sense of urgency in the
11 creation of this rebuttal film?
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 You may answer.
15 THE WITNESS: We tried to get it as soon as
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. And why was
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
20 THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the
21 foundation objection.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.
23 Q. Do you know why there was a sense of urgency
24 in creating this film?
25 A. My opinion? Or was there any discussion
26 from any party?
27 Q. Did you discuss the timing issues of this
28 film with any of the people that I've mentioned 7826
1 previously that were involved in it?
2 A. Well, once this project was sold to FOX,
3 they set up a date, deadline to be aired.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. So basically, based on that date, we'll try
6 to squeeze everything in there and finish it.
7 Q. And that date was?
8 A. February 20th.
9 Q. Midnight February 20th; is that right?
10 A. Well, the deadline to provide the footages
11 was I believe the 19th, February 19 of 2003, to be
12 aired on February 20th, 2003.
13 Q. In terms of the Martin Bashir special, was
14 there any editing done by Mr. Bashir that was
15 problematic, that you saw, that misrepresented Mr.
16 Jackson's statements about him sleeping with
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
19 leading; Court order.
20 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
21 It's the area I told you not to go into.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
23 Q. Was that area one of the areas that you felt
24 you needed to work on?
25 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
28 Q. As far as the -- I want to talk now about 7827
1 the activities that occurred at your home when the
2 Arvizos were being filmed.
3 You mentioned that Janet was -- expressed
4 some reluctance to sign this release; is that
6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did Janet express any
10 reluctance to sign this release?
11 A. What I saw is that there was a con -- a
12 conversation and a discussion between Janet and
13 Vinnie and other parties about this release or
14 document that was presented to her.
15 Q. Did that discussion cause any delay in the
16 shooting of the filming?
17 A. A little bit. A little bit.
18 Q. How many minutes of delay, would you say, if
19 you can characterize it?
20 A. I would say 15 minutes.
21 Q. And you said that Vinnie used your phone
23 A. My fax.
24 Q. Your fax number.
25 A. Or they could have used my phone, too.
26 Q. Do you know if he used your phone number?
27 A. To call somebody?
28 Q. Yes. 7828
1 A. I remember my phone being used, but I didn't
2 know who's calling who or what. But I remember my
3 phone being used.
4 Q. Do you know the number (310) 283-5866?
5 A. That's my cell phone number.
6 Q. That's your cell phone number, okay.
7 As far as the use of your fax machine, do
8 you know if Vinnie made any documents that came from
9 your fax machine?
10 A. I believe that he either received or send
11 some faxes through my machine.
12 Q. When Janet had finished with negotiating or
13 talking with Vinnie, Christian and Paul, you
14 mentioned that Vinnie, Christian and Paul seemed
15 happy previously, correct?
16 A. It seemed to me that the matter has been
17 resolved, but --
18 Q. Did Janet seem happy, or could you tell?
19 You tell me.
20 A. Well, when we started filming, she appeared
21 happy. But I don't know, prior to, whether or not
22 she was happy or not. I don't know.
23 Q. Was there a change in her demeanor from
24 before filming to when the cameras started rolling?
25 A. Repeat that one more time.
26 Q. Was there a change in her demeanor from
27 before the cameras were rolling and she's in your
28 home for this however -- I guess you said it was 7829
1 over an hour -- to the time the cameras started
2 rolling, was there a change in Janet's demeanor?
3 A. She seemed more energetic when the cameras
4 are rolling.
5 Q. You were asked if you saw any coaching, and
6 you said, “No.”
7 A. Not that I remember seeing any coaching.
8 Q. Do you know if she was coached?
9 A. I don't know that.
10 Q. Do you know whether or not -- did you keep
11 your eye on her the entire time that she was in your
13 A. The entire house? No.
14 Q. Was there an opportunity for her to be
16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls
17 for speculation.
18 THE COURT: Calls for a conclusion.
20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You mentioned that you
21 went to Neverland at one time for the filming of
22 60 Minutes, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And was that cancelled?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Do you know why?
27 A. I don't.
28 Q. As far as the entire documentary, this 7830
1 rebuttal documentary, you mentioned that you were to
2 receive some points?
3 A. Percentage.
4 Q. A percentage?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. When you spoke to Ronald and Dieter, was it
7 contemplated that this documentary was a for-profit
9 A. For profit?
10 Q. Yeah, would make money.
11 A. Sure.
12 Q. Do you know if it made money?
13 A. I think it did, yes.
14 Q. Do you know how much it made?
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know how much --
18 was there any discussion about how much this
19 documentary was anticipated to make with Dieter and
21 A. Well, FOX --
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you have a
25 discussion with Dieter and Ronald about the
26 profitability or the amount of money that this
27 documentary or rebuttal could make?
28 A. Did I have any conversations with them that 7831
1 this documentary will make -- well, we knew there
2 was going to be some money made off of it.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. But we didn't know how much at the time.
5 Q. Did you have an idea?
6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and
7 Court order.
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It's a “yes” or “no.”
9 That's fine, Your Honor. I'll move on.
10 Q. Now, as far as the -- the Arvizos
11 being taken off -- the Arvizo children being taken
12 off of Neverland, you answered a few questions for
13 counsel concerning that issue when you took the
14 children off Neverland.
