11321 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 20, 2005 20 21 8:30 A.M. 22 23 (PAGES 11321 THROUGH 11492) 24 25 26 27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304 28 BY: Official Court Reporter 11321 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 1112 Santa Barbara Street 8 Santa Barbara, California 93101 9 10 11 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. 12 -and- SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 13 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90067 14 -and- 15 SANGER & SWYSEN 16 BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ. 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C 17 Santa Barbara, California 93101 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11322 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 9 DEFENDANT’S 10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 11 NIMMER, Laurence 11324-SN 11332-SA 11335-SN 12 (Contd.) 13 GERAGOS, Mark 14 (Re-called) 11348-Z (Contd.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11323 1 Santa Maria, California 2 Friday, May 20, 2005 3 8:30 a.m. 4 5 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. 6 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison) 7 Good morning, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Where’s the witness? 9 You may be seated. You’re still under oath. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 THE COURT: Go ahead. 12 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor. 13 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. Sneddon. 14 15 LAURENCE NIMMER 16 Having been previously sworn, resumed the 17 stand and testified further as follows: 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 20 BY MR. SNEDDON: 21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Nimmer. How are you this 22 morning? 23 A. Good, thank you. 24 Q. I just have a few more questions. 25 A. Okay, sure. 26 Q. I want to go back to what we talked about 27 yesterday just to try to get a point of 28 clarification. 11324 1 Between yesterday and this morning, did you 2 get a chance to review the video again? 3 A. No, I didn’t. 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall yesterday we were 5 talking about how, in Scene 2, the chimes went off 6 and was very faint at one point and then louder at 7 another point and -- in the scene? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And do you recall me asking you yesterday -- 10 I think -- I believe -- and if I’m not saying this 11 correctly, you correct me. I believe your 12 explanation was you thought one was when they went 13 out the door and the other was when they came back 14 in? 15 A. I think -- yes, that was my guess. 16 Q. And then I asked you yesterday, in the 17 Scene 1, when the maid goes out the door, whether 18 the chimes went off or not. Do you recall that? 19 A. I believe so. 20 Q. And you said you believed the chimes did go 21 off? 22 A. That’s correct. 23 Q. When this video was made, was Joe Marcus 24 present? 25 A. Yes, he was. 26 Q. Was a defense investigator by the name of 27 Scott Ross present? 28 A. No. 11325 1 Q. Or Mr. Castillo? 2 A. No. 3 Q. So the representative there was Mr. Marcus? 4 A. And one other person from Neverland Ranch 5 was a woman whose first name was Grace. 6 Q. Okay. And where was Mr. Marcus during the 7 time that you were doing the filming? 8 A. Standing behind me. 9 Q. So he was in your presence the entire time? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Okay. Now, one of the other questions I’m 12 going to ask you and then I’m going to show you the 13 video again, just a part of it. 14 A. Sure. 15 Q. In the first scene, when you’re downstairs 16 and you ask the maid, Maria Gomez, to walk out, and 17 then you hear the chimes go off, okay? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. When you’re standing there, where are you 20 standing? Next to the throne chair? 21 A. No, I’m standing kind of right in the middle 22 of the room, more or less. Probably 10 or 15 feet 23 from the doorway into the center of the room. 24 And when you say “the throne chair,” do you 25 mean the large chair that leads into the next room 26 where the stairway is to the upstairs bedroom? 27 Q. Yes, sir. 28 A. Yeah. So it wasn’t that far away from me. 11326 1 The room is not that large, but I was about in the 2 center of the room. 3 Q. Okay. And when you filmed the Scene 1 4 material, Scene 1, could you tell where the sound 5 was coming from? From your right or from your left? 6 A. I couldn’t say. 7 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I want to -- if we 8 could have -- I think it’s already on the right one, 9 Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 MR. SNEDDON: If we could just have the 12 lights for just a second. And we’re going to play 13 Exhibit 5096 and just the Scene 1. 14 THE COURT: Go ahead. 15 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, Defendant’s 16 Exhibit 5096, was played for the Court and jury.) 17 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Let’s stop it right 18 there. 19 Q. Now, would it be a fair statement to say 20 that that chime did not go off when she went out the 21 door, did it? 22 A. Possibly it was triggered from her going out 23 the door and didn’t ring immediately. But frankly, 24 I don’t know one way or the other if it was 25 triggered by her going out or coming in. 26 Q. Do you know where the sensor is that’s 27 closest to the door? 28 A. No, I don’t. 11327 1 MR. SANGER: Objection; asked and answered. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. It’s answered. Next 3 question. 4 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: In the segment on Scene 2 5 where there is a faint sound and then a louder 6 sound - okay? - there is probably a five- or 7 ten-second delay between the two sounds, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And that’s what led you to believe that the 10 first sound was when she exited the door and the 11 second sound was when she came back in, correct? 12 A. That’s correct. 13 Q. And that did not occur on Scene 1, did it? 14 A. Well, you didn’t let it continue playing. 15 Is there another set of rings after that 16 one? 17 Q. I don’t think so. But we can play it. 18 Go ahead. 19 THE COURT: Do you want to play it again? 20 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir. 21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Let’s start over. 22 MR. SNEDDON: Yeah, let’s go back again. 23 THE WITNESS: You may need to hit “stop” 24 twice to reset it to the top. 25 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, Defendant’s 26 Exhibit 5096, was played for the Court and jury.) 27 THE WITNESS: That’s the second set. 28 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. Right. And they 11328 1 were almost back to back, were they not? 2 A. Correct. And on this take, I asked her to 3 go out and come back in, which she did. When I was 4 upstairs, I asked her to wait about ten seconds 5 after she went out before she came back in, so -- so 6 that it was more clear when she’s coming in and when 7 she’s going out. 8 Q. All right. So your explanation is that in 9 Scene 1, you didn’t give her the instruction -- a 10 similar instruction to the one you gave her in 11 Scene 2 and Scene 3? 12 A. That’s correct. 13 Q. All right. The individual you identified as 14 Grace, where was Grace during the filming? 15 A. Standing behind me as well. 16 Q. All right. Let’s move on to the second 17 video. 18 A. Okay. Sure. 19 Q. I just have a few questions on that. 20 I believe you said you went out there on 21 multiple occasions? 22 A. That’s correct. 23 Q. About four or five? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And on those occasions that you went out 26 there, the folks knew you were coming. I’m assuming 27 you made previous arrangements? 28 A. Right. 11329 1 Q. And prior to going out there, you told us 2 before that you had been advised by somebody to make 3 sure you take pictures of the clocks, correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Was that somebody connected with the 6 defense? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were there any other things that they told 9 you that you should focus on in that film? 10 A. Well, let’s see. Basically all of what I 11 saw while I was out there. I was asked to get shots 12 of the guesthouse, the guest rooms. I was asked to 13 get some shots of the -- some of the paintings by 14 the artist Nordahl, and -- as well as various other 15 places, including the arcade, the amusement park, 16 the zoo, et cetera. 17 Q. Okay. Now, when I was looking at the film, 18 it appeared to me - and you would be the best person 19 who would know this - that some of the library shots 20 about the books on the shelves were taken in a small 21 library located on the top floor of the arcade; is 22 that correct? 23 A. That’s correct. 24 Q. Okay. Now, part of this video was to 25 show -- the objective view of it was to show a day 26 in the life of somebody who may be visiting the 27 ranch, correct? 28 A. Correct. 11330 1 Q. Did you have an understanding that that was 2 a room up there that was open to the public? 3 A. I didn’t really know one way or the other. 4 Anything that’s personal of Mr. Jackson’s I think 5 would be of interest to the public, so it was 6 interesting to see what his books -- a cross-section 7 of his books are. 8 Q. But you didn’t know when you went up there 9 whether or not that room is actually locked most of 10 the time or not? 11 A. I don’t know one way or the other. 12 Q. And whether the public was invited to use 13 that room? 14 A. I don’t know one way or the other. 15 Q. Now, just a couple of more questions. Let 16 me ask you this: Were you asked to film the 17 employee break room? 18 A. Not that I recall. 19 Q. Were you asked to film the cellar? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Were you asked to film Mr. Jackson’s office? 22 A. Yes, I was, actually. 23 Q. Did you do that? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Were you asked to film the bathroom area 26 in -- the bathroom that’s adjacent to the arcade? 27 A. No. 28 Q. Were you asked to film -- I guess I asked 11331 1 you that. And you did film the kitchen, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Were you asked to film the location of the 4 refrigerator in the kitchen? 5 A. No. 6 Q. And you say that you were attempting to 7 portray this as an objective view of what somebody 8 would see at the ranch. But in reality, some of the 9 decisions that were made were subjective on your 10 part, correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 MR. SANGER: Objection; argumentative. 13 THE COURT: Overruled. 14 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Sanger? 16 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. SANGER: 19 Q. All right. Mr. Nimmer, first of all, why 20 were Grace and Joe Marcus there? 21 A. Frankly, I’m not sure why. Perhaps so that 22 they could make sure I didn’t tamper with anything 23 in the room. They led me to where the different 24 rooms are. They know their way around better than I 25 do. 26 Q. So when you make arrangements -- when you 27 made arrangements to go to the ranch, did somebody 28 accompany you so you could go in the different 11332 1 locations? 2 A. Yes, at most all times somebody always 3 accompanied me. 4 Q. Did anybody prevent you from taking pictures 5 of anything in particular? 6 A. No. 7 Q. All right. Now, with regard to the last 8 questions about the tape of Neverland itself, you 9 were asked about filming certain areas like the 10 cellar and the break room and all that. Were there 11 other interior areas of buildings on that ranch that 12 you did not film? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And was this an effort to film every part of 15 every building on that ranch? 16 A. No. 17 Q. If you were to do that, even in the 18 abbreviated format you have here, how long would 19 your video end up being? 20 A. Well, possibly hours. Much longer. 21 Q. Okay. Let’s talk about the doorbell test. 22 Were you asked to do any technical evaluation of the 23 alarm system? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Is that within your particular expertise? 26 A. That isn’t my expertise. 27 Q. Do you have reason to believe that there are 28 other people who have such expertise? 11333 1 A. Yes, I do. 2 Q. All right. Secondly, with regard to the 3 decibel level that was asked about last time, did 4 you have any decibel level, any known decibel level, 5 to compare decibel levels to had you determined the 6 decibel level? Do you know what I’m saying? 7 A. I did not. 8 Q. So if you -- if you do a decibel level test, 9 you generally need to have something else, some 10 other known level to compare it to, right? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. All right. Were you asked to do decibel 13 levels at all? 14 A. No, I was not. 15 Q. What were you asked to do with regard to the 16 doorbell test? 17 A. To do a video- and audio-recording in those 18 two environments to get a general sound of what it 19 sounded like with the alarm going off. 20 Q. And were you asked also to listen to it 21 while you were doing it? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And did you compare what you heard to what 24 was seen on the tape? 25 A. Yes, I did. 26 Q. What was heard on the tape, more accurately. 27 A. Correct. What was heard. 28 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you very much. 11334 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 2 3 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. SNEDDON: 5 Q. Mr. Nimmer, you were trying to produce 6 something that would be useful to the jury in 7 reproducing the sound created by those chimes, 8 correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And to that extent, wouldn’t the first thing 11 that you would want to do is to ask Mr. Marcus or 12 Grace whether or not the sound system that was in 13 there was the same -- the chime system that was in 14 there was the same one that was in there back at the 15 time of these events? 16 A. I did ask them if the room was set as close 17 as possible to how it was back in 2003, and they 18 said it was. 19 Q. Okay. But you didn’t ask them about the 20 actual chime system itself, did you? 21 A. I didn’t ask about anything specifically. 22 Q. And you were talking about -- I think you 23 told us yesterday you were talking about the 24 furniture, were you not? 25 A. I was talking about everything in general. 26 Q. In specific with regard to the chime system, 27 which was why you were really there, you never asked 28 them that question, did you? 11335 1 MR. SANGER: Objection. Argumentative; 2 compound. 3 THE COURT: Asked and answered. Sustained. 4 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: With regard to the 5 integrity of the product that the jury has just 6 seen, you would agree with me, would you not, if 7 there was differences with the way the actual chime 8 system was hooked up, or the equipment that was 9 there, if it was different from February or March of 10 1990 -- of 2003, that it would not be an accurate 11 reproduction of what you displayed to the jury, 12 would it? 13 MR. SANGER: Objection. Asked and answered; 14 beyond the scope. Sorry. Asked and answered and 15 beyond the scope of redirect. 16 THE COURT: It’s argumentative. Sustained. 17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Had you asked the specific 18 question of whether the system that you reproduced 19 on this video was the same as the one that was 20 there, let’s say, on November 18th of 2003, then we 21 would know for certain that what you reproduced was 22 the same, correct? 23 MR. SANGER: Argumentative -- I thought the 24 question was over, I apologize. 25 MR. SNEDDON: It was. 26 MR. SANGER: Okay. I object. Argumentative. 27 THE COURT: Sustained. 28 MR. SNEDDON: I have no further questions. 11336 1 MR. SANGER: No further questions, Your 2 Honor. 3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may 4 step down. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: (To the jury) All right. We 7 only have one other witness, and before we can have 8 him come in, I have to make some rulings. So I’m 9 going to ask you to step out, and we’ll do this as 10 quickly as we can. 11 12 (The following proceedings were held in 13 open court outside the presence and hearing of the 14 jury:) 15 16 THE COURT: You may be seated. 17 Do you want the witness in for this? 18 MR. SANGER: Yes. 19 THE COURT: Come forward to the witness 20 stand. You may be seated. 21 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. 22 THE COURT: You’re still under oath. 23 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. 24 25 MARK GERAGOS 26 Having been previously sworn, resumed the 27 stand and testified further as follows: 28 /// 11337 1 THE COURT: All right. I’ve received the 2 points and authorities that I requested. Thank you, 3 everybody. And reviewed them. 4 I’ve also received a revised or amended 5 waiver of attorney-client privilege/work product 6 that changes the written date -- or the date of the 7 written waiver to commence in November as opposed to 8 December, which the original one stated, so I accept 9 the new date for purposes of our discussions. I 10 don’t think it’s an issue that I’m going to -- I 11 accept that there was just a mistake on the dates, 12 so that’s not an issue. 13 I have a sense of what I want to do, but 14 before I do that, Mr. Sneddon, does your side wish 15 to add anything or make any further arguments? 16 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I think the -- the 17 defense would be the moving party, I believe, to the 18 extent that they’re asking that the Court observe a 19 conditional waiver at this point. Perhaps I’ll 20 respond to what they have to say rather than give a 21 statement at this time. 22 THE COURT: All right. Is there anything 23 that you wish to add? Are you speaking? 24 MR. SANGER: Yes, I am, with the Court’s 25 permission. Even though this is Mr. Mesereau’s 26 witness, I started arguing the motions, and I’ll 27 finish, if that’s all right with the Court in this 28 one instance. 11338 1 There’s nothing else that we didn’t say, but 2 there is at least a sentence or two in here that 3 might bear a little amplification. As I think is 4 pretty clear, our position should be that there is a 5 limited waiver; that that satisfies all the 6 requirements of this proceeding. 7 And the sentence, I think, needs a little 8 amplification. The sentence or two, is that if the 9 door were opened -- since we talked about opening 10 doors. If the door were opened and there was a 11 general waiver, it would lead to irrelevant 12 material. It would lead to material that’s not 13 going to come into this case anyway. But it would 14 also be quite a disaster, I think, from the 15 standpoint of the attorney-client privilege for Mr. 16 Jackson, beyond the point of the adversarial 17 proceedings starting, which would include 18 communications that Mr. Geragos had with co-counsel 19 and investigators and even counsel, perhaps, after 20 he was no longer involved in the -- or he’s no 21 longer attorney of record in the case. 22 And based on that, I think -- that alone, I 23 think, is the kind of prejudice that would be -- the 24 Court would want to avoid. And so I’d ask the Court 25 to just consider that in the context of the rest of 26 what we filed, including the need for a knowing and 27 intelligent waiver on the part of the defendant 28 himself and the relevance issues. 11339 1 Thank you. 2 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, here’s our concern: 3 When we began direct examination of Mr. Geragos, we 4 were under the understanding, given the waiver that 5 was executed in open court in the defendant’s 6 presence by Mr. Mesereau, that this was an 7 unconditional, unqualified waiver as to all aspects 8 of the attorney-client relationship. 9 All of cross -- all of direct examination 10 was concluded, and cross-examination commenced until 11 we discovered that, after a break, there had been a 12 qualified waiver executed in writing. There were 13 three attorneys in the room who knew that that 14 happened. Mr. Geragos knew it because he had been 15 furnished a copy of it. Mr. Mesereau knew it 16 because the signature on it by Miss Yu indicated 17 that he had reviewed the document for content and 18 approved it. And Miss Yu knew it because she 19 drafted the document. 20 None of the three attorneys, when they came 21 into court, either furnished the Court a copy of 22 that waiver or furnished the prosecution a copy of 23 that waiver. And none of those three lawyers told 24 either the Court or the prosecution that the waiver 25 had changed, unilaterally had changed from an 26 unconditional, unqualified waiver to a very 27 conditional, qualified waiver that would end at the 28 time of the defendant’s arrest. 11340 1 Now, we went through all of direct 2 examination and a good portion of cross-examination 3 with an understanding, at least from our standpoint, 4 and I believe from the Court’s standpoint, that it 5 was an unqualified, unconditional waiver, and that 6 that’s how we were going to conduct cross-examination. 7 As the Court pointed out, you can’t give and 8 then take away at the same time without telling us. 9 And I believe the fact that we weren’t told, either 10 the Court or the prosecution -- during the course of 11 that break, neither one of us were furnished copies 12 of the waiver and instructed that the terms and 13 conditions of the waiver had taken place. 14 And I believe that we should proceed with 15 cross-examination as if it were an unconditional, 16 unqualified waiver, and proceed with appropriate 17 objections for relevancy and appropriate objections 18 for any other evidentiary issues, but that the 19 waiver should be unqualified. 20 MR. SANGER: Just a factual issue, Your 21 Honor. I don’t want to reargue what we’ve already 22 argued in writing. But on a factual issue, I 23 believe that Miss Yu did give the clerk -- give your 24 clerk a copy of the waiver before the break -- 25 during the break at the same time it was given to 26 Mr. Geragos, and I believe that a copy was given to 27 the District Attorney at the same time. 28 MR. ZONEN: No, it wasn’t. 11341 1 MS. YU: Yes, it was. Yes, it was. 2 THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. That’s okay. 3 MR. SANGER: I’m reporting -- I did 4 personally see Miss Yu go up to Miss Frey, your 5 clerk, to give a copy. So I -- 6 THE COURT: It’s really insignificant, you 7 know, whether you revealed this at the break or ten 8 minutes after the break. I mean, the fact is that 9 there was a complete change in what the purported 10 waiver was. 11 MR. SANGER: There -- 12 THE COURT: You can sit down. That’s okay. 13 MR. SANGER: All right. Thank you, Your 14 Honor. 15 THE COURT: I did review the entire testimony 16 of Mr. Geragos last night before considering my 17 rulings in this matter, and there are two issues 18 that we’re dealing with. One is questions beyond 19 the scope of the direct examination and the other 20 is the scope of the attorney-client privilege 21 waiver. And we do have Mr. Geragos’s assertion that 22 I assume hasn’t changed. 23 But you will claim the privilege based on 24 the waiver; is that -- regardless of my ruling? 25 THE WITNESS: Regardless of your ruling, I’m 26 going to claim the privilege. I’ve been furnished, 27 as I think -- I don’t know if it was furnished to 28 the Court. I think you said it was. 11342 1 THE COURT: It was, yeah. 2 THE WITNESS: The other. And regardless of 3 the ruling, I’m still going -- 4 THE COURT: You will make -- 5 THE WITNESS: I will stand on that. 6 THE COURT: -- make that claim? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 THE COURT: That was my understanding from 9 what you said last week, but I think I should -- 10 thank you for affirming that. 11 That puts us in a difficult situation. You 12 know, there’s things that I could do, and that would 13 be to strike his testimony. In looking at the 14 examination, I’m not sure who that would punish in 15 the end. I mean, there was some direct examination, 16 there was more lengthy cross-examination. Nobody’s 17 moved that I strike his testimony, and if you do, 18 the jury has heard it. 19 We can -- we strike things all the time, but 20 we all know you can’t -- you know, we don’t really 21 know what the effect of trying to unring a bell is. 22 You give people instructions not to consider things, 23 but hope that they’re capable of doing that. But it 24 doesn’t appear to be a really good remedy at this 25 time, although I could consider it. 26 I feel deceived by Mr. Mesereau, and I am 27 considering -- although I’ve reached no conclusion 28 at this point, and I don’t want to divert the 11343 1 process of the trial with this type of thing, but 2 I’m considering sanctions of some sort against Mr. 3 Mesereau. Again, that doesn’t really help or hurt 4 in the factual presentation. 5 So at this point I think what I’m going to 6 do is to recognize, according to the law, that there 7 is a qualified privilege and accept the waiver as it 8 stands only up until November 2003. But I am going 9 to -- and then I’m going to allow the prosecution to 10 continue their examination and I’m going to require 11 that any claim of privilege between attorney-client 12 be made in front of the jury so that the jury 13 understands what is actually happening in the 14 courtroom. 15 You know, we’ve had several other 16 situations. Some, I’ve said, privileges had to be 17 claimed in front of the jury. Some I’ve said they 18 are not to be claimed in front of the jury. And 19 it’s a factual situation. You know, you get to that 20 conclusion based on all of the surrounding facts. 21 And in this case, I think it would be productive for 22 the jury to know that the privilege is being 23 claimed. 