1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION 4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE 5 6 7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) 8 CALIFORNIA, ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 -vs- ) No. 1133603 11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, ) 12 Defendant. ) 13 14 15 16 17 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 18 19 FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2005 20 21 8:36 A.M. 22 23 (PAGES 12375 THROUGH 12484) 24 25 26 27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304 28 BY: Official Court Reporter 12375 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR., 4 District Attorney -and- 5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney 6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS, 7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney -and- 8 MAG NICOLA, Sr. Deputy District Attorney 9 1112 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 10 11 12 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU 13 BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. -and- 14 SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 15 Los Angeles, California 90067 16 -and- 17 SANGER & SWYSEN BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ. 18 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C Santa Barbara, California 93101 19 20 21 For Witness LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN GRAFF LEVINE Mark Geragos: BY: STEVEN GRAFF LEVINE, ESQ. 22 1112 Montana Avenue, Suite 309 Santa Monica, California 90403 23 24 25 26 27 28 12376 1 I N D E X 2 3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as "SN" on index. 4 Mr. Zonen is listed as "Z" on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as "A" on index. 5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as "M" on index. Ms. Yu is listed as "Y" on index. 6 Mr. Sanger is listed as "SA" on index. 7 8 R E B U T T A L 9 PLAINTIFF'S 10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 11 BONNER, 12 Craig (Re-called) 12413-SN 12429-SA 12453-SN 13 (Contd.) 14 ROBEL, Steve 15 (Re-called) 12464-SN 12469-SA 12474-SN 12475-SA 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12377 1 E X H I B I T S 2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF'S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID. 3 4 460 Phone link chart prepared by Craig Bonner 12454 5 889 Photos of Brett Barnes 12457 6 890 Photos of Brett Barnes 7 and Michael Jackson 12457 8 891 Photos of Michael Jackson 12457 9 892 Photos of Brett Barnes and Michael Jackson 12457 10 893 Photos Brett Barnes 11 and Michael Jackson 12457 12 894 Photos of Michael Jackson 12457 13 896 Photos of Michael Jackson 14 and buildings 12457 15 900 Sheriff's interview of Gavin Arvizo 12467 16 907 Diagram prepared by 17 Craig Bonner 12418 12419 18 908 DVD of a portion of December 2004 Neverland 19 search 12416 20 908-A Redacted version of 908 12417 12419 21 909 Photo of sensor areas 12413 12414 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12378 1 Santa Maria, California 2 Friday, May 27, 2005 3 8:36 a.m. 4 5 (The following proceedings were held in 6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the 7 jury:) 8 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison) 11 Good morning, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Let's see, we have a motion to 13 quash a subpoena. 14 Mr. Levine, is it? 15 MR. LEVINE: Yes, Your Honor. 16 Did the Court have an opportunity to read my 17 motion? 18 THE COURT: I've read your motion. I don't 19 have a copy of the subpoena. 20 MR. LEVINE: Could you -- 21 MR. NICOLA: I have to get one. 22 MR. LEVINE: I faxed it over, but I didn't 23 fax the subpoena, Your Honor. The content of what 24 they want is pretty much everything in the file. 25 And I think the Court has previously ruled twice 26 that they were not entitled to that. And I think 27 the Court told Mr. Zonen on two separate occasions, 28 on the 13th and the 20th, that the Court wasn't 12379 1 going to order that. And I just wanted to point out -- 2 THE COURT: You must understand, though, I 3 was telling them that they had to follow the proper 4 legal process. They couldn't just, in open court, 5 ask me to order people to produce records. So 6 you've misconstrued my refusals. 7 MR. LEVINE: To the extent that that may 8 be -- I will accept that, Your Honor. But I think 9 what we have here is a very limited attorney-client 10 waiver. There's been no waiver of the attorney 11 work-product privilege. And I think the law is very 12 clear that that privilege is strictly with Mr. 13 Geragos. 14 THE COURT: I think you're mistaken there. 15 There was a waiver of the attorney work-product 16 privilege, plus it's very limited in criminal cases 17 anyway. So it's very, very limited, if at all. 18 MR. LEVINE: Well, 105.46 of the discovery 19 code incorporates the attorney work-product 20 privilege. I mean, I understand that the waiver 21 executed by Mr. Jackson purported to waive that 22 privilege, but case law is very clear that that 23 privilege rests solely with Mr. Geragos. 24 THE COURT: Yes. It's also very clear it's 25 very limited in criminal cases. We've been through 26 this on numerous witnesses here, Counsel. We've 27 been schooled well on this issue. 28 MR. LEVINE: Okay. The point that I would 12380 1 like to make, Your Honor, is that the request is 2 just for everything. And I think that -- 3 THE COURT: I haven't seen the subpoena. 4 That's the deficiency I'm dealing with here. 5 MR. LEVINE: Could we wait, then, until 6 after you review the subpoena? 7 THE COURT: Sure. 8 MR. LEVINE: Thanks. 9 THE COURT: Okay. And somebody's getting it 10 for us? 11 MR. ZONEN: Yes, Your Honor. 12 MR. LEVINE: Yes. 13 THE COURT: All right. There's another issue 14 here, the -- a couple of issues I want to bring up. 15 One is the -- originally when we allowed the 16 rebuttal tape in, I gave -- I guess the takeout 17 tape. It was the takeout that -- no, it wasn't the 18 outtakes. It was the original Bashir tape; that the 19 District Attorney asked that certain things that Mr. 20 Jackson said be admitted for the truth of the matter 21 asserted, and we instructed the jury that certain 22 things would be -- that we'd advise them later. 23 Someone brought this to my attention the 24 other day, and I think the District Attorney should 25 provide us with the portions of the tape -- not 26 right now. 27 (Laughter.) 28 THE COURT: With the portions of the tape 12381 1 that show -- that you intend to argue are 2 admissions, so that perhaps the Court should be more 3 specific; at least we should discuss in our 4 preparation of final instructions what areas the 5 jury might conceivably consider are admissions or 6 not admissions, which ones you were thinking about, 7 because it is ultimately a jury question, but there 8 is some preliminary finding, maybe, that I should 9 make. 10 MR. SNEDDON: Yes. I'll do that, Your 11 Honor. I believe I have the notes that were made 12 the day the Court ruled as to which ones would be 13 admissible when we went through it. And I'll take 14 the responsibility for that, and share it with 15 Mr. -- with counsel for the defense, and hopefully 16 we can just come up with something we both agree on. 17 It's on the record. I remember we did it in open 18 court, so -- and it was by page and line number, so 19 it shouldn't be that difficult to come by. 20 THE COURT: And in connection with that, 21 then you had asked for a special instruction along 22 the same lines on the takeout tape. 23 MR. SNEDDON: We did. 24 THE COURT: The outtakes and -- so we should 25 address -- I will give that instruction, but we 26 should address the same issue on that tape. 27 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I'll review that 28 tape. I don't believe there's any in there, but 12382 1 that would be good for us to come to a consensus on. 2 THE COURT: Yeah. I would want it. 3 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I'll do that. 4 THE COURT: And be sure that everyone agreed 5 that was the case. 6 MR. SNEDDON: That would be fine, Your 7 Honor. 8 MR. SANGER: I take it you're going to give 9 us an opportunity to argue that motion. I don't 10 think that's actually been heard yet. 11 THE COURT: What motion is that? 12 MR. SANGER: The motion the prosecution made 13 to limit the outtake tape. 14 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. No. That's why I 15 didn't give -- that's what I'm talking about. 16 MR. SANGER: Yes. 17 THE COURT: I want some actual material, 18 what we're talking about; this piece of information, 19 that piece of information, all the information. I 20 want both sides to address that. I'm more 21 concerned -- the tape's been shown, you know. What 22 we're talking about is jury instructions on this 23 issue. 24 MR. SANGER: Right. Correct. 25 THE COURT: So I'm just asking you to be 26 prepared to discuss those as we get ready to discuss 27 jury instructions. 28 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. 12383 1 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, can I ask for a point 2 of clarification on that? 3 THE COURT: Yes. 4 MR. SNEDDON: I understand exactly what the 5 Court is saying, but, as I mentioned yesterday, I'm 6 assuming -- and I don't want to assume too much, but 7 I'm assuming that some sort of a limiting 8 instruction on the tape in general is going to be 9 given; that it was not admitted for the truth of the 10 matter, except for those portions that may -- 11 THE COURT: That's the issue. 12 MR. SNEDDON: Well, it would affect our 13 rebuttal, because if the Court determines that those 14 statements come in for the truth of the matter, then 15 we obviously would be putting on evidence to show 16 some of the statements made by Mr. Jackson during 17 the course of those outtakes were not true. And so 18 that's why we filed it prior to the time that we sit 19 down for instructions. 20 I know I'm not -- I'm not asking the Court 21 to carve out those portions of the tape where there 22 may be -- may or may not be admissions by the 23 defendant that would come in for the truth of the 24 matter. But generally speaking, there's a great 25 deal of narrative, an interview by the defendant 26 that has nothing to do with what I would believe to 27 be an admission. 28 And so I guess that's what I'm asking the 12384 1 Court now, because we need to know that before we 2 rest, because, I mean, if some of that stuff comes 3 in for the truth of the matter, we're going to call 4 witnesses to prove otherwise. That's why we filed 5 the motion, Your Honor. 6 And I believe that the understanding on the 7 original Bashir tape was that that was not for the 8 truth of the matter, except for the admissions, and 9 it seemed to me that the same thing should apply to 10 the outtakes. 11 THE COURT: That is true. That's what the 12 Bashir tape ruling was, and that's the reason for 13 admitting the outtakes. There really was not a 14 truth-of-the-matter admission there. It was to 15 balance the information. It was sort of the rest of 16 the story. 17 I kind of viewed it as a situation where you 18 have a conversation and only part of the 19 conversation is admitted, so you let the other side 20 admit the conversation, or the document. Sometimes 21 part of a document's admitted. It's not clear the 22 total meaning unless the whole conversation -- or a 23 whole document. 24 So that's why I admitted the outtakes, was 25 to give the defense -- they had been requesting 26 that. They wanted the balance of the total picture 27 and -- 28 MR. SANGER: But in that case, it would come 12385 1 in for the truth of the matter. The whole 2 conversation comes in for the truth of the matter. 3 THE COURT: Then the Bashir tape all comes in 4 for the truth of the matter, right? 5 MR. SANGER: No. 6 THE COURT: You just want your side to have 7 the truth of the matter. 8 MR. SANGER: No, I understand the irony 9 there, in a sense, but the fact is that the whole 10 Bashir tape has all sorts of other hearsay. The 11 only reason that it was admissible for the truth was 12 that -- 13 THE COURT: I meant as to Mr. Jackson's 14 statements. 15 MR. SANGER: As to his statements, yeah. 16 If his statements come in for the truth of the 17 matter -- 18 THE COURT: Whether they're admissions or 19 not. I don't think you do understand the irony. 20 But go ahead. 21 MR. SANGER: No, no, I do. I'm wrestling 22 with the irony at the moment. Ironically, it turns 23 out. 24 (Laughter.) 25 MR. SANGER: I understand what the Court is 26 saying, and I was just about to concede that, but I 27 don't know -- I'd have to think about the Bashir 28 tape. But it seems to me, if Mr. Jackson said 12386 1 things on the Bashir tape -- we had limited portions 2 of the tape -- 3 THE COURT: We've already told them they are 4 not to take that tape for the truth of the matter 5 asserted except for certain parts, which we told 6 them we'd advise them about later. 7 MR. SANGER: Now, I'm not too worried about 8 what Mr. Jackson said in the Bashir tape. What I'm 9 worried about is -- you're not suggesting, Your 10 Honor, that what Mr. Bashir says and other people -- 11 THE COURT: No. 12 MR. SANGER: Okay. So that would still not 13 come in for the truth. 14 Then the rest of the conversation, it would 15 seem to me, whether it was on the Bashir tape or the 16 outtakes, the whole conversation would come in for 17 the truth of the matter as to what Mr. Jackson said. 18 THE COURT: Well, what Mr. Jackson said 19 there was hearsay, and it has to have an exception 20 to the hearsay rule to come in for the truth of the 21 matter asserted, and admissions is one exception. 22 MR. SANGER: Well -- 23 THE COURT: Clearly you don't let 24 out-of-court statements of the defendant in that are 25 not within the normal classifications, and that's 26 what you're suggesting. 27 MR. SANGER: Well, generally, under the 28 Evidence Code, if the entire statement comes in -- 12387 1 THE COURT: That doesn't -- 2 MR. SANGER: -- it generally does all come 3 in. I understand, Your Honor -- 4 THE COURT: As to one limited piece of the 5 conversation. You know, if they said, "Okay. The 6 admission is, 'I sleep in the bed with young boys,'" 7 and the other part of the conversation is, "But I 8 don't have sex," then, yeah, that comes -- that's 9 it. But if, you know, part of the conversation was 10 what he did in town yesterday, no. And that's where 11 we come in. There's a lot of outtake material there 12 that's not material to the parts that are 13 admissions. 14 MR. SANGER: Well, and that -- I think 15 that's something we need to -- I don't know that we 16 can accomplish it right now, because -- 17 THE COURT: Well, the D.A. says he can't rest 18 until -- literally he can't rest -- 19 MR. SANGER: The District Attorney is 20 restless. 21 MR. SNEDDON: That's the most accurate thing 22 you've said during this whole trial, Judge. 23 MR. SANGER: Okay. Well, my first argument 24 is, under the Evidence Code -- I understand what the 25 Court just said, but under the Evidence Code, 26 generally if they let in part of the conversation, 27 the rest of it -- ordinary case, the rest of it 28 comes in and it just comes in for the truth. 12388 1 THE COURT: That's your argument. 2 MR. SANGER: Your Honor is saying, well, we 3 need to do something to pare it down. In order to 4 pare it down, it's going to -- 5 THE COURT: We need to do something to give 6 the jury some legal instruction, some help here, you 7 know. We can talk about it, but they have to decide 8 it. 9 MR. SANGER: All right. Now, the tape 10 itself also came in, the outtakes. The Hamid video 11 came in also to show -- to rebut -- to rebut the 12 contention that the Bashir tape was such a disaster 13 and there was nothing that could be done except to 14 do illegal things to the Arvizos. 15 THE COURT: That's right. 16 MR. SANGER: And so it came in to show, 17 "Well, no, we had this in the bank." That was 18 there. That was a strong piece of information or 19 something that could be put out to the public. 20 THE COURT: Let me ask the District Attorney 21 what his -- 22 What is your position on the instruction we 23 should give on the outtake tape that Mr. Sanger and 24 I have just been discussing? 