15 And you said there was a period of time, I
16 believe it was about a half an hour, between when
17 you first talked to Joe Marcus and he said the
18 children were not allowed off the property and the
19 time when you actually left; is that right?
20 A. I believe so, yeah.
21 Q. Did you see where he went during that half
22 hour at all?
23 A. No, I didn't.
24 Q. If you wanted to contact Mr. Jackson when he
25 was away from Neverland, how would you do it?
26 A. I would either call his bodyguards or his
28 Q. Okay. Why would you call his bodyguard? 7832
1 A. Well, that's the fastest way to get to Mr.
3 Q. Does Mr. Jackson carry a cell phone?
4 A. I don't believe so.
5 Q. Do his bodyguards carry cell phones?
6 A. I think they do.
7 Q. Have you seen this?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If he wants to make a call, do you know what
11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you seen Mr.
14 Jackson ever use a cell phone?
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls
16 for speculation; beyond the scope.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you seen Mr.
19 Jackson ever use a cell phone over the years you've
20 known him?
21 A. Dialing it, or just talking on it?
22 Q. Talking on it.
23 A. I've seen him talking on the cell phone.
24 Q. Whose cell phone would he use?
25 A. I'm assuming his bodyguards', but I can be
27 Q. Okay. So after this half hour passed and
28 you left the property, did Joe Marcus offer any 7833
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did he seem to be okay with you taking the
4 children off property?
5 A. Sure.
6 Q. You said that you had a conversation at
7 Neverland with Mrs. Arvizo, and your sense was that
8 she approved of you taking the children to your
9 home. I believe that was your testimony. You
10 correct me if I'm wrong. Is that accurate?
11 A. If I remember correctly, after I had a
12 conversation with her, my understanding was that
13 she's going to participate in this rebuttal
14 documentary, but she's not going to be at Neverland,
15 so therefore we went to L.A.
16 Q. Okay. So that was on the evening of
17 February 19th?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And your deadline was midnight on February
20 19th; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Was an arrangement made with Brad Lachman
23 Productions that if you got the Arvizo film to them
24 by midnight, they would still be able to incorporate
25 it into the final production of the rebuttal film?
26 A. If I remember correctly, if we had any
27 additional or new footage that we wanted to put into
28 this documentary, should be delivered no longer than 7834
1 midnight 19 -- February 19.
2 Q. Okay. If you delivered it on February 19th
3 before midnight, was it your understanding there was
4 still time to get it into the final version?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And your testimony is that you didn't make
7 that deadline?
8 A. Yes, we missed that.
9 Q. When you originally talked with Dieter and
10 Ronald about being paid the money that you were
11 owed, was it understood that upon the completion of
12 the Arvizo film, you would be paid, the filming of
13 the Arvizos?
14 A. Upon airing “The Footage You Were Never
15 Meant To See.”
16 Q. Okay. And the Arvizo footage was just part
17 of that?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. All right. Did you anticipate that you
20 would be getting a payday - in other words, a
21 payment of all the money that was owed to you -
22 after the 20th of February?
23 A. I was expecting the 21st, by midday, I would
24 receive my payments in full, plus what they promised
26 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether or not this
27 documentary was also sold all over the world?
28 A. It is sold all over the world. 7835
1 Q. Okay. This rebuttal film was sold all over
2 the world?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. In terms of the filming of the Arvizos, the
5 footage that you obtained, is this footage -- was
6 this footage at the time, did you consider it to be
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: At the time that this
11 footage was filmed, you understood that it was not
12 going to make it into the Brad Lachman production,
14 A. Well, I was hoping that I can get it done by
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. But once we passed the deadline, I figured
18 it's not going to happen.
19 Q. And you shot it anyway because of what?
20 A. Well, because I was told to, and also I
21 wanted to do my job. I mean, I had a responsibility
22 and I wanted to do that.
23 Q. And who specifically told you to shoot that
25 A. I believe it was arranged through Marc
26 Schaffel and Dieter, those people.
27 Q. Did you discuss with anybody the fact that
28 you weren't going to make the deadline and that you 7836
1 should go ahead and shoot it anyway?
2 A. I don't remember discussing the deadline
3 with anyone. This was just in my mind.
4 Q. Okay. So that was your decision to go ahead
5 and shoot it anyway?
6 A. Well, I figured since I had my crew and
7 equipment ready, if they are happy to participate,
8 get it done at least.
9 Q. Was there a discussion at the shooting about
10 the deadline; that it had to be done by midnight?
11 A. I think I mentioned to one of these guys
12 that, “Guys, we're not going to make it anyway.”
13 But --
14 Q. Do you know if either Christian or Paul or
15 Vinnie knew about the deadline?
16 A. I'm not sure about Vinnie, but I'm sure
17 Christian and Paul should have known about the
19 Q. And I believe your testimony is that
20 Christian wanted the video to take with him?
21 A. They wanted to take the tapes that night,
23 Q. Even though it was too late to put it on
24 the --
25 A. That's correct.
26 Q. All right. If you -- are you familiar with
27 the value of footages such as this, you know,
28 footage concerning a family that is of public 7837
1 interest on the open market?
2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; Court
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'm unfamiliar with the
5 Court order, but --
6 THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. It's
7 the restrictions I've placed on financial
9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
10 Q. You testified that you gave Janet Arvizo
11 $2,000, considered it a loan, and were asked a
12 number of questions about financial conditions
13 involving Janet Arvizo.
