1 I think that’s what would happen.
2 Q. Well, you would have to follow certain civil
3 procedures in civil court, but essentially, Mr.
4 Feldman, you could take the judgment of conviction,
5 you could walk into civil court, you could lodge it
6 with the court, you could ask a judge to determine
7 that liability has been established, true?
8 A. Yes. You get these problems with appeals,
9 and the impact of appeals, and it’s a complicated
10 thing, but the answer is ultimately yes.
11 Q. And one of the reasons for that is that the
12 burden of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a
13 reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a civil
14 case is preponderance of the evidence, and if you
15 have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you
16 automatically have proof by a preponderance of the
17 evidence, as you would need to have it in civil
18 court, true?
19 A. That’s the theory.
20 Q. Well, that’s correct, right?
21 A. Yeah, that’s the theory behind it.
22 Q. All right. Now, let’s assume there was a
23 conviction in this case and that Mr. Jackson were
24 convicted of felony child molestation, and let’s
25 assume that Gavin and Star then decided, “We want to
26 file a civil suit for millions of dollars in civil
27 court,” okay?
28 A. Yeah. 4529
1 Q. On similar alleged facts. And let’s assume
2 the process you’ve just identified, where you walk
3 into civil court, you follow rules, and you
4 essentially establish to a civil court judge that
5 liability exists.
6 If that were to happen, whoever the civil
7 lawyer was representing the Arvizos would have
8 avoided costs of investigation, experts,
9 depositions, filing fees, messenger fees, all sorts
10 of legal fees, right?
11 A. Well, look, I don’t want to open that
12 hypothetical. You’d have to be nuts to do that,
13 what you’re saying, as a civil lawyer.
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. You’d have to be nuts.
16 Q. Sir, did you tell a grand jury in Santa
17 Barbara County that you had incurred tremendous
18 costs of expenses during your lawsuit against Mr.
19 Jackson in 1993?
20 A. I did. And it was true.
21 Q. And if liability were established through a
22 criminal conviction, a civil litigator could avoid
23 most of those costs, correct?
24 A. Some of those costs. Not most. Some. I
25 mean, certainly some you would avoid.
26 Q. You could avoid of lot of investigative
27 costs, correct?
28 A. You know, it’s -- can I -- 4530
1 Q. Just answer my question, if you would,
2 please.
3 A. I can’t answer it that way. If I could
4 explain to you why. You know, I’ll tell you why I
5 can’t, and you can ask me the next question and you
6 can get to the answer.
7 Q. Is your answer you would not avoid
8 investigative costs?
9 A. No, it’s the amount of investigative costs
10 we’re talking about.
11 Q. Okay. Did you tell the jury today that when
12 you were in front of the grand jury you mentioned
13 the enormous amount of expenses and legal fees you
14 had incurred in 1993 litigating that case until it
15 settled?
16 MR. SNEDDON: Object. Asked and answered,
17 Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: I’m not -- I’ll sustain the
19 objection if you’re asking him what he previously
20 testified to --
21 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
22 THE COURT: -- today. I mean, you’re saying,
23 “What did you just testify to on direct?”
24 MR. MESEREAU: I couldn’t -- to be honest,
25 Your Honor, I couldn’t tell if he had actually
26 addressed that issue. It’s a long answer.
27 THE WITNESS: I’m happy to -- the legal fees
28 wouldn’t change. The costs would change. We’re 4531
1 just debating how much those costs change. But the
2 costs would change. The legal fees would be the
3 same. If you’re on a contingent fee, you don’t get
4 paid any more if you work a lot or work a little.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But if you were to gauge
6 your legal fees at hours, sir, and you didn’t have
7 to prove liability, you would save a tremendous
8 amount in legal fees, wouldn’t you?
9 A. Well, sir, I keep trying to tell you, that
10 ain’t the way it works, and you want to keep saying
11 it is. Now, I can tell you how it works, and then
12 you can get to what you want to get.
13 Q. If you had to try a civil case on liability,
14 Mr. Feldman, it could go months, couldn’t it?
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. If you have a judgment of felony conviction
17 in a criminal case and you walk into civil court and
18 establish it, you don’t have a trial in civil court
19 for months on liability, correct?
20 A. You have to --
21 Q. Yes or no?
22 A. You could, if you -- you know, you could. I
23 can’t answer it the way you want me to answer. I’m
24 happy to explain it to you, and maybe we can get to
25 the answer.
26 Q. Would a judgment of felony conviction in
27 criminal court possibly eliminate a trial on
28 liability in civil court for similarly alleged 4532
1 facts? Yes or no.
2 A. Do you count punitive damages in
3 “liability,” or not?
4 Q. Sir, I’m asking you to answer my question.
5 A. Well, I can’t -- I can’t answer it this way.
6 Liability has a lot of aspects to it, sir, and one
7 of the things is the finding of malice.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. And that’s separate from what you’re talking
10 about.
11 Q. In other words, if you could avoid the
12 liability phase of a civil case, you wouldn’t save
13 some time in legal fees?
14 A. Of course you would save some time, and you
15 would save some money. We’re just talking about how
16 much. You keep saying it’s -- there’s -- it would
17 be a total saving, and I’m trying to explain to you
18 that’s not what would happen. It wouldn’t go down
19 that way.
20 Q. You wouldn’t have to prove liability,
21 because it would have been proven in a criminal
22 court, correct, or not?
23 A. You’d have to prove malice, though.
24 Q. Correct or not, Mr. Feldman?
25 A. Well, how many times can I go through this
26 with you?
27 Q. Are you saying if you get a judgment of
28 conviction in criminal court for felony child 4533
1 molestation and you then walk into civil court with
2 civil allegations based on the same facts, you still
3 have to establish liability? Is that what you’re
4 saying?
5 A. Not liability as to that aspect. But for
6 malice, you would still have to prove it.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Now, what is the statute
8 of limitations for civil fraud?
9 A. Civil fraud?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Three years from discovery.
12 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Attorney William
13 Dickerman wrote letters on behalf of Janet Arvizo
14 to Attorney Mark Geragos alleging fraud?
15 A. Not sitting here. I thought it was over
16 their belongings, or something, that he wrote
17 letters.
18 Q. You thought the letters were only about
19 belongings?
20 A. You know what? I don’t know. I’m guessing.
21 Show me the letters and maybe it will refresh my
22 memory. I remember there was letters to Mark
23 Geragos, and that’s what was significant to me.
24 What was in them, I can’t remember, unless you show
25 me the letters.
26 Q. Do you recall at some point during your
27 relationship with Prosecutor Sneddon, Mr. Sneddon
28 spoke to the media and said, “If they’re going to 4534
1 sue, I hope they don’t do it until after the
2 criminal case is done”?
3 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the
4 word “relationship.”
5 THE WITNESS: I don’t even remember it
6 happening.
7 THE COURT: Just a moment.
8 You’re asking him what Mr. Sneddon said, if
9 he --
10 MR. MESEREAU: If he was aware of it.
11 THE COURT: That’s not how you phrased it.
12 MR. SNEDDON: No.
13 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, Prosecutor
15 Sneddon asked you about a technical term in civil
16 litigation called “confession of judgment”?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Right?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Now, in the civil case where you represented
21 Mr. Chandler and his parents against Mr. Jackson,
22 there was a cross-complaint, was there not?