25 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, our position is I think 26 outlined in the papers we filed with you; that is, 27 that the outtakes were admitted, as the Court has 28 amply pointed out, as simply a further picture of 12389 1 the entire portions of the interview of the Bashir 2 documentary which was originally shown, and that 3 they do not meet any exception to the hearsay rule, 4 and therefore the limiting instruction that you gave 5 the jury early on in this case with regard to the 6 original documentary should be given with regard to 7 the rest of the outtakes. 8 Now, what we haven't done, and the part 9 where we addressed earlier in our conversation is, I 10 can't tell you, as I stand here, whether there are 11 or are not any admissions by Mr. Jackson during the 12 course of those outtakes. 13 Frankly, my recollection is that there are 14 not, because I recall that the tape -- the outtakes 15 ended before the discussion began of his 16 relationship with Gavin and his relationship with 17 other boys and his -- and the questions asked by Mr. 18 Bashir about, you know -- that dialogue about, 19 "Well, isn't it" -- "Shouldn't an adult man not be 20 sleeping with little boys?" So I don't believe 21 that's on the outtakes. 22 So I don't think -- I believe that probably 23 all of the outtakes are probably subject to the 24 limiting instruction, except for one portion. And 25 the one portion I would point out to the Court that 26 we put in independent of the outtakes, actually we 27 put in in our case, is the defendant's statement 28 about the Jesus Juice, as an admission that he did 12390 1 use that term and it corroborates the statement of 2 the kids. 3 But other than that one statement, my 4 recollection, as I stand before the Court right now 5 is, I don't believe there's probably any other 6 admissions that would qualify as those that we set 7 out - when I say "we," the Court, and counsel for 8 the defendant, and us - in open court and delineated 9 in the original Bashir, which may qualify as 10 admissions. 11 But I'll tell you that my opinion is that 12 the bulk of that tape, the outtakes takes are 13 hearsay and should be subject to the same 14 instruction as the original Bashir documentary. 15 I hope that addresses what the Court asked. 16 THE COURT: It does. Let me ask you a 17 question now. On the tape of Garvin -- Gavin -- 18 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir. 19 THE COURT: -- what's your purpose in 20 introducing that? 21 MR. SNEDDON: Well, we indicated to the 22 Court that there were two purposes. And of course 23 one was prior consistent statements. And the other 24 was that there has been an allegation on the part of 25 the defense that this entire case, and the 26 allegations made by Gavin in particular, was 27 scripted by the mother. They presented several 28 witnesses, most particularly Mary Holzer, to try to 12391 1 infer from what happened, or what statements were 2 made in prior cases, or a prior case, that this case 3 is a similar situation. 4 And so we are offering it for two purposes. 5 One is the prior consistent under Evidence Code 6 Section 791, but more importantly, we're offering it 7 for the -- it would be actually a nonhearsay 8 purpose, which would be for the purpose of allowing 9 the jury simply to examine the demeanor and the 10 manner in which the disclosures were originally made 11 by Gavin to the law enforcement agencies. 12 And of course I realize that is a different 13 type of a ruling for the Court. And when you ruled 14 that we could show it, I realize that you just made 15 the ruling and didn't say on which basis. And so I 16 do -- I do recognize, and I did recognize at the 17 time, that there may be -- the way it would come in 18 and whatever instructions you would give the jury 19 may be different, and I do concede that, and so -- 20 THE COURT: If I didn't say it - and I 21 think, now that you mention it, I probably didn't - 22 my intent in allowing that, making that ruling, was 23 to -- not for the impeachment statements, but for 24 the purpose of allowing the jury to examine his 25 demeanor and the manner in which he made the 26 disclosures. 27 And it's been my thought to give some 28 instruction along with that, or afterwards when we 12392 1 give instructions, to limit the use of that tape not 2 for the truth of the matter asserted. 3 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I have no problem with 4 that. For us, the significance of it is simply the 5 way the disclosure occurred, and his manner and the 6 way he behaves and reacts to the officers in what he 7 says. So that's not a problem with us. And I 8 understand the difference. And I kind of 9 anticipated that might be what the Court had in 10 mind. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger? 12 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. 13 THE COURT: Would you address that point, 14 please? You are doing that issue, aren't you? 15 MR. SANGER: Yes. 16 I agree with the Court, it was not -- it 17 should not be let in for prior consistent 18 statements, because that should have been in the 19 case-in-chief. And that's why we argued that on 20 this thin basis, that it's collateral impeachment of 21 Holzer, scripted, that may or may not apply to this 22 situation. 23 And we argued that it was very -- you know, 24 to be able to play this at the end, as we cited the 25 case several times, the Carter case from the Supreme 26 Court, that says you shouldn't be allowed to put 27 dramatic evidence on at the end for a purpose that 28 isn't really -- or that goes beyond what the real 12393 1 lawful purpose is, and we still believe that that's 2 the case. So that's the first thing. 3 Secondly, as far as the truth of the matter, 4 I think the Court could frame an instruction. The 5 danger, though, would be that no matter what the 6 Court says, the jury's going to sit here and listen 7 to Gavin's statement at the end of the case and 8 they're going to hear the words, and there's no way 9 that they're going to be able to disregard what he's 10 saying. 11 And if the Court limits it the way the Court 12 limits it, there's also the fact that then we can't 13 cross-examine even on some strange remarks that are 14 made by Gavin that may not otherwise be picked up. 15 Because it is our position that this was rehearsed. 16 He had told Davellin this story. Davellin had told 17 Dr. Katz. Davellin had told the police. And then 18 he comes in, and by the end of the statement, he 19 says, "I haven't told my sister or my brother about 20 this." 21 If we can't -- if we can't inquire about 22 that -- the officer, when they put the tape on, for 23 instance, and say, "Well," you know, "he told 24 you" -- "Isn't it a fact that you already 25 interviewed Davellin and she already told you that, 26 and you are aware Dr. Katz interviewed Davellin and 27 she had all the details?" You know, I'm just giving 28 that as an example. 12394 1 THE COURT: And to respond to that example, 2 it seems to me that if the purpose is the 3 spontaneity and demeanor of the child reporting it 4 to the police for the first time, then in fact that 5 cross-examination would be permitted, because -- not 6 for the truth of the matter, but because it shows -- 7 or it's evidence that a jury could infer shows lack 8 of spontaneity. 9 MR. SANGER: Okay. 10 THE COURT: So it's tricky business, I 11 understand. You know, that's why I -- 12 MR. SANGER: We can live with that. That 13 would -- that makes sense. I appreciate what the 14 Court just said. And that would make sense if we're 15 at least allowed to cross-examine on a couple of 16 those issues like that. 17 I still -- I don't know if the Court was 18 inviting a further argument it shouldn't come in at 19 all, but I certainly would argue that. I think the 20 Court ruled previously, so I don't mean to be 21 arguing with the Court. 22 THE COURT: I did. And I understand that. 23 And all of these issues are -- they're similar legal 24 concepts, and that's why it's good to be discussing 25 all of them at the same time, because invariably one 26 side wants to produce evidence that's very similar 27 to what the other side wants to produce, and they 28 both oppose the evidence. 12395 1 MR. SANGER: Right. That's our job. 2 THE COURT: Well, but I like to make you look 3 at it that way. 4 MR. SANGER: No, I understand that. 5 Well, and so in this -- if the Court was 6 going to let it in -- I don't know if the Court's 7 considering revisiting that decision. 8 THE COURT: Well, I would consider -- since 9 we're rediscussing it, I would consider anything new 10 that you want to say on that issue, if you felt that 11 you were cut short. I don't want to hear the 12 argument again. I heard the argument. But if 13 there's something you thought of later, or in this 14 conversation we've just had this morning, if there's 15 something else you want to say about that ruling, 16 say it. 17 MR. SANGER: What I would add to everything 18 else I said is that -- and it's actually become more 19 clear right now, is that, by playing the tape, that 20 could well lengthen the -- the surrebuttal process 21 considerably. By not playing the tape, it would 22 eliminate a good amount of surrebuttal that I don't 23 think -- I think by the time all the dust settles 24 with that rebuttal and the surrebuttal, I don't 25 think the jury is going to be any further ahead in 26 their process of finding out what happened, but -- 27 THE COURT: Well, in that regard -- let's 28 talk about your surrebuttal. If it's admitted -- if 12396 1 the tape's admitted only for the purpose of the 2 demeanor, spontaneity, that type of issue with 3 Gavin, and not for prior consistent statements or 4 the truth of the matter asserted, you'll be required 5 to address for me each issue, each witness that you 6 intend to call on surrebuttal as to what the 7 significance, relevance of that witness would be. 8 MR. SANGER: Well, I understand. I could 9 address that briefly so the Court has an idea. I 10 mean, for instance, Gavin would be called and could 11 be cross-examined on circumstances leading up to 12 giving this interview, and whether or not he's 13 spontaneous during the particular interview. And 14 there's some particular issues I -- 15 THE COURT: I'm not really concerned about 16 Gavin. I could clearly see that. But why would you 17 re-call Mrs. Arvizo? 18 MR. SANGER: Mrs. Arvizo, because she has -- 19 let me answer my part first, and I think Mr. 20 Mesereau wants to add something there. 21 But the -- but we'd call Mrs. Arvizo because 22 that is the reason it's called -- I mean, the reason 23 it's presented by the prosecution is they're saying 24 this rebuts somehow Holzer's implication that 25 because J.C. Penney's was coached, that this was 26 coached. Well, we can -- we would like to call her, 27 now that we've had some further evidence in this 28 case, and confront her with some issues that 12397 1 suggested this was coached. And so -- 2 THE COURT: When you say that "this was 3 coached," you're saying that this interview with the 4 sheriff was coached. 5 MR. SANGER: That's correct. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. SANGER: And then we have Dr. Katz, 8 because Dr. Katz did the prior interviews where 9 Davellin also told him all the details. And that 10 obviously flies in the face of the idea that this is 11 spontaneous and the police officers are somehow 12 dragging this out of him. And Gavin also told 13 all -- different details, but generally the same 14 story, with some striking inconsistencies, but 15 generally the same story he told to Dr. Katz. 16 So we would need to go through and show that 17 this is not as spontaneous as it appears. And I 18 think if it's looked at in those eyes, it isn't 19 spontaneous. But if it isn't looked at through 20 those eyes, then, you know, the People are going to 21 say, "Well, look and see how spontaneous he is." 22 And so we need to do that. 23 We also have Mr. Feldman -- 24 THE COURT: What I really wanted to be sure 25 of was that you weren't going down the street of now 26 you have to impeach him with statements he made 27 post. I mean, that's how we -- you see what I'm 28 saying? 12398 1 If they're not admitted for the truth of the 2 matter asserted, we're not -- we're not admitting 3 them for prior consistent statements, then we're not 4 going to admit them for inconsistent statements. 5 MR. SANGER: And if the Court does that, if 6 that's -- if the Court's going to allow the tape -- 7 and I'm urging the Court to reconsider that, because 8 I think at this point it's -- it shouldn't be. But 9 if the Court were to admit the tape, then I think 10 that would be a good part of the instruction to give 11 the jury, to let them know that we are not going to 12 be attempting to impeach his statement, because it's 13 not offered for the truth. We're not going to be 14 attempting to impeach it at this time. Counsel's 15 not being allowed to, or however the Court would 16 phrase it, go into the subsequent statements that 17 were made. 18 Now, we have introduced evidence of some of 19 those previously, so they're in evidence, but I 20 think that would be fair. Otherwise, it will appear 21 that we're just kind of giving up or not challenging 22 what was said. And I don't think that would be fair 23 to the defense. 24 Could I have a second, just to see if Mr. 25 Mesereau wanted -- 26 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, may I have a chance to 27 respond just briefly to something? 28 THE COURT: Yes. 12399 1 MR. SNEDDON: I'll wait for Mr. Mesereau. 2 MR. SANGER: I'm sorry, I heard Mr. 3 Sneddon's voice, but I didn't hear what he said 4 because I was talking to Mr. Mesereau. 5 THE COURT: Well -- 6 MR. SANGER: Too bad, I missed it? 7 THE COURT: Well, I don't know. It was 8 pretty important. 9 MR. SANGER: All right. Let me respond to 10 that, Your Honor. Once again, Mr. Sneddon is wrong. 11 THE COURT: He said, "Let me be" -- he wants 12 to be heard. 13 MR. SANGER: On this issue. 14 THE COURT: On this issue. 15 MR. SANGER: I would like to just remind the 16 Court, please, on the outtakes, I did have a 17 response. I would like to respond to what Mr. 18 Sneddon said on that. But we are now talking about 19 this other issue, so I'll -- as long as you give me 20 an opportunity to do that before we're through. 21 THE COURT: No, go ahead and respond to the 22 outtakes. 23 MR. SANGER: Okay. Switching gears here to 24 the outtakes, Mr. Sneddon said the outtakes ended 25 before the discussions about Gavin. Well, that's 26 not correct. That's not even close to being 27 correct. The outtakes are outtakes that were done 28 in June, the end of June of 2002, the first two 12400 1 tapes, and then the third disk is in January of 2 2003. The third disk, actually, is at the very end. 3 All of the other filming for the entire video, for 4 the entire Bashir video, has been done at that time. 5 In June, some of the videotaping has been done. 6 But -- and the last -- the last one, all of it was 7 done. 8 Secondly, not all of the statements of 9 Mr. Jackson were taken by Mr. Bashir's film crew 10 during the same time that Hamid was taping. So in 11 other words, Bashir also taped at other times, 12 obviously in Las Vegas and other places, at the 13 ranch, at other dates undisclosed. We don't know 14 because he's asserting the shield and won't answer. 15 So he has other material that he got, and we don't 16 have outtakes from that. 17 So, first of all, on the outtakes, let me 18 give an example here. If the Court is going to 19 limit it, our first position is the outtakes come in 20 for the truth of the matter because it's part of the 21 overall conversation. And there were cuts from that 22 that were played in the actual Bashir, so the whole 23 thing comes in. 24 Second, if the Court says it doesn't come in 25 for the truth of the matter entirely, then we would 26 ask that the Court look at this liberally. For 27 instance - I was just thinking of an example - 28 there's a point at which Mr. Jackson talks about his 12401 1 former wife, Debbie Rowe. And you recall there's 2 questions about the children and -- a number of 3 questions that related to the children. 