14 Would it have made any difference to you in
15 giving Janet Arvizo this $2,000 if you learned that
16 some people gave her some money three years earlier
17 based upon Gavin's illness? Would that have made
18 any difference to you?
19 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation and
20 misstates the evidence.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 You may answer.
23 THE WITNESS: Um, can you repeat the
24 question one more time?
25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, you
26 gave her this $2,000.
27 A. Okay.
28 Q. You previously stated you were concerned 7838
1 about Janet. Her world was upside down is what
2 you've said.
3 Would it have made any difference, would it
4 have prevented you from doing this act of generosity
5 or kindness if you knew that years earlier she had
6 received some money for charitable -- from
7 charitable individuals to help Gavin? Would that
8 have made any difference?
9 A. I believe, depending on the timing and the
10 amount of money, it could have been.
11 Q. Okay. So let's say she got $20,000 to help
12 Gavin with his illness in terms of creating a safe
13 room for him, that type of thing.
14 A. Three years prior?
15 Q. Yeah. Would that have made any difference
16 to you?
17 A. For 20,000 three years prior, no.
18 Q. And what about if she got a civil judgment
19 for about 30,000 three years prior, would that have
20 made any difference?
21 A. Three years --
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 You may answer.
26 THE WITNESS: Three years, 30,000, no.
27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. You were asked
28 if she told you some things about her circumstances 7839
1 at the time. Did Janet confide in you anything
2 other than the fact that her world was upside down
3 at that time?
4 A. I don't remember.
5 Q. Okay. Did you have a relationship with
6 Janet where she would sit down and confide with you
7 details about her problems, other than what you've
9 A. Did I have a relationship? Such as --
10 Q. Is she the type of person that would sit
11 down and confide in you personal things?
12 A. I believe because I worked with her kids a
13 lot during a few other productions, she kind of felt
14 comfortable to just empty herself of whatever she
15 had in mind, I guess, at that time.
16 Q. And did she do that in that phone
17 conversation with you at Neverland?
18 A. Did she did that on that conversation?
19 Q. Yeah. That you had when you were at
21 A. I believe the way she was expressing her,
22 you know, personal life matters, in this case being
23 upside down because of the media, I felt like, you
24 know, she needs a shoulder to cry, kind of things.
25 Q. Did she do that any other time?
26 A. No.
27 Q. When you were -- well, I want to go through
28 this time period of February 20th to the 21st. And 7840
1 I want to talk particularly about your conversation
2 with Mr. Jackson on that.
3 First of all, when you talked to Mr. Jackson
4 after the filming -- or after the airing of the
5 rebuttal film, you mentioned that you talked to him
6 about some financial problems that you were having
7 with him and his production company.
8 A. I believe what I discussed with him is that
9 my invoices are not being paid.
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. And also some other issues.
12 Q. Did you talk to him about the fact that you
13 were also promised some -- a percentage of the
14 rebuttal film?
15 A. I don't think I went that far. But I just
16 wanted to keep it simple and, you know, short with
17 him, just so, you know, whomever he needs to call,
18 please call, because I'm not being paid.
19 Q. Did you explain that you hadn't been paid in
20 years, or over a year, I guess it was?
21 A. I'm not sure whether I mentioned the period
22 of time that I'm not getting paid, but I said that
23 my invoices are not being paid, and I --
24 Q. Did you mention the amount of money that was
25 owed to you?
26 A. I don't remember.
27 Q. Okay. And what did he tell you to do about
28 these problems? 7841
1 A. He asked me to call David LeGrand, his
3 Q. And did you call David LeGrand?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. And you told him about the problems?
6 A. Well, he knew the problem. I told him that,
7 “Mr. Jackson wants to talk to you, so why don't you
8 call Mr. Jackson.”
9 Q. Okay. Did you mention to him that it was
10 about finances?
11 A. I -- well, I don't remember specifically on
12 that conversation whether I spoke or not. But
13 during the day, during the whole entire day, I'd
14 been calling them and asking, you know, “What is it
15 with my payment?” So they were well aware of that
16 I'm not being paid, that they have not made the
18 Q. Sometime later in the day, did you receive a
19 fax from David LeGrand that same day?
20 A. I believe it was the 21st, yes.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may approach, Your
23 THE COURT: Is that a marked exhibit?
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, it is.
25 Q. Mr. Moslehi, I show you Exhibit No. 851.
26 Appears to be a two-page document with a fax page on
27 the first, and the top being -- at the top of each
28 page are the words “Hale Lane.” 7842
1 Do you recognize that document?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. What is it, please?
4 A. This is a letter from David LeGrand dated
5 February 21st, 2003. It was faxed to me. And is
6 telling me that my services are no longer required.
7 And then also Mr. Weizner and --
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. I'll ask you, is
10 this the document that you received from Mr. LeGrand
11 in response to your conversation with him that he
12 should call Mr. Jackson?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And was a copy of this letter -- does this
15 letter indicate a copy was sent to Mr. Jackson?
16 A. Um --
17 MR. MESEREAU: Foundation.
18 THE WITNESS: It says carbon copy --
19 THE COURT: Just a moment.
20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is offered as
23 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Does it indicate that a
25 copy was sent to Mr. Jackson?