23 A. There was?
24 Q. Mr. Jackson sued for extortion, didn’t he?
25 A. I don’t know. I know he claimed -- I know
26 that his investigator, Mr. Pellicano, claimed
27 extortion.
28 Q. You don’t recall? 4535
1 A. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I just
2 don’t recall.
3 Q. Okay. And typically, in a settlement like
4 the one described by Prosecutor Sneddon, if someone
5 agrees to pay money to the other side, the other
6 side would like the payment of that money secured by
7 what is called a confession of judgment, correct?
8 A. That’s right. When it’s paid over time,
9 that’s correct.
10 Q. Okay. And the purpose of a confession of
11 judgment is that if the paying party stops paying,
12 you can run into civil court and obtain what is
13 called a certified judgment so you can then collect
14 on their assets?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Right?
17 A. That’s right.
18 Q. And if you didn’t have that confession of
19 judgment, your only remedy would be to then file
20 another lawsuit for breach of contract, correct?
21 A. That’s right.
22 Q. So what Mr. Sneddon was talking to you about
23 was ways that you have to collect money that you’re
24 owed in a settlement, true?
25 A. I don’t know what he was talking to me
26 about. He asked me questions, and I answered the
27 best I could. What you’ve said is true, and that’s
28 what I thought I just said. 4536
1 Q. And typically in a civil settlement, and
2 you’ve done many of them, obviously, there is a
3 provision in the settlement agreement which says
4 that neither side admits liability, or words to that
5 effect, correct?
6 A. Generally. Not every one, but generally
7 that’s true.
8 Q. And essentially what that means is neither
9 side admits wrongdoing, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And the confession of judgment has nothing
12 to do with an admission of wrongdoing or liability?
13 A. Well, it would have the same impact if you
14 had to file it. It would be a judgment for that
15 amount. I don’t know what impact it’s going to
16 later be. I’ve never handled a case where you filed
17 a confession of judgment, and then somebody tried to
18 use that in another case to say you admitted
19 something. I frankly don’t know the answer.
20 Q. It’s never used to say someone admitted
21 something. It’s simply used to collect the money
22 you’re owed, right?
23 A. Sir, I just told you, I’ve never researched
24 that issue, and -- so you can’t -- you got the wrong
25 person. I’ve never had someone where I had to go
26 use it.
27 I didn’t have to use it with Mr. Jackson, so
28 I can’t tell you the answer. I know it’s -- it 4537
1 is -- my concern was the making sure, if the money
2 wasn’t paid by Mr. Jackson, we could go into court
3 and start seizing his assets. That didn’t happen.
4 He paid. It never happened.
5 Q. Would you agree that in many civil
6 settlements of civil cases, you will have both the
7 provision that says neither side admits wrongdoing
8 or liability as well as a confession of judgment?
9 A. It’s rare you get a confession of judgment.
10 It is very -- typical that you get neither party
11 admits wrongdoing in a release. It’s typical. You
12 don’t need the confession, because you usually
13 exchange the release and the money at the same time.
14 So there isn’t that issue.
15 Q. But you need a confession of judgment if you
16 want to secure payments to be made in the future,
17 right?
18 A. That you need. That’s right. And that’s
19 what we got.
20 Q. And if payments are to be made in the future
21 by any settling party, you would almost be foolish
22 not to have a confession of judgment, correct?
23 A. I don’t know. We’ll let somebody else worry
24 about who’s foolish. We did it. We thought it was
25 the appropriate thing. We demanded it. We got it.
26 Q. Please answer my question, Mr. Feldman.
27 A. I don’t know what’s foolish for lawyers to
28 do. I mean, I haven’t thought about it. It’s a 4538
1 good practice - I did it - to get it. I mean, I
2 demand to get it for my clients. That’s all I can
3 tell you.
4 Q. You demand to get it for your clients
5 because if payments were to stop, you would have a
6 faster way --
7 A. Sure.
8 Q. -- to obtain that value than you would if
9 you had to sue for breach of a settlement agreement,
10 right?
11 A. Yes. That’s what I think I’m saying.
12 Q. And when you have your clients get a
13 confession of judgment in a settlement agreement in
14 a civil case, typically there also is a provision
15 where neither side admits any wrongdoing to each
16 other, right?
17 A. The settlement agreement will say that,
18 that’s correct.
19 Q. And that’s what you had in 1993 in the
20 Chandler case, correct?
21 A. We had the settlement language that said
22 that, and we had a confession of judgment.
23 Q. You had settlement language that said
24 neither side admits wrongdoing to the other, and you
25 also had the confession of judgment you just
26 described, true?
27 A. True.
28 Q. Now, did I hear you say, in response to the 4539
1 prosecutor’s questions, you stopped representing
2 Janet Arvizo in the fall of 2003?
3 A. The first time.
4 Q. Pardon me?
5 A. The first time.
6 Q. That’s the first time you stopped?
7 A. That’s the first time I stopped.
8 Q. Okay. Now, as I look at pleadings filed by
9 your law firm in this case, I count no less than
10 four lawyers representing the Arvizos well into
11 2005, correct?
12 A. That’s why I answered the question the way I
13 did. I said that’s the first time that I terminated
14 the relationship with Ms. Arvizo.
15 Q. And in 2005, you have represented the
16 Arvizos in documents filed in this particular
17 criminal case, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. A lawyer named Julian Brew from your firm
20 has also represented the Arvizos in documents filed
21 in this criminal case in 2005, correct?
22 A. Well, my law firm, because of me, has done
23 this for the -- Miss Arvizo, we’ve done it for her
24 parents, we’ve -- and for the newborn baby. I think
25 those are the three people. But I may be wrong.
26 Q. Let me rephrase the question.
27 A. Mr. Brew works for me. I mean, I don’t want
28 to demean him. I mean, he works with me. 4540
1 Q. Mr. Brew is a lawyer with your law firm,
2 correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. He has represented the Arvizos in the year
5 2005, correct?
6 A. The law firm has represented her, and he’s
7 one of the people, to be technical.
8 Q. Sir, you work for or your partner with
9 approximately a 600-person law firm, correct?
10 A. He’s one of the lawyers that worked on this
11 case. That’s what I said.
12 Q. That’s Julian Brew, correct?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. A lawyer named Theodore Maya has also worked
15 for the Arvizos in the year 2005 in this case, true?
16 A. True.
17 Q. A lawyer named Robert Turner has also worked
18 for the Arvizos --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- in this case, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Those are four lawyers with your 600-plus
23 law firm, true?
24 A. True.
25 THE COURT: All right. It’s break time.
26 (Recess taken.)
27 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
28 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor. 4541
1 Q. Mr. Feldman, you’ve testified that you had
2 filed, as a lawyer for the Arvizos, a Notice of
3 Claim against Los Angeles County, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And the purpose of filing that notice of
6 claim was to preserve the right to sue in the future
7 if you desire to, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And you told the jury that at this point, in
10 your opinion, Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo still
11 have time to file a lawsuit against Los Angeles
12 County, correct?
13 A. I believe that’s right.
14 Q. The lawsuit you’re referring to, if it ever
15 occurred, would be separate and apart, or could be
16 separate and apart from any lawsuit against Mr.
17 Jackson in the future, true?
18 A. I think it would have to be separate and
19 apart. I don’t think you could join the two. But
20 it would be -- I think the simple question is -- the
21 simple answer is yes.