24 Mr. Geragos before, which is really the 25 proper thing, kind of what I wanted him to do, was 26 not -- you just said, “I can’t answer that,” which 27 clued me in it was a claim of privilege, but nobody 28 else really. 11344 1 So that will change now. You’ll have to 2 say, “I’m claiming the attorney-client privilege and 3 cannot answer that question.” 4 THE WITNESS: I did not assert that before 5 because I didn’t have the Court’s ruling or 6 guidance. 7 THE COURT: I’m saying that you did the 8 right -- you did it the way I wanted you to then, 9 but now we’re changing the rules. 10 THE WITNESS: That’s fine. 11 THE COURT: Okay. So that’s my ruling on the 12 issue. 13 And you can bring the jury back in. 14 MR. SANGER: Before you do that, just one 15 further point of clarification, if I could. 16 THE COURT: Yes. 17 MR. SANGER: I know this is Mr. Mesereau’s 18 witness, but this will be my last remark with regard 19 to the motion. 20 THE COURT: I think it’s -- 21 MR. SANGER: Would the Court still entertain 22 objections that it’s beyond the scope and relevance 23 with regard -- 24 THE COURT: Yes. I said there’s two issues. 25 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. 26 THE COURT: I haven’t abrogated the rule that 27 you called this witness for a specific purpose. And 28 in reviewing the rulings that I made last week, 11345 1 which it’s a luxury, you know, to be able to go back 2 and review, I think I was making the correct rulings 3 because of his assertion. 4 So where you thought that the District 5 Attorney was exceeding the scope and I ruled that 6 he was not, I still feel that way. You know, he’s 7 made some assertions about what he knew at the time 8 that he was advising, and that area I had allowed 9 them to open up, so I would continue to allow that 10 area to be opened up. But there’s -- of course, 11 there’s the -- I don’t want to say too much, but 12 that, I think, addresses something that should have 13 been addressed. 14 MR. SANGER: I appreciate that. Thank you, 15 Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Do you have any questions, Mr. 17 Zonen? 18 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, we -- we did, in 19 fact, request of the Court that the Court consider 20 the option of striking the testimony of this witness 21 in its entirety. I’m not going to renew that at 22 this time. But I’d like to see what happens in 23 terms of cross-examination at this point vis-a-vis 24 his assertion of that privilege. And I wouldn’t 25 bring that up in front of the jury. 26 THE COURT: A better way for me to have said 27 what I was trying to say was that I won’t grant a 28 motion to strike at this time, but I would 11346 1 reconsider one at some other time if -- 2 MR. ZONEN: And that’s what I was asking. 3 THE COURT: -- if it’s made. 4 And I’m not inviting it. I’m just saying at 5 this time, when I weighed the testimony that had 6 been given, I didn’t think that was the way to go. 7 MR. ZONEN: That’s fine. 8 THE COURT: All right. Let me -- 9 MR. SANGER: Oh, before -- a different 10 matter, just real quick, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Yeah. 12 MR. SANGER: You still have the Amen 13 testimony issue. 14 THE COURT: Yes. 15 MR. SANGER: Amen. Joining in the bailiff’s 16 spirit of coming together here. 17 THE COURT: They can’t hear you. 18 MR. SANGER: Okay. We’re hoping to have a 19 ruling on that in time that we could -- if we’re 20 able to call him, we would be able to get that in 21 motion, so -- 22 THE COURT: I’m prepared to make a ruling on 23 that. My suggestion is we have the jury in, we 24 finish this, and then we deal with that when we can 25 let them go, instead of taking more time now. 26 MR. SANGER: Perfect. Thank you. 27 THE COURT: I’m just going to step off the 28 bench so that you can bring the jury in. I’ll be 11347 1 right there, ready to come right back. Okay. 2 (The following proceedings were held in 3 open court in the presence and hearing of the 4 jury:) 5 6 THE COURT: You may proceed. 7 MR. ZONEN: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 10 BY MR. ZONEN: 11 Q. Mr. Geragos, good morning. 12 A. Good morning, Mr. Zonen. 13 Q. Mr. Geragos, you were aware in advance of 14 the meeting with the Department of Social Services, 15 Child & Family Services, that there was going to be 16 a meeting involving Janet Arvizo; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Who was it who notified you or advised you 19 of that fact? 20 A. Probably would have been Brad. 21 Q. Did you know at the time that there was 22 going to be somebody working for Brad Miller who 23 would be attending that meeting? 24 A. I don’t think so. 25 Q. Did you instruct Brad Miller to be there? 26 A. No. No. 27 Q. Did you have a conversation with Brad Miller 28 before that meeting? 11348 1 A. I think that would have been the 2 conversation where he told me about the meeting. 3 Q. All right. Did you express concern to Brad 4 Miller about comments that Janet Arvizo might make 5 to the workers, social workers? 6 A. I don’t think so. I don’t think I expressed 7 concern about comments she might make. I think I -- 8 as I testified to last week, I think the question 9 was she wants somebody -- or wants to talk to a 10 lawyer or something, something to that effect, and 11 that’s when I gave Mr. Nasatir’s name. 12 Q. All right. Now, you did not know at the 13 time that there was going to be a representative of 14 Mr. Miller who would be there? 15 A. Like I say, as I sit here today, I don’t 16 think that I knew that either he or Asaf were going 17 to be there. I don’t know when I learned that. 18 Q. And Mr. Miller never consulted with you in 19 advance about the propriety of tape-recording that 20 conversation? 21 A. I had no idea up until the time that the 22 search warrant was issued or executed that there was 23 any kind of a tape that was done. 24 Q. Were you aware as of that day of Brad Miller 25 ever having tape-recorded illegally conversations 26 prior to that time? 27 A. Well, I don’t know that that was -- if 28 you’re suggesting that that was an illegal taping, I 11349 1 don’t believe that was an illegal taping. And the 2 previous taping that I was aware of, he told her, 3 Janet Arvizo, that he was working for me, that he 4 had a tape-recorder, and that he was taping it, and 5 something to the effect, if memory serves, that was 6 that okay? 7 Q. Mr. Geragos, do you believe that it’s legal 8 to surreptitiously tape a Department of Child & 9 Family Services interview? 10 A. I don’t believe that you can surreptitiously 11 tape their interview, no. I don’t think that that 12 would be legal. 13 Q. Is it your opinion, as an attorney 14 specializing in criminal law, that the interviews 15 with the Department of Child & Family Services are 16 confidential? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And therefore, somebody tape-recording it 19 for purposes of being able to listen to that 20 conversation, that would be in violation of the 21 confidentiality laws; is that true? 22 A. I don’t know if it would be in violation of 23 the confidentiality laws. I think it would probably 24 be a violation of a Penal Code section. 25 Q. In any event, it would be illegal? 26 A. I -- in my opinion, it probably would be. 27 Q. You are not aware of Mr. Miller ever having 28 done that in the past; is that correct? 11350 1 A. Well, I’m aware -- 2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 You may answer. 5 THE WITNESS: I’m aware of many private 6 investigators, and I would probably say Brad 7 included, who understand that the Penal Code has 8 exceptions. And one of the exceptions is if you 9 believe that there are certain enumerated crimes 10 that are going to be committed, you are allowed to, 11 under the code section, tape surreptitiously. 12 So I don’t know. Your definition of whether 13 or not it’s illegal or not and mine probably differ, 14 but I think that the Penal Code clearly states that 15 there are exceptions when you can tape. 16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you believe that there 17 was going to be a crime committed at the Department 18 of Child & Family Services interview with Janet 19 Arvizo? 20 A. As I told you, I don’t know what was going 21 to happen there. But I think what you’re asking me 22 is in reference to the other tape that was made. 23 Q. No, sir, I’m asking -- 24 A. Which was with Mr. -- 25 Q. -- about the Department of Child & Family 26 Services interview. Did you believe there was going 27 to be a crime committed during that interview? 28 A. No, I didn’t believe that a crime was going 11351 1 to be committed because I don’t think that I had a 2 discussion as to what was going to take place, other 3 than to say, “Look, I can’t represent her. Talk to 4 Nasatir.” 5 Q. And you did not tell Brad Miller that you 6 thought there would be some kind of crime committed 7 during the course of the Department of Child & 8 Family Services interview? 9 A. Well, if she would lie to them, that would 10 be potentially a crime, I suppose. But I don’t know 11 if I had -- 12 Q. And did you tell Brad Miller that? 13 A. I don’t know that I had that discussion with 14 Brad. In retrospect, who knows what she was going 15 to say. 16 Q. And Brad Miller did not tell you that he 17 planned on tape-recording that interview? 18 A. Did not. 19 Q. And if he had, you would have told him not 20 to? 21 A. Well, if he had told -- 22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for 23 speculation. 24 THE COURT: Sustained. 25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you first get 26 possession of that tape? 27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. 28 THE WITNESS: After the -- well -- 11352 1 MR. MESEREAU: Relevance; beyond the scope. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 THE WITNESS: And I’d have to -- Your Honor, 4 as the Court instructed, I’d have to assert 5 attorney-client privilege at this point. 6 THE COURT: You refuse to answer based on 7 the attorney-client privilege? 8 THE WITNESS: Could I? 9 THE COURT: Is that right? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 THE COURT: Next question. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: From whom did you first learn 13 that that conversation had, in fact, been 14 tape-recorded? 15 A. I believe, as I sit here today, the only 16 conversation that was tape-recorded was something 17 between Asaf and Janet Arvizo. I don’t -- I don’t 18 know -- as I sit here today, I haven’t listened to 19 that tape in quite a while. I don’t know how 20 lengthy that tape was. I thought it was just 21 between Janet and Asaf. 22 Q. From whom did you first learn that there had 23 been a tape-recording that took place at Jay 24 Jackson’s apartment while the Department of Child & 25 Family Services workers were there? 26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope; 27 relevance; assumes facts. 28 THE COURT: Overruled. 11353 1 You may answer. Do you want the question 2 read back? 3 THE WITNESS: No, I remember the question. 4 I’m just trying to -- I couldn’t tell you if 5 I learned it from -- it was either from Brad or when 6 I got copies of the documents that were seized, when 7 I had asked Mr. Sneddon for that. So I might have 8 gotten the items from Mr. Sneddon. And he had 9 represented to me that he had not listened to them 10 yet, so -- 11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And Brad Miller, did he brief 12 you on the content of the interview with -- the 13 Department of Child & Family Services interview? 14 A. At what point? 15 Q. After it occurred. 16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope; 17 relevance. 18 THE COURT: Sustained. 19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When was the first time you 20 had a conversation with Brad Miller following the 21 Department of Child & Family Services interview? 22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 23 the scope. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 THE WITNESS: I couldn’t tell you as I sit 26 here. I’m sure it was sometime shortly thereafter, 27 but I just don’t know. 28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ask him about how he 11354 1 knew about the content of that interview? 2 A. I’m sure he would have -- well, I would just 3 be speculating. 4 Q. Did he tell you that he had somebody there 5 at the time? 6 A. No. It was -- I can’t -- if you’re asking 7 me for, in February, what I knew then, I would only 8 be speculating. I think what he told me was that he 9 had Asaf there because Janet wanted somebody there, 10 and then Asaf left, is I think what I was told in 11 February. 12 Q. All right. Between the time that -- of this 13 interview with the Department of Child & Family 14 Services and the time your client was arrested in 15 November, did Brad Miller ever tell you that that 16 conversation was tape-recorded? 17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 18 the scope. 