26 A. This letter is signed by David LeGrand and
27 it's carbon copy, cc, to Michael Jackson, Ronald
28 Konitzer, John Genga. 7843
1 Q. And the facsimile page on the front, the
2 first page, does it also indicate that copy was sent
3 to Mr. Jackson at Neverland Valley Ranch?
4 A. That is correct.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Offer 851 into
6 evidence, Your Honor.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and
9 THE COURT: I need to see the document.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. It is offered as an
11 authorized admission, as well as it is offered for
12 nonhearsay purposes to show knowledge on behalf of
13 the defendant.
14 There is one further authentication issue
15 that I will mention; that this is defense discovery
16 to the People, so this is a copy of a document
17 that's in the defendant's possession.
18 THE COURT: That doesn't authenticate
20 The only foundational issue that I just have
21 a quandary about is how he knows that this is
22 from -- who it purports to be from.
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It's a response to --
24 THE COURT: No, how the witness knows, not
25 how you know.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No, I mean his testimony
27 is that he called Mr. LeGrand that day and received
28 this letter. 7844
1 THE COURT: I'd like to hear from -- I'll
2 allow you to -- before I rule on the foundation
3 issue, I'll allow you to ask him any other questions
4 you have on that issue to --
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.
6 THE COURT: -- authenticate that.
7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Moslehi, how long
8 after the conversation with Mr. LeGrand on the
9 21st -- first of all, let me ask you, did you
10 receive this communication, Exhibit 851, before or
11 after you spoke to Mr. LeGrand on the phone?
12 A. After.
13 Q. How much time after?
14 A. A few hours.
15 Q. And this document references a communication
16 regarding future -- your business affairs that is --
17 that you are to have with Dieter Weizner and Ronald
18 Konitzer on February 24th, 2003. Are you aware of
20 A. I'm sorry, um --
21 Q. If I may show you the exhibit again. Page
22 two, paragraph two.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. I'm not sure what
24 the procedure is.
25 THE COURT: Excuse me.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, I'm --
27 THE COURT: Why are you showing him the
28 document? 7845
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
2 I'll go about it the proper way.
3 Q. Would -- does this letter have a paragraph
4 in this indicating that you are to communicate with
5 Ronald Konitzer and Dieter on February 24th, 2003?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. Did you communicate with them on that date?
8 A. And prior, yes.
9 Q. Did you discuss this letter with them?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. Did they appear to understand and know about
13 A. They were playing games with me.
14 Q. Okay. But did they pretend that they didn't
15 know about this letter, or did they --
16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'll strike the question.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I ask the next
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What do you mean they
24 were playing games with you?
25 A. I would call Dieter, and Dieter would say
26 call Ronald, and they were not responding to my
27 phone calls properly. And they told me this was
28 probably a misunderstanding, or -- you know, games. 7846
1 Q. All right.
2 A. They were not sincere about their statements
3 or, you know, whatever they had in mind.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I would offer 851 into
5 evidence at this time.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
7 THE COURT: How did you know that that letter
8 came from Mr. LeGrand?
9 THE WITNESS: Because it was faxed from his
10 office, and it had a cover sheet and it's signed by
11 Mr. LeGrand.
12 THE COURT: Did you recognize that signature?
13 THE WITNESS: I believe it was the first
14 time I saw Mr. LeGrand's signature, but I had every
15 reason to believe that that was from Mr. LeGrand.
16 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to reserve
17 ruling on that. I have some problems with your
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. I'll ask a couple
20 more questions along those lines.
21 Q. Have you subsequently received any faxes
22 from Hale Lane, Attorneys at Law?
23 A. After that?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Yes, I have.
26 Q. Did they look identical in terms of the
27 appearance of the fax letterhead?
28 A. Yes, they did. 7847
1 Q. Have you subsequently received letters from
2 David LeGrand?
3 A. After that one?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. I believe maybe I received one or two, and
6 then he started communicating with my lawyer.
7 Q. Okay. As far as those letters go, did they
8 match, did the signature match?
9 A. I never tried to look into the signature,
10 see if it matches. Once I received that letterhead,
11 I had every reason to believe that it's coming from
12 David LeGrand.
13 Q. Did you -- this is a fax letter with a fax
14 letterhead. Did you subsequently receive this
15 letter by way of U.S. Mail?
16 A. I don't believe so.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. Thank you. No
18 further questions.
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 MR. MESEREAU: May I see that exhibit?
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Uh-huh.
24 BY MR. MESEREAU:
25 Q. Mr. Moslehi, if you had known that Janet
26 Arvizo was living with someone who earned close to
27 $80,000 a year, would you have loaned her that
28 $2,000? 7848
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 You may answer.
4 THE WITNESS: If I knew that Janet Arvizo
5 was living with another husband or just a person
6 that has $80,000?
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who was supporting her and
8 who earned close to $80,000 a year, would you have
9 loaned her the 2,000?
10 A. Well, at the time, my state of mind was
11 different. I don't know. Today, probably not.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the letter that the prosecutor
13 just showed you, which purports to be from the Hale
14 Lane law firm, is dated February 21st, 2003, right?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And you claim you did receive this letter,
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And in the letter, you were asked to return
20 tapes, photos and other property of MJJ Productions
21 by a certain date, correct?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. The date you were supposed to return those
24 properties was February 24th, 2003, correct?