22 Q. And as we speak, then, those two young men
23 still have a right to sue Mr. Jackson, and they
24 still have a right to sue Los Angeles County in a
25 separate action, true?
26 A. True.
27 Q. And by filing your Notice of Claim, you
28 preserved that right for them, true? 4542
1 A. That’s what I did. Against the county.
2 Q. Against the County of Los Angeles?
3 A. Yeah. It had nothing to do with Mr.
4 Jackson.
5 Q. Okay. Now, you’ve indicated you know --
6 excuse me, let me rephrase that.
7 How long have you known Attorney William
8 Dickerman?
9 A. Well, certainly since 2003. He tells me
10 that he brought a case to me that I rejected, and I
11 can’t tell you when that happened. I sort of
12 vaguely remember it happening, but I can’t place it.
13 I never met him till he walked into my office. I
14 think that’s the first time I ever saw him.
15 Q. Did you testify this morning that you have
16 or had a referral arrangement with him with respect
17 to the Arvizos?
18 A. You know, loosely. I think there was an
19 agreement with the Arvizos that he was a party to.
20 You need the consent -- under the State Bar rules,
21 you have to have a client’s consent to have -- and
22 he was in that agreement, and exactly what we said
23 about him I don’t know. But I know he expected, if
24 there was money, to get money for -- from me, from
25 her, I don’t know where. I can’t remember the
26 details of it, but --
27 Q. Do you recall him having what is called a
28 joint legal services agreement with you? 4543
1 A. Vis-a-vis the Arvizos?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. He could have. I mean, I don’t know what he
4 had. He had -- he wanted to be involved if I was
5 going to bring a case. And how those financial
6 terms were worked out with him, I don’t know. And
7 what -- he was -- he wanted to be involved with the
8 family, because he said he had this great
9 relationship with the family, so I was there to do
10 the legal work, and it never went anyplace.
11 Q. He also wanted money, true?
12 A. He wanted money, I’m sure of that. I’m sure
13 of that.
14 Q. You had a lot of communications with him
15 after he referred the Arvizos to you, true?
16 A. Well, we certainly had some. I don’t know
17 about “a lot.” I certainly had some with him.
18 Q. There were faxes and letters going back and
19 forth from his office to you for many months after
20 he referred the Arvizos to you, right?
21 A. Could be. We certainly were trying to get
22 his file and what he had in his file from the time
23 he had the case till the time we were done with it
24 initially.
25 Q. And just to clarify what you just said, are
26 you saying you’re not sure if Attorney William
27 Dickerman had a legal services agreement with you?
28 A. What do you mean by “a legal services 4544
1 agreement”?
2 Q. Well, let me get --
3 A. That I pay him to do legal services for me?
4 Q. He does legal work with you for the Arvizos.
5 A. I don’t know -- is there something I’m
6 missing about what I’m saying and you’re asking?
7 Q. I don’t think so.
8 A. I thought he wanted to get paid for the work
9 he thought I would let him do in the Arvizo case.
10 If I took the Arvizo case - I don’t want to break
11 his heart - he wasn’t going to do very much work if
12 I was the lawyer on the case, but he wanted to get
13 paid. That’s the point. And how we memorialized
14 that, I don’t remember. It was in the agreement,
15 and she consented to however we memorialized what he
16 would get if there was money to be had.
17 Q. But Prosecutor Sneddon asked you questions
18 about a referral agreement between lawyers, correct?
19 A. He asked me questions about a referral fee,
20 yes.
21 Q. And what you’re describing now is not a
22 simple referral fee arrangement, true?
23 A. Well, I’m describing -- I don’t remember the
24 way this worked. If you showed it to me, I could.
25 But I don’t think it mattered. I was going to be
26 the lead lawyer, and he was -- I guess if we gave
27 him a task to do, he would do it.
28 Q. And just to clarify things, that’s something 4545
1 different from a strict referral fee arrangement,
2 true?
3 A. It can or cannot be, frankly. You can do it
4 both ways. I mean, I don’t think the form it
5 takes -- I think what’s important is that the two
6 lawyers have to decide how they are going to divide
7 fees, and on what basis, and that the -- the most
8 important thing is the client consents to whatever
9 the arrangement is.
10 Q. And your typical referral fee arrangement
11 involves one lawyer referring a case to another
12 lawyer, and if the lawyer who gets the case makes
13 any money on it, that lawyer gives a percentage to
14 the lawyer that referred the case to him or her,
15 correct?
16 A. That certainly happens frequently.
17 Q. That’s your typical referral arrangement,
18 isn’t it?
19 A. That was at one time my typical -- are you
20 asking me now personally, or just in general?
21 Q. Just generally speaking.
22 A. Generally, I think that is the way lawyers
23 get a case. They send it to somebody else and they
24 get a referral fee, and they don’t have to do any
25 work.
26 Q. Now, in Los Angeles County, you’re known as
27 one of the most successful plaintiffs’ lawyers,
28 correct? 4546
1 A. Say it again for the press. I want to --
2 that’s the nicest thing anybody’s said about me in
3 this case.
4 Q. Is that true?
5 A. I think so.
6 Q. You’ve had numerous multi-million-dollar
7 awards that you have obtained for your clients,
8 correct?
9 A. I have.
10 Q. You have numerous multi-million-dollar
11 settlements you’ve obtained for your clients,
12 correct?
13 A. I have.
14 Q. And in most of those situations, you had
15 what is called a contingency fee arrangement,
16 correct?
17 A. Oh, I’m sure. Yeah. Over the life of my
18 legal career, that’s absolutely right.
19 Q. And generally speaking, in a contingency fee
20 arrangement, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in these cases,
21 namely you, get a percentage of whatever is
22 recovered for the client, true?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in a strict contingency fee arrangement,
25 if the lawyer doesn’t obtain any money for the
26 client, the lawyer might not get paid anything,
27 correct?
28 A. Correct. 4547
1 Q. So there’s an incentive for that lawyer to
2 get as big a recovery as possible, because the
3 bigger the recovery for the client, the bigger the
4 fee for the lawyer, correct?
5 A. That’s the theory.
6 Q. And you have a fairly standard contingency
7 fee arrangement that you’ve used through the years,
8 correct?
9 A. I -- I have.
10 Q. In the Chandler case, the parents, who
11 you’ve described as divorced, both signed your fee
12 agreement, true?
13 A. They did. Well, I mean, you’re saying that.
14 I -- it looks like you’re looking at something. If
15 you tell me -- I hope they did. I don’t remember.
16 Q. Would it refresh your --
17 A. But it would have been smart on my part to
18 get both of them to sign it.
19 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if you
20 looked at your fee agreement?
21 A. Sure.
22 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: Is that all of it?
25 MR. MESEREAU: (Nods head up and down.)
26 Q. Mr. Feldman, have you had a chance to look
27 at that fee agreement?
28 A. I have. 4548
1 Q. Is it true that June Chandler and Evan
2 Chandler signed that agreement?
3 A. They did.
4 Q. They retained your services, correct?
5 A. They did on behalf of their son. I --
6 Q. Now, to your knowledge, the father had been
7 divorced from the mother since 1986, correct?
8 A. I don’t know the date, but they were -- the
9 parents were divorced. The father was remarried.
10 Q. The mother remarried also, true?
11 A. Yeah, I think that is right. Except I think
12 they were separated at the time. The mother was
13 separated from her husband. She could have been
14 divorced, but she did -- I think she remarried.
