THANKS TO MJJF - Geragos 5/20

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2005 – A former defense attorney for pop icon Michael Jackson returned to the witness stand Friday, resuming his testimony from a week ago. Friday was the soonest that Mark Geragos could return to Santa Maria to testify for the King of Pop, as he is currently involved in another jury trial. Once again, exchanges between the well-known attorney and prosecutor Ron Zonen were often heated. Before Geragos testified, prosecutor Thomas Sneddon continued his questioning of Laurence Nimmer, the videographer who filmed the Neverland footage shown to jurors last week. Nimmer specialises in legal footage. Nimmer confirmed that Neverland ranch manager Joe Marcus had been present during the filming of the video, along with another Neverland employee known only as “Grace”. He said that Marcus had been standing behind him during the entire video shoot. Sneddon questioned the witness about chimes that are heard to sound when entering and exiting Jackson’s bedroom. Nimmer had testified the previous day that there was a different chime for entry than for exit. MR. SNEDDON: In the first scene, when you’re downstairs and you ask the maid, Maria Gomez, to walk out, and then you hear the chimes go off, okay? MR. NIMMER: Yes. MR. SNEDDON: When you’re standing there, where are you standing? Next to the throne chair? MR. NIMMER: No, I’m standing kind of right in the middle of the room, more or less. Probably 10 or 15 feet from the doorway into the center of the room. MR. SNEDDON: And when you say “the throne chair,” do you mean the large chair that leads into the next room where the stairway is to the upstairs bedroom? MR. NIMMER: Yeah. So it wasn’t that far away from me. The room is not that large, but I was about in the center of the room. MR. SNEDDON: Okay. And when you filmed the Scene 1 material, Scene 1, could you tell where the sound was coming from? From your right or from your left? MR. NIMMER: I couldn’t say. >>>A portion of the video was played for the jury. MR. SNEDDON: Now, would it be a fair statement to say that that chime did not go off when she went out the door, did it? MR. NIMMER: Possibly it was triggered from her going out the door and didn’t ring immediately. But frankly, I don’t know one way or the other if it was triggered by her going out or coming in. MR. SNEDDON: Do you know where the sensor is that’s closest to the door? MR. NIMMER: No, I don’t. MR. SANGER: Objection; asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. It’s answered. Next question. MR. SNEDDON: In the segment on Scene 2 where there is a faint sound and then a louder sound - okay? - there is probably a five- or ten-second delay between the two sounds, correct? MR. NIMMER: Correct. MR. SNEDDON: And that’s what led you to believe that the first sound was when she exited the door and the second sound was when she came back in, correct? MR. NIMMER: That’s correct. MR. SNEDDON: And that did not occur on Scene 1, did it? MR. NIMMER: Well, you didn’t let it continue playing. Is there another set of rings after that one? MR. SNEDDON: I don’t think so. But we can play it. >>> The video was re-played MR. NIMMER: That’s the second set. MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Right. And they were almost back to back, were they not? MR. NIMMER: Correct. And on this take, I asked her to go out and come back in, which she did. When I was upstairs, I asked her to wait about ten seconds after she went out before she came back in, so – so that it was more clear when she’s coming in and when she’s going out. MR. SNEDDON: All right. So your explanation is that in Scene 1, you didn’t give her the instruction – a similar instruction to the one you gave her in Scene 2 and Scene 3? Nimmer testified that he had gone to Neverland four or five times and that Neverland staff had been aware he was coming each time. He also told jurors that someone from Jackson’s defense team asked him to film the numerous clocks within the ranch house. MR. SNEDDON: Were there any other things that they told you that you should focus on in that film? MR. NIMMER: Well, let’s see. Basically all of what I saw while I was out there. I was asked to get shots of the guesthouse, the guest rooms. I was asked to get some shots of the -- some of the paintings by the artist Nordahl, and -- as well as various other places, including the arcade, the amusement park, the zoo, et cetera. MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Now, when I was looking at the film, it appeared to me - and you would be the best person who would know this - that some of the library shots