25 A. I -- I'm not sure. I don't have it in front
26 of me, but if you say so, I take your word.
27 Q. Okay. And the letter suggested that your
28 invoices will be addressed, correct? 7849
1 A. I'm not looking at the document, but if you
2 say so, I take your word.
3 Q. And at some point after this letter was
4 received, you obtained or received payment of
5 $200,000, correct?
6 A. I believe a month after I received that
7 letter, approximately a month after, I received.
8 Q. So approximately late March 2003, you
9 received payment of $200,000, true?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. You never returned the tapes or photos
12 referred to in the letter, true?
13 A. What does it refer in the letter?
14 Q. Any tapes, photos or other property of MJJ
15 Productions, or Michael Jackson or his affiliates.
16 A. I don't -- after 21st, I don't believe so.
17 Q. Okay. To date, you haven't turned over all
18 the tapes you did for Mr. Jackson, true?
19 A. Since my invoices were not paid in full, no.
20 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions.
21 THE COURT: Was that 851 that you were
22 quoting from?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.
24 THE COURT: All right. I'll admit it.
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.
26 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, we do have a
27 motion, and it probably ought to be heard before
28 this witness leaves the general vicinity. 7850
1 THE COURT: You have no other questions of
2 this witness?
3 MR. MESEREAU: No, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: And you have no other questions?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No.
6 MR. SANGER: Depending on the ruling on the
8 THE COURT: Is it a motion that you already
9 tried to make this morning?
10 MR. SANGER: No. No, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Why don't you approach and tell
12 me what it is.
13 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)
14 THE COURT: What I'm going to do is require
15 that the witness remain at the courthouse, and call
16 your next witness.
17 I think the way we'll handle this, the
18 motion that the defense wishes to make, is that
19 we'll stop a few minutes early so the jury gets a
20 longer lunch, and we'll listen to the motion.
21 Come forward, please. When you get to the
22 witness stand, remain standing.
23 Face the clerk and raise your right hand.
25 TERRY PAULSEN
26 Having been sworn, testified as follows:
28 THE WITNESS: I do. 7851
1 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and
2 spell your name for the record.
3 THE WITNESS: My name is Terry Paulsen.
4 T-e-r-r-y; P-a-u-l-s-e-n.
5 THE CLERK: Thank you.
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. NICOLA:
9 Q. Good morning.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. Would you mind scooting up by that
12 microphone, please?
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. And swivel that towards your mouth so that
15 everybody can hear you.
16 How are you this morning?
17 A. Fine.
18 Q. Ms. Paulsen, who are you employed with?
19 A. Huntel Systems.
20 Q. What is your position with Huntel Systems?
21 A. I'm a senior billing analyst.
22 Q. How long have you been working in that
23 capacity with Huntel?
24 A. 27 years.
25 Q. And are you here today as the custodian of
26 records for some documents from Huntel Systems?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. What kind of documents? 7852
1 A. They're phone calls made from an aircraft,
2 telephone calls.
3 Q. Air-to-ground telephone calls?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Pursuant to a search warrant, did you
6 provide the documents that I'm going to hand you
7 marked as Exhibit 850, previously shown to counsel?
8 A. Yes, these are ones I provided.
9 Q. Could you describe those documents briefly
10 for the jury, please?
11 A. It's phone calls made from an aircraft on
12 February 7th, 2003.
13 Q. And the company that bill was sent to?
14 A. It was sent to Xtra Jet out of Santa Monica,
16 Q. With respect to the contents of that
17 exhibit, is that generally a phone bill?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Okay. And is your company a company that
20 bills for phone calls made from aircraft to the
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Does the document reflect information that's
24 made in the regular course of the business of
26 A. Yes, it is.
27 Q. And Huntel is a telecommunications provider?
28 A. Huntel is -- we're the billing vendor. 7853
1 Q. Okay. Is it part of your business to keep
2 track of the kind of records that you're --
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Okay. Now, the entries in the phone record,
5 do they begin on a particular page in that exhibit?
6 A. They begin on page four.
7 Q. Okay. Is there a page two or a page three
8 in Exhibit 850?
9 A. No, there is not.
10 Q. Okay. Do you recall what is actually
11 contained in the record of page two and three?
12 A. One of it is just information on paying your
13 bill by a credit card. The other was phone calls
14 that did not pertain to the date that we were
15 requesting to provide.
16 Q. Is it customary to provide only what is
17 reflected in the search warrant, as far as your
18 company is concerned?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And their request was for February 7th,
22 A. February 7th or 8th, but there weren't calls
23 on the 8th.
24 Q. Is the information on that document relied
25 upon by your company in the regular course of its
27 A. Yes, it is.
28 Q. Okay. And do you rely on it being accurate? 7854
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. And briefly describe for the jury how the
3 information in those phone records is generated.
4 A. When a customer makes -- or is flying in an
5 airplane and they make a call, it goes from the
6 airplane to a ground station, out a landline to the
7 party that's being called. And when the call's
8 completed, then the ground station records that in
9 its memory.
10 And once a week, we go into the system,
11 we -- through a modem telephone line, computer
12 program, we get that information out. And once a
13 month, we process that into a telephone bill so it
14 puts it in a format that can print on a bill, reads
15 the information that's taken from the ground
17 Q. Does the ground station have an identifying
18 number that shows up on the bill?