15 Q. Now, the father had not only been divorced
16 for a number of years from the mother, he had given
17 up all custody to the mother at that time, true?
18 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as
19 irrelevant.
20 MR. MESEREAU: I believe the prosecutor
21 raised these issues, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: What’s the relevancy?
23 MR. MESEREAU: Who he’s really representing,
24 and what their influence is on the litigation, what
25 their influence is on the settlement and what their
26 motives are, and what example it sets to everyone
27 else.
28 THE COURT: All right. The objection is 4549
1 sustained.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You represented both
3 parents on behalf of the minor, Mr. Chandler,
4 correct?
5 A. My memory is both parents were the guardian
6 ad litems for the minor. I don’t remember if --
7 representing the parents separately and apart in a
8 separate lawsuit against anybody. I -- I think we
9 only had them as guardian ad litems because the
10 young minor can’t bring a lawsuit. It has to be
11 done through someone. And originally it was done
12 through the parents and then ultimately through a
13 judge, retired judge became the guardian.
14 Q. And you had in that particular case ethical
15 obligations to both the parents and the minor in
16 your representation, true?
17 A. I suspect at some level there was -- I
18 certainly had an attorney-client privilege with
19 them.
20 Q. Well, without going into the amount of any
21 settlement, isn’t it true that both parents wanted
22 money for themselves as well?
23 A. They didn’t want it. The defense wanted
24 them to have it, and they accepted it, because the
25 defendant -- that was the defendant’s idea.
26 Q. Did the parents -- without going into the
27 amounts --
28 A. Sure. 4550
1 Q. -- did the parents for Mr. Chandler accept
2 money in the settlement?
3 A. They did accept money. That’s a fair
4 statement.
5 Q. Okay. That would include a father who
6 didn’t even have the legal right to see the child,
7 right?
8 A. I’m not sure that’s right, you know, because
9 he had the child. At that time that I came in the
10 case, the child was living with the father, so you
11 may be right in some -- there may be an order out
12 there, but at the time I came in the case, the
13 father -- the boy lived with his dad and his dad’s
14 wife, as I recall.
15 Q. Okay. Now, at some point -- excuse me, let
16 me rephrase that. The mother’s name is June
17 Chandler, correct?
18 A. Correct. Or at least it was.
19 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, has it changed?
20 A. No. But I don’t know.
21 Q. Okay. At some point she married someone
22 named David Schwartz, correct?
23 A. Sometime she married David Schwartz.
24 Q. When you were representing June Chandler,
25 she was either married to or living with David
26 Schwartz, true?
27 A. I’m not sure, you know, what the situation
28 was. I don’t think -- their relationship was 4551
1 strained, I can tell you that --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- at that point in time. I have a
4 recollection he wasn’t living in the house at the
5 time I met her, but there was still a relationship,
6 because I can picture him in my office with her,
7 with Evan Chandler, and with Evan Chandler’s wife,
8 and Jordie.
9 Q. Now, at some point when it became clear that
10 you were seeking money from Mr. Jackson, David
11 Schwartz then filed his own suit against Mr.
12 Jackson, right?
13 A. I think that’s right. I think he did. I
14 don’t know when that happened, but now that you
15 mentioned -- not by me. I wasn’t -- somebody else.
16 Q. And you were in communication with that
17 attorney representing David Schwartz, correct?
18 A. Who was the lawyer? I don’t remember. Who
19 was the lawyer in that --
20 Q. I’m questioning you. So I’m just asking
21 you.
22 A. Oh, you don’t want to answer my questions.
23 It’s not so much fun. Okay.
24 Q. Do you recall that June Chandler’s
25 ex-husband then tried to sue Michael Jackson as
26 well?
27 A. I wouldn’t have remembered it, but now that
28 you’ve said it, I kind of remember that he did. 4552
1 And I almost remember the name of the lawyer who had
2 it, because he was a guy I used to litigate against.
3 But I may be wrong.
4 Q. In response to Prosecutor Sneddon’s
5 questions, you indicated that the case was referred
6 to you by a lawyer for the Chandler family, correct?
7 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object, Your
8 Honor.
9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 MR. SNEDDON: It’s vague as to what case.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase it. If it’s
12 vague, I’ll rephrase.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Regarding your
15 representation of Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Chandler, and
16 their son, did you say, in response to the
17 prosecutor’s questions, that that case was referred
18 to you by another lawyer for the family?
19 A. What I want to correct is, if you take the
20 “family” part out of it, I can answer it. Yes, it
21 was referred to me by a lawyer, but that lawyer who
22 referred it to me wasn’t representing the family,
23 per se.
24 Q. Was representing the father?
25 A. He was representing the father.
26 Q. His name was Barry Rothman, correct?
27 A. No, no, no, no. No.
28 Q. Who referred the case to you? 4553
1 A. The guy that referred to me was a criminal
2 defense lawyer, who was Bob Shapiro, who was
3 defending the father where these -- long before I
4 ever got in the case, there was these charges of
5 extortion going back and forth between the father
6 and the Jackson camp, and it was long before I got
7 in the case.
8 In that case there was a criminal defense
9 lawyer representing the father, and that criminal
10 defense lawyer brought the family to me. But he was
11 only representing the father, and he was only
12 representing him criminally.
13 Q. Okay. Now, and Robert Shapiro, of course,
14 is the Robert Shapiro who defended O.J. Simpson,
15 correct?
16 A. That’s correct.
17 Q. He was defending the father against claims
18 that the father had tried to extort money from Mr.
19 Jackson, correct?
20 A. Time out. I think that’s wrong. Let me go
21 back. He may have been the lawyer not for the
22 father, but for -- now I got -- I think he
23 represented Rothman, the lawyer, the lawyer who was
24 in the case before I ever got in the case. I think
25 he, too, was accused of extortion by someone on the
26 Jackson side.
27 Q. Okay.
28 A. And I think he -- one of them -- and I think 4554
1 Richard Hirsch, who was also a criminal defense
2 lawyer, represented the father, or -- that’s what I
3 think really happened. But somehow Shapiro and
4 Richard Hirsch, who are two criminal defense
5 lawyers, advised the family that they had the wrong
6 civil lawyer and they should come see me. And
7 that’s basically how I got there.
8 Q. They advised the family that Gloria Allred
9 was the wrong lawyer and they should come to you,
10 correct?
11 A. That’s what I understand.
12 Q. Okay. Now, there was a lawyer named Barry
13 Rothman involved, correct?
14 A. Before Gloria Allred.
15 Q. And Barry Rothman represented the father,
16 true?
17 A. Well, that’s a good question, who he
18 represented. I thought he -- he represented
19 probably the father and Jordie, I suspect. I mean,
20 it’s unclear to me, that whole deal.
21 Q. And Rothman is a lawyer that was accused of
22 extortion by people associated with Mr. Jackson as
23 well, correct?
24 A. I think both Rothman and Jackson -- I mean,
25 “Rothman and Jackson,” I’m sorry.
26 Rothman and Evan Chandler were accused of
27 extortion by the Jackson side. I don’t know who on
28 the Jackson side. 4555
1 Q. And Attorney Barry Rothman has since been
2 disbarred, correct?
3 A. I don’t know. Has he?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. I didn’t know him before, I don’t know him
6 now. And if he is, he is. I don’t know.
7 Q. So you don’t know him at all?
8 A. I don’t know Barry Rothman.
9 Q. You had various meetings with him during
10 this litigation, did you not?