4 If the Court is going to start carving 5 things out, I suppose there could be an order that 6 the statement as to the circumstances of the birth 7 of his children would not be offered for the truth 8 of the matter. But the statements that relate to 9 his love for his children and his relationship with 10 his children, particularly in direct response to 11 questions from Mr. Bashir, would be admitted for the 12 truth of the matter, because that goes directly to 13 the issues in the Bashir tape where he talks about 14 his love for children. 15 What Bashir did is, he cleverly and 16 surgically took out what he thought was the most 17 sensational clips from all the footage he had, which 18 included all of this, and he did not include 19 extensive commentary by Mr. Jackson about how he 20 loves children, and Mr. Bashir encouraging him, and 21 Mr. Bashir saying, "Oh, this is wonderful. I've 22 seen your relationship," and he's responding to it. 23 Because that truly does put the statements on the 24 tape in context. So, if we're going to do it 25 surgically, it would have to be somewhere along 26 those lines. 27 Now, the Court could probably -- if our 28 motion to admit it all for the truth is denied, the 12402 1 Court could probably give a general instruction, 2 without going through and saying, "The tape up to 3 this part is admissible for the truth of the matter, 4 and then from this counter number to this counter 5 number it isn't." And the Court could probably 6 fashion something that covers the subject matter, in 7 other words, saying that the entire tape -- give 8 examples, perhaps. 9 THE COURT: I understand your position. 10 MR. SANGER: Okay. Very good. 11 All right. So unless there's a response to 12 what Mr. Sneddon has on the other thing, I'll submit 13 it. 14 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sneddon? 15 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I'm done on the Bashir 16 thing. I think the Court has our position on it. 17 And we'll look at the tape. If there's something on 18 there, there's something on there. If there's not, 19 there's not. I think I made that clear. 20 With regard to the second part, however, I 21 do want to say this, because I think there's been 22 the creation of a misimpression with this Court, and 23 that is that -- the question that you asked about 24 Dr. Katz and the reason that Dr. Katz would be 25 called, and counsel's reference of a fact that 26 Davellin made statements to Dr. Katz about there had 27 been previous disclosures, based upon my 28 recollection of the testimony, is untrue. 12403 1 There had been discussion by Gavin with 2 Davellin with regard to certain incidents, including 3 the showing of the pornography, adult materials, the 4 drinking, the mannequin incident, but there had been 5 no disclosure of the sexual activities between the 6 defendant and Gavin. And I think Dr. Katz was very 7 clear that, in Gavin's conversation with him, there 8 was no disclosure, and when he got to that point he 9 just dropped his head and he wouldn't talk anymore, 10 and that's why Dr. Katz felt he needed to make a 11 mandated report. 12 So I think what I'm saying to the Court 13 simply is, before the Court opens up a lot of 14 avenues for cross-examination or bringing these 15 witnesses in, I think it's incumbent on the defense 16 to show where there's some testimony in this case 17 that there really was a disclosure of the sexual 18 conduct between the defendant and the victim in this 19 case on a prior occasion, before he disclosed on the 20 video that we're about to play. 21 I believe the state of the evidence in this 22 case is there was absolutely none. This was it. 23 And that this would be collateral to the main issue 24 as to why this tape is being shown. So -- 25 THE COURT: I think, so that you understand, 26 I will require both sides, but in this case 27 specifically the defense, to -- before a witness is 28 called, to make an offer of proof on surrebuttal as 12404 1 to why they're calling the witness and how it 2 relates to your rebuttal. I'm not opening up this 3 trial again for anybody. 4 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. 5 THE COURT: So -- and at that time you'll 6 have an opportunity to address it. I just wanted -- 7 and I appreciate that Mr. Sanger gave me a picture 8 of some of the material he thought he was going to 9 be bringing in, and most of what he said seemed 10 relevant. But I will look at each piece, and I'm 11 going to hold people tight to this, because we're on 12 surrebuttal. The case is over. You're on rebuttal. 13 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Thank you, Your 14 Honor. 15 THE COURT: On your subpoena, come forward. 16 MR. LEVINE: Yes, my more boring issue, Your 17 Honor. 18 Just to keep it very brief -- 19 THE COURT: I don't think your issue is 20 boring, Counsel. 21 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 Compared to the others. 23 With the benefit of hindsight, it seems 24 that Mr. Geragos testified pretty much that he 25 ordered surveillance in this case and the reasons 26 why he did that. And I think that's the extent of 27 what both sides were getting at during the cross. 28 We have here an attempt to basically try to 12405 1 get billing statements, everything related to his 2 representation. A lot of that, the Court can see, 3 is irrelevant to what has occurred. It would be 4 beyond the scope of both cross and direct. And I 5 think to even -- and I think what he stated in his 6 testimony is that he didn't take any notes. He 7 didn't have any tapes. Whatever e-mails there were, 8 the Court -- they have been provided by the defense 9 to the prosecution. 10 And I think that Brad Miller, who did the 11 surveillance and would be the relevant witness as to 12 what occurred during the surveillance, I think he 13 was raided, and I think that there was a search 14 warrant served on his offices. I don't really think 15 that the records, his billing records and what are 16 other extraneous items that may be in the file, are 17 really relevant at this point. 18 I think both sides -- Mr. Zonen did a very 19 effective cross-examination that lasted almost five 20 hours. And I think that there's really nothing left 21 to do in this particular area. So, it appears that 22 the request, as it's framed in their subpoena, is 23 just overbroad, putting aside any privileges or any 24 other issues. And I think that it would be better 25 if there was something specific that we can respond 26 to. 27 I mean, you have to understand, the file 28 with Mr. Jackson, the brunt of it is just box -- I 12406 1 don't know how big it is. I haven't seen it. But 2 most of it is after he was arrested. So there would 3 be a lot of -- 4 THE COURT: That seems to be one of the 5 problems with the subpoena, now that I see it, is 6 that the -- there's not a limitation to the time 7 period that the waiver purports to. You know, it 8 appears to be overly broad from the standpoint that 9 they subpoena everything, which, you know, clearly 10 they are not entitled to subpoena records beyond the 11 time waiver. 12 MR. LEVINE: Even if we limit it to records 13 within the time waiver, I mean, let's say they add 14 that sentence and it's in there, which I think 15 they -- I think that was their intent. Again, it's 16 just a situation here where, at this very late stage 17 of the trial where everybody has rested, and we're 18 getting back into what seems to be very 19 insignificant information. Mr. Geragos's testimony 20 was very collateral to -- it's just ancillary, a 21 very small part, and he just basically ordered 22 surveillance. And it seems that -- 23 THE COURT: It's a little more complicated 24 than that. 25 MR. LEVINE: I understand. I read -- 26 THE COURT: You didn't see the trial, so 27 I'll accept -- 28 MR. LEVINE: I did see parts of it. It was 12407 1 very compelling, Your Honor. I was here last week. 2 But I think that it would be better if we 3 can just have -- 4 THE COURT: One of the things I'm addressing 5 is there was some testimony just yesterday about the 6 number of phone calls between Mr. Geragos and other 7 people involved during this period, which flies in 8 the face of your assertion that he was just -- that 9 he just ordered surveillance. You know, that's not 10 true. He was very involved in a lot of that, you 11 know, what was going on, and that -- so I just -- 12 you know, I just have to tell you, your assertion 13 doesn't stand up. But -- 14 MR. LEVINE: I'm not suggesting that he 15 didn't talk to people. The fact that a phone call 16 was made, again, I'm just really -- just seems -- 17 again, what the defense called him for was for that 18 purpose. That other items came up, I understand. 19 I'm just trying to -- 20 THE COURT: You have to realize that, until 21 the defense called him, he claimed the privilege, 22 and he -- the District Attorney couldn't call him. 23 They couldn't subpoena his records. In fact, I had 24 a special master spend months going through the 25 e-mails, the computer hard drives that were seized, 26 and segregating out the privileged material, only to 27 have him come into court and have the privilege 28 waived. So what may appear to you to be a late 12408 1 subpoena isn't late at all, considering when Mr. 2 Geragos and Mr. Jackson waived the privilege. 3 MR. LEVINE: All right. We didn't like that 4 argument. We didn't like the attorney-client and 5 not the attorney work-product. I understand that. 6 THE COURT: I'll just make this easy for 7 you. I'm going to -- I'll make it easy for me, 8 excuse me, not for you. 9 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: I'm going to allow the subpoena, 11 but I'm going to limit it to materials that are 12 within the scope of the waiver. 13 MR. LEVINE: Okay. Is there a time frame as 14 far as -- I know that the boxes are in storage 15 somewhere and they have to be pulled out. 16 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Geragos actually said 17 he didn't think there was much material. 18 MR. LEVINE: I agree. 19 THE COURT: So it can't be very burdensome. 20 He didn't think there was hardly anything. 21 MR. LEVINE: Well, that would be me, though. 22 I would have to go through the boxes, Your Honor, 23 so -- 24 THE COURT: All right. We're back in session 25 Tuesday. That's when I want it here. 26 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor. 27 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, would it be possible 28 to get it earlier than that? Given the reality of 12409 1 our case, we're going to be done Tuesday. 2 THE COURT: They can't hear you back there. 3 MR. ZONEN: One of these days I'll remember 4 this. 5 We believe that we will likely be resting on 6 Tuesday. If we don't get the materials until that 7 time -- and frankly, if we have to wait till 8 Tuesday, we would probably need Mr. Geragos's 9 presence here. If we could have it before Tuesday, 10 we might be able to resolve a stipulation where he 11 wouldn't actually have to come; that we could 12 perhaps stipulate to the admissibility of some 13 materials. But we would need the materials in 14 advance of that date. Otherwise, I'm afraid Mr. 15 Geragos would have to be here on Tuesday, as he 16 would be the only one to lay the foundation for the 17 introduction of those documents, assuming there's 18 some relevant documents among the file. 19 MR. LEVINE: I really have nothing to do 20 this weekend, it being Memorial Day weekend. I'm 21 happy to accommodate this request to go through it. 22 I don't really think there is much, because I think 23 his testimony was he didn't take notes, he didn't 24 have tapes. And I know that -- 25 THE COURT: That's pretty much what he 26 testified to. 27 MR. LEVINE: He also turned over a lot of 28 stuff to the defense, which I would assume they have 12410 1 possession of and they would be obligated to turn 2 over to the prosecution, given the fact that they 3 waived the privilege that they had. 4 THE COURT: They have different obligations. 5 You're only required to turn over what you have, not 6 what's been forwarded to other people. 7 So in order to help bring this case to an 8 end, and to ruin your weekend, I'll order that you 9 present it on Monday to the district attorneys. 10 MR. LEVINE: It's a lovely drive here from 11 Los Angeles, Your Honor. 12 MR. ZONEN: He'll only have to go to Santa 13 Barbara. 14 MR. LEVINE: Okay. 15 THE COURT: You should make an agreement how 16 you're going to get together. 17 MR. ZONEN: I'll do that. Thank you, Your 18 Honor. 19 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Thank you. 21 What I want to do is -- you want to say 22 something? 23 MR. SANGER: I do. I just missed the last 24 part there. 25 These are documents that are subpoenaed to 26 the Court, not to the District Attorney's Office. 27 I don't mind them being delivered to the District 28 Attorney's Office if we have an agreement that they 12411 1 will immediately provide us with a copy. 2 THE COURT: So ordered. 3 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 4 THE COURT: But I don't think they were 5 listening this time either. 6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I was listening. 7 THE COURT: Oh, you were. Okay. 8 Oh, it was you that wasn't listening last 9 time. I get confused about who's not listening. 10 Don't bring the jury in. I want to just 11 take a couple minutes and look at some material here 12 before you bring the jury in. 13 14 (The following proceedings were held in 15 open court in the presence and hearing of the 16 jury:) 17 18 THE COURT: (To the jury) I know what you're 19 thinking. 20 JUROR NO. 7: Uh-oh. 21 THE COURT: You're probably thinking, "Well, 22 if you don't want us to come in until 9:15, then why 23 do you have us here at 8:30?" Right? 24 This is just a little bit more complicated. 25 We're in the rebuttal stage, and the legal issues 26 become more complicated, and I'm just trying to take 27 care of them as quickly as they come up and then get 28 you in here. 12412 1 Just think of it this way: You only have 15 2 more minutes till the break. 3 Counsel, you may proceed. 4 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor. 5 6 CRAIG BONNER 7 Having been previously sworn, resumed the 8 stand and testified further as follows: 9 10 MR. SNEDDON: First of all, I'd like to 11 begin by having another photograph marked as 909 for 12 identification purposes. I've shown it to counsel 13 and I'd like to approach the witness, with the 14 Court's permission. 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 18 BY MR. SNEDDON: 19 Q. Detective Bonner, yesterday, we were talking 20 during your testimony about the location of the two 21 areas where the sensors were located in the 22 downstairs area of Mr. Jackson's bedroom suite, 23 okay? And I've handed you the exhibit marked as 24 People's 909. Do you recognize that photograph? 25 A. Yes, I do. 26 Q. And have you seen that area before? 27 A. Yes, I have. 28 Q. And is that photograph an accurate depiction 12413 1 of what it purports to represent? 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I'd move that 909 4 be admitted into evidence. 5 MR. SANGER: No objection. 6 THE COURT: It's admitted. 7 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, could we have the 8 input for the Elmo, please? 9 Q. We put on the board the photograph -- excuse 10 me. There we go -- the photograph marked as 909, 11 which is now in evidence. And do you recognize that 12 photograph? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. Okay. And in that photograph, do you see 15 the areas where the -- what you call the -- what do 16 you call them? -- the enunciators are located? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And I guess I should give you the red -- 19 that's the laser. Would you, first of all, point 20 out the locations of what you call the enunciators? 21 A. The two enunciators, or alarm speakers, were 22 located, the first one, underneath this 23 bookcase/cabinet, right down here. 24 Q. You're indicating in the lower left-hand 25 corner of the Exhibit 909? 26 A. Correct. Underneath it. 27 Q. All right. 