19 A. Yes, it does.
20 MR. NICOLA: And, well, Your Honor, at this
21 time I would offer 850 into evidence as a business
23 MR. SANGER: No objection.
24 THE COURT: It's admitted.
25 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: What I'm going to do, Miss
26 Paulsen, is use the Elmo.
27 “Input 4,” if you don't mind, Your Honor.
28 THE COURT: All right. 7855
1 Q. BY MR. NICOLA: If you would turn to line
2 25, I would just like to show you a sample line from
3 this. If you could just start with the number 25
4 and explain to the jury what the items mean as you
5 go from left to right as you look at the exhibit,
7 A. Okay. Each call has its own item number.
8 The date would be 2-07; would be it was made
9 February 7th. They called El Monte, California.
10 The phone number, the 626 number, is the number that
11 they called. 6:57 p.m. is the time that they hung
12 up from the call. So the call was made one minute
13 prior to that, and one minute tells you how long the
14 call lasted.
15 “CCD” just means, years ago when these
16 numbers were issued to companies, they were called
17 calling cards. So it just -- “CCD” is calling card.
18 Then the -- there's two charges per phone
19 call, or the call's broken out into two different
20 sections. One is the land time, and that's from the
21 time, if I called you, you picked up the phone.
22 From the time you pick up the phone till you hang it
23 up, that's the land time.
24 The air time is what is actually charged,
25 and that's the time from when I pick up the phone in
26 the airplane and I hang up the phone. That's the
27 air time. So there's two different times.
28 And you can tell by the time of day or by 7856
1 the number called which two calls go together. So
2 in this case, Call 25 and 26 would go together. It
3 was made over Troy, Alabama, and the phone number
4 under that would be the phone number for Troy,
6 Q. Is the number for the Troy, Alabama, place a
7 ground station?
8 A. Pardon?
9 Q. Is that what you would call a ground
11 A. The ground station phone number.
12 Q. How does the wireless phone on the aircraft
13 decide which ground station it's going to repeat at;
14 do you know?
15 A. Okay. As you're flying, the transmitter in
16 the phone will pick up the strongest signal on the
17 ground station. The ground station sends up
18 signals, and it picks up the strongest one. So you
19 don't have a choice of what station you're going
20 through. It just picks it up and places a call.
21 So if you're flying near Troy, it's going to
22 pick up the Troy, Alabama, ground station.
23 Q. Now, with respect to the date stamp
24 specifically on Item 25, it says 6:57 p.m. Is that
25 6:57 p.m. in any particular time zone? Or can you
26 explain that for the jury, please?
27 A. The time zone is the time zone that the
28 ground station is located in. So if you're flying 7857
1 over Troy, Alabama, that would be the time of day at
2 Troy, Alabama. If you're flying over Los Angeles,
3 California, it would be the Los Angeles time, so
4 there could be a difference in the time zones.
5 Q. Okay. Miss Paulsen -- I wasn't done with
6 the Elmo.
7 If I could direct your attention, please --
8 and if I could have “Input 4” again, Your Honor --
9 to Line No. 40.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. And is that a call placed to Santa Ynez,
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You can read the area code and the number,
16 A. The area code is (805) 688-9979.
17 Q. And the time of that call, please?
18 A. Is 8:39 p.m.
19 Q. And where is the aircraft now?
20 A. The aircraft is over Artesia, New Mexico.
21 Q. Okay. Could you please flip to the second
22 page of the exhibit?
23 A. Page five?
24 Q. Yes. And just tell the jury what time the
25 last call was recorded from that aircraft.
26 A. Line Item 71?
27 Q. Yes, please.
28 A. It was placed at 9:28 p.m. on February 7th 7858
1 over Grand Canyon, Arizona.
2 MR. NICOLA: Okay. Thank you, Miss Paulsen.
3 No further questions, Your Honor.
4 MR. SANGER: Could I have that?
5 MR. NICOLA: Certainly.
6 MR. SANGER: Just leave it up on the thing.
7 MR. NICOLA: Oh, on the --
8 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I'm going to put
9 this back up on the Elmo and....
12 BY MR. SANGER:
13 Q. Okay. It's your understanding that this
14 reflects telephone calls made from an airplane that
15 are eventually connected through to some landline
16 somewhere, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And when I say “landline,” it could be
19 connected to a cell phone ultimately; is that right?
20 A. It would still go through a landline to a
21 cell phone. I mean, it goes out the ground station,
22 however the ground station sends it out.
23 Q. When you're talking about Troy, Alabama,
24 there's some ground station there, and essentially
25 you're now hooked up with the phone system that we
26 would hook into if we pick up the kind of phone we
27 pick up in the courtroom, right?
28 A. Right. 7859
1 Q. And wherever that phone system then directs
2 the call is the ultimate destination, right?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. All right. And so just so we're all clear,
5 you got two lines per call, right?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And the one line shows the number that's
8 called -- actually both lines show the number that's
9 called, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And then the second line shows the charge to
12 the airline; is that right?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Now, first of all, the billing goes to a
15 particular airplane or a particular company?
16 A. Particular company.
17 Q. And so the company that owns the airplane
18 will get the bill?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Can you tell which airplane that
21 belongs to that company was the source of the
22 telephone call?