11 A. No.
12 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as
13 immaterial and irrelevant.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 THE WITNESS: No, I -- well, it -- oh, it
16 was sustained, so....
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You typically enter into a
18 contingency fee agreement at the beginning of your
19 relationship with the client, correct?
20 A. At the early stages, yes.
21 Q. And the obvious purpose of that is, before
22 you want to do any work, you want to make sure
23 you’re going to get paid if certain things happen,
24 correct?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And before I go any further, you talked
27 about people you have represented in your practice.
28 You’ve also represented oil companies in recent 4556
1 years, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You’ve defended oil companies accused by the
4 State of California of overcharging consumers,
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you’ve represented them quite
8 successfully, haven’t you?
9 A. Well, that was one I represented, and it was
10 a very successful --
11 Q. It was a long trial, true?
12 A. It was a long trial.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. First time and only time in my life that I
15 ever did anything like that.
16 Q. Okay. And what year was that?
17 A. Let’s see. I defended them -- is this
18 important? I mean, I can’t remember. Let’s see, I
19 have enough trouble remembering who I’m representing
20 today.
21 Let’s see, I represented them, I want to say
22 late -- let’s see. Somewhere around late ‘90s,
23 2000. I mean, it could have been -- it’s one way or
24 the other. I can’t -- I was called in just to try
25 the lawsuit. And the case had been going on for
26 like 20 years, believe it or not, and -- and so I
27 just -- I can’t give it -- if it’s important, I
28 could figure it out, but it’s somewhere then. 4557
1 Q. Somewhere where?
2 A. Somewhere 1999, 2000, 2001. 1998. It --
3 you know, a few years ago this happened.
4 Q. Now, in the 1993 case, you retained Stanley
5 Katz, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. When had you first met Stanley Katz?
8 A. 1987.
9 Q. And that was in relation to a civil lawsuit?
10 A. No. I represented -- in fact, my wife
11 really represented -- and she wasn’t my wife then.
12 But I got called in to represent the -- a former
13 grandson of the President of the United States who
14 was being accused of physical abuse, him and his
15 wife. And I knew nothing about that kind of a
16 field, never done anything like that, but
17 ultimately, I did it.
18 And Stanley Katz, who I never knew of or
19 heard of, was an expert on the case. And if you ask
20 me what -- I don’t even remember what he testified
21 to, but he did testify. And it was a case downtown
22 in the criminal courts building.
23 Q. So this was a case where two adults were
24 accused of abusing a child?
25 A. Yeah, by the Department of Children
26 Services.
27 Q. And you and -- excuse me. You defended
28 the -- 4558
1 A. I defended --
2 Q. -- the parents, true?
3 A. The parents, yes.
4 Q. And you did it successfully, correct?
5 A. I did it successfully.
6 Q. Stanley Katz was an expert for you --
7 A. He was.
8 Q. -- right? So Stanley Katz knew that in this
9 particular case, adults were falsely charged with
10 sexual assault, correct?
11 A. No. Well, charged by the government, not by
12 the kid. The kids -- there was a baby, it was
13 one-year-old. He wasn’t accusing anybody of doing
14 anything. This was the county. The kid was abused,
15 there was no issue, Mr. Mesereau. The child was
16 abused. The question is, did the maid abuse the
17 child or did these parents abuse the child? And in
18 my view and in the Court’s view, the maid did it,
19 and we proved it.
20 Q. But just to get it in the record --
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. -- you, with the assistance of Stanley Katz,
23 defended two adults against false claims of abuse,
24 correct?
25 A. By the government, yes.
26 Q. Okay.
27 A. And I do remember what he sort of testified
28 to, if it’s important to you. 4559
1 Q. When were these false claims by the
2 government initially filed; do you know?
3 A. Yeah. I assume it’s 1987, because that’s
4 when I did it.
5 Q. How long were you involved in that case with
6 Stanley Katz?
7 A. Well, Stanley Katz testified. He was on the
8 stand and got off the stand. But, I mean, the case
9 was ongoing. And I think we tried it -- took like
10 five days or so to try it, six days. And that was
11 it.
12 Q. And was that tried in front of a judge or a
13 jury?
14 A. Judge.
15 Q. Was that in the administrative courts or the
16 criminal courts?
17 A. It was in the criminal court building. A
18 regular judge.
19 Q. Was it a criminal case where a jury was
20 waived?
21 A. No, it was a dependency case. They were
22 trying to take the children -- the child away from
23 these parents who had adopted this child.
24 Q. And it was just solely a judge who decided
25 the government’s claims of abuse were false against
26 your clients, right?
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. All right. Now, at some point you call 4560
1 Lieutenant Klapakis in this case, correct?
2 A. I called him or he called me.
3 Q. Okay. Do you know about when that was?
4 A. Yeah. About. I mean, it was in -- I’m
5 going to say around June of ‘03. I think he must
6 have called me. I don’t think I would have called
7 him. I never heard of him.
8 Q. It was approximately June 13th, 2003,
9 correct?
10 A. I wouldn’t disagree with that. I don’t have
11 an independent recollection of the day, but I
12 wouldn’t disagree about the time frame.
13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just
14 show you a police report?
15 A. If you tell me -- unless that day is
16 critical to you, I’ll look at it. I don’t know, is
17 it a police report of what he says about me?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. I don’t know. It’s up to you. It’s your
20 show. I don’t remember the precise day. I’d accept
21 it’s about that time. If you told me it was the
22 14th, I’d believe you. And if you told me it was
23 the 12th, I’d believe you.
24 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I --
25 A. You got to show me. I know that trick.
26 Show me the document and I’ll tell you if it
27 refreshes my recollection. How do I know unless you
28 show it? 4561
1 It doesn’t refresh my memory.
2 Q. Have you had a chance to look at the report?
3 A. I have.
4 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about the
5 day that you spoke to Lieutenant Klapakis?
6 A. I know I spoke to him. It doesn’t refresh
7 my recollection about the date. But as I said, I
8 can’t argue with that date.
9 Q. Had you spoken with Lieutenant Klapakis
10 before that date, to your knowledge?
11 A. You know, not by name. I mean, I don’t know
12 the person, to my knowledge. But I wouldn’t know
13 him if he’s in this courtroom.
14 Q. Have you met with anyone representing the
15 government to discuss your testimony in this case?
16 A. In a loose way. When you say -- I mean, the
17 government interviewed me about my testimony.
18 Q. When did anyone with the government last
19 interview you about your testimony?
20 A. I guess yesterday.
21 Q. And who was in the meeting?
22 A. Mr. Sneddon.
23 Q. Anyone else?
24 A. No.
25 Q. How long was the meeting?
26 A. Besides locking myself up in his office and
27 having to set the alarm because I couldn’t get out
28 because it was after hours. If you don’t count that 4562
1 time, it was probably an hour and a half, maybe two
2 hours, somewhere in that range.
3 Q. Was Mr. Sneddon alone?
4 A. Yeah, I thought I said that.
5 Q. There was no sheriff present?
6 A. No.
7 Q. No other prosecutor present?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. So you and Mr. Sneddon, for an hour
10 and a half yesterday, discussed your testimony,
11 right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you shown any documents by Mr. Sneddon
14 to help you prepare for your testimony?
15 A. No.
16 Q. At any time did any representative of the
17 government send you documents to review to prepare
18 you for your testimony?