about the books on the shelves were taken in a small library located on the top floor of the arcade; is that correct? MR. NIMMER: That’s correct. MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Now, part of this video was to show -- the objective view of it was to show a day in the life of somebody who may be visiting the ranch, correct? MR. NIMMER: Correct MR. SNEDDON: Did you have an understanding that that was a room up there that was open to the public? MR. NIMMER: I didn’t really know one way or the other. Anything that’s personal of Mr. Jackson’s I think would be of interest to the public, so it was interesting to see what his books -- a cross-section of his books are. MR. SNEDDON: But you didn’t know when you went up there whether or not that room is actually locked most of the time or not? MR. NIMMER: I don’t know one way or the other. MR. SNEDDON: And whether the public was invited to use that room? MR. NIMMER: I don’t know one way or the other. Nimmer said he was not asked to film the employee break room, the wine cellar or the bathroom next to the games arcade. Although he was asked to, he did not film Jackson’s office. He also told Sneddon that he had filmed the kitchen but had not been asked to specifically film the refrigerator. Attorney Robert Sanger redirected for the defense, asking why Grace and Joe Marcus had been present. “Frankly, I’m not sure why,” testified Nimmer. “Perhaps so that they could make sure I didn’t tamper with anything in the room. They led me to where the different rooms are. They know their way around better than I do.” MR. SANGER: Did anybody prevent you from taking pictures of anything in particular? MR. NIMMER: No. MR. SANGER: All right. Now, with regard to the last questions about the tape of Neverland itself, you were asked about filming certain areas like the cellar and the break room and all that. Were there other interior areas of buildings on that ranch that you did not film? MR. NIMMER: Yes. MR. SANGER: And was this an effort to film every part of every building on that ranch? MR. NIMMER: No. MR. SANGER: If you were to do that, even in the abbreviated format you have here, how long would your video end up being? MR. NIMMER: Well, possibly hours. Much longer. MR. SANGER: Okay. Let’s talk about the doorbell test. Were you asked to do any technical evaluation of the alarm system? MR. NIMMER: No. MR. SANGER: Is that within your particular expertise? MR. NIMMER: That isn’t my expertise. Nimmer said he was not asked to perform a decibel test on the door chimes and said he did not have the necessary equipment to perform the tests. MR. SANGER: What were you asked to do with regard to the doorbell test? MR. NIMMER: To do a video- and audio-recording in those two environments to get a general sound of what it sounded like with the alarm going off. MR. SANGER: And were you asked also to listen to it while you were doing it? MR. NIMMER: Yes. MR. SANGER: And did you compare what you heard to what was seen on the tape? MR. NIMMER: Yes, I did. MR. SANGER: What was heard on the tape, more accurately. MR. NIMMER: Correct. What was heard. MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you very much. On his re-cross examination, Sneddon asked why Nimmer had not asked the Neverland staff whether the chime system was the same in use in 2003. MR. NIMMER: I did ask them if the room was set as close as possible to how it was back in 2003, and they said it was. MR. SNEDDON: Okay. But you didn’t ask them about the actual chime system itself, did you? MR. NIMMER: I didn’t ask about anything specifically. MR. SNEDDON: And you were talking about -- I think you told us yesterday you were talking about the furniture, were you not? MR. NIMMER: I was talking about everything in general. Before Geragos resumed his testimony, Judge Rodney Melville discussed the lawyer’s limited waiver with attorneys from both sides and said he felt deceived by lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau. Defense lawyers argued that they had given copies of the waiver to the court clerk and to prosecutors during the lunch break that day. The Judge ordered Geragos to tell the jury when he was not answering a question due to his attorney-client privilege. “You’ll have to say, ‘I’m claiming the attorney-client privilege and cannot answer that question,’” he ordered. Prosecutor Ron Zonen resumed questioning Geragos about Janet Arvizo’s interview with the Department of Social Services. He testified that while private investigator Bradley Miller had told him about the interview, he had not asked for anyone to be present at the meeting. MR. ZONEN: All right. Did you express