|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2011-2-25 21:04:41
|
显示全部楼层
2月15日 - 第二次审前听证会
http://www.teammichaeljackson.com/tmj_003.htm
STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING February 15th, 2011
• The Status Conference Hearing commenced at approximately 01:30p.m.,
• Parties Present: The Defendant (Conrad Murray) is not present, as he had previously waived his personal appearance pursuant to Penal Code Section 977 (back at the Arraignment Hearing on 01/25/11). Two Defense attorneys are present: Chernoff, and Flannagan. Lowe is no longer representing Conrad Murray. New attorney filed to represent CM (as co-counsel with Chernoff and Flannagan): Nareg Gourjian: Both Prosecutors are present: Deputy District Attorney Walgren and Brazil.
Gourjian's former law firm partner: Law Offices of Geragos and Geragos: Pat Harris addressed the court “Your honor it is my duty to inform the court that there may be a conflict of interest in Nareg Gourjian representing Conrad Murray, I am not sure. Our firm represented Mr. Michael Jackson for two years in the past, 2003 to 2005?
Judge: We have not yet accepted the request… there may be issues as to the loyalty [to Michael Jackson]…..
Chernoff: We would not ask Gourjian to represent CM if we thought there was a conflict of interest. We have researched and made all the necessary inquiries.
Judge: I don’t know what involvement Gourjian had with Michael Jackson. We would have to look into this further
Gourjian: I was employed by The Law Offices of Geragos and Geragos. Pat Harris represented Michael Jackson, I was just a brand lawyer. I did not handle anything. I did very little. I never met the prosecution on that case. We can submit a brief, but it’s not relevant- Geragos and Geragos have zero liability. Conrad Murray was not present in Michael’s life at that time.
Judge: American Bar Association Rule 1.7: Professional rule of conflict of interest states members should not represent a client without written consent from the former client if you are aware that there could be a potential conflict of interest. **Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. Concurrent conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or from the lawyer’s own interests. Attorney must obtain their informed consent.
Gaurjian: I am.
Judge: Does this rule apply?
Gaurjian: Absolutely not.
Pat Harris: Our path (responsibility, duty) is to notify the court, not [make the actual decision regarding possible disqualification]
Judge: Mr Walgren are you aware of this notice?
Walgren: No. It does not raise substantial concerns, but it just needs to be fully aired out. We need details, which may raise concerns for the People. It needs to be fully developed.
Judge: Conflict of interest does apply even If the client is deceased!!
Judge: I think it is best to contact the estate lawyer, wietzman, to hear further about this to be fair to Gaurjian, Flanagan and Walgren. I need to address this in detail via Counsel (lawyers) to the Michael Jackson Estate. I don’t know if Mr. Weitzman or your firm member will appear.
Pat Harris: I was not involved with Gaurjian. I was assigned to Scott Peterson. [the Scott Peterson case]
Chernoff: Would you like us to do anything to help?
Judge: Yes, any analysis on the questions raised?
Chernoff: The two cases have to be substantially related. We don’t think they are. We would be happy to give any case information to the law firm, but ultimately there is no conflict of interest.
Judge: If there is anything substantially related to the present case, Gaurjian may be required to discredit his past client [referring to Michael?]. In the duty of loyalty, dedication in serving the present client, there may be a need to discredit the former client [referring to Michael?].
JUDGE QUOTED PREVIOUS CASE, COLMES V PEOPLE, AND BLIN, 804, 34??? Sorry didn’t get all the details, was citing case history from his book! (***SORRY BUT I DON’T KNOW THIS CASE LAW BY HEART….*** SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST SAY: “The Judge quoted specific case law to help further explain his position, concerns, and questions in this matter.”)
Chernoff: There is nothing from ‘03 [Michael’s 2003 case] which will be relevant.
Judge: I don’t know what information was communicated at that point that may pop up in the present case. We need to pause to get more information. The Estate lawyer will be contacted and asked to appear at the next hearing, as well as Geragos &Geragos. Pat Harris is excused, you may leave the court if you wish.
Pat Harris left.