19 A. They -- take out the prepare me for my --
20 they did send me my grand jury transcript.
21 Q. And did you review that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. When did you review it?
24 A. Within the last week or ten days. Two
25 weeks. Something like that. I mean, at some point
26 when I got it, I read it.
27 Q. When did you last talk to Stanley Katz?
28 A. He called me when he left here from 4563
1 testifying on the way home.
2 Q. Did you talk to him before that?
3 A. He called me while he was waiting up --
4 well, I don’t know where he was waiting, but he was
5 waiting to testify, and he called me. Or I think he
6 called me. He called me -- Dickerman called me and
7 he had a cell phone. They were both in some room
8 together. And I said, “Is Katz with you?” And he
9 said, “Yes.” And he had previously called me, and
10 so I returned his call after I got done talking to
11 Dickerman.
12 Q. Let me just get this straight. You talked
13 to Mr. Katz?
14 A. Doctor. Doctor.
15 Q. You talked to Dr. Katz after he testified
16 here, right?
17 A. After he testified, he called me on the way
18 back to L.A.
19 Q. You talked to him as he was waiting to
20 testify, correct?
21 A. I talked to him while he was waiting to
22 testify.
23 Q. You talked to Mr. Dickerman as he was
24 waiting to testify, correct?
25 A. I talked to Mr. Dickerman while he was
26 waiting to testify.
27 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Katz before he came here
28 to testify? 4564
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When was that?
3 A. I can’t tell you the day. I can tell you
4 that he called me and wanted to come to my office
5 and meet with me.
6 Q. Did you --
7 A. I can’t remember when it was. It was
8 sometime during the -- this trial. I can’t picture
9 exactly when it was.
10 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Dickerman before he came
11 here to testify?
12 A. No, I don’t think so. You don’t mean ever.
13 You mean -- I mean, I talked to Dickerman a lot at
14 one point, and then we really haven’t had contact.
15 And then we had contact that day, the day while he
16 was here, and that’s about it, that I remember. I
17 mean, I can’t swear we didn’t have a minute
18 conversation at some point.
19 Q. So Stanley Katz wanted to come to your
20 office to talk about this case?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And approximately when did he make that
23 request?
24 A. Within the last couple of weeks. Maybe a
25 month. It’s between two weeks and a month.
26 Q. To your knowledge, has Stanley Katz ever met
27 with Bill Dickerman, other than the fact they were
28 in the same room waiting to testify and both spoke 4565
1 to you on the phone at essentially the same time?
2 A. Well, Katz came to see me to tell me that
3 he --
4 Q. I’m not asking you what he said. Just --
5 A. No, let me just -- let me think to myself.
6 When he came to visit me after the first
7 meeting he had with the family -- I think he had two
8 meetings with the family, but I won’t even swear to
9 that. But I think he did. But -- and maybe he had
10 more. But in between one of these meetings that he
11 had with the family where he was interviewing, he
12 came to see me, Dr. Katz, and it is possible that
13 Dickerman was in that meeting. It is possible he
14 wasn’t in that meeting. I don’t know. And that
15 would be the only time that I can think of that they
16 possibly could have been together.
17 Q. When did that meeting occur?
18 A. Do you mean the day?
19 Q. Not the specific day. Just roughly.
20 A. That meeting happened -- if I knew the day I
21 went to the Department of Children Services, which
22 has got to be -- if you tell me that this lieutenant
23 called me on the 13th, I would guess I went to
24 Children Services around the 12th of June. 11th,
25 12th of June. So that would mean that that meeting
26 happened before then, and after, say, June 1st.
27 So, in that time frame.
28 Q. Is it your understanding that other than 4566
1 interviewing members of the Arvizo family, Dr. Katz
2 did not pursue any other independent investigation?
3 A. That’s all -- that’s all I know he did.
4 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, are you related to
5 anyone who has referred patients to Dr. Katz?
6 A. Not that I know of.
7 Q. Okay. You don’t know of any --
8 A. That referred patients to Dr. Katz?
9 Q. Anyone who you are related to by marriage
10 that referred patients to Dr. Katz.
11 A. Oh, my wife. I’m married to my wife, and I
12 think she used Dr. Katz. She headed up a law firm
13 that defended children, and represented tens of
14 thousands of children, and I think they, from time
15 to time, might have used Dr. Katz. I don’t know if
16 she did or didn’t. I mean, she certainly --
17 Q. But you think she did?
18 A. Yeah. I mean, I know at times in her life
19 she did. She’s the one that introduced me to Dr.
20 Katz in 1987, so she was a fan of Dr. Katz.
21 Q. And it was your understanding they had some
22 kind of business relationship, but you don’t know
23 what it is, right?
24 A. My wife and Dr. Katz? Well, they didn’t
25 have a business relationship. She would refer
26 clients. She defended people accused of abuse. She
27 represented children against their parents when
28 parents were abusing them. And she headed up a 4567
1 public interest law firm, and she would use Dr.
2 Katz, and --
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. -- hopefully it was totally business.
5 (Laughter.)
6 Q. Did you ever learn that Dr. Katz was
7 secretly recorded by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s
8 Department in a phone conversation?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How did you learn about that?
11 A. He told me.
12 Q. Did he tell you that on a number of
13 occasions he referred to “the lawsuit” in discussing
14 the Arvizos?
15 MR. SNEDDON: This is hearsay, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 You may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: Did he --
19 THE COURT: Do you want the question read
20 back?
21 THE WITNESS: I just got to ask him, did he
22 tell me what about that?
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: That in that secretly
24 recorded conversation with a sheriff’s
25 representative, he, on a number of occasions in
26 discussing the Arvizos, referred to “the lawsuit”?
27 A. Did he tell the sheriff that, or did he tell
28 the Arvizos that? 4568
1 Q. The sheriffs that.
2 A. Oh. I don’t know.
3 Q. You don’t know about that?
4 A. I don’t know one way or the other about
5 that.
6 Q. But he told you he was secretly recorded,
7 right?
8 A. He told me that he was secretly recorded by
9 the sheriffs, yes.
10 Q. All right. To your knowledge, have you ever
11 been secretly recorded in this case?
12 A. I hope not.
13 THE COURT: You need to speak closer to the
14 microphone.
15 THE WITNESS: I hope not. I don’t know of
16 any recordings, no.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you have any knowledge,
18 other than what Mr. Katz told you, about the
19 sheriffs secretly recording people in phone
20 conversations in this investigation?
21 A. No, I really don’t. I just know he said he
22 was recorded. I know it was secret. He didn’t know
23 about it, so I guess it was a secret from him.
24 Q. How long, in your mind, did you represent
25 the Arvizos?
26 A. Boy, that’s the toughest question you’ve
27 asked. I can tell you I represented them from May
28 to the time I referred it to the police, or referred 4569
1 it to Mr. Sneddon and the police took over. And I
2 had no contact, the best that I can recall, with the
3 Arvizos, and that ultimately culminated in a letter
4 from me to them terminating my relationship with
5 them. I didn’t want any responsibility. I
6 didn’t -- and I didn’t talk to them again until
7 after the news hit of the search of Neverland and
8 the pending arrest of Mr. Jackson. And it was
9 sometime after that that I heard from them again.
10 But up -- so from my perspective, I
11 terminated our relationship legally, as a lawyer
12 should do, in writing, telling them they could do
13 what they want, “But don’t look to me to represent
14 you.”