23 A. No, I cannot.
24 Q. So if an airplane -- private charter
25 airplane company might have several planes, and
26 their phone bill will not distinguish between one
27 airplane and another; is that correct?
28 A. It will distinguish between one phone number 7860
1 and another, but not one airplane and another.
2 Q. All right. And on the airplane, you have no
3 idea how big these airplanes are; is that true?
4 A. They're private aircraft. I'm -- I would
5 assume like a jet or something, but I do not know,
7 Q. Yeah. So you're making some assumptions,
8 but you don't know how many people, for instance,
9 would be on the airplane, right?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And you have no way of determining what
12 person on the airplane made the call, correct?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. So let's assume hypothetically that an
15 airplane had two pilots, 11 passengers, and a crew
16 member. Assume that as a hypothetical. Of those
17 14 people, would you have any way to determine from
18 your records who made these phone calls?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Now, I do note that there are some phone
21 calls, a number of them that are -- if we look at
22 the exhibit, and this is Exhibit 850, I believe; is
23 that correct? You have the actual exhibit in front
24 of you.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And what's on the board is a copy of the
27 same exhibit?
28 A. Yes. 7861
1 Q. So if we look up at the top there where it
2 says, “Minute,” or “M-I-N” --
3 A. Uh-huh, yes.
4 Q. -- what is the minimum unit of time that
5 will be recorded on your bill?
6 A. The minimum is -- you'll see there's a
7 couple that are short-term charges that are 20 to 30
8 seconds. But the minimum usually is 30 seconds.
9 But 20 seconds on.
10 Q. Okay. So on this particular bill, the
11 minimum that we see on that page -- and I'm taking
12 this off so I can see it up close. The minimum
13 charge -- or, I'm sorry, the minimum recorded in the
14 columns on this exhibit is one minute; is that
16 A. Right. So it rounds up to a minute.
17 Q. All right. So if there's a shorter call,
18 it's still going to show up as one minute on the --
19 in that column there; is that correct?
20 A. Anything over 30 seconds will.
21 Q. And you also, from this bill, do not know if
22 two people were actually able to talk to each
23 another during these phone calls; is that correct?
24 A. It will connect. If it doesn't connect, it
25 doesn't register.
26 Q. Okay. It connects to another phone, right?
27 A. Right.
28 Q. Now, this is basically a cell phone in the 7862
1 air, right?
2 A. Similar to a cell phone.
3 Q. And when you're flying and using one of
4 these phones, you have to basically hit the repeater
5 down on the ground in order to make a connection,
7 Do you know what I mean, or am I using the
8 wrong word?
9 A. If you can, yeah, rephrase that for me.
10 Q. Well, you said it's like a cell phone in the
12 A. Right.
13 Q. So while you're flying along, your signal
14 from the cell phone in the air has to hit --
15 A. A ground station.
16 Q. -- the ground station.
17 And that's called a repeater, is it not, or
18 do you know? Or a cell site?
19 A. I have no idea.
20 Q. Okay. Whatever it's called, you got to hit
21 that thing, otherwise it doesn't work, right?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. And when you hit it, there are places where
24 you will -- you'll hit it and you'll make a
25 connection, but you will not have a clear enough
26 connection to actually talk; is that correct?
27 A. There's that possibility, yes.
28 Q. So it's, in that sense, like a cell phone; 7863
1 that you can have bad reception, and you can be
2 saying, “Can you hear me now?” And somebody on the
3 other side is saying, “What?” Right?
4 A. True.
5 Q. Okay. So you do not know, from all these
6 phone calls, how many actual conversations occurred
7 between human beings where they could hear each
8 other and communicate; is that correct?
9 A. No.
10 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you very much.
11 No further questions, Your Honor.
13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. NICOLA:
15 Q. You mentioned that sometimes the airline
16 charges will be together and you need to look at the
17 actual time of a call that goes out?
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 MR. NICOLA: If I could have the Elmo just
20 one more time, Your Honor.
21 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
22 MR. NICOLA: I think we have an example
23 here, line --
24 THE COURT: I'm going to break now for the
26 (To the jury) Go ahead and take your
28 MR. NICOLA: Oh, the motion. 7864
1 THE COURT: You may step down.
2 MR. NICOLA: Step down.
3 THE COURT: (To the audience) All right.
4 Please remain seated. There's a motion that's going
5 to be made.
6 All right, Counsel. Go ahead. Do you want
7 to make your motion?
8 MR. SANGER: Yeah. (Indicating.)
9 THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry.
11 (The following proceedings were held in
12 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, would you like
16 the witness to leave the courtroom?
17 THE COURT: No. She may well want to.
18 She's free to do so, but she doesn't -- she's not
20 MR. NICOLA: Are we back in session at
21 11:45, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: At the end of our break, yes.
23 Go ahead.
24 MR. SANGER: On behalf of Mr. Jackson, we
25 are making a motion for mistrial based on
26 prosecutorial misconduct. And the grounds for that
27 motion for mistrial are that the Court ruled, as
28 Your Honor reminded me, at a 402 motion that we 7865
1 would not be allowed to play this tape in its -- in
2 the prosecution's case-in-chief.