28 A. The second enunciator was located underneath 12414 1 this chair, or throne. 2 Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to show you another 3 photograph marked as 54, which is in evidence. Do 4 you recognize that photograph? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. And that's the same chair -- the chair 7 that's depicted in that photograph is the same chair 8 depicted in photograph 909; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And was that the location of the chair the 11 time that you were out at the house in November of 12 2003? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And was that the location of the sensor -- 15 or the enunciator that you mentioned on that 16 occasion? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And the same thing in December of 2004? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So -- and this is -- which door is this? 21 A. This is the doorway that leads from the 22 hallway into the private area of Michael Jackson's 23 room, or the living space downstairs. 24 Q. All right. Now, the next photograph is 25 People's 69, which is in evidence. You recognize 26 that photograph? 27 A. Yes, I do. 28 Q. And is the cabinet depicted in that 12415 1 photograph the same cabinet that you referenced 2 earlier in your testimony? 3 A. Yes, it is. 4 Q. And the room just to the left of that 5 cabinet is what room? What is that? 6 A. That's the bathroom with the Jacuzzi tub. 7 Q. Okay. And again, was this the same 8 location -- was this cabinet and the enunciator in 9 the same location as depicted in this photograph on 10 the 18th of November, 2003? 11 A. Yes. However, due to the angle that the 12 film -- or the photograph is taken at, you cannot 13 see it in this photograph. 14 Q. But you did see it personally? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And in December when you went out there in 17 2004, was that cabinet still in the same location? 18 A. Yes, it was. 19 Q. And the enunciator was still in the same 20 location? 21 A. Yes, it was. 22 MR. SNEDDON: We can have the lights, Your 23 Honor. 24 Now, Your Honor, I have an exhibit which has 25 been marked as 908 for identification purposes, and 26 I've indicated to counsel what portion of the 27 exhibit that we want to play, and we have it pre-set 28 to that portion. And what I've told counsel that we 12416 1 would do, if this is okay with the Court, is that we 2 will take the portion that's played in court out of 3 this exhibit and provide that, simply that portion, 4 for the Court in case the jury wants to look at it 5 later. In other words, we'll substitute -- not -- 6 we won't substitute. We will provide a 908-A, which 7 will have just the portion that's shown to the jury. 8 THE COURT: That's good. 9 MR. SNEDDON: Because there's other matters 10 on here, and we didn't have time to do the editing 11 on it. And I think that's acceptable to the Court 12 and I think that's acceptable to counsel. 13 MR. SANGER: Yes, it is. 14 THE COURT: All right. That's good. I'd 15 like you to do that. 16 MR. SNEDDON: We will do that, Your Honor. 17 So this is Exhibit 908, and we're going to -- let me 18 ask a few foundation questions and then we'll show 19 it. 20 Q. Detective Bonner, you had occasion to review 21 a DVD disk of some portions of the search warrant 22 that was executed in December of 2004, correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And you were present when those portions of 25 the video that the jury is about to see were filmed; 26 is that correct? 27 A. Yes, I was. 28 Q. In fact, your voice can be heard on the 12417 1 video? 2 A. Correct. 3 MR. SNEDDON: And with regard to the 4 portions that we are about to see, Your Honor, I 5 have another exhibit that I'd like to have marked as 6 People's 907 for identification purposes. I've 7 shown it to counsel, and it's a diagram. And I'd 8 like to show it to the witness and authenticate it 9 before we show the video. 10 THE COURT: You may. How long is the video 11 now? 12 MR. SNEDDON: Very short. It's -- 13 THE WITNESS: About 40 seconds, 45 seconds. 14 MR. SNEDDON: 40 seconds. What's the number 15 on that? 907? 16 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. 17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, can I ask the 18 questions here? I'll talk real loud, if that's all 19 right. 20 I'll go back and forth. I could use the 21 exercise. 22 Q. 907, do you recognize that? 23 A. Yes, I do. 24 Q. Did you prepare that? 25 A. Yes, I did. 26 Q. And is that -- does that purport to be to 27 scale or just an illustration of the various 28 locations of the rooms of the defendant's master 12418 1 bedroom? 2 A. This is not in any way to scale. It's just 3 a quick drawing just to show relative location. 4 MR. SNEDDON: With the Court's permission, I 5 move that be admitted for illustrative purposes of 6 the witness's testimony that he's about to give. 7 MR. SANGER: No objection. 8 THE COURT: It's admitted. 9 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I think we'll play 10 the video and then we'll go back to this exhibit. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, People's 13 Exhibit 908 (to be later marked as 908-A) was played 14 for the Court and jury.) 15 MR. SNEDDON: All right. For the record, 16 that portion of the video that was shown was 19:20 17 to 19:55. 18 Now, we could have the lights again, Your 19 Honor. 20 Q. Mr. -- Sergeant Bonner, where was the 21 cameraman located at the time that those chimes were 22 going off? 23 A. He was standing directly in front of or on 24 top of the area where the enunciator was located 25 underneath the bookcase/cabinet. 26 Q. All right. Let's put this Exhibit 907 up on 27 the board, if we can. 28 Okay. This is Exhibit 907, correct? 12419 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. All right. Now, on the particular exhibit - 3 you have the laser there - you have an "Enunciator 4 1," with a little square; is that correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Where is that located in relationship to the 7 room? 8 A. Enunciator 1 is located right here. This 9 was where the bookcase was. And the enunciator was 10 underneath the bookcase. 11 Q. All right. And could you illustrate to the 12 ladies and gentlemen of the jury the approximate 13 location of the cameraman at the time that they 14 heard the chimes going off in the Exhibit 908? 15 A. Our cameraperson was standing right above 16 that bookcase pointing down, at one point in time 17 directly, the camera pointing directly at where that 18 enunciator was at. 19 Q. You're indicating just to the top left of 20 the small square, correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Or rectangle? 23 A. Through the video, he moves -- he starts out 24 approximately right here, and I believe he ends 25 right about here. 26 Q. Okay. And then with regard to the 27 "Enunciator 2," what does that relate to in your 28 previous testimony? 12420 1 A. Enunciator 2 was the nonworking enunciator 2 that was underneath that red and gold chair. 3 Q. Now, using this diagram as a further 4 illustration, you were shown a photograph yesterday 5 that showed one of the sensors up in the ceiling 6 prior to -- close to the entrance of Mr. Jackson's 7 bedroom door, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And would you show us the location of that 10 on the diagram? 11 A. It is right here, and I have called it 12 "Curtain Sensor 1." 13 Q. Now, in November and December -- November of 14 2003, let's take them one at a time, was that 15 curtain sensor working? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And in December of 2004, was that curtain 18 sensor working? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. SANGER: I'll object, asked and 21 answered, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question. 23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: With regard to the exhibit, 24 907, you have a second curtain sensor located on 25 that exhibit, correct? 26 A. Correct. 27 Q. And why don't you show the jury where that's 28 located? 12421 1 A. That's located prior to the doorway leading 2 into the foyer. Right there. 3 Q. And was that sensor active on November 18th, 4 2003? 5 A. It did not activate any alarms. 6 Q. And with regard to December of 2004, was it 7 working? 8 A. Again, it did not activate any alarms. 9 Q. You weren't out at the ranch in February and 10 March of 2003, correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. All right. I'm just going to ask you one 13 other thing and then we'll be done. 14 I've handed you the exhibit that -- it's 15 907, correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And would you please put on Exhibit 907, 18 with the red pen I've given you, the approximate 19 location of the sheriff's department cameraman at 20 the point where the video was played to the jury? 21 So with regard to Exhibit 907, you've placed 22 a little red figure on that; is that correct? 23 A. Two circles with a line between the two, 24 approximating the positions that you observe him to 25 be in. 26 Q. So he moved during the course of the 27 filming; is that right? 28 A. Correct. 12422 1 Q. But in that area. That was the area during 2 the entire time that the chimes were ringing? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Okay. You've had occasion to view the 5 defense video of the three scenes where the chimes 6 were filmed? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Okay. And with regard to the time that 9 those were filmed, could you determine, from your 10 experience of being out there twice, whether both of 11 the enunciators were working on that day? 12 A. I believe both enunciators were working when 13 the defense did their video. 14 MR. SANGER: I'm going to move to strike 15 that. I didn't understand the question. I move to 16 strike the answer for the purpose of objecting. 17 That would call for speculation. There's no 18 foundation. He wasn't there. 19 MR. SNEDDON: I'm about to ask him that 20 question. 21 THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the 22 objection and strike the answer so you can -- 23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Have you reviewed that 24 video? 25 A. Correct. 26 Q. And from reviewing that video, are you able 27 to determine whether or not both of those 28 enunciators were working at the time that the 12423 1 defense conducted their experiment? 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. SANGER: Objection. He answered. He 4 just answered "yes" or "no," so that's fine. 5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And are you able to reach 6 that opinion based upon your prior experiments and 7 familiarity with how this system works? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. When you were actually out there? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I would ask you how -- what is the basis of 12 your opinion that both enunciators were working the 13 day that the defense filmed their exhibit concerning 14 the chimes in the Jackson suite? 15 MR. SANGER: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes 16 facts not in evidence. There's no evidence as to 17 his opinion, only that he had one. And I object to 18 his opinion, to any opinion, as not being based on 19 an adequate foundation. 20 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll allow the 21 answer. 22 THE WITNESS: There are two different 23 enunciators located in two different locations. 24 There are two different curtain sensors located in 25 two different locations. 26 We know, based upon our being there in 27 December of '04 and on November 18th of '03, that 28 Curtain Sensor 1 activated Enunciator 1, which is 12424 1 located furthest from the stairwell, and that would 2 presumably have a lower volume than if Enunciator 2 3 was activated, based upon the filming with the 4 individual in the upstairs. 5 When you listen -- 6 MR. SANGER: Excuse me. First of all, it's 7 a narrative. And second of all, I move to strike 8 the last part as being an opinion without a 9 foundation. 10 THE COURT: I am going to sustain the 11 objection and strike the opinion. 12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Are you able to tell, from 13 a review -- based upon your familiarity with the 14 system and your having been out there, are you able 15 to determine, "yes" or "no," from a review of those 16 films, that both enunciators were working that day? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And are you able to determine that based 19 upon your review of the sounds, the differing sounds 20 that the chimes make at certain portions during 21 those scenes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Were you also able to determine, when you 24 were out there before, that the enunciators have 25 three volume settings on them? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Multiple volume settings? 28 MR. SANGER: Objection. Leading; asked and 12425 1 answered. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you determine that at 5 some other point in time? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I have no further 8 questions on this subject, Your Honor. But I 9 believe at this point I would have this witness -- 10 I'll ask one question, and then I think we have a 11 stipulation to offer to the Court. And we can have 12 the lights. 13 MR. SANGER: First of all, I want to object 14 to the last question and move to strike the last 15 answer for the purpose of objecting to the question 16 on the grounds there's no foundation. 17 THE COURT: Overruled. 18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: During the course of your 19 role in this investigation, was it your 20 responsibility to review the items that had been 21 obtained through the course of the search warrant 22 process? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And was one of the assignments that you had 25 to determine the items that were seized from the 26 office of Investigator Brad Miller? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. And during the course of that review, did 12426 1 you determine whether or not there was a tape that 2 was recovered from Mr. Miller's office that dealt 3 with an interview between Janet Arvizo and the 4 Department of Child & Family Services in Los Angeles 5 on February the 20th of 2003? 6 A. There was not. 7 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I believe the 8 stipulation, Your Honor, is that -- 9 MR. SANGER: Tom? 10 MR. MESEREAU: Oh. 11 MR. SNEDDON: Do you want to read it? 12 That's fine, thank you. 13 I'll read the stipulation, Your Honor, into 14 the record, if that's appropriate for the Court. 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 MR. SNEDDON: Both sides are willing to 17 stipulate to the following: That prior to the 18 trial, both the prosecution and the defense 19 exchanged documents and other evidence with each 20 other, and on December the 6th of 2004, the defense 21 provided to the prosecution a copy of the DCFS 22 interview of February the 20th of 2003. 23 THE COURT: Is that your agreement, Mr. 24 Mesereau? 25 MR. MESEREAU: The stipulation reads we 26 provided the prosecution with our copy of that 27 interview, I believe. 28 THE COURT: All right. 12427 1 MR. SNEDDON: That's fine. 2 THE COURT: Is that your agreement? 3 MR. SNEDDON: That's our agreement 4 THE COURT: Is that your agreement? 5 MR. MESEREAU: So stipulated, Your Honor, 6 yes. 7 THE COURT: I'll approve that stipulation. 8 (To the jury) When the parties stipulate to 9 a fact, the jury is bound by that stipulation. 10 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I think probably 11 to tie things together for the jury and the Court, 12 we should indicate that the stipulation we entered 13 into is directly related to the exhibit that has 14 been played for the jury here in the courtroom. And 15 I don't have -- I'm sorry, I apologize for not 16 having the exact exhibit number, but I will find 17 that and provide that to the Court later, if you 18 want. 19 MR. MESEREAU: I'm not sure what that even 20 refers to, Your Honor. 21 MR. SNEDDON: I'm referring to the tape that 22 was played of that conversation that the jury heard, 23 which is the February 20th DCFS interview. 