15 Q. And if you chose to in the future, Mr.
16 Feldman, nothing would prevent you from representing
17 them again, correct?
18 A. If I wanted to?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. If I wanted to, nothing.
21 Q. Now, have you represented Mr. Jay Jackson in
22 your legal work?
23 A. Well, only to the extent as I -- he has
24 talked to me about issues of you guys trying to get
25 into --
26 Q. Objection.
27 I’m not asking you what he’s talked to you
28 about. I’m just asking, have you represented Jay 4570
1 Jackson as a lawyer?
2 A. Well, when you say “represented,” he has
3 called me in my capacity as a lawyer, and I have
4 given him advice as a lawyer.
5 Q. And approximately when did you give Jay
6 Jackson advice as a lawyer?
7 A. Well, I don’t know. Let’s see. After they
8 got married, which I don’t remember when, but it was
9 after they got married. And it was -- you would
10 know better. It was in connection with a search
11 warrant. Or, not a search warrant. A subpoena you
12 served on his military records, and that’s the only
13 time that I think I can remember talking to him.
14 Q. Well, you certainly were advising him as a
15 lawyer as of approximately November 15th, 2004,
16 correct?
17 A. I don’t know the date. I just --
18 Q. Well, your firm, in a legal proceeding in
19 this case, took the position that a fax from Jay
20 Jackson to you dated November 15th, 2004, was
21 confidential, right?
22 A. If Jay Jackson communicates with me, it’s in
23 the attorney-client. That’s what I said. And
24 everything he told me is privileged, just like any
25 other lawyer.
26 Q. Do you know whether or not your law firm has
27 taken a position in this case that a fax from Jay
28 Jackson to you of November 15th, 2004, is 4571
1 confidential and privileged?
2 A. Well, I hope so, since it is.
3 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to
4 object.
5 THE COURT: Sustained. You’re not allowed to
6 go into attorney-client privilege without my
7 permission.
8 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not going into it, Your
9 Honor. Just their position.
10 THE COURT: Well, even claiming the privilege
11 is improper, to raise it in front of the jury.
12 We’ve gone over this before.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You have represented the
14 parents of Janet Arvizo in this case, correct?
15 A. Her parents.
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You represented them in an attempt to
19 prevent us from seeing if she deposited money into
20 her parents’ account, true?
21 A. I prevented you from getting into their --
22 these parents’ bank records.
23 Q. Correct.
24 A. That’s right.
25 Q. And in doing that, sir, you tried to prevent
26 us from seeing, if Janet got checks or David Arvizo
27 got checks, whether they deposited them into her
28 parents’ account? 4572
1 A. No, Mr. Mesereau, I prevented you from
2 dragging in these poor parents, who don’t even speak
3 English, into this melee.
4 Q. Do you know --
5 A. That’s all I tried to do. I don’t know
6 anything about Janet doing anything. I’m only
7 telling you -- you asked me what I did. That’s what
8 I tried to do is prevent them from getting dragged
9 in. If you look at your subpoena, it’s pretty
10 broad.
11 Q. Sir, you can’t prevent the parents from
12 being subpoenaed as witnesses in this case, can you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And you haven’t even tried to do that.
15 A. And I wouldn’t.
16 Q. The only thing you tried to do was stop us
17 from seeing whether Janet put money into her
18 parents’ account?
19 MR. SNEDDON: I object as argumentative.
20 THE WITNESS: That’s not true.
21 THE COURT: Just a minute.
22 There’s a lot of law and motion in this case
23 that took place outside the presence of the jury,
24 and there’s various legal reasons why things were
25 done, and I did them. And it’s improper for you to
26 be attacking a witness on that issue.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. I will -- I
28 withdraw the question. 4573
1 May I just ask about the scope of his
2 representation, just when he did it, when he
3 represented the parents? Not scope, Your Honor.
4 The dates of it.
5 THE COURT: I’m not sure if that’s a
6 privileged matter or not. That’s why I’m concerned.
7 MR. MESEREAU: It would have to do with
8 statements he’s made before, Your Honor, about
9 representing the Arvizos. I’m just trying to find
10 out roughly when he represented the parents.
11 THE COURT: No. I don’t see any relevancy.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Your Honor, may I ask
13 if he still does?
14 THE COURT: No. I don’t see any relevance
15 to --
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
17 THE COURT: -- to people he represents, when
18 he represented them. If I’m missing something, you
19 can approach the bench. I’m, you know, trying to
20 see from this standpoint what the relevancy could
21 be, but I can’t see it.
22 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
23 THE COURT: (To the jury) Okay. You can
24 talk.
25 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)
26 THE COURT: All right. After reviewing with
27 Mr. Mesereau his reason, I’m going to allow a
28 question that I didn’t a moment ago. 4574
1 You may ask it.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, during what
3 approximate period of time did you represent the
4 parents of Janet Arvizo in this case?
5 A. I can’t give you the date. The event was
6 when they were served with a subpoena, their bank
7 got served with a subpoena to get all of their
8 checks and all of their financial records. And
9 whenever you served that subpoena, that is when I
10 represented them.
11 Q. Do you currently, as far as you’re
12 concerned, represent either of the parents of Janet
13 Arvizo?
14 A. I do not represent either of the parents of
15 Janet Arvizo, as far as I’m concerned.
16 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just
17 show you a pleading just so you can identify a time
18 that you were representing the parents?
19 A. Sure. Yeah.
20 MR. MESEREAU: Would that be all right, Your
21 Honor?
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
26 Q. Mr. Feldman, have you had a chance to review
27 that document?
28 A. Yes. Yes. 4575
1 Q. And does it refresh your recollection about
2 the period of time during which you represented
3 David and Maria Ventura, the parents of Janet?
4 A. Approximately.
5 Q. And approximately what was the period during
6 which you represented and your firm represented
7 David and Maria Ventura?
8 A. Approximately the end of December of 2004 to
9 January 2005. Three, four weeks.
10 Q. That would be till approximately what,
11 January 14th?
12 A. I thought that’s the date of the hearing
13 that we had, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And after that hearing, did your
15 representation cease as far as you’re concerned?
16 A. Yes. It was just for that limited purpose
17 on that subpoena.
18 Q. Okay. How many meetings do you think you’ve
19 had with Mr. Sneddon about this criminal case?
20 A. And I’m going to interpret “meetings” face
21 to face. Is that what we’re talking about?
22 Q. Let’s start with that.
23 A. I would say three, four, maybe five at the
24 most, including yesterday.
25 Q. And how many times do you think you’ve
26 spoken on the telephone with Prosecutor Sneddon
27 about this criminal case?
28 A. Well, I don’t know. Maybe -- at least two 4576
1 or three times I’ve been scheduled to come, and he’s
2 called me to tell me I’m not coming. So that’s
3 three.
4 We haven’t had a lot of phone calls. I
5 can’t -- frankly, I called him when I called him to
6 say, “Here’s the case. Do what you want with it.”
7 And maybe -- I don’t know. You know, five, six.
8 Something. Not a lot. I mean, I don’t know,
9 something like that.
10 Q. How many times do you think you met with Mr.
11 Sneddon regarding your representation of Mr.
12 Chandler in 1993?
13 A. I don’t know if I ever met with him in ‘93.
14 With Mr. Sneddon?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. ‘93 I was on my own, without -- I was
17 handling --
18 Q. You certainly spoke to him.
19 A. I was handling the case. I’m sure I spoke
20 with him, but I don’t think I ever met with him.