Judge: Counsel for the Defense and the Prosecution have submitted tentative jury questionnaires for the jury selection process, which will be sealed so the prospective jurors can answer when they see them in court. The jury questionnaires are not to be seen or publicized to prevent the prospective jurors from coming to court with pre-determined answers. The Court quotes a particular Penal Code Section regarding this issue… Jury questionnaires are sealed. Premature disclosure may affect fair trial.
Walgren: The People [Prosecution] have not received Discovery, statements, or reports… but only a witness list. The Defense has had enough time to time to prepare these. A large number of witnesses do not appear on our Discovery.
Chernoff: We do not have witness statements or specialist reports. We are having a meeting tomorrow, and in couple days, when we have these, then we will get them to the Prosecution by the 28th
Judge: You do not have witness statements? Have you spoken to witnesses?
Chernoff: We have mental impressions and thoughts [from witnesses], but not statements.
Judge quoted a Penal Code Section regarding the Prosecution being able to have all Discovery [from the Defense] 28 days prior to trial, but it can be earlier.
Chernoff: We have put down notes/memos, but we have not converted them into written form. We have documents of our findings, but it is not Discovery. If you order us to take witness statements then we will. We don’t have them now. We have had conversations, but not in writing,
Judge: So you are producing witnesses without statements? Penal code 1054.3 A states that the Defense is required to provide to the Prosecution the names, addresses of witnesses who you are calling, written, recorded reports of experts, a physical and mental examination of the defendant, real evidence at the trial. So you have nothing called for in this Penal Code Section?
Chernoff: We are aware, but no expert reports or statements are present. Once we have them then we will turn them over to the Prosecution. Thursday we have meetings… when we have them we will turn them over.
Walgren: 1054 is designed to avoid this. This is gamesmanship. We have provided immediately what we had. This is unfair to the People [Prosecution] to be produced with the Defense Discovery so near to the trial. We need time to fairly process [Discovery] so we can have a fair trial.
Chernoff: We understand. (repeated the same from before, blah blah)
Judge: Your responsibility stands beyond meetings. You were provided reports, were notes taken?
Chernoff: Memos were prepared by myself. Flanagan spoke to ?? I don’t know if notes were taken by him. My guess is we will have it by the end of the week. We are not hiding anything. Walgren says no surprises, yet he has already spoken to one of the experts we are speaking with, yet he says he is in the dark. We have 91 witnesses from the Prosecution I have gone through and I don’t have most of their witness statements.
Judge: Law requires 28 days before proceeding are due to commence. I have 107 witness names mentioned. They may not all be called… going to wait for the Discovery. ?
Chernoff: Yes
Judge: We are not going to wait 28 days before trial so Discovery should be turned over as soon as possible. Walgren you are not here next week. I understand you a schedule?? I’d like to do something next week. Can Miss Brazil be here, on the 24th, Chernoff will you have statements, reports, Discovery next week?
Chernoff: I will by the end of this week. In the past we sent requests to the Prosecution, we did not receive any, we had to wait and be patient until he sent them to us.
Judge: I will schedule the next hearing for February 24th at 1 o’clock
Chernoff: One more matter: Part of what we are trying to get is a fingerprint from SID. They may need authority to release the evidence to us. I would like the court to make an order, please sign this order.
Walgren: We have provided fingerprints with the Discovery with watermarks, with date, and stamp. The file was signed for by the Defense, 7400 in total- we want to maintain that same procedure (this is so Defense can’t say they have not received/ had anything, as they tried to do before the prelim). They are requesting photograph “LIFT” of the fingerprint, which requires court order, it is unique, it cannot be photocopied- originals are required.
Chernoff argued all the Discovery provide had watermarks on it, even the experts could not see it clearly… photocopied faint images… Also Prosecution took fingerprints of Alberto(bodyguard) and did not include it in the Discovery. Defense require digital photographs of fingerprints, good quality. It’s irrelevant what the People have or have sent, we want our own copies.
Judge: Next hearing is to discuss:
• Conflict of interest issues
• Discovery from both sides
• Proposed questionnaires for jury
• Jury instructions
• Select further interim hearing dates
Walgen: I would like to be present for the interim hearing dates.
Judge: Miss Brazil can call you on the phone.
THE NEXT HEARING DATE IS FEBRUARY 24, 2011 AT 01:00P.M. |
|
狗仔卡
显身卡