3 THE COURT: Correct.
4 MR. SANGER: I made another motion
5 contemporaneous in time, having felt that it was
6 appropriate to do so. The Court summarily, and I
7 think clearly, denied the motion.
8 THE COURT: And correctly. No, all right, go
11 THE COURT: You don't have to say that.
12 MR. SANGER: I'm going to assert my Fifth
13 Amendment rights on that.
14 I said that humorously, for the record.
15 THE COURT: I took it humorously, for the
17 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
18 The serious part here, though, is that Mr.
19 Auchincloss deliberately overreached. And the harm
20 is, that having -- the Court having made such a
21 clear ruling, he attempted to gain benefit from the
22 Court's ruling that he wasn't entitled to.
23 Your Honor said we couldn't go into it, so
24 he got up and went into it, and that was clearly
25 inappropriate to start with. And it seemed
26 calculated and intentional. Now, I can't read his
27 mind. But I can't figure out how he could have
28 missed that, after we just had a hearing on it. 7866
1 Your Honor made an admonition -- and
2 unfortunately my Livenote is not hooked up today, so
3 I can't quote verbatim, but Your Honor has it. You
4 gave an admonition to Mr. Auchincloss not to do
5 that, and you explained to him exactly why; that you
6 had just ruled, and it's not appropriate for him to
7 go into that same area. He persisted and asked at
8 least two more direct questions that just flew right
9 in the face of the Court's ruling.
10 And the questions were not innocent
11 questions that were going around to try to get to
12 something else. They were even more focused, to
13 telegraph to the jury exactly what he wanted them to
14 hear. And he wanted them to hear that, in his
15 opinion, the issue with regard to, as I think he
16 said, something like sleeping with boys was not one
17 of those areas that this witness felt was unfairly
19 And he knew that he could get away with that
20 because the Court was, at the very least, going to
21 sustain the objection. We already couldn't go into
22 it. There's nothing we could do about it. The bell
23 has been rung, and this jury heard it.
24 I think the harm is particularly
25 significant, because it's been our position that
26 clearly those statements were the statements that
27 were grossly misrepresented by Mr. Bashir in the way
28 he edited the film. 7867
1 So as a result of that, a tremendous amount
2 of prejudice has occurred. It was deliberate on the
3 part of the prosecutor. I say that, and that's my
4 interpretation of what I saw. I don't think there's
5 another reasonable interpretation. It's -- there's
6 no other remedy, other than to grant a mistrial and
7 say this is prosecutorial misconduct. It shouldn't
8 have been done. As a result of their willful
9 misconduct, a mistrial has to be granted. And
10 that's our motion.
11 If the Court denies that, then we would of
12 course ask the Court to entertain some other remedy
13 which I'd ask to be heard on later, but I'm making a
14 motion for mistrial, and I think it should be
16 Thank you.
17 THE COURT: Counsel?
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: To begin with, the
19 questions that I was asking this witness about did
20 not focus upon the material that was produced in the
21 video, “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See.”
22 And those questions were not designed and obviously
23 were not intended to ask him about what was on that
24 final production.
25 My question went directly to an issue that
26 defense counsel spent five pages questioning this
27 witness about on cross-examination yesterday. And I
28 have a couple of those items highlighted, and if the 7868
1 Court would allow me, I'd like to project them from
2 the official transcripts.
3 THE COURT: Just read them to me.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. First of all,
5 Your Honor, counsel started by asking the question
6 of this witness:
7 “And the reason you were being interviewed
8 by Brad Lachman Productions was because the
9 intention was to have some of those parts that
10 you had filmed appear in the rebuttal video,
12 And I objected. I say, “I'm going to
13 object. Relevancy and beyond the scope.
14 “Mr. Mesereau: I believe that he opened the
15 entire door, Your Honor.
16 “The Court: The objection is overruled.
17 “Mr. Mesereau: In fact, the title of that
18 documentary on television was, “The Michael
19 Jackson Interview: .The Footage You Were Never
20 Meant To See,' right?”
21 We go on. He questions him extensively
22 about “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See,”
23 including charities and Mr. Bashir's remarks.
24 We get to an area here that's particularly
25 interesting in which counsel says:
26 “And your belief at that time was that
27 Mr. Bashir had presented a very distorted view of
28 that interview with Mr. Jackson, correct? 7869
1 “Mr. Auchincloss: Objection; calls for a
3 “Mr. Mesereau: State of mind, Your Honor.
4 “Mr. Auchincloss: Relevance.
5 “The Court: Overruled.”
6 Now, this is an area that was clearly gone
7 into by the defense, and my questions went directly
8 to that question that defense counsel asked of this
9 witness, that the -- that Martin Bashir presented a
10 very distorted view, and my questions went directly
11 to those remarks.
12 THE COURT: You went from the general
13 concept, which I allowed, to the specifics, which I
14 was not allowing.
15 The motion for a mistrial is denied.
16 All right. We'll take our break.
17 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, just -- if I may --
18 THE COURT: I'll let you address the issue of
19 alternative remedies. I thought you said you wanted
20 to do that later.
21 MR. SANGER: Well, later. Whenever you
23 THE COURT: I will. I'll let you do that.
24 MR. SANGER: Okay.
25 (Recess taken.)
26 MR. MESEREAU: I don't think Mr. Sanger is
27 here, Your Honor. I think he was intending to
28 present some potential remedies to the Court. 7870