24 MR. MESEREAU: I'm not stipulating to that. 25 I'm just -- if he wants to argue that, he can. The 26 stipulation is the stipulation. 27 THE COURT: (To the jury) All right. So 28 you're not bound by what they don't stipulate to. 12428 1 All right. Let's take our break. 2 (Recess taken.) 3 THE COURT: Go ahead. 4 MR. SANGER: I believe Mr. Sneddon was 5 concluded, so may I proceed, Your Honor? 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. SANGER: 11 Q. Detective Bonner, how are you doing? 12 A. Good. 13 Q. All right. Now, there was a lot of 14 testimony about "enunciators" and "curtain sensors" 15 and things like that. Did you learn those terms 16 when you were out there in December of 2004? 17 A. The terminology, yes. 18 Q. Okay. And you learned that because you were 19 out there with some people who had some background 20 in these items; is that right? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. All right. You're not an expert in any of 23 this; is that correct? 24 A. No. 25 Q. And before December the 4th, 2004, if 26 somebody said, "Where was the enunciator?" what 27 would you have said? 28 A. "What is an enunciator?" 12429 1 Q. All right. And if somebody said, "Where is 2 the curtain sensor?" what would you have said? 3 A. "What's a curtain sensor?" 4 Q. All right. Now, you mentioned in the video 5 that we saw that the person was pretty much standing 6 right on top of that cabinet. Do you remember that 7 testimony? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. All right. In fact, the person with the 10 camera was standing some distance away from the 11 cabinet, wasn't he? 12 A. Not far. 13 Q. Okay. Not far. But that's some distance 14 away. That's not "on top of," is it? 15 A. He was -- in the position of the camera, the 16 camera was on top of the location. 17 MR. SANGER: Uh-huh. Do we have the Exhibit 18 907? Oh. It's right here. Thank you. 19 May I put 907 up, Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 22 Q. I'm showing the exhibit tab, "907," at the 23 bottom and then I'll shift back up here. 24 This is your not-to-scale drawing, correct? 25 A. Correct. 26 Q. And you did not make that at the time that 27 you were out there, did you? 28 A. No, I did not. 12430 1 Q. You made that when? Yesterday? Or -- 2 A. A couple days ago. 3 Q. All right. Do you remember a piano in that 4 room? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. It says, "First floor living room area." 7 Where is the piano? 8 A. It's not in there. 9 Q. I know you didn't draw it in there, but can 10 I have the -- 11 A. It was located right about approximately 12 where the "R" -- where the "O" is for "Enunciator 13 1." 14 Q. All right. Well, anyway, everybody can see 15 that, I suppose. We used to have a pointer. 16 Do you have a pointer? 17 MR. ZONEN: Yes. 18 MR. SANGER: May I borrow it? 19 MR. ZONEN: Certainly. 20 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 21 I'm not sure what you do to make it point. 22 All right. Here you go. That's it. 23 Q. So the piano -- there's a little alcove over 24 here, is that right, with a window? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. And the piano is right in that alcove; is 27 that correct? 28 A. Correct. 12431 1 Q. Do you remember seeing the piano in the 2 video, the little clip that we just saw? 3 A. No. 4 Q. All right. And the picture -- let's see 5 which one this is. 6 May I put up 909, Your Honor? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 Q. BY MR. SANGER: In the picture, 909, the 9 photographer was standing right in this area right 10 here; is that correct? 11 A. From that point to poss -- I believe a 12 little bit left of where you're pointing. 13 MR. SNEDDON: I'm going to object as vague 14 as to whether he's talking about this photograph or 15 the cameraman. 16 THE COURT: Sustained. 17 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I obviously meant the 18 cameraman that you were talking about who's taking 19 the video. Because the photographer who took this 20 picture, if he was standing there, you'd see him, 21 right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. So the photographer who was taking the video 24 was standing in approximately this location that 25 we're -- I'm pointing at on Exhibit 909; is that 26 right? 27 A. Correct, and then moved slightly to his left 28 within the filming. 12432 1 Q. Moved over here a little more; is that 2 right? 3 A. Up closer, but, yes. 4 Q. Okay. All right. Now, you heard the video 5 that was played, right? 6 A. Which video are you talking about? 7 Q. The one that was just played. I forget the 8 number. It was -- 9 A. Our video. 10 Q. -- your video. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I'm sorry, forgive me one second. 908-A 13 theoretically is the video that was played. 14 A. Right. 15 Q. You heard that? 16 A. Yes, I did. 17 Q. All right. Now, were you aware that there's 18 a volume control on this video player here on the 19 console in the middle of the courtroom? 20 A. I am aware of that, yes. 21 Q. Okay. Were you aware that all other videos 22 that were played for all subject matter were played 23 between Sound Level 7 and 9? 24 A. Yes. 25 Well, I'm sorry, I take that back. No, I am 26 not. 27 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Auchincloss set this 28 video on 1, the sound level 1 to play the 908-A? 12433 1 MR. SNEDDON: I move to strike this 2 testimony as lack of foundation on the witness's 3 part and irrelevant as to the testimony. 4 THE COURT: Sustained on foundation. 5 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Do you know what 6 setting Mr. Auchincloss put that on when he played 7 it? 8 A. No, I don't. 9 Q. You would agree that there's generally 10 volume controls when you're playing videos, right? 11 A. There are. 12 Q. Now, you were asked some questions about 13 being aware of the investigation in this case 14 because of your position as one of the detectives in 15 the case, right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And are you aware that a number of people 18 have testified that the bell that they heard at the 19 time of the video that was played by the defense, 20 that being the video of the test of the alarm, that 21 that alarm is pretty much the alarm that they've 22 been hearing at that ranch in that hallway for 23 years? Were you aware of that? 24 A. I've heard that secondhand, yes. 25 Q. And you don't have any decibel level tests 26 to produce to the Court at this time? 27 A. No. We attempted, and it was not -- it 28 wasn't worth doing. There was no -- it wasn't 12434 1 consistent would be the best way to describe it. 2 Q. Well, decibel level tests really don't do 3 you much good unless you have something to compare 4 it with; is that right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. So you're basically saying, "Yeah, pretty 7 much that's what I heard. I heard a bell, and it 8 sounded like a bell," right? 9 A. And the volume level, yes. 10 Q. And other people have said they heard what 11 they heard, right? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. All right. And I think you answered this to 14 Mr. Sneddon, but just to be certain, you personally 15 have no idea how this system was functioning in 16 February and March of 2003, correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. All right. Okay. Let me go back to the 19 phone records now, which is the first thing you 20 testified to. And let me clear some of this out of 21 the way. 22 You have in front of you, I think, Exhibits 23 460, 448 and 449; is that correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And those exhibits would be the packet of -- 26 let me withdraw that. 27 Exhibit 460 would be the packet of materials 28 that contain your various charts of phone calls made 12435 1 to and from various people; is that correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And 460 also includes the list of the phone 4 numbers that went to and from; is that correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. That's a chart that's also in 460. 7 All right. Now, 460 was your effort to add 8 certain phone calls, based on records that you 9 reviewed, to the charts that you made previously; is 10 that right? 11 A. Not necessarily, no. 12 Q. Not necessarily. I always worry about an 13 answer like that. 14 A. Well, in certain situations, we did. 15 However, in situations where the calls only showed 16 calls between Bradley Miller and Mark Geragos and 17 did not connect up to the alleged co-conspirators, 18 then we did not include that data in there. 19 Q. Okay. So what I'll do -- I think, to be 20 safe, I better take the actual exhibit. 21 Your Honor, may I approach to retrieve the 22 exhibits? 23 THE COURT: Yes. 24 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 25 Just so we're oriented, Your Honor, I'd like 26 to put up the first page of Exhibit 460, if I may. 27 THE COURT: All right. 28 Q. BY MR. SANGER: So on page one on 460, you 12436 1 show four calls going between Geragos & Geragos and 2 Brad Miller, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And to make that determination, you used the 5 phone records that were in those other two exhibits, 6 448 and 449; is that correct? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. So 448 were the records of Brad Miller? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. All right. And then 449 were the records of 11 Geragos & Geragos? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Now, what phone was it that you looked at 14 for the records of Geragos & Geragos? 15 A. His cellular telephone ending in 3900. I'm 16 sorry, ending in 2100. 17 Q. 2100. Now, Freudian or otherwise, you said 18 3900. Why would that -- 19 A. That is his office phone. 20 Q. Did you analyze that phone number as well? 21 A. We do not have those records. 22 Q. Okay. Did you analyze that number when you 23 looked at the Brad Miller records? 24 A. Yes, I did. 25 Q. Okay. So are some of the phone calls that 26 you've identified on your chart? And I'm putting up 27 the first page here of 460. Are some of those phone 28 records phone calls that were made between the law 12437 1 firm's number of Geragos & Geragos and Brad Miller? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Brad Miller's cell phone records have both 4 incoming and outgoing calls; is that right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. So that's not always the case, right? In 7 phone records, you don't always -- 8 A. That's correct, yes. 9 Q. So in this case, you could tell, by Brad 10 Miller's phone records, what calls were being made 11 from that phone and what calls were received in most 12 cases, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 MR. SANGER: Now, let me skip ahead to the 15 next page. And actually this is page three, because 16 there's a page -- if I may, Your Honor, there's a 17 page on the back of page one. They're two-sided. 18 So I'll put up what is, in essence, page three. 19 THE COURT: All right. 20 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And this is for 2-12 of 21 2003; is that correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And I think you told us, by the way, the 24 first two pages say "'05" and they're really "'03"? 25 A. That's correct. 26 Q. I put one up there that said "'05," but it's 27 really "'03." 28 Now, you have lines back and forth. You 12438 1 still don't show which direction the calls are going 2 in your chart; is that right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And if you go back to the records, you could 5 figure that out, and you did on occasion; is that 6 right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Except for the three-way calls that you 9 identified, of which there were a couple, I think 10 you testified to -- 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. -- the rest of them are calls between two 13 different phones? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. So once again, when you put everybody 16 together, when you loop everybody together, it 17 doesn't mean that Brad Miller's phone, for instance, 18 in this -- if you look at this chart for 2-12, that 19 Brad Miller's phone has any connection to Vincent 20 Amen's phone; is that correct? 21 A. Only in that they have Schaffel in common. 22 Q. Well, but they don't have Schaffel on the 23 line at the same time; is that right? 24 A. No. 25 Q. All right. So from the standpoint of the 26 theory of the prosecution that somehow these people 27 are all related, that's -- 28 MR. SNEDDON: I'm going to object to that 12439 1 question as argumentative. 2 THE COURT: Sustained. 3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: When you say they have 4 Schaffel in common, you're simply showing that 5 there's phone calls from Miller to Schaffel, however 6 you say his name, and there's phone calls from 7 Schaffel's phone to Amen's phone or vice versa, 8 right? 9 A. Correct. 10 MR. SNEDDON: I object. That's 11 unintelligible and compound. 12 THE COURT: Well, it's compound for sure. 13 MR. SANGER: Okay. Is it sustained, Your 14 Honor? I couldn't quite hear what you said. 15 THE COURT: I said it's compound. I didn't 16 rule on the other issue. Go ahead. 17 MR. SANGER: Spared me an unintelligible 18 ruling. 19 THE COURT: Right. 20 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. Well, what I'm 21 getting at here is, the Brad Miller phone and the 22 Schaffel phone have calls that go one way or the 23 other, three calls going one way or the other, 24 right? 25 A. Correct. 26 Q. And then the Schaffel phone and the Amen 27 phone have three calls going one way or the other, 28 correct? 12440 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. You have no information from these phone 3 records who was on any of those phones, correct? 4 A. Yes and no. 5 Q. Okay. You have phones that are registered 6 or purchased by a certain person? 7 A. And cellular phones at that. 8 Q. And some are cellular phones, so you might 9 assume that the person who has the cell phone is a 10 person who's making the calls, right? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. All right. So -- but other than that, you 13 don't know -- 14 A. No. 15 Q. -- who was on the phone? 16 All right. And you certainly don't know the 17 subject matter of these calls, right? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Now, throughout here, and I'm not going to 20 put all these up, you listed quite a number of phone 21 calls between Brad Miller and -- Brad Miller's phone 22 and the Geragos & Geragos phones, right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And those phone calls you listed starting on 25 February the 4th of 2005, right? 26 A. Correct. 27 MR. SANGER: So I'll go back -- with the 28 Court's permission, I'll go back to that page. 12441 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And you prepared this as an 3 exhibit in the case of People versus Michael 4 Jackson, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And from these phone records, do you have 7 any information that any of those four phone calls 8 had anything to do with Michael Jackson or any of 9 these other people who were doing whatever they were 10 doing during this period of time? 11 A. On that particular day, I do not. 12 Q. Okay. In fact, you omitted to list a large 13 number of telephone calls between the Geragos phone 14 or phones and the Brad Miller phones during the 15 period of time for which you had records, did you 16 not? 17 A. I don't understand what you're -- 18 MR. SANGER: Okay. Well, let's do this. 19 May I approach? I want to show the witness an 20 exhibit. 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MR. SANGER: I'll tell you what, I'll do it 23 this way, if it's all right with the Court. I have 24 Exhibit 903, which actually was introduced through 25 the testimony of Mr. Dickerman, and I'd like to turn 26 to a page several pages into it, and I'll put that 27 up. 28 MR. SNEDDON: Can I see it, please? 