19 THE COURT: Sustained. 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you receive a copy of the 21 tape-recording at any time between the interview on 22 the 20th of February, ‘03, and the time that your 23 client was arrested in November? 24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 25 the scope. 26 THE COURT: Sustained. 27 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry? 28 THE COURT: Sustained. I think the relevant 11355 1 period is through April. That’s why I’m sustaining 2 the objections. 3 MR. ZONEN: Okay. 4 Q. If I were to ask those questions again 5 through the end of April, would your answer be 6 different? Let me change that question. 7 Between the time of the interview on the 8 20th of February through the end of April, did you 9 receive a copy of the tape of that interview? 10 A. I don’t know. I couldn’t tell you. 11 Q. You might have? 12 A. I don’t think so. But I couldn’t tell you. 13 I don’t think that I did. I don’t think that I was 14 aware of that or the other tape until after the 15 search warrant, but I’d just be guessing. 16 Q. Now, you commenced surveillance of the 17 Arvizo family; is that right? 18 A. Not me personally, but I asked Brad to find 19 out who they were meeting with, what they were 20 doing. So if he surveilled in response to that, 21 that would be what I would have expected. 22 Q. You didn’t personally want to sit in a car 23 in East L.A. and watch them? 24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative. 25 THE COURT: Sustained. 26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you have a conversation 27 with Mr. Miller as to who was going to participate 28 in the surveillance? 11356 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you give Mr. Miller any direction as to 3 what they were supposed to do? 4 A. I think the same thing I testified to 5 before: “Find out where they are, who they’re 6 meeting with, and what they’re doing.” 7 Q. Did you tell them to surveil the children? 8 A. Well, I assumed that the children would be 9 in the company of adults, and that one of the adults 10 would be Janet Arvizo. 11 Q. Did you -- 12 A. That would be the assumption. 13 Q. Did you tell them to conduct surveillance of 14 the children when they’re not in the presence of the 15 adults? 16 A. I don’t think we had that discussion, no. 17 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller to have people 18 conducting surveillance of the children while they 19 were coming and going from their junior high school? 20 A. No, I didn’t give him specific instructions 21 as to what to do. I think I just gave a broad 22 directive that said, “I want to know who they’re 23 meeting with, what they’re doing.” 24 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller that the 25 surveillance operatives should be obvious so that 26 the children know they’re being followed and taped? 27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; 28 assumes facts. 11357 1 THE COURT: Overruled. 2 You may answer. 3 THE WITNESS: No. As I indicated before, I 4 told -- I gave the same directive. I didn’t tell 5 him, “This is what I want you to do on this day. 6 This is what I want you to do on that day.” I said, 7 “I just want to know who they’re meeting with and 8 what they’re doing.” 9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you get a report from 10 Brad Miller as to the scope and extent of the 11 surveillance that he conducted? 12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 13 the scope; and vague as to time. 14 MR. ZONEN: There were questions about 15 surveillance by the defense. 16 THE COURT: That’s true. Vague as to time is 17 sustained. 18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Well, the period of time that 19 the surveillance was conducted was what, 60 days? 20 A. No, I think it was less than that. I think 21 it was about 30 or 35 days, something like that. 22 Q. And it commenced when? 23 A. Sometime after February 7th. 24 Q. Sometime after February 7th? 25 A. Yeah. 26 Q. Were they actually being -- 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. -- surveilled while they were at Neverland? 11358 1 A. I don’t know that they -- I don’t think Brad 2 was ever at Neverland, if I had -- if I had to -- if 3 that’s what you’re asking me. 4 Q. Well, if you’ve directed Brad Miller to 5 conduct a surveillance of the Arvizo family as early 6 as the 7th of February, then you would have been 7 informed as to exactly when they were at Neverland; 8 no? 9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; 10 assumes facts. 11 THE COURT: Overruled. 12 You may answer. 13 THE WITNESS: Mr. Zonen, what I directed him 14 to do was find out who they were meeting with, what 15 they were doing, and then give me a report back. 16 And he would have given me a report back 17 saying, “They’re either here or they’re there. We 18 either found this out; we didn’t find this out.” 19 I did not ask him to tell me exactly who he 20 was using. I didn’t get into that. It didn’t occur 21 to me at that point. 22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Brad Miller tell you that 23 the children were meeting with Michael Jackson 24 during that period of time? 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; 26 relevance; beyond the scope. 27 THE COURT: Overruled. 28 MR. ZONEN: That was overruled. 11359 1 THE WITNESS: That means I can answer? 2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I think it does, yes. 3 A. Thank you. 4 I don’t believe so. I didn’t have the 5 impression, at least, that when he was finding out 6 what they were up to, that that included any time 7 that they may or may not have been at Neverland. 8 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the 9 surveillance tapes? 10 A. Not prior to November. 11 Q. You directed a surveillance be done as early 12 as the 7th of February? 13 A. I directed that they find out who they were 14 meeting with and what they were doing. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. I know you keep saying “surveillance.” I 17 didn’t tell them to go sit in a car outside. I 18 didn’t give them directives as to how to do it. All 19 I said is, “Find out who they’re meeting with and 20 what they’re up to.” 21 As I explained last week when you asked me 22 this, the concern was, is that they were either 23 going to go meet with a lawyer of some kind to make 24 some accusation, or they were going to sell the 25 story to the tabloids. 26 I -- the extent of what he did I learned 27 sometime later, but did not know at the time. And 28 what I knew at the time was that they were either 11360 1 here or there at particular points. 2 Q. Do you know where those surveillance tapes 3 are today? 4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 5 the scope. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. 7 THE WITNESS: I assume in Steve -- the 8 sheriff’s possession. 9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you saying that all the 10 surveillance tapes were kept at Brad Miller’s 11 office? 12 A. I -- the surveillance tapes, as you call 13 them, all I’m aware of in terms of surveillance 14 tapes were the things that were seized during the 15 search warrant. 16 Q. You never asked Mr. Miller if, in fact, 17 there were additional tapes other than the ones 18 seized during the course of the search of his 19 office? 20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 21 relevance; beyond the scope. 22 THE COURT: Overruled. 23 You may answer. 24 THE WITNESS: I would have to assert the 25 attorney-client privilege, because I think built 26 into the question is asking me what my discussion -- 27 THE COURT: All you have to say is you 28 refuse to answer because you’re claiming the 11361 1 privilege, that’s all. 2 Next question. 3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Up until the time of your 4 client’s arrest, did you ever view any surveillance 5 tapes? 6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 7 the scope. 8 MR. ZONEN: I’m trying to establish if the 9 ones in evidence are accurate. 10 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 11 You may answer. 12 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t believe that I did. 13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Were you ever 14 briefed as to the content of those surveillances? 15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 16 relevance; beyond the scope. 17 THE COURT: Sustained as to time. 18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you ever briefed before 19 the conclusion of the month of April 2003 as to the 20 content of the surveillance tapes? 21 A. I think I was, yes. 22 Q. All right. Did they tell you that they -- 23 who was it who briefed you? 24 A. It would have been Brad. 25 Q. Did Brad tell you that they conducted a 26 surveillance of Janet Arvizo’s parents at their home 27 in El Monte? 28 A. I think that he did. 11362 1 Q. Did you direct that they do a surveillance 2 of her parents? 3 A. No. As I explained before, I told him, 4 “Find out who they’re meeting with and what they’re 5 doing.” I didn’t -- I didn’t -- 6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection. He 7 cut off the witness. 8 THE COURT: Sustained. 9 MR. MESEREAU: Could the witness please 10 answer, Your Honor? 11 THE COURT: If you haven’t completed your 12 answer, you may do so. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 I said I didn’t specify the exact locations 15 or what they should do. 16 MR. ZONEN: Just one second, Your Honor. 17 Q. Are you aware of any other surveillance 18 tapes other than the ones that we seized from Brad 19 Miller’s office? 20 A. No. 21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 22 the scope. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 You may answer. 25 THE WITNESS: No. 26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you aware if the Brad 27 Miller tapes seized from Brad Miller’s office have 28 been altered in any way by Brad Miller? 11363 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 2 the scope. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 You may answer. 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were are you aware of whether 7 or not there’s additional footage to those tapes 8 that have been excised or deleted from the tapes? 9 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. 10 THE COURT: Overruled. 11 THE WITNESS: No. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, at some point in time 13 you became aware of the fact that there was a 14 tape-recording of the telephone call between Janet 15 Arvizo and Frank Cascio; is that correct? 16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 17 relevance; beyond the scope. 18 THE COURT: Overruled. 19 You may answer. 20 THE WITNESS: I can’t answer that because of 21 attorney-client privilege. 22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever listen to the 23 tape-recording of the conversation between Janet 24 Arvizo and Frank Cascio? 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; vague 26 as to time; beyond the scope. 27 THE COURT: Vague as to time. 28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever listen to that 11364 1 conversation up until the time that your client was 2 arrested? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you know that it existed, that 5 tape-recording? 6 A. Up until the time of the arrest? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you have a conversation with Brad Miller 10 about conducting or monitoring conversations between 11 Janet Arvizo and any of the other employees or 12 people who work for Michael Jackson? 13 A. No. 14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; vague 15 as to time; beyond the scope. 16 THE COURT: Vague as to time. 17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: That last question that I 18 asked, if I were to say up until the time of your 19 client’s arrest, what would your answer be? 20 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. 21 THE COURT: Counsel, I’m going to tell you 22 again. The area that I think is relevant on some of 23 these questions is the time period that he testified 24 to on direct where he was doing certain things. And 25 your questions are relevant -- you know, it’s not 26 the cutoff date that’s relevant. So I’m just trying 27 to give you some guidance. 28 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. Perhaps that 11365 1 question could be modified, then, through the end of 2 April. 3 Q. Do you remember the question? 4 A. I do. And the answer is no. 5 Q. Pursuant to the surveillance investigation 6 that you had directed Mr. Miller to conduct, were 7 you kept advised as to the movement of Janet Arvizo 8 between Neverland and her home or Major Jackson’s 9 home? 10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 11 relevance. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the period of time of 13 the surveillance, which is roughly 30 days from the 14 7th. 15 A. When you say kept apprised, I’m sure that I 16 would have had conversations with Brad, and he would 17 have told me in general terms what was happening. 18 Q. Did Brad Miller then tell you the number of 19 times that Janet Arvizo left Neverland and then 20 returned? 21 A. You know, as I sit here, I don’t remember 22 him telling me. I know your focus on the question 23 is Neverland and returning, and I don’t think that 24 was really the focus of what he was doing. As I 25 indicated before -- 26 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’ll object as 27 nonresponsive. 28 THE COURT: Sustained. 11366 1 THE WITNESS: I do not believe that he was -- 2 if he did, I wasn’t paying attention to it. I was 3 concerned with other things. 4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you that Janet 5 Arvizo left Neverland on the 12th of February at 6 about one o’clock in the morning? 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 8 relevance; beyond the scope. 9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At the time, concurrent with 10 those events. In other words, within a few days of 11 the 12th, did he tell you that? 12 THE COURT: All right. He’s changed the -- 13 I’ll accept that change. 14 THE WITNESS: Probably did. 15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you within a few 16 days of the event, in other words, contemporaneous 17 of the event, that the family returned to Neverland 18 within a few days thereafter? 19 A. As I sit here, I don’t remember. I do have 20 a memory of being told that she had left, but I 21 don’t know about her returning. 22 Q. All right. Would you have been concerned 23 about the prospect of the Arvizo family returning to 24 Neverland -- 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for 26 speculation. 27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: -- as not being in your 28 client’s best interest? 11367 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for 2 speculation. 3 THE COURT: Just a moment. I don’t want you 4 to add to your question after there’s an objection. 5 It’s okay on that timing, but it causes me 6 difficulty when you’re -- 7 MR. ZONEN: I actually intended that to be 8 one question. 9 THE COURT: All right. Why don’t you just 10 rephrase the question. 11 MR. ZONEN: Give me a moment. 12 Q. All right. Did you have concerns about the 13 Arvizo family returning to Neverland after they left 14 on the 12th? 15 A. I had concerns about the Arvizo family. 16 Q. But particularly in the context of them 17 being in the presence of Michael Jackson? 18 A. Yes. I always had concerns about the Arvizo 19 family from early February, meaning sometime after 20 the 7th or the 9th, something like that. 21 Q. Did your concerns include a concern that 22 Gavin Arvizo would end up back in Michael Jackson’s 23 room? 24 A. Well, when you say back in his room, no, 25 that wasn’t my concern. My concern was that there 26 was going to be some kind of an accusation made; 27 that there was going to be some kind of a false 28 story concocted. That was my concern. 11368 1 Q. Did you at any time contact Michael Jackson 2 after the 12th, after the 12th -- 3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 4 MR. ZONEN: It’s in the midst of the 5 question. I’m just putting the time parameters on 6 it. 7 MR. MESEREAU: My apology. I withdraw the 8 objection. 9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: After the 12th of February, 10 at any time after the 12th of February, within the 11 next week or so, did you have a conversation with 12 Michael Jackson about not allowing the Arvizos back 13 on the property? 14 A. No, I don’t think that I had a conversation 15 about anything to do with them coming back and forth 16 to the property. I wanted to know what they were up 17 to. I didn’t -- I don’t think I had a conversation 18 as to them coming onto the property. 19 Q. All right. Mr. Geragos, you knew that there 20 was going to be an interview that would take place 21 in the late evening hours of the 19th into the early 22 morning hours of the 20th that was going to be part 23 of “Take 2”; in other words, a filming of the Arvizo 24 family that was designed or intended to be a part of 25 this commercial production; is that right? 26 A. I knew that they were filming what they 27 called -- it wasn’t -- as I remember it, they kept 28 referring to it as the rebuttal. 11369 1 Q. Were you aware that there was a substantial 2 amount of money that had been paid to Michael 3 Jackson by FOX Studios in advance of the filming of 4 that production, an advance towards that production? 5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 6 in evidence; no foundation; beyond the scope. 7 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, it is in evidence, 8 and the exhibit specifically is 898. 9 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you paid out of an 11 account that was funded by FOX Studios? 12 A. Not that I’m aware of. 13 Q. Did you know from what source came your 14 income? 15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 16 the scope. 17 THE COURT: Sustained. 18 MR. ZONEN: Could I be heard, Your Honor? 19 THE COURT: Yes. 20 MR. ZONEN: Could we do it at sidebar? 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.) 23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Based on your briefing with 24 either Brad Miller or any employee of Brad Miller, 25 did you learn that Janet Arvizo had been entirely 26 complimentary of the defendant during the course of 27 the interview that was tape-recorded in person at 28 Major Jackson’s home on the 16th? 11370 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: She had nothing bad to say 5 about Michael Jackson at all? 6 A. That was my understanding. 7 Q. Based on your briefing with Brad Miller 8 about the content of her interview with the 9 Department of Child & Family Services, is it your 10 understanding that Janet Arvizo had nothing bad to 11 say about Michael Jackson in that interview as well? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Did you understand that she was going 14 into that interview concerned that her children 15 would be removed from her custody? 16 A. I don’t know that I knew that prior, but 17 that would not surprise me. I mean, it’s a 18 Department of Children’s Services interview. I 19 think anybody would be concerned. 20 Q. Would it be your expectation that the more 21 complimentary she was of Michael Jackson the greater 22 the likelihood that they would not take her 23 children? 24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls 25 for speculation; relevance. 26 THE COURT: Overruled. 27 You may answer. 28 THE WITNESS: I don’t know that that was the 11371 1 thought process. I believe I was told that she had 2 previously had close encounters with the DCFS and 3 that was her concern. 4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you direct Brad Miller to 5 work with anybody from Michael Jackson -- anyone 6 among Michael Jackson’s employees in terms of 7 conducting his investigation? 8 A. I don’t know that I directed him to talk to 9 anybody in particular. I told him to go -- I told 10 him to contact people and investigate, do what an 11 investigator does. 12 Q. Do you know who paid the balance of Janet 13 Arvizo’s rent at her Soto Street apartment? 14 A. I think at the time -- are you talking about 15 in April of 2003, roughly that time period? 16 Q. Try March. 17 A. In March -- I think I knew in April that 18 Brad had paid it. 19 Q. All right. Did Brad Miller have money to be 20 able to pay that? 21 A. Probably not. 22 Q. All right. So do you know how he paid that? 23 A. I would have told him to get reimbursed from 24 the accountant. 25 Q. Did you advance any money? 26 A. I did not. 27 Q. Did you advance any money toward emptying 28 out the apartment? 11372 1 A. I did not. 2 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller that he should go 3 ahead and pay off the balance of the rent on that 4 apartment? 5 A. I don’t know that I told him. I know that 6 he told me he was going to do it. I don’t know that 7 I told him to do it. I mean, I know that he told me 8 he was going to do it or he had done it. I just 9 don’t remember the context of the conversation. 10 Q. Did you ask Brad Miller where the Arvizo 11 family would be moving once that apartment was moved 12 out? 13 A. He had told me that they were moving in with 14 her boyfriend. 15 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller, “This is not a 16 problem for Michael Jackson to be paying for 17 cleaning her out of her apartment”? 18 A. What do you mean, “cleaning her out of her 19 apartment”? 20 Q. Moving them from the apartment and putting 21 their things in storage. “This is something that 22 Michael Jackson ought not be involved in.” Did you 23 tell him that? 24 A. He was talking to Janet. Janet wanted that 25 done. Janet was trying, according to him at least, 26 to get these things done. And I told him if he was 27 going to do that, that he better videotape the 28 contents so that there later is not an accusation 11373 1 that something was tampered with. 2 Q. Why did you tell Brad Miller that he should 3 move Janet Arvizo out of her apartment on Soto 4 Street? 5 A. Did I? I didn’t say I told him that. 6 Q. Why did you approve it? He works for you, 7 right? 8 A. He works for me. 9 He said that she wanted that done. He was 10 going to assist her. He was trying to be on her 11 good side, I guess is -- for lack of a better term. 12 Q. Did you know at the time that she was moved 13 out of that apartment where her possessions went? 14 A. I don’t think at the time, no. I’ve learned 15 later on. 16 Q. All right. Now, did you instruct Brad 17 Miller that he should place them in a locker 18 someplace under his name? 19 A. No, I don’t think that I did. 20 Q. Do you know under whose name her possessions 21 were, in fact, deposited? 22 A. I learned that later, yes, that it was under 23 his name. 24 Q. All right. Now, did you -- as soon as you 25 learned that, did you immediately instruct him to 26 change that? 27 A. Well, no. When I learned that was when I 28 got those letters from Mr. Dickerman. And he and I 11374 1 went back and forth as to where he wanted the stuff. 2 And I think at one point I told him that he could 3 take over the lockers. I offered to have him switch 4 it to whatever name he wanted, and I think we went 5 back and forth on that. 6 MR. ZONEN: May I approach the witness? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, I’m going to 9 show you exhibit number -- Exhibit No. 630. I’d 10 like you to take a moment and strum through those 11 collection of documents in that exhibit, if you 12 would. 13 A. I’ve strummed through it. 14 Q. Strumming through documents is something 15 lawyers do well, right? 16 A. I don’t know if we do it well. We do it a 17 lot. 18 Q. Mr. Geragos, do you recognize those 19 documents as being a compilation of letters sent to 20 you by Mr. Dickerman and a few letters sent by you 21 back to Mr. Dickerman in response? 22 A. No, I do not. 23 Q. You don’t recognize any of those letters at 24 all? 25 A. I think you have probably given me the wrong 26 exhibit. 27 (Laughter.) 28 You haven’t been strumming documents enough. 11375 1 This is the -- 2 MR. ZONEN: It’s the wrong exhibit. 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. ZONEN: Could we have 629? 5 MR. SNEDDON: My fault. Not his. 6 MR. ZONEN: You could have told us at the 7 early stages of the strumming. 8 THE WITNESS: I couldn’t figure out why you 9 were having me look at it. 10 You were close. It was the right lawyer. 11 Just the wrong series of correspondence. 12 THE COURT: Maybe we ought to just start our 13 break early, huh? Okay. 14 (Recess taken.) 15 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, may we approach, 16 please? 17 THE COURT: All right. Yes. 18 MR. SANGER: Thank you. 19 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.) 20 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, could we approach 21 the bench again? 22 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.) 23 THE COURT: (To the jury) Do you want in on 24 any of this? 25 No, you don’t. Oh, I’m sorry, this is just 26 a complicated area. I’m trying to make it work. 27 In my other courtroom where -- you know, 28 this is not my normal courtroom. I’m really across 11376 1 the hall there. And when attorneys approach, the 2 jury sits right there, sort of like if Mr. Geragos 3 is sort of like me and you’re the jury. And when 4 the attorneys want a sidebar, I make them come over 5 and kneel there, so -- so we have a lot less 6 sidebars over in that court. 7 (Laughter.) 8 MR. ZONEN: I’m prepared to proceed. 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, I think you now 11 have Exhibit 625. That was the exhibit we intended 12 to hand you before the break. 13 Did you have an opportunity to look at 625? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is 625 a compilation of letters and 16 communications between you and Attorney Bill 17 Dickerman? 18 A. Well, there’s -- some of these letters are 19 mine. I don’t believe -- for instance, this top 20 letter, which doesn’t have a letterhead and which is 21 not signed, I don’t believe that’s the letter that 22 was sent to me. 23 Q. You don’t believe you’ve ever received that 24 letter? 25 A. I don’t believe that this is the letter he 26 sent to me. And I don’t believe that this letter -- 27 it has no letterhead and no signature on it. I 28 don’t think he sent that to me either. 11377 1 Q. All right. Now, I’m not asking you if he 2 sent you an unsigned -- 3 A. No. 4 Q. -- unletterheaded letter. 5 A. Right. I’m telling you I don’t believe that 6 this is the letter that he sent me, April 11th. And 7 I’m almost positive that the March 26th letter 8 that’s on here is not the letter he sent me. 9 Q. All right. You’ve never seen that letter 10 before? 11 A. I have never seen -- 12 Q. Let me clarify my question. 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Not that -- hold on. 15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s cutting off 16 the witness. 17 MR. ZONEN: Let me -- 18 THE COURT: All right. Ask another 19 question. 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Let me clarify my question. 21 The front letter on there that’s dated in 22 March -- what is that, March 24th? 23 A. March 26th. 24 Q. March 26th. All right. The content of that 25 letter you’re not familiar with? 26 A. Well, let me just tell you what -- why I 27 don’t -- there’s several things that -- 28 Q. Mr. Geragos, are you familiar with the 11378 1 content of that letter? 2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; cutting off the 3 witness. 4 MR. ZONEN: Well, I’m going to object to 5 nonresponsive answers. 6 THE WITNESS: I hadn’t answered. 7 THE COURT: The question is, are you familiar 8 with the content of the letter? 9 THE WITNESS: I don’t know how to answer 10 that. I don’t -- 11 THE COURT: All right. Ask another question. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Did you receive a 13 communication from Mr. Dickerman at any time during 14 the latter part of March of 2003 where he asked for 15 Janet Arvizo’s passport and the passports of her 16 children? 17 A. I received and responded to -- and my 18 response is here, and this is my letter where I 19 respond to his April 3rd letter where he wanted 20 things retrieved from storage is what my memory is. 21 So this letter that I sent on April 6th is 22 in response to some earlier letter, and I reference 23 an April 3rd letter. 24 Q. Did you receive a letter at any time in the 25 month of March from Mr. Dickerman asking 26 specifically that passports belonging to the Arvizo 27 family be returned to him? 28 A. Well, I see where he’s -- as I sit here, I 11379 1 don’t remember a letter in March. I remember a 2 letter that I responded to in April. 3 Q. All right. And that letter that you’re 4 responding to, did that, in part, inquire about the 5 existence of passports belonging to the Arvizo 6 family? 7 A. No. His April 3rd letter says, “I wrote you 8 and asked you to locate certain items.” And that’s 9 what I did. I think I testified to Mr. Mesereau, I 10 faxed that letter to Brad and told him, “Let’s deal 11 with it.” 12 Q. Mr. Geragos, at any time during the month of 13 March of 2003, did you have a conversation with Mr. 14 Dickerman wherein Mr. Dickerman asked you to return 15 his clients’ passports? 16 A. I don’t believe that I had a conversation 17 with Mr. Dickerman in March. 18 Q. At any time in the early part of April, say 19 up till April 15th, did you have a conversation with 20 Mr. Dickerman wherein the subject of the Arvizos’ 21 passports was raised? 22 A. No, I believe the conversation we had was in 23 reference to the contents of the storage unit. 24 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. 25 Dickerman about passports at any time in the month 26 of April? 27 A. He might have mentioned it. 28 Q. He might have mentioned it? 11380 1 A. He might have mentioned it -- 2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. 3 THE WITNESS: -- in April, but I’d just be 4 guessing. 5 MR. MESEREAU: Cutting off the witness. 6 THE COURT: Next question. 7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you have a recollection of 8 any specific conversation at any time from the 24th 9 of March through the end of April where the subject 10 matter of that conversation was passports belonging 11 to the Arvizos? 12 A. As I sit here, my memory is contents of the 13 storage unit is what we kept talking about, he and 14 I. 15 Q. Did you ask anybody in your office to locate 16 passports belonging to the Arvizos at any time in 17 April? 18 A. Absolutely not. 19 Q. At any time in May, did you ask anybody in 20 your office to locate passports? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. 23 Dickerman about passports at any time in April or 24 May of 2003? 25 A. I just don’t remember. I remember -- all I 26 remember about the conversations was the contents of 27 the storage units. 28 Q. Did you know from Brad Miller that the 11381 1 Arvizo family was going to go to Brazil? 2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 3 in evidence; foundation. 4 THE COURT: Overruled. 5 You may answer. 6 THE WITNESS: In what time period? 7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: In 2003. 8 A. I don’t believe that I did. 9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 10 THE COURT: Sustained. 11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At the time you began 12 communications with Attorney Dickerman, did you know 13 that the Arvizo family had intended to take a trip 14 to Brazil, a trip that would have been sponsored by 15 the -- Michael Jackson? 16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 17 assumes facts not in evidence; vague. 18 THE COURT: Compound question. Sustained. 19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know at any time 20 during the month of March or April of 2003 that the 21 Arvizo family was going to go to Brazil? 22 A. I just don’t remember. I can’t tell you. 23 Q. You have no recollection whatsoever of the 24 subject of a Brazil vacation for the Arvizo family 25 coming up? 26 A. Well, with anybody? 27 Q. Yes. Anybody. 28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 11382 1 THE COURT: Sustained. 2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the month of March or 3 April, did you have a conversation with anybody 4 wherein the subject matter of that conversation was 5 whether or not the Arvizo family would be going to 6 Brazil? 7 A. I would just be guessing. I can’t answer 8 that as I sit here. If you want me to guess, I 9 would say that the one person who would have -- if I 10 had had that discussion, it might have been 11 Dickerman or it might have been Brad. 12 Q. Were you aware at any time during March or 13 April of 2003 that employees of Michael Jackson were 14 assisting the Arvizos in getting visas, birth 15 certificates and passports? 16 A. I think I -- I think I became aware of that. 17 I just don’t know if it was from Brad or from -- 18 Dickerman made the accusation. I just don’t 19 remember at the time. And what I subsequently 20 learned is other material. 21 Q. During the period of time that you 22 instructed your employee, Brad Miller, to learn 23 about who the Arvizos were associating with and 24 talking to, did you learn that they were being 25 escorted to places like federal buildings to get 26 visas and passports? 27 A. I don’t believe he ever told me that he 28 followed them to a visa application office or a 11383 1 passport office or the federal building. 2 Q. Did Brad Miller ever tell you that he was 3 aware of that there had been an application to get 4 visas from the Brazilian embassy on behalf of the 5 Arvizos? 6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 7 relevance; and beyond the scope. 8 MR. ZONEN: During the month of March and 9 April. 10 THE WITNESS: I don’t think so. 11 THE COURT: Just a minute. 12 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 13 THE COURT: Overruled. The objection is 14 overruled. The answer is in. 15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At any time between the time 16 you became involved with Mr. Jackson on the 7th of 17 February until the end of April of 2003, did anybody 18 tell you that the Jackson -- that Jackson’s 19 employees were assisting the Arvizos in getting 20 visas to go to Brazil? 21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; 22 foundation. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 You may answer. 25 THE WITNESS: I think I -- it would be the 26 same answer I gave you before. If it happened, it 27 would have been either Dickerman or Brad. 28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you associate the request 11384 1 by Mr. Dickerman for passports belonging to the 2 Arvizos, did you associate that with a trip to 3 Brazil? 4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 5 THE COURT: Sustained. 6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the time you were 7 receiving communications from Mr. Dickerman. 8 MR. MESEREAU: Still vague as to time. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you telling us to the 12 best of your recollection right now, in all of the 13 telephone conversations you had with Mr. Dickerman, 14 you do not recall him ever asking you specifically 15 to have the Arvizos’ passports returned to him; that 16 that simply didn’t come up? 17 A. No, I think what I testified to is that if 18 passports came up, it would have been either through 19 a conversation with Mr. Dickerman or with Mr. 20 Miller, Brad. 21 Q. All right. Do you have a specific 22 recollection of a conversation with Mr. Dickerman 23 wherein he asked you to return his clients’ 24 passports? 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 26 THE COURT: Sustained. 27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you have a recollection 28 today of any conversation that you had with Mr. 11385 1 Dickerman in March or April or May or June of 2003 2 wherein the subject matter of that conversation was 3 his clients’ passports? 4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 5 THE COURT: Overruled. 6 THE WITNESS: I think if you take it into 7 June, yes, I think we talked about that. 8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. You think that 9 the first time that the conversation about passports 10 came up in June? 11 A. No. But I think, as I indicated before, if 12 I had the conversation -- the first question was 13 March or April, and I do have a vague recollection 14 of either Dickerman or Brad bringing that subject 15 up. In my mind, the two are associated because I 16 would fax his letters over to Brad and tell Brad to 17 get the item. 18 Q. Between March and the end of June of 2003, 19 did you tell Bill Dickerman that you would locate 20 the passports that belonged to their clients? 21 A. The conversations with Dickerman were always 22 not specific to items, at least when I was talking 23 to him. It was as to the storage locker and the -- 24 or the storage units. 25 Q. Did you have a conversation with Bill 26 Dickerman at any time before the end of June 2003 27 about the return of passports? 28 A. Once again, the return of “items” in the 11386 1 storage locker. 2 Q. Mr. Geragos, passports. Did you talk about 3 passports? 4 A. I do not believe -- yes, as I testified, I 5 think in March or April we talked about passports, 6 and it was either Dickerman or with Brad. And I 7 think sometime before June, we had at least two 8 phone calls where I talked about getting his items, 9 or the items for his client, over to his office. 10 Q. Let’s focus on passports right now, okay? 11 We don’t need to talk about anything beyond 12 passports at this moment, all right? 13 Did you ever tell Mr. Dickerman that you 14 would try to locate his clients’ passports? 15 A. No, I told Mr. Dickerman I would try to 16 locate “the items.” 17 Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Dickerman that you 18 have located the passports? 19 A. I said, “We’ve got” -- “I know where the 20 items are.” 21 Q. Did you ever have a conversation about where 22 the passports were? 23 A. I do not believe I ever had a conversation 24 as to where the passports were. 25 Q. Did he specifically ask you to return 26 passports? 27 A. When? 28 Q. At any time during your phone conversations 11387 1 with him. 2 A. During the phone conversations I believe 3 that he mentioned passports, that’s what I said, in 4 March or April. 5 Q. When he mentioned passports to you, did you 6 immediately understand those to be passports to get 7 the Arvizo family to Brazil? 8 A. No. I did not understand that that was -- 9 there was any connection. 10 Q. Did you understand that passports were in 11 reference to the Arvizo family leaving this country, 12 the United States? 