21 Maybe I did. I could have. I just can’t remember,
22 Mr. Mesereau. It’s so long ago. I mean, that’s 12
23 years ago. I just don’t -- I just don’t have an
24 independent memory of whether I did or didn’t.
25 Because the case was also in L.A., and, you know, I
26 was dealing with the L.A. lawyers, criminal lawyers.
27 Q. Would it be accurate to say that you at
28 least talked to Mr. Sneddon a number of times in 4577
1 1993 about your representation of Mr. Chandler?
2 A. You know, not Mr. -- “Mr. Chandler” now is
3 little Jordie, who’s now a Mister, or is it his
4 father we’re talking about? When you say “Mr.
5 Chandler,” Jordie? Who are we talking about?
6 Q. Any of them.
7 A. You know, I don’t think -- it could have
8 happened. I can’t deny it. I just have no
9 recollection of it one way or the other. I don’t
10 remember having many -- any real discussions with
11 Mr. Sneddon on the case.
12 Q. Do you remember meeting with any other
13 prosecutor besides Mr. Sneddon at any time regarding
14 this current case?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And who would that be?
17 A. Mr. Zonen.
18 Q. How many times do you think you’ve met with
19 Mr. Zonen about this case?
20 A. A couple maybe. Maybe. I don’t remember.
21 You know, I can remember one. I’ve seen him,
22 though. I mean, this isn’t just the second time
23 I’ve seen him, so it must have been more, but I
24 just -- nothing stands out in my mind about meeting
25 with him.
26 Q. Have you had phone conversations with
27 Prosecutor Zonen about this case?
28 A. Yes. 4578
1 Q. Approximately how many do you think?
2 A. A few.
3 Q. Have you had any other meetings with any
4 other prosecutor on this case besides Prosecutor
5 Sneddon and Prosecutor Zonen?
6 A. Some prosecutor that -- my records got
7 subpoenaed to the court, and somebody -- some
8 prosecutor, said he was a prosecutor, called me
9 about it, whether I had filed the documents or
10 didn’t file the documents. I mean, I can remember
11 that kind of stuff.
12 Q. Have you had any meetings with
13 representatives of the sheriff’s department
14 involving this case?
15 A. I’ll answer that in a second. I just want
16 to go back to something that just --
17 Q. Sure.
18 A. There was a real issue in this case before
19 it ever got to trial. I didn’t want to do anything,
20 and there was an issue -- so I do think I talked to
21 Mr. Zonen more about, “Why don’t you do the
22 objecting and leave me out of this. My law firm
23 doesn’t want to do this, I don’t want to do this,”
24 and he couldn’t represent the victims, so that’s how
25 I -- so before I ever acted, I wanted the D.A. to do
26 all the legal work. Not me.
27 Q. I understand. And that saved you a lot of
28 money, correct? 4579
1 A. Pardon me?
2 Q. That could save you a lot of money in the
3 future?
4 A. It would save me lot of aggravation and
5 energy, I could tell you that. Not “in the future.”
6 Period. I didn’t want to do it. I’m not
7 representing these people, so -- but, you know, so I
8 would talk to Mr. Zonen. I want to just amend that,
9 because I would talk to him, and he would say he
10 can’t do that, and I’d wind up either doing it or
11 not doing it. So there were those kind of
12 conversations.
13 Now, back to the sheriffs. Who did I talk
14 to? This lieutenant, I guess, called me. I talked
15 to him. When I went to the grand jury, there was
16 somebody who, you know, brought me up here on the
17 freeway and drove me up here to -- or I followed
18 through some parking lot to get to where the secret
19 grand jury was, so somebody talked to me while I was
20 sitting around waiting, those kind of things.
21 But no sheriff has ever interviewed me. No
22 police officer, to my knowledge, has ever come down
23 and interviewed me or anything.
24 Q. How many meetings with any representative of
25 the sheriff’s department do you think you’ve had in
26 this case?
27 A. Meetings other than getting me here,
28 logistics kind of things? 4580
1 Q. Sure.
2 A. None, I don’t think.
3 Q. You’ve never been interviewed by any
4 sheriffs in this case?
5 A. If I was, I don’t remember it.
6 Q. How many phone conversations do you think
7 you’ve had with any sheriff in this case?
8 A. I mean, I don’t know who are the sheriffs
9 and who are the police.
10 Q. How about the name “Klapakis”?
11 A. Well, he -- obviously you showed me
12 something that says he called me. But in deference
13 to the lieutenant, I wouldn’t have remembered that.
14 But you did show me that, so he obviously called me.
15 But that’s about it. I don’t --
16 They -- the police cut me out of this case
17 the minute I gave it to them. They -- in fact,
18 that’s why we severed our relationship. I severed
19 the relationship. I was out of this.
20 Q. Do you remember you were interviewed on
21 January 16th, 2004, on the NBC Today Show by Matt
22 Lauer?
23 A. I went on The Today Show and Matt Lauer
24 interviewed me.
25 Q. Do you remember that?
26 A. And if -- that’s right before the gag order
27 was issued. I don’t remember the date that the gag
28 order was issued, but it was right about that time. 4581
1 Q. Remember you were asked by Mr. Lauer if you
2 were going to join Mr. Sneddon on the prosecution
3 team, and you said, “I have no comment”?
4 A. I did. I did.
5 Q. Other than your grand jury transcripts, have
6 you reviewed any other documents to prepare for your
7 testimony today?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Now, you have represented Gavin Arvizo in
10 other proceedings in Los Angeles other than what you
11 have identified, correct?
12 A. I have?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Gavin Arvizo?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. What is that? No.
17 Q. Have you ever represented Gavin Arvizo in an
18 attempt to stop his juvenile records from being
19 produced?
20 A. No. I mean, I wrote a letter, I think. No,
21 not on Gavin. Not that I know of. I didn’t even
22 know he had a juvenile record.
23 Q. Well, my question is, have you or your firm
24 ever written to Judge Nash in Los Angeles?
25 A. Oh, that’s a different story. That’s not
26 his juvenile records.
27 Q. Why don’t you explain.
28 A. That’s his Department of Children’s Services 4582
1 records. Yes. I wrote to Judge Nash, who heads up
2 that department, and said that those records should
3 remain confidential, because they are confidential
4 under the law. And that children ought to be able
5 to go to the Department of Children’s Services and
6 tell whatever they want to tell and it ought not be
7 used in any public forum.
8 Q. When did you represent --
9 A. Whenever somebody was trying to get them.
10 Q. And over what period of time was this, do
11 you think?
12 A. How long you were trying to get them?
13 Q. I’m just asking -- let me rephrase the
14 question. Over what period of time do you think you
15 represented any of the Arvizo children in that
16 particular area?
17 A. From the moment I found out the -- Judge
18 Nash wrote to me and said they were trying to
19 get -- I don’t want to get this confused, because
20 also my recollection is they were trying to get
21 Jordie’s records.
22 And I got a letter from Judge Nash. I
23 didn’t solicit it. He wrote to me and wanted to
24 know whether or not on behalf of these children, it
25 was either you -- maybe it was the press. I don’t
26 remember who wanted to get these records. Somebody
27 wanted to get these conf
Subject: April 1, 2005 
Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:50 am