12442 1 MR. SANGER: Yeah. 2 Q. I'm going to put this up here, and I'm 3 really just showing the top part of it, which is the 4 letterhead of Geragos & Geragos, right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And you mentioned a 3900. It's a little 7 unclear, actually, as I look at it, but the phone 8 number there is (213) 625-3900. That's the main 9 phone number for that law firm, correct? 10 A. It appears by that particular document, yes. 11 Q. And you had mentioned earlier 3900? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. So you were aware that this is, in fact, the 14 main phone number for the Geragos & Geragos law 15 firm; is that right? 16 A. 3900 or 3000. 17 Q. 3900? 18 A. 3900 is the information that I have received 19 from the phone company. 20 Q. Yeah. Okay. Well, now we're having some -- 21 where do you get 3000 from? Does that look like 22 3000? It does, a little bit, to me. 23 A. It does -- it does when I'm looking at it 24 here. 25 MR. SANGER: May I approach, Your Honor? 26 THE COURT: Yes. 27 Q. BY MR. SANGER: That was my concern, too. 28 So let me just show you the document. 12443 1 When you look at it -- if I may ask the 2 question here, when you look at it, it really is 3 3900, correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. I'll put it back up, and maybe I can -- 6 there we go. That's the way it is. So that number, 7 (213) 625-3900, that is the number that you looked 8 for when you looked for phone numbers starting with 9 February 4, 2005, correct? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Were you aware that Brad Miller was a 12 private investigator? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Were you aware that Brad Miller was working 15 for Mr. Geragos during the time period 2003, 16 February through March? 17 A. That is my understanding. 18 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Miller was working 19 for Mr. Geragos on other cases during that time? 20 A. I am not aware personally, no. 21 Q. Not personally, but through your 22 investigation, you became aware of that, did you 23 not? 24 MR. SNEDDON: I'll move to strike as 25 hearsay; lack of foundation. 26 THE COURT: Overruled. 27 You may answer. 28 THE WITNESS: As of, I believe, yesterday, I 12444 1 heard somebody mention another case that they were 2 working on together. 3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: High-profile case, right? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. And you would expect a lawyer and an 6 investigator working on a high-profile case -- 7 having nothing to do with Mr. Jackson, right? The 8 case you just heard about, the case you heard about 9 had nothing to do with Mr. Jackson, correct? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. You would expect that Mr. Geragos and Mr. 12 Miller, his investigator, would be having telephone 13 conversations about that high-profile case, 14 independent of anything to do with Mr. Jackson or 15 anybody associated with Mr. Jackson, right? 16 MR. SNEDDON: Same objection, Your Honor. 17 Lack of foundation; calls for speculation. 18 THE COURT: Sustained. 19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: In fact, when you look at 20 the records -- 21 And I have here, Your Honor, 448, and this 22 is an envelope of records which were the Bradley 23 Miller records. And I want to turn to certain 24 pages. 25 Okay. As luck would have it, they're in a 26 different order. Give me just one second, Your 27 Honor. 28 I'm going to turn to the page that is the 12445 1 telephone bill of January 8, 2003, and it's page 6 2 of 29, and I'd like to put that page up on the 3 screen, and it would be from Exhibit 448. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 6 Q. I'm not going to go through all of these, 7 because they're in evidence, but just as an 8 example -- take a few examples here. Here on 9 November 30th of 2002, there is a call from the 10 Geragos law firm to Mr. Miller's phone; is that 11 correct? 12 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I'm going to 13 object to this. November is way out of the time 14 frame of the purported testimony offered by the 15 prosecution. This is irrelevant and immaterial. 16 THE COURT: Overruled. 17 MR. SANGER: I don't know if there was an 18 answer, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: No, there wasn't. 20 Q. BY MR. SANGER: So my question was, it 21 appears November 30th, 2002, there was a telephone 22 call from the Geragos & Geragos telephone system to 23 Mr. Miller; is that correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And let's see if we can -- I'm not going to 26 go through all of these again, but let me just do 27 some representative ones here. 28 If we -- I'd like to put up page 9 of 29, 12446 1 the January 8th phone bill from Exhibit 448, if I 2 may. 3 Do you see an incoming call? Brad Miller's 4 phone receives a call from the Geragos & Geragos law 5 firm on December 5, 2002, correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And you see down here a couple of calls. 8 One is an incoming call from the cell phone number 9 you had for Geragos & Geragos; is that correct? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. And that would be December 6th, 2002? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And it's followed by an outgoing call to the 14 Geragos cell phone on that same date, three minutes 15 later, right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. In fact, if we go through the records prior 18 to February 4, 2003, the records that you have that 19 start about November of 2002 and go through February 20 3, 2003, there's quite a number of calls, dozens of 21 calls between Mr. Miller's phone and the Geragos & 22 Geragos phones; is that correct? 23 A. I know now that there are three. We did not 24 extend beyond the relevant time frame during our 25 analysis. 26 Q. Well, and how did you determine the relevant 27 time frame? 28 A. Based upon what was happening with the 12447 1 family and the events that occurred beginning in the 2 beginning of February and ending mid March. 3 Q. So when you say you're showing the phone 4 calls that are in the relevant time period, you're 5 saying that you believe somehow support your theory 6 in this case against Mr. Jackson; is that right? 7 MR. SNEDDON: I'm going to object to that 8 and ask counsel be admonished. It's argumentative. 9 THE COURT: Sustained. 10 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Saying the relevant time 11 period, you're talking about the time period that 12 you believe pertains to this case, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. But you don't know that the phone calls were 15 made during that period of time. Let me withdraw 16 that. 17 You don't know whether or not the phone 18 calls made during that period of time had any 19 relation to this case? 20 A. I think I can, yes. 21 Q. You think some of them did? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Some of them -- there are calls being made 24 between Mr. Miller and Mr. Geragos that have 25 something to do with what he testified to that he 26 was doing in this case, we would assume, right? 27 A. Well, in addition to that, you have direct 28 calls between Mr. Geragos and the alleged 12448 1 co-conspirators. You also have direct calls between 2 Mr. Miller and the alleged co-conspirators. 3 Q. That's right. 4 A. And calls between Mr. Geragos and Mr. Miller 5 during that same time frame. 6 Q. That's right. But when you put the calls 7 between Mr. Geragos and Mr. Miller up there, you 8 don't know how many of those pertain to this case 9 and how many of those pertain to the other 10 high-profile case you talked about, right? 11 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I'm going to 12 object. It's argumentative and asked and answered. 13 THE COURT: Overruled. 14 THE WITNESS: No. 15 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And you also don't know how 16 many calls pertained to other things that relate 17 maybe to other cases or other matters, do you? 18 A. Not necessarily, no. 19 Q. Okay. Now, you said you only know of three. 20 I think I showed you four so far, but -- 21 A. I remembered three, but if you showed me 22 four, I know four. 23 Q. All right. Let me ask you to do this, 24 because I really don't want to take up the Court's 25 time doing this, if I may. 26 What I'd like to do is take this off the 27 board, and I'm going to -- with the Court's 28 permission, I'm going to take Exhibit 448, which is 12449 1 the actual court exhibit of the Brad Miller phone 2 records, and I'm going to also bring up a book with 3 some markers on it and let the witness take a look 4 at all of that and see if we can't identify some 5 more phone calls more quickly. 6 May I do that? 7 THE COURT: Fine. 8 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 10 Q. BY MR. SANGER: That's 448, and I'll show 11 you my book there, and you can do whatever you want 12 to answer this question. But what I'm going to ask 13 you, after you have a chance to flip through, there 14 appears to be some phone numbers that we already 15 highlighted and put some post-its there so you can 16 find them. 17 And what I'm going to ask you is, after you 18 reviewed that, if that would give you sufficient 19 information to tell me whether or not there appear 20 to be dozens of phone calls between Mr. Miller 21 and -- Mr. Miller's office and Mr. Geragos's office 22 prior to February the 4th, 2003. 23 A. I did it. 24 Dozens, as long as you're talking multiple, 25 as in two or three dozen, yes. 26 Q. Two or three dozen, all right. 27 May I approach with another exhibit, Your 28 Honor? 12450 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I was going to say while 3 counsel is looking at that, but by the way, the Law 4 Firm of Geragos & Geragos, you determined, has a 5 number of lawyers in it; is that correct? 6 A. I know of at least two -- 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. -- personally. 9 Q. Personally you know of two? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. All right. In fact, besides personally 12 knowing of two, there's five or six lawyers in the 13 firm, is there not? 14 A. I don't know. 15 MR. SNEDDON: I'm going to object to that. 16 Calls for speculation 17 THE COURT: It's overruled. He said he 18 doesn't know. 19 MR. SANGER: All right. I'm going to show 20 you what's been marked for identification as Exhibit 21 5108. 22 And, Your Honor, this was previously marked 23 for identification perhaps at a point when the jury 24 wasn't in the room, so if I may recite what it is. 25 It is a page from a telephone bill of February the 26 25th, 2003, to a number at the ranch, 688-1679. And 27 I believe Mr. Sneddon agreed to the foundation for 28 that. It hasn't been offered yet. 12451 1 Q. Okay. So I'm asking you to look at Exhibit 2 5108. You've got that in front of you. And I'd 3 like you to look at the first entry, which is on 4 line 13, for February the 12th, a call at 12:55 a.m. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. Does it appear that a call was made at 12:55 7 a.m. from the ranch to a particular number that's 8 shown there? Do you see it? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And it lasted about seven minutes. They 11 were billed for seven minutes? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. All right. Do you recognize the number to 14 which that call was placed? 15 A. I do not. 16 Q. But you would agree that there is a call at 17 2:55 a.m. that's made from the ranch elsewhere; is 18 that correct? 19 A. 12:55 a.m. 20 Q. I'm sorry, 12:55 a.m., and it's made to a 21 local (805) area code -- 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. -- destination. 24 All right. Thank you. And I have no 25 further questions. 26 // 27 // 28 // 12452 1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. SNEDDON: 3 Q. Detective Bonner, with regard to the exhibit 4 that was played for the jury, 808, I believe is the 5 exhibit -- 6 MR. SANGER: It was 908-A. 7 MR. SNEDDON: I'm sorry. 8 MR. SANGER: 908. 9 MR. SNEDDON: 908? Thank you. 10 Q. 908-A, the one that was played in the 11 courtroom, the one that you marked the location of 12 the cameraman at the time it was made -- 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. -- you were there at that location when that 15 film was made; is that correct? 16 A. Yes, I was. 17 Q. And you were obviously in the courtroom when 18 you heard it played for the jury? 19 A. Yes, I was. 20 Q. Was the sound of those chimes louder or 21 softer at the time that you were standing next to 22 the cameraman in the room than in the courtroom 23 here? 24 A. I would say it was consistent. 25 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Thank you very 26 much. 27 MR. SANGER: I have no further questions. 28 MR. SNEDDON: Oh. 12453 1 MR. SANGER: Oh, maybe I do. 2 MR. SNEDDON: I'm just reminded, yeah, 3 before the witness leaves, that there was -- we 4 moved 416 into evidence and the Court held it back 5 until after Mr. Sanger had cross-examination, and we 6 would now move that 416 -- 460, I'm sorry. That's 7 how these problems occur -- 460 be admitted into 8 evidence. 9 MR. SANGER: Those are the -- 10 MR. SNEDDON: Charts. 11 MR. SANGER: -- the charts. They're 12 cumulative to a certain extent, but I'll submit it. 13 THE COURT: Admitted. 14 Any other questions? 15 MR. SNEDDON: No, I don't have any 16 questions. 17 THE COURT: All right. You may step down. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Call your next witness. 20 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, at this time I 21 have a document which I'd like to move -- I've had 22 marked as People's 902 for identification purposes. 23 I gave counsel a copy of it yesterday. I'll let him 24 examine it to make sure it's -- 25 MR. SANGER: No, no. That's all right. 26 MR. SNEDDON: It's a document from the 27 Superior Court, the State of California, the County 28 of Los Angeles, and it's a five-page document, and 12454 1 it is part of the lawsuit involving the Arvizos and 2 J.C. Penney. And I would move that this document be 3 admitted into evidence. It is certified by the 4 Clerk of the Court May 26th of 2005. 5 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I have an objection 6 to that which I'll state in legal terms first. 7 The objection is that the document contains 8 hearsay, and the Court will have to look at it to 9 see what I'm talking about. There's a declaration 10 that's just hearsay, opinion. 11 Secondly, it's an incomplete document. 12 THE COURT: Wait. Who has the document? 13 MR. SNEDDON: I do, Your Honor. I'll -- 14 MR. SANGER: It's an incomplete -- if I may 15 just finish my objection. Is that all right, Your 16 Honor? 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 MR. SANGER: It's an incomplete document in 19 that it refers to Exhibits, I believe, A and B that 20 are not attached to this particular document, and it 21 is also one document that, besides being hearsay, is 22 out of context without those exhibits and without 23 the other documents surrounding it. 24 If you'd want us to approach, I was going to 25 pinpoint the objection. 26 MR. SNEDDON: I could state the relevancy, 27 which probably might be helpful to the Court. I 28 could do it from here or I could do it at the bench. 12455 1 THE COURT: Why don't you approach. 2 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.) 3 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, there is another 4 item. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. SNEDDON: There is a series of 7 photographs marked 889 through 897, which are the 8 photographs I believe that were relevant to the 9 testimony of Brett Barnes, and they were marked for 10 identification. They were authenticated by at least 11 two witnesses, and we move that they be admitted 12 into evidence. 13 MR. SANGER: And I missed the numbers on 14 that. I'm sorry. 15 MR. SNEDDON: 889 and 897. I believe the 16 letter is 897. The photographs are 889 to 896. And 17 there might even be a blank space in there. 18 MR. SANGER: Before we get to that, Your 19 Honor, just so the record is clear, I don't think 20 the Court ruled on the record. 21 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone's off, sir. 22 MR. SANGER: My fault, I'm sorry. 