13 A. I know what a passport is. I don’t know 14 what -- I wasn’t trying to read his mind. 15 Q. Did you understand the passports to be in 16 reference to the Arvizo family leaving this country? 17 A. That they wanted to leave? No, I didn’t 18 have that understanding. 19 Q. Did you understand the passports to have 20 something to do with Michael Jackson or his 21 employees? 22 A. I understood that the items he wanted he 23 felt were, or I felt, based on my conversations with 24 Brad, were in storage. 25 Q. How many telephone conversations did you 26 have with Mr. Dickerman between the 24th of March 27 and the end of June of 2003? 28 A. I couldn’t tell you. 11388 1 Q. Ten? 2 A. No. 3 Q. More? 4 A. Less. 5 Q. Five? 6 A. Maybe. 7 Q. And you’re telling us now that you have no 8 recollection of a specific conversation where he 9 specifically asked you to get the passports? 10 A. I’m telling you that when I talked to Mr. 11 Dickerman, we always talked about getting the items 12 from storage or him taking over the storage units. 13 That’s what the subject of the conversations were. 14 And I’m telling you that he -- because you 15 seem to be concentrating on the passports, that I 16 think sometime in March or April, he either wrote it 17 in the letter or he mentioned the passports as being 18 among the items. 19 Q. All right. Now, when he said “passports,” 20 did you make an effort to determine if your client 21 or any of his representatives were in possession of 22 Mrs. Arvizo’s passports? 23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 24 relevance; beyond the scope. 25 THE COURT: Overruled. 26 You may answer. 27 THE WITNESS: I took the letter and I faxed 28 it to Brad and asked Brad to follow up on it. 11389 1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Now, did Brad 2 Miller then contact you and tell you, yes, he knew 3 where the passports were? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did he tell you that the passports were in 6 their storage locker? 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 8 in evidence; foundation. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 You may answer. 11 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe that he did. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you learn whether or not 13 the passports were in the storage locker? 14 A. Firsthand knowledge or through hearsay? 15 Q. Any source. 16 A. Well, I was told later that the passports 17 were in the possession of Vinnie; that Asaf had 18 picked them up and Asaf had delivered them to my 19 office. 20 Q. All right. Now, the passports were in the 21 possession of Vinnie? 22 A. I’m told that Asaf picked them up from 23 Vinnie. 24 Q. And took them to your office? 25 A. And delivered them to my office. 26 Q. Now, Asaf is Brad Miller’s employee? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. All right. 11390 1 A. That was my understanding. 2 Q. All right. He’s not your employee? 3 A. Well, I hired Brad. Asaf, my understanding, 4 was working for Brad at the time. 5 Q. All right. Now, Asaf was working for Brad 6 on behalf of Michael Jackson at that time? 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 8 in evidence; misstates the testimony. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 You may answer. 11 THE WITNESS: Asaf was working for Brad, and 12 I assumed that Brad was working for me. 13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. When exactly was 14 it that Asaf picked up the passports from Vinnie? 15 A. I don’t have any idea. 16 Q. When did Asaf deliver the passports to 17 Geragos & Geragos? 18 A. I don’t have any idea. 19 Q. Did he give them to you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did he book them into some safe in your 22 office? 23 A. They were put into an evidence locker style 24 that has a locking device on it. 25 Q. Does Asaf have a key to that evidence 26 locker? 27 A. No. 28 Q. So it had to go through somebody in your 11391 1 office? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Was that you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. All right. Who was it? 6 A. I don’t know. 7 Q. Did you make an effort to determine who that 8 was? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. And who was it? 11 A. I still don’t know. It was either the 12 receptionist or one of the assistants. 13 Q. The receptionist has a key to your evidence 14 locker? 15 A. The receptionist has access to that locker 16 to put items into it, yes. 17 Q. When did you find out that Mrs. Arvizo’s 18 passports were in your evidence locker? 19 A. When I got a substitution of attorney from 20 Mr. Mesereau, and I itemized all of the items that 21 were in there, I located the passports. 22 I determined at that point that -- did a 23 little legal research, realized that they would 24 possibly be evidence in this case, did not want to 25 give them to Mr. Mesereau because I thought that 26 would make him a witness, and I filed them with the 27 court. 28 Q. Mr. Geragos, you represented Michael Jackson 11392 1 for what, 16 months? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you didn’t know during that entire time 4 that you had possession of Mrs. Arvizo’s passports? 5 A. That’s correct. 6 Q. And you made no effort to determine whether 7 you had those passports during the time of your 8 conversations with Mr. Dickerman? 9 A. Mr. Zonen, I don’t believe that I had them 10 at the time of my conversations with Mr. Dickerman, 11 because Mr. Dickerman would write me letters, I 12 would fax the letters over, and I was relying on the 13 items getting from the storage unit over to Mr. 14 Dickerman’s office. 15 MR. ZONEN: May I take possession of Exhibit 16 625? 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, at the time that you 19 discovered the passports in your storage facility, 20 were you surprised to see them? 21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 22 argumentative. 23 THE COURT: Sustained. 24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you have a system in your 25 law office where you’re supposed to be told what 26 exhibits are being booked into your exhibit room? 27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 28 argumentative. 11393 1 THE COURT: Overruled. 2 You may answer. 3 THE WITNESS: There’s a log that is supposed 4 to be kept. 5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you check with the log to 6 find out when the passports came in? 7 A. I did, and there was no notation for them. 8 They apparently were in a manila envelope, and it 9 may be the same manila envelope that I filed with 10 the Court. 11 Q. Did you make an inquiry of the employees of 12 your law office to find out who it was who received 13 it? 14 A. I did. I couldn’t find anybody who had 15 checked it in, and I made an inquiry with Brad, who 16 told me about Asaf having picked them up and then 17 delivered them. 18 Q. Did Brad Miller find out who Asaf gave the 19 passports to? 20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for 21 speculation; relevance. 22 THE COURT: Sustained. 23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Based on any conversation you 24 had with Brad Miller about the movement of those 25 passports, did you then consult with anybody in your 26 office about whether or not they had, in fact, 27 received those passports? 28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and 11394 1 answered; relevance. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 You may answer. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I asked virtually 5 everybody who was there, if not everybody who was 6 there, who had received them. Nobody had knowledge 7 of them. And I couldn’t get to the bottom of how 8 they got in there. I assumed that because they were 9 in the manila envelope, somebody had placed them in 10 there because they were told that it related to Mr. 11 Jackson’s case. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When you found those 13 passports, did you look at them? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, you recognized those passports as being 16 passports that did not belong to you; is that right? 17 A. I recognized them as passports that were not 18 mine, absolutely. 19 Q. And your understanding is that passports are 20 the possession of the person to whom they’re issued? 21 A. Well, rather than give them to -- 22 Q. Was that a “yes” or “no”? 23 A. I don’t know how to answer that. I 24 recognized that the court would want them, or that 25 they should be in possession of the court, and I 26 delivered them to the court. 27 Q. It did not occur to you that those passports 28 belonged to Janet Arvizo and her children? 11395 1 A. I was not in this case, as the lawyer for 2 this case, going to take items which I thought had 3 evidentiary value and send them back to the Arvizos. 4 My ethical obligation was to file them with the 5 court. 6 Q. Did you immediately file them with the 7 court, that day? 8 A. No. I believe I researched it, and I 9 consulted with several other lawyers, and did it 10 within a relatively short period of time. 11 Q. How long is “a relatively short period of 12 time”? 13 A. I couldn’t tell you. I know that I did it -- 14 it was a -- it was a concern. 15 Q. Did you have Attorney Benjamin Brafman write 16 a letter to the Court? 17 A. I talked to Benjamin Brafman about it. He’s 18 one of the lawyers I consulted with. 19 Q. Did you ask him to write a letter to the 20 Court? 21 A. I don’t know. I know that I had a lawyer -- 22 what I did do is I directed a lawyer from my office 23 to file them with the court. 24 Q. Did you contact Bill Dickerman and tell him 25 you’ve located the passports? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Why not? 28 A. Well, Bill Dickerman, as I understand it, 11396 1 was on the witness list at that point, and I didn’t 2 feel that that was appropriate. 3 Q. So you gave consideration to contacting Bill 4 Dickerman? 5 A. I had given consideration to a number of 6 alternatives, in discussions with lawyers about it. 7 Q. Do you know where all of the communications 8 are between you and Bill Dickerman? 9 A. No. 10 MR. ZONEN: If I could approach, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Showing you again Exhibit 13 No. 625, and this time a letter on April 8th of 14 2003, do you recognize this letter? 15 A. This may be one of the letters that he sent 16 me. 17 Q. If you could go to Paragraph 3, please. 18 Read that out loud, if you would, please. 19 A. “Regardless of when the apartment items are 20 returned, please deliver to my office the passports, 21 visas, birth certificates and all other documents 22 belonging to my clients immediately. They were 23 last, to my client’s knowledge, in Vinnie’s 24 possession.” 25 Q. “Immediately” is underlined; is that right? 26 A. That’s correct. 27 Q. Do you understand underlining to mean -- 28 A. Emphasis. 11397 1 Q. Emphasis. All right. 2 Now, when you received this presumably on or 3 about the 8th of April, did you then make an effort 4 to look for those passports? 5 A. I don’t believe that the passports were in 6 my possession on the 8th of April. 7 Q. Did you contact Vinnie to find out if, in 8 fact, Vinnie had those passports? 9 A. No. I -- what I said before is, I took the 10 letter, I faxed it to Mr. Miller, and I asked Mr. 11 Miller to take action. 12 Q. All right. Did you follow up with Mr. 13 Miller soon after the 8th of April to find out if, 14 in fact, he had located the passports? 15 A. I just asked him about the items. I wanted 16 all items delivered to Mr. Dickerman’s office. 17 Q. You acknowledge now receipt of the April 8 18 letter; is that correct? 19 A. I -- when you say “acknowledge receipt,” it 20 looks like one of the letters he sent me. I 21 don’t -- frankly, as I sit here, I don’t know if all 22 of those letters are the same letters that Mr. 23 Dickerman sent me, because there’s a number of them 24 that don’t have letterhead, nor are they signed. 25 Q. Now, this particular letter does actually 26 have a letterhead, “Law Offices of Dickerman & 27 Associates,” April 8th, the one you acknowledge 28 receiving? 11398 1 A. No, I didn’t acknowledge receiving it. I 2 said it looks like a letter he would have sent me. 3 But I can tell you as I sit here, the more I 4 think about it, that I don’t believe he sent me this 5 March 26th letter. I think he may have sent me a 6 letter in March, but it wasn’t this letter. And I 7 think that’s why there’s no letterhead on it, and I 8 think that’s why there’s no signature on it. I 9 wouldn’t trust anything Mr. Dickerman tells me. 10 Q. Let’s move on to the letter that you’ve said 11 looks more familiar, all right? The April 8th one. 12 And I believe you said that it does look familiar. 13 You think you’ve read that; is that correct? 