concern to Brad Miller about comments that Janet Arvizo might make to the workers, social workers? MR. GERAGOS: I don’t think so. I don’t think I expressed concern about comments she might make. I think I -- as I testified to last week, I think the question was she wants somebody -- or wants to talk to a lawyer or something, something to that effect, and that’s when I gave Mr. Nasatir’s name. MR. ZONEN: All right. Now, you did not know at the time that there was going to be a representative of Mr. Miller who would be there? MR. GERAGOS: Like I say, as I sit here today, I don’t think that I knew that either he or Asaf were going to be there. I don’t know when I learned that. MR. ZONEN: And Mr. Miller never consulted with you in advance about the propriety of tape-recording that conversation? MR. GERAGOS: I had no idea up until the time that the search warrant was issued or executed that there was any kind of a tape that was done. MR. ZONEN: Were you aware as of that day of Brad Miller ever having tape-recorded illegally conversations prior to that time? MR. GERAGOS: Well, I don’t know that that was – if you’re suggesting that that was an illegal taping, I don’t believe that was an illegal taping. And the previous taping that I was aware of, he told her, Janet Arvizo, that he was working for me, that he had a tape-recorder, and that he was taping it, and something to the effect, if memory serves, that was that okay? MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, do you believe that it’s legal to surreptitiously tape a Department of Child & Family Services interview? MR. GERAGOS: I don’t believe that you can surreptitiously tape their interview, no. I don’t think that that would be legal. MR. ZONEN: Is it your opinion, as an attorney specializing in criminal law, that the interviews with the Department of Child & Family Services are confidential? MR. GERAGOS: Yes. MR. ZONEN: And therefore, somebody tape-recording it for purposes of being able to listen to that conversation, that would be in violation of the confidentiality laws; is that true? MR. GERAGOS: I don’t know if it would be in violation of the confidentiality laws. I think it would probably be a violation of a Penal Code section. MR. ZONEN: In any event, it would be illegal? MR. GERAGOS: I -- in my opinion, it probably would be. MR. ZONEN: You are not aware of Mr. Miller ever having done that in the past; is that correct? MR. GERAGOS: Well, I’m aware -- MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. MR. GERAGOS: I’m aware of many private investigators, and I would probably say Brad included, who understand that the Penal Code has exceptions. And one of the exceptions is if you believe that there are certain enumerated crimes that are going to be committed, you are allowed to, under the code section, tape surreptitiously. So I don’t know. Your definition of whether or not it’s illegal or not and mine probably differ, but I think that the Penal Code clearly states that there are exceptions when you can tape. ------- MR. ZONEN: And you did not tell Brad Miller that you thought there would be some kind of crime committed during the course of the Department of Child & Family Services interview? MR. GERAGOS: Well, if she would lie to them, that would be potentially a crime, I suppose. But I don’t know if I had -- MR. ZONEN: And did you tell Brad Miller that? MR. GERAGOS: I don’t know that I had that discussion with Brad. In retrospect, who knows what she was going to say. Geragos refused to answer a question relating to when he first obtained the tape, citing attorney-client privilege. Zonen rephrased, asking him when he first learned of the tape’s existence. Geragos said he could not remember and may have been told by Miller “or when I got copies of the documents that were seized, when I had asked Mr. Sneddon for that.” “So I might have gotten the items from Mr. Sneddon. And he had represented to me that he had not listened to them yet,” he said. MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you that he had somebody there at the time? MR. GERAGOS: No. It was -- I can’t -- if you’re asking me for, in February, what I knew then, I would only be speculating. I think what he told me was that he had Asaf there because Janet wanted somebody there, and then Asaf left, is I think what I was told in February. Zonen then questioned Geragos about the surveillance of the Arvizo family. Geragos said he gave Miller a broad instruction and had not specified that the children should be watched. MR. ZONEN: Did you tell Brad Miller that the surveillance operatives should be obvious so that the children know they’re being followed and taped? MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; assumes facts. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. MR. GERAGOS: No. As I indicated before, I told -- I gave the same directive. I didn’t tell him, “This is what I want you to do on this day. This is what I want you to do on that day.” I said, “I just want to know who they’re meeting with and what they’re doing.” Geragos said the family was surveilled “sometime after February 7th”. Zonen asked whether this meant the family was monitored while at Neverland. “I don’t know that they -- I don’t think Brad was ever at Neverland,” replied Geragos. MR. ZONEN: Did Brad Miller tell you that the children were meeting with Michael Jackson during that period of time? MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; relevance; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. ZONEN: That was overruled. MR. GERAGOS: That means I can answer? MR. ZONEN: I think it does, yes. MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I don’t believe so. I didn’t have the impression, at least, that when he was finding out what they were up to, that that included any time that they may or may not have been at Neverland. MR. ZONEN: You directed a surveillance be done as early as the 7th of February? MR. GERAGOS: I directed that they find out who they were meeting with and what they were doing. MR. ZONEN: All right. MR. GERAGOS: I know you keep saying “surveillance.” I didn’t tell them to go sit in a car outside. I didn’t give them directives as to how to do it. All I said is, “Find out who they’re meeting with and what they’re up to.” As I explained last week when you asked me this, the concern was, is that they were either going to go meet with a lawyer of some kind to make some accusation, or they were going to sell the story to the tabloids. I -- the extent of what he did I learned sometime later, but did not know at the time. And what I knew at the time was that they were either here or there at particular points. When asked if he knew where the tapes were currently, Geragos said he assumed they were with the Sheriff. MR. ZONEN: Are you saying that all the surveillance tapes were kept at Brad Miller’s office? MR. GERAGOS: I -- the surveillance tapes, as you call them, all I’m aware of in terms of surveillance tapes were the things that were seized during the search warrant. MR. ZONEN: You never asked Mr. Miller if, in fact, there were additional tapes other than the ones seized during the course of the search of his office? Geragos cited attorney-client privilege and did not answer the question. MR. ZONEN: Up until the time of your client’s arrest, did you ever view any surveillance tapes? 6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond the scope. MR. ZONEN: I’m trying to establish if the ones in evidence are accurate. 10 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. You may answer. MR. GERAGOS: I don’t believe that I did. ------- MR. ZONEN: Were you ever briefed before the conclusion of the month of April 2003 as to the content of the surveillance tapes? MR. GERAGOS: I think I was, yes. MR. ZONEN: All right. Did they tell you that they -- who was it who briefed you? MR. GERAGOS: It would have been Brad. MR. ZONEN: Did Brad tell you that they conducted a surveillance of Janet Arvizo’s parents at their home in El Monte? MR. GERAGOS: I think that he did. ------- Zonen asked whether Geragos was aware of any other tapes other than those seized from Miller’s office and whether the tapes had been altered by Miller in any way. Geragos answered “no” to all questions. MR. ZONEN: Did you ever listen to the tape-recording of the conversation between Janet Arvizo and Frank Cascio? MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; vague as to time; beyond the scope. THE COURT: Vague as to time. MR. ZONEN: Did you ever listen to that conversation up until the time that your client was arrested? MR. GERAGOS: No. MR. ZONEN: Did you know that it existed, that tape-recording? MR. GERAGOS: Up until the time of the arrest? MR. ZONEN: Yes. MR. GERAGOS: No. MR. ZONEN: Did you have a conversation with Brad Miller about conducting or monitoring conversations between Janet Arvizo and any of the other employees or people who work for Michael Jackson? MR. GERAGOS: No. The prosecutor asked Geragos whether he had been kept informed of Janet Arvizo’s movements between Neverland and her home during the surveillance period. “You know, as I sit here, I don’t remember him telling me,” said Geragos. “I know your focus on the question is Neverland and returning, and I don’t think that was really the focus of what he was doing.”