23 I don't think the Court ruled on the record 24 with regard to 902. 25 THE COURT: All right. I'm ruling at this 26 point, without further information, it's 27 inadmissible. 28 MR. SANGER: Now, with regard to what was 12456 1 just offered, quite frankly, I'd have to take look 2 at it to see what we're talking about. 3 THE COURT: 889 -- 4 MR. SANGER: Could I approach your clerk? I 5 believe she's retrieving them. 6 THE COURT: Yeah. 889 through 897. 895 has 7 not been identified, so it wouldn't include 895. 8 MR. SANGER: Let me show them to Mr. 9 Mesereau. 10 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel 11 table.) 12 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, as far as the 13 photographs are concerned, which are 889 through 14 896, minus 895, which is not being offered, we would 15 have no objection to that series. 16 With regard to the letter, which is 897, 17 that's hearsay, and we would object. 18 THE COURT: 889 - let me see those, please - 19 through 896 are admitted. 20 895, not having been identified, it's not 21 one of the ones I'm admitting. 22 MR. SANGER: With regard to the letter -- I 23 just gave it back. Whatever number that was. 897? 24 THE COURT: Yes. 25 MR. SANGER: I'll object as hearsay, but I'd 26 also object that this is not proper rebuttal. This 27 is something that occurred during the defense case 28 or was brought up during the defense case, and if it 12457 1 was going to be moved in, it should have been moved 2 in then. But it's still hearsay, so I don't think 3 it comes in either way. 4 THE COURT: Do you want to speak to the 5 hearsay issue? 6 MR. ZONEN: Yes, Your Honor. 7 It's reflective of the declarant's state of 8 mind. She was cross-examined extensively about that 9 letter. The author of that letter was a witness for 10 the defense during the defense case. And that 11 letter, without getting into the content of it, 12 reflects her feelings and views of the relationship 13 between she, the defendant and her child, and I 14 believe it's relevant for that, in that regard. 15 THE COURT: I'll take this up later. 16 MR. ZONEN: Would you like a typed copy of 17 that? It's easier to read in a typed copy. 18 THE COURT: If you have one. 19 MR. ZONEN: I don't know that I have one 20 here, but I will get one for you as soon as 21 possible. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. SANGER: Will you give us a copy of the 24 typed copy? 25 MR. ZONEN: Yes. 26 THE COURT: Go ahead. 27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, at this time 28 we would like to publish for the jury seven 12458 1 different documents from the 400 series of 2 documents, all in the 400 notebook. These were the 3 documents that were admitted pursuant to a search of 4 the home of Marc Schaffel. 5 I can proceed in a couple of ways. There's 6 two of the documents that will require reading, 7 either by myself or by the jury. So those will take 8 just a little bit of time. And I can publish them 9 on the Elmo and give the jury time to read them. 10 The other documents are short and should be pretty 11 quick to get on and off the screen. 12 So I'm happy to proceed any way you'd like 13 me to. These documents, by the way, are not part of 14 our rebuttal case. They were admitted at the end of 15 the People's case, and we did not have a chance to 16 publish them because of that. 17 THE COURT: And I said I would allow you to 18 publish them. 19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: How would you like me to 20 proceed? Just to put them on the Elmo and give the 21 jury time to read them? 22 THE COURT: That's fine. 23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Very well. 24 I'll just mention each document as I'm placing it on 25 the Elmo. 26 THE COURT: All right. 27 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, could we just 28 approach for a moment? Could we approach for a 12459 1 moment? 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 4 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.) 5 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel 6 table.) 7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe counsel's just 8 going to take a moment to look at the documents 9 before I publish them. 10 THE COURT: That's what we agreed to. 11 MR. SANGER: Based on the representation 12 that each of these has actually been received -- I 13 know the Court had some rulings, but based on that 14 representation, I have no objection. 15 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Your Honor, if 17 I could please have the Elmo. 18 MR. SANGER: I would object to any reading. 19 I mean, introduce what it is, but I don't think 20 there should be further discussion, except to say, 21 "This is Exhibit so and so." 22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That's my intention. 23 And if I could confirm with Madam Clerk, was 24 419 received into evidence? 419, page three? 25 THE CLERK: Yes. Yes. Yes, it was. 26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. 27 The first exhibit will be 419, page three, 28 Your Honor. 12460 1 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 419, page 2 three, was published to the Court and jury.) 3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The next exhibit will be 4 418-A. 5 THE CLERK: 418-A was not received. 6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: 418-A? 7 THE CLERK: 418, page three, was received. 8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, okay. But 418-A? 9 THE CLERK: Was not received. 10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Not received, okay. 11 418? 12 THE CLERK: That was received. 13 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 418 was 14 published to the Court and jury.) 15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The next exhibit I'll ask 16 to publish is Exhibit 417, page 12. 17 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 417, page 12, 18 was published to the Court and jury.) 19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'll show a wide-angle 20 view, and then I'll close in on the text portion. 21 THE COURT: Counsel, we're going to stop just 22 for a second. 23 Go ahead, Alternate. 24 MR. SANGER: Could we use the moment to 25 approach on a different matter at this time? 26 THE COURT: Yeah. 27 MR. SANGER: I think with Mr. Sneddon on 28 this one. 12461 1 I'm sorry, Mr. Sneddon. 2 MR. SNEDDON: What's the matter? 3 MR. SANGER: Approach. 4 MR. SNEDDON: May I know what it's about? 5 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel 6 table.) 7 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.) 8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I proceed, Your Honor? 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The next exhibit I will be 11 publishing will be Exhibit No. 410, page two. 12 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 410, page two, 13 was published to the Court and jury.) 14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And the next exhibit I 15 will be publishing will be 407, pages two and three. 16 And this one will take a little bit of time. These 17 next two are -- have some text in them, so I'll 18 probably move in close and then gradually move down 19 the page, with the Court's permission. 20 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 407, page two, 21 was published to the Court and jury.) 22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may, I'll move the 23 letter down. 24 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 407, page two, 25 continued to be published to the Court and jury.) 26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And finally, I'll move on 27 to page three now. 28 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 407, page 12462 1 three, was published to the Court and jury.) 2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And then the last exhibit 3 we'll be publishing at this time is Exhibit No. 405. 4 I'll also move this down slowly to give everyone a 5 chance to read it. 6 (Whereupon, People's Exhibit 405 was 7 published to the Court and jury.) 8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you very 9 much, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Mr. Sneddon? 11 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Do you have the -- remember that 13 short brief you gave me on the issue on this tape, 14 on this DVD? 15 MR. SNEDDON: Do I remember the issue? 16 THE COURT: Do you have the brief that you 17 provided me with? 18 MR. SNEDDON: On this issue? 19 THE COURT: Yeah. 20 MR. SNEDDON: I -- I -- I'm not sure if I 21 do. Could I check my briefcase? 22 THE COURT: Yes. I don't have mine at bench, 23 so I was just wondering if someone had it. 24 MR. SNEDDON: Oh, on the -- yes, sir, I know 25 what you're talking about. 26 I'm sorry, Your Honor, I did not bring my 27 copy with me. I think Mr. Auchincloss can retrieve 28 it on his computer, but to get it printed out would 12463 1 be another thing. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Are you going to -- are 3 you preparing to play that now? 4 MR. SNEDDON: I was. I have a few questions 5 to ask to lay the foundation, but I can have 6 somebody run upstairs and print it out. It may be 7 on -- should be on Mag's computer, isn't it? 8 Your Honor, I think Mr. Nicola has it on his 9 computer as well, and we can go up and print it out 10 and have it down here, I think, in just a couple of 11 minutes. 12 THE COURT: All right. I appreciate it. 13 MR. SNEDDON: Would you like me to go ahead 14 and at least lay the foundation? 15 THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. 16 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I'll call Sergeant 17 Robel back to the stand, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: You're still under oath. You may 19 be seated. 20 21 STEVE ROBEL 22 Having been previously sworn, resumed the 23 stand and testified further as follows: 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION 26 BY MR. SNEDDON: 27 Q. Sergeant Robel, in conjunction with your 28 assignment involved in this investigation, did you 12464 1 conduct an interview with Gavin Arvizo? 2 A. Yes, I did. 3 Q. Do you recall when the first time it was 4 that you interviewed Gavin Arvizo? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. And when was that? 7 A. I believe it was July the 6th, 2003. 8 Q. And where did that interview take place? 9 A. In the City of Santa Barbara. 10 Q. And where in the City of Santa Barbara? 11 A. At the SART Cottage. 12 Q. And what does "SART" stand for? 13 A. Sexual Assault Response Team. It's a 14 building that we use to conduct forensic interviews. 15 Q. And was the conversation and interview that 16 you conducted that day with Gavin Arvizo 17 tape-recorded? 18 A. Yes, it was. 19 Q. Was it also videoed? 20 A. Yes, it was. 21 Q. And was there another officer who 22 participated with you in that interview? 23 A. Yes, there was. 24 Q. And who was that? 25 A. Detective Paul Zelis. 26 Q. Now, you have had occasion since then to 27 review the tape of the interview with Gavin Arvizo, 28 correct? 12465 1 A. Yes, I have. 2 Q. And you've actually done that on a number of 3 occasions? 4 A. Yes, I have. 5 Q. Now, with regard to the original interview, 6 what media format was that done in? 7 A. VHS. 8 Q. And you've reviewed that VHS tape; is that 9 correct? 10 A. Yes, I have. 11 Q. And later, for purposes -- well, later, that 12 VHS was converted into a digital form; is that 13 correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. And have you had occasion to review the 16 digital form of the interview between you and Gavin 17 Arvizo? 18 A. Yes, I have. 19 Q. And have you -- with regard to the VHS 20 original and the DVD copy that was made, do they 21 appear to you to be the same? 22 A. Yes, they do. 23 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I believe that we 24 have previously marked People's 900, and it was 25 marked for identification purposes at that time, and 26 we would now move that People's Exhibit 900 be 27 admitted into evidence. 28 MR. SANGER: We object, of course, but if 12466 1 it's admitted, it's admitted for a limited purpose. 2 THE COURT: It is. 3 MR. SNEDDON: With that understanding, Your 4 Honor, and -- 5 THE COURT: It's admitted. 6 MR. SNEDDON: -- I'm afraid I've stalled as 7 long as I can. 8 THE COURT: Maybe we'll just start the break. 9 The reason I wanted that is, I want to give 10 a limiting instruction, and I'm trying to develop 11 some words, and so I think we'll just break early so 12 I can look at that. I don't want to show the tape 13 till we've done that. 14 MR. SNEDDON: I understand. That's -- I 15 understand fully. Thank you. 16 THE COURT: Send it back to me as soon as 17 you -- 18 MR. SNEDDON: I'm sorry? 19 THE COURT: Send it back as soon as you get 20 it. 21 MR. SNEDDON: Oh, send it back. Yes, sir. 22 (Recess taken.) 23 THE COURT: (To the jury) I was going to 24 say, "Would you step out for a minute?" but I got 25 the laugh anyway. 26 All right. What I've been working on, what 27 we've been working on, is an instruction here, and 28 this is an instruction as it relates to this 12467 1 evidence that the District Attorney is about to 2 present: 3 You have previously heard evidence of 4 Gavin's statements presented by both the prosecution 5 and the defense. You are about to hear and see a 6 tape-recording of the interview of Gavin Arvizo by 7 Sergeant Robel and Detective Zelis in July of 2003. 8 This is being shown to you only to observe 9 the demeanor, manner and attitude of the witness. 10 His statements are not to be considered for the 11 truth of the matter stated. 12 Since the evidence is offered for this 13 limited purpose, the defense is only permitted to 14 offer rebuttal evidence for this limited purpose. 15 All right. You may proceed. 16 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, we're prepared to 17 show the video at this time, and I would request 18 that Sergeant Robel be allowed to sit back here so 19 he wouldn't be in the way for people to see the 20 video. 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MR. SNEDDON: Is that okay with the Court? 23 THE COURT: Yes. 24 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Fine. 25 I think I should indicate for the record, 26 this is Exhibit 900. It's in evidence. 27 THE COURT: And you should tell everyone 28 about how long it will take to play it. 12468 1 MR. SNEDDON: Oh, okay. It's about one hour 2 and four minutes long. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 (Whereupon, a DVD, People's Exhibit 900, was 5 played for the Court and jury.) 6 MR. SNEDDON: I have no further questions, 7 Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger? 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. SANGER: 12 Q. All right. I only have a couple of areas to 13 cover with you here. 14 The first one is that there's sniffling you 15 hear throughout that tape. Did you hear that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. That was Detective Zelis; is that right? 18 A. On a couple occasions it was Detective 19 Zelis. He had a cold. 20 Q. A couple of occasions? 21 A. There were occasions that it was Gavin as 22 well. 23 Q. And I saw you giving Gavin Kleenex to help 24 him with his sniffling? 25 A. No, he was wiping his nose with his finger. 26 Q. And you would agree, if people watch that, 27 they can form their own opinion on that? 28 MR. SNEDDON: I'll object as argumentative. 12469 1 THE COURT: Sustained. 2 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Now, the other 3 thing I want to ask you about is, and this relates 4 to the demeanor of Gavin Arvizo, because that's our 5 limited scope here, okay? 6 The demeanor of somebody when you're -- 7 well, let me put this in context. Excuse me. 8 I think we've already been over this, but 9 you've been a police officer for a long time, 10 correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. And you've conducted many, many interviews; 13 is that correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. And you've conducted many, many 16 interrogations; is that correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. All right. And there's a difference between 19 an interview and an interrogation, correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. An interview, you're listening, you're 22 taking notes, you're hearing what has to be said, 23 right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. An interrogation, you're trying to get 26 somebody to tell you something. You think they're 27 not maybe being forthcoming. You want to 28 interrogate them and get it out of them; is that 12470 1 right? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. All right. This was an interview, not an 4 interrogation, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And the demeanor of a person will differ -- 7 in your vast experience in this regard, the demeanor 8 of a person is going to be affected by whether or 9 not you're doing an interrogation or an interview, 10 correct? 11 A. In a way, I don't agree totally with that. 12 Q. Let's start with this: Do you agree mostly 13 with that? 14 A. When you're interviewing adults versus 15 children, there is a difference in their demeanor, 16 whether -- and even interviewing children, there's a 17 major change in their -- even if it's a friendly 18 interview, you're going to see behavioral changes in 19 a child versus an adult. 20 Q. All right. You may be reading more into the 21 question than I thought there, but the fact is, if 22 you're saying to somebody in a situation where you 23 are interrogating them and challenging what they are 24 telling you, that is likely to have an effect on 25 their demeanor, as opposed to simply interviewing 26 them and listening to what they have to say, right? 27 A. That is correct. 28 Q. And in this particular case, Gavin was 13 12471 1 when you did this interview; is that correct? 2 A. Yes, he was. 3 Q. And, for instance, there's a part where you 4 ask him what an erection was, if he knew what an 5 erection was; is that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And this 13-year-old boy told you he knew 8 what it was because Michael Jackson had told him. 9 Remember that? 10 A. He shook his head and -- I even had a hard 11 time hearing what he said, but he shook his head as 12 "Yes." I couldn't say exactly if he said it was 13 Michael or not at this point. 14 Q. Okay. Whatever it is, it's on there. 15 A. Right. 16 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I'm going to 17 object to counsel's statements and move to strike. 18 THE BAILIFF: Can't hear you. 19 MR. SNEDDON: Object to counsel's statements 20 and move to strike. 21 MR. SANGER: It's actually foundational to 22 the next question. 23 MR. SNEDDON: Well, it -- 24 MR. SANGER: But, whatever. 25 THE COURT: Sustained. 26 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Okay. My point is, whatever 27 he said, whatever he said in response to the 28 questions as to whether or not this 13-year-old boy 12472 1 knew what an erection was, you did not challenge him 2 at that point and say, "Well, what do you mean? 3 You're 13 and you're telling me you don't know what 4 an erection is," right? 5 A. No, I did not. 6 Q. All right. And you would agree that if you 7 had conducted an interview in that fashion, that 8 that might have resulted in a different demeanor on 9 the part of the witness that you were interrogating; 10 is that correct? 11 A. Can you ask that again, please? 12 MR. SANGER: Probably not. 13 THE COURT: Do you want it read back? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, please. 15 MR. SANGER: If we can read have it back, if 16 that's all right, Your Honor. 17 (Record read.) 18 MR. SANGER: Now that it was read back, I 19 actually used two words there that probably aren't 20 compatible. Can I withdraw it and make it more 21 clear? 22 THE COURT: Yes. 23 Q. BY MR. SANGER: You indicated you were 24 conducting an interview and not an interrogation, so 25 my question is, if you had used interrogative 26 techniques in response to questions like that, you 27 would expect to see a different demeanor on the part 28 of the subject, no matter who it is, right? 12473 1 A. Asking that particular question? Is that -- 2 Q. Sure. I was just using that as an example. 3 A. Under interrogation versus interview. 4 Q. Yeah. You'd expect to see a different 5 demeanor, correct? 6 A. Possibly. 7 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. I have no 8 further questions. 9 10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. SNEDDON: 12 Q. Sergeant Robel, in the course of your 13 training, you have been to a number of classes and 14 training exercises dealing with the specific 15 interview of child sexual assault cases, have you 16 not? 17 A. Yes. Several. 18 Q. And have you ever been to a class where 19 they've told you to use the interrogation and 20 techniques that you would use with an adult with a 21 kid in that setting? 22 A. No. 23 MR. SANGER: I would object, Your Honor, as 24 beyond the scope of cross and outside the limited 25 issue. 26 THE COURT: Sustained. 27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Would you ever use an 28 interrogation technique with a child molestation 12474 1 victim? 2 A. No, I wouldn't. 3 MR. SANGER: Objection; outside the scope. 4 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, he asked specifically 5 that question. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. 7 You may answer. 8 THE WITNESS: I would not. It's -- 9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Why? 10 A. Because interviewing a child, he is -- this 11 person is a victim, not a suspect, and in this 12 particular interview, I was trained in forensic 13 interviewing, and that is interviewing and not 14 interrogation. 15 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further. 16 17 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. SANGER: 19 Q. And that decision is based on the fact that 20 you assumed that this individual was a victim, 21 correct? 22 A. I assumed to -- the charges that I was 23 investigating, the alleged charges, yes. 24 MR. SANGER: Thank you. No further 25 questions. 26 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor. 27 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. 28 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, we have no further 12475 1 evidence to present in rebuttal. 2 I would indicate to the Court, however, that 3 with regard to the document that we went to the 4 Court -- to sidebar on, which I believe is 902, that 5 I would like the opportunity to present further 6 documentation on Tuesday morning on that issue, so I 7 could rest contingent upon that. 8 THE COURT: Is that agreeable with you? 9 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, sir. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor. 12 Thank you, Counsel. 13 THE COURT: I was trying to remember what 14 document that was, but now I do remember. 15 MR. SNEDDON: Do you remember now? 16 THE COURT: I do. So now I'm -- I would 17 allow you to try to resubmit that. That was taken 18 under that -- 19 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. 20 MR. SANGER: Before we proceed, could we 21 have a moment to talk? 22 THE COURT: Well, you can have a break if 23 you'd like. 24 MR. SANGER: Very well. 25 THE COURT: But I wouldn't want to have to 26 take a break and then come back and you weren't 27 going to do anything. 28 MR. MESEREAU: Let me talk to counsel if I 12476 1 can, Your Honor. 2 MR. SANGER: Can we just have a moment? 3 THE COURT: Yeah. 4 Let me make a ruling. Counsel? You don't 5 have to move. I'm just -- I am going to sustain the 6 hearsay objection to 897. 7 (Discussion held off the record among the 8 defense team.) 9 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, the defense 10 rests. 11 THE COURT: All right. Both sides have 12 rested subject to one document. 13 MR. SNEDDON: That's correct, Your Honor. 14 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, there's one 15 additional document that the Court has under 16 submission as well. That's the letter. And I did 17 furnish -- 18 MR. SNEDDON: He just ruled on that. 19 MR. ZONEN: Oh. 20 THE COURT: I just ruled it was hearsay. 21 MR. ZONEN: Oh, I'm sorry. 22 MR. SNEDDON: You lost it. 23 THE COURT: And I sustained the objection. 24 MR. ZONEN: It's not the first time. 25 THE COURT: (To the jury) All right. Then 26 you have heard all of the evidence that you're going 27 to hear in this case. What remains for the Court 28 and the attorneys is the process to agree and work 12477 1 out jury instructions. 2 It's hard for me to estimate how much time 3 that's going to take. I know it's going to take a 4 day. I know that. I mean, that's a minimum. And 5 that means that you would not come in on Tuesday. 6 So Monday is a holiday, right? 7 Okay. Tuesday you're not going to come in 8 because we're going to go over jury instructions. 9 Now, what I'm going to have you do is to 10 call in on Tuesday afternoon at -- let's say, you 11 know, not before -- say at four o'clock, and there 12 will be a message on whether you're to come back in 13 on Wednesday or -- yeah, Wednesday or Thursday. And 14 that depends on whether we get all of our jury 15 instructions done, and I think we will. I really 16 think we will, but I don't want you coming in and, 17 you know, have to wait around. I just don't want 18 that. I want us to be done with our job before you 19 come back. 20 Now, is there a number -- what number can I 21 give them? What's your number, Leslie? 22 THE BAILIFF: Mine? 23 THE COURT: No, no. 24 THE BAILIFF: Mine? 25 THE COURT: No, I need -- what's a number to 26 give them so that we can have a message for them? 27 Should they call Jury Services? 28 THE BAILIFF: Jury Services would be the 12478 1 best number. 2 THE COURT: You know what? If you'll go back 3 in the jury room, I'll release -- just stay there 4 until the bailiff comes back and gives you a number 5 to call. So it's kind of -- I know it puts you on 6 this kind of a situation, but it's better to do it 7 Tuesday afternoon than Wednesday morning. 8 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, could there be an 9 admonition, given the long weekend? 10 THE COURT: Oh, yes. 11 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 12 THE COURT: I will admonish you to remember 13 you're not to discuss the case with anyone. You're 14 still not to form any opinions or conclusions, 15 because until you know the law, until you hear the 16 law, until you hear the argument of counsel, you 17 really aren't allowed to decide this case. You've 18 got to wait till that moment when everything has 19 been done for you to decide the case. 20 You're not to go to any place mentioned in 21 the evidence for the purpose of investigation or 22 trying to find out for yourself. You're not to 23 consult any written works, legal works or other 24 works, to try and help you in this case. Remember, 25 you can only decide the case from what you hear on 26 the witness stand and the evidence that comes in. 27 You're not to watch any news events, any 28 news programs. You're not to read any newspapers or 12479 1 magazines relating to this case. 2 And there's an admonition, too, that I never 3 have to give a jury, and you're going to hear about 4 it in the final instructions, but there is a rule of 5 law that prevents jurors, after the case is over, 6 from charging compensation for giving information or 7 accepting compensation for giving information about 8 your experience. 9 And I alert you to that, because it's not 10 something we usually read, you know. It's not 11 something you really -- jurors aren't usually 12 offered compensation or have that opportunity. But 13 I wanted to just advise you in advance there is some 14 specific laws about that that affect all of you, and 15 I will give you the actual law when I read it to you 16 next week. 17 And I'll see you probably on Wednesday, but 18 we'll get this phone number for you in just a couple 19 minutes. 20 Take them back and -- 21 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Yes, sir. 22 23 (The following proceedings were held in 24 open court outside the presence and hearing of the 25 jury:) 26 27 THE COURT: All right. Is there any reason 28 not to recess until -- 12480 1 MR. MESEREAU: I don't think so, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: -- until Tuesday morning? 3 MR. MESEREAU: I don't think so. 4 THE COURT: You'll be prepared in every 5 respect with your jury instructions, any that you 6 don't have? 7 MR. MESEREAU: If I may, Your Honor, I think 8 I may have spoken prematurely. There was an issue 9 yesterday that -- 10 THE BAILIFF: Can't hear you. 11 MR. MESEREAU: There was an issue 12 yesterday -- 13 MR. SNEDDON: Microphone. 14 Gordon? He wants to use the mike. 15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Oh. 16 THE COURT: My secretary's reminding me that 17 there was a motion that you're going to file to seal 18 those phone records, Mr. Geragos's phone records. 19 MR. SNEDDON: I'll take care of that. We'll 20 have it on Tuesday morning. 21 MR. SANGER: I believe the representation 22 was that the motion was going to be to seal 23 everybody's phone records. 24 THE COURT: All phone records, yeah. Okay. 25 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, there was an 26 issue yesterday where I stipulated to some e-mails 27 that it appeared had been sent from Mr. Miller's 28 office to Mr. Geragos's office. I later learned 12481 1 that there was some documents attached to that 2 exhibit that were not strictly e-mails. I think Ms. 3 Yu and Mr. Zonen met with you about that. 4 THE COURT: They did. 5 MR. MESEREAU: And I was not stipulating to 6 the non-e-mail documents. And I did discuss that 7 with Mr. Zonen as well. I don't -- I think -- 8 THE COURT: They're not -- that was 9 explained to me. Those are not in evidence. 10 MR. MESEREAU: Yeah, okay. Thank you, Your 11 Honor. 12 MR. ZONEN: The entire packet has been 13 withdrawn; is that right? 14 THE COURT: The entire packet has been 15 withdrawn. Make sure my clerk knows the number of 16 that packet. 17 MR. ZONEN: Okay. 18 THE COURT: Anything else? 19 MR. MESEREAU: Not from the defense, Your 20 Honor. 21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just one minor detail, 22 Your Honor. We now have the redacted portion of 23 908-A, and we'll submit that to the Court for 24 admission at this time. 25 908, we will -- it's marked, and it will be 26 an exhibit, but we will not ask for its admission. 27 MR. SANGER: And out of an abundance of 28 caution, it's the old pig in a poke as opposed to 12482 1 the horse in the arena thing. I should probably 2 listen to it once. It's only 40 seconds. 3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I have a copy for defense 4 counsel. 5 MR. SANGER: Maybe what I could do is just 6 play it here. After you leave the bench, play it 7 here real quick, listen to it. If it's okay, we 8 will submit it. If not, we'll bring it up Tuesday 9 morning. 10 THE COURT: That's fine. 11 MR. SNEDDON: What time did the Court want 12 us here Tuesday morning, Your Honor? 13 THE COURT: We're going to conduct court the 14 same time as we have. 15 MR. SNEDDON: Regular hours, okay. 16 THE COURT: Okay? 17 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: I intend to do that during 19 deliberations, too. Deliberations will only be 20 during the same hours as we've had court. 21 (The proceedings adjourned at 1:25 p.m.) 22 --o0o-- 23 24 25 26 27 28 12483 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) 5 CALIFORNIA, ) 6 Plaintiff, ) 7 -vs- ) No. 1133603 8 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, ) 9 Defendant. ) 10 11 12 I, MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR 13 #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify: 14 That the foregoing pages 12379 through 12483 15 contain a true and correct transcript of the 16 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled 17 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at 18 said proceedings on May 27, 2005, and thereafter 19 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided 20 transcription under my direction. 21 DATED: Santa Maria, California, 22 May 27, 2005. 23 24 25 26 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304 27 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 28 12484