14 A. No. I’m telling you it looks familiar 15 because it’s got a letterhead, it’s addressed to me, 16 it’s purportedly signed by him. I am not going to 17 sit here, unless you want me to go back and review 18 it, but I wouldn’t -- I wouldn’t -- I wouldn’t 19 attest to anything that Bill Dickerman has produced 20 is the accurate item. 21 Q. April 9th, take a look at this letter, 22 please. That has a letterhead and a signature; is 23 that correct? 24 A. It does. 25 Q. All right. The content of that letter 26 refers to passports, doesn’t it? 27 A. Yes, it does. 28 Q. Visas and birth certificates? 11399 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you have a recollection of reading this 3 letter? 4 A. I don’t have a recollection of reading that 5 letter. 6 Q. Do you know where your communications are 7 between you and Mr. Dickerman? 8 A. I do not as I sit here. I don’t know if I 9 still have them in the office or not. 10 Q. You could very well have these in your 11 office? 12 A. I don’t know if I do. 13 Q. Did you turn over your file to the current 14 defense team, Mr. Mesereau and Mr. Sanger and Miss 15 Yu? 16 A. I believe that I’ve turned over my entire 17 file. 18 Q. Would that have included the letters from 19 Mr. Dickerman? 20 A. Should have. 21 Q. You acknowledge that the one dated April 9th 22 also contains a reference to birth certificates, 23 visas and passports? 24 A. The one that he’s provided you does. 25 I would also tell you that the April 11th 26 letter, which has no letterhead, no signature on it, 27 I don’t believe I ever received, the following one. 28 I will tell you that if I have a letter, 11400 1 that I generally referenced in my letter the one 2 that he would send me. And I would do it there. I 3 would say, “Thank you for your letter dated May 4 12th.” Or I would say, “Thank you for your letter 5 -- 6 Q. Let’s turn to the -- 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s cutting off 8 the witness. 9 THE COURT: Sustained. 10 MR. MESEREAU: Could I ask the Court to 11 allow the witness to complete his answer? 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You do have a letter here -- 13 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel. We’re 14 having a conversation over here. 15 MR. ZONEN: Did you want me to be part of 16 that? 17 THE COURT: It would help. 18 Mr. Mesereau requested the witness be 19 allowed to finish the answer. I agree. He probably 20 doesn’t remember where he was at this point. 21 Do you have anything to add to your answer? 22 THE WITNESS: All I was going to say is 23 that if I reference a letter, I would assume that I 24 got -- that would normally be how I would start it. 25 I would start my letter back to him referencing or 26 thanking him for his letter of that particular date. 27 That does not, however, mean that the letter 28 that he’s produced that I necessarily think is the 11401 1 one that I got. And I would just show you the -- 2 here’s the March 26th letter. This is the one that 3 has no letterhead and is not signed. 4 The first letter that he apparently has put 5 in this package, I say, “Thank you for your letter 6 of April 3rd. Please give me a call.” 7 I don’t mention the March letter, which 8 leads me to believe I didn’t get it. I do the same 9 thing with the others. And I don’t believe he sent 10 this letter to me. 11 Q. MR. ZONEN: A letter from you to Mr. 12 Dickerman, a one-sentence letter. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. It says, “We have retrieved various items 15 from storage and would appreciate your advising us 16 as to where they should be delivered.” 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. The date is the 15th of April. 19 A. Right. 20 Q. Does that reference any letters from Mr. 21 Dickerman? 22 A. I believe that was when we started to talk 23 about, in the phone conversations with him, of 24 having them delivered to a location. And at some 25 subsequent point we actually tried to deliver the 26 items to his office directly. 27 Q. Did you arrange to have all of the 28 possessions that were placed in storage that 11402 1 belonged to the Arvizo family delivered to Mr. 2 Dickerman’s office? 3 A. I told Brad to deliver them to the office 4 and give him everything that they had. 5 Q. Did you tell him to do that knowing that he 6 had no way of accommodating an apartment full of 7 possessions at his office? 8 A. Did I do it knowing that he couldn’t 9 accommodate them? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. I thought he could accommodate it, and I 12 thought it was a law office, and I thought if he 13 wanted them immediately, I was going to give him 14 them immediately, because he would not go and take 15 the storage locker or deal with the storage locker. 16 Q. Did you get Mr. Dickerman’s position -- Mr. 17 Dickerman’s permission to deliver the entire content 18 of the Arvizo familys apartment to his office in 19 advance of your doing so? 20 A. No. What happened was, is when they took -- 21 Q. That’s a “yes” or “no,” Mr. Geragos. Did 22 you or did you not get his permission? 23 A. No. 24 Q. All right. Did you arrange to have it 25 delivered to his office on a day that you knew he 26 would not be there because it was a religious 27 holiday for him? 28 A. No, I have no idea what religion he is. 11403 1 Q. Did you know that there was a message on his 2 voice mail indicating that he would not be in his 3 office because of a religious holiday on the date 4 that those possessions were delivered to him? 5 A. No. I did not know that there was a message 6 on his voice mail. And in any event, the landlord 7 apparently would not accept the items, so they 8 didn’t get delivered. 9 Q. Did you instruct Mr. Miller to deliver all 10 of the items to Mr. Dickerman? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you tell Mr. Dickerman where the items 13 were being stored, the location? 14 A. Either I did or Brad would have. 15 Q. When? 16 A. I don’t know. 17 Q. Do you know why that they were stored under 18 Brad Miller’s name? 19 A. As opposed to whose? 20 Q. Janet Arvizo. They’re her possessions, 21 weren’t they? 22 A. She would have had to have paid for it, and 23 she claimed she had no money, is what my 24 understanding was from Brad. 25 Q. And why exactly was Brad Miller willing to 26 assume the cost of paying for the storage of her 27 possessions for months? Why was he willing to do 28 that? 11404 1 A. I don’t know. You’d have to ask him that. 2 I don’t think he wanted to. 3 Q. Why were you willing to do that? You were 4 paying that bill, weren’t you? 5 A. I don’t believe I was paying that bill, and 6 I don’t believe that he wanted to do that. I think 7 he wanted them -- and I told Mr. Dickerman that I 8 wanted him to take that over so Brad did not have to 9 continue doing that. 10 Q. Mr. Geragos, were you responsible for 11 vouchers being submitted to you by Brad Miller for 12 expenses that he incurred in this investigation? 13 A. Vouchers? 14 Q. How did you bill -- how did he bill you? 15 How did you pay him? 16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance. 17 THE COURT: Overruled. 18 You may answer. 19 THE WITNESS: He would send me a bill and I 20 would pay it. 21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you keep copies of those 22 bills? 23 A. Probably not. 24 Q. Did you review them to see what he was 25 doing? 26 A. Well, I would have looked at it for the 27 amount, and then would have authorized payment, if 28 we paid it directly. I don’t know, as I sit here, 11405 1 whether I paid all of his bills or whether he 2 submitted them to Mr. Jackson’s accountant. I 3 couldn’t tell you as I sit here. 4 Q. When did Mr. Jackson stop being responsible 5 for the storage of Miss Arvizo’s property? 6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 7 in evidence; foundation. 8 THE COURT: Sustained. 9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you stop being 10 responsible for the storage fees of Mrs. Arvizo’s 11 property? 12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; assumes facts not 13 in evidence. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. 15 THE WITNESS: All right. I don’t know that 16 I -- I guess ultimately I’m responsible because Brad 17 was working for me, but I don’t think that I was 18 trying to keep those items. In fact, I was trying 19 to get those items to Dickerman. 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the four or five 21 months that Miss Arvizo’s possessions were in a 22 locker under the name of Brad Miller, who was paying 23 that bill, the storage fees? 24 A. I assume Brad was. 25 Q. Would he then bill you? 26 A. He would either bill me or he would have 27 billed Mr. Jackson’s accountant. 28 Q. Would there be a specific designation for 11406 1 that bill as “Arvizo family storage”? 2 A. I don’t know if there would or not, or 3 whether it would have just been some kind of a 4 listing of expenses. 5 Q. Do you know where those bills are today? 6 A. I do not. 7 Q. Did you order a surveillance be conducted 8 upon Hamid Moslehi? 9 A. I think that I did tell Brad to find out 10 what he was doing with the videotape when he 11 wouldn’t return it. 12 Q. Did you specifically tell Brad Miller to 13 follow Hamid Moslehi? 14 A. I wanted to know what he was doing with the 15 videotape. 16 Q. Did you ask him to film Hamid Moslehi? 17 A. Probably not. 18 Q. Did you believe that Hamid Moslehi was also 19 going to shake down Michael Jackson? 20 A. I wanted to know why -- when I was promised 21 that we were going to get a copy of the videotape, 22 why we didn’t get it. 23 Q. Did you know a man by the name of Johnny? 24 MR. SNEDDON: It’s not there. 25 MR. ZONEN: I’ve got it up here? Where is 26 it? The one that’s in evidence. 27 MR. SNEDDON: It’s in there. 28 MR. ZONEN: I’m like that on Fridays. 11407 1 THE WITNESS: I understand. 2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know a person named 3 Johnny Mejietich? 4 A. When? 5 Q. Easy for me to say, huh? 6 M-e-j-i-e-t-i-c-h, Mejietich. 7 A. Not in 2003. 8 Q. All right. You later learned who that was; 9 is that right? 10 A. That’s right. 11 Q. And when you learned who that was, you 12 learned that he was some kind of an investigator 13 working for Brad Miller? 14 A. I learned that later. 15 Q. You learned that he was not a licensed 16 investigator; is that right? 17 A. I will accept your representation, but, no, 18 I didn’t know that. 19 Q. Did you ever meet Johnny personally? 20 A. I don’t believe I have. 21 Q. Did you know at the time that he was working 22 for Brad Miller? And when I say “at the time,” I 23 mean on the assignment to follow and investigate the 24 Arvizo family. 25 A. No. Not him specifically. 26 Q. Did you know that he contacted the Arvizo 27 family at the home of Janet Arvizo’s parents in El 28 Monte? 11408 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you know that he was throwing stones at 3 their house? 4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the 5 evidence; assumes facts not in evidence; foundation. 6 MR. ZONEN: That’s Maria Ventura’s 7 testimony, Your Honor. 8 MR. MESEREAU: That’s not what she said. 9 MR. ZONEN: And Davellin Arvizo’s testimony. 10 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 11 You may answer. 12 THE WITNESS: No. I don’t know, and I would 13 find that hard to believe. 14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You would not have approved 15 of such behavior on behalf of an agent working on 16 your behalf; is that right? 17 A. Right. I don’t send people out to throw 18 stones at people’s houses. 19 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Mejietich personally? 20 A. I think I said I don’t believe that I have. 21 Q. Did you ever see him? 22 A. I don’t believe that I’ve ever met him, so I 23 don’t believe I’ve ever seen him. 24 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Can’t hear you, sir. 25 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe I’ve either 26 met or seen him. 27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When the hands go flying out 28 there, it means they can’t hear. 11409 1 A. I thought it was bathroom break. 2 (Laughter.) 3 Q. Exhibit No. 277, would you take a look at 4 that note, both front and back? 5 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen, you’ve been taking a 6 lot of liberty at the witness stand. 7 MR. ZONEN: “Liberty” what, sir? 8 THE COURT: At the witness stand. 9 MR. ZONEN: I will move away immediately. 10 Q. Do you recognize that exhibit? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Is that, in fact, what appears to be a note? 13 A. Yes. It’s a -- it looks like a piece of 14 paper that’s torn out of a spiral notebook of some 15 kind. 16 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me. Can I see what 17 the exhibit looks like? 18 THE COURT: Yes. 19 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you. 22 MR. ZONEN: We learn never to open those 23 binders. They go everywhere once we do that. 24 Q. You said you don’t recognize that note; is 25 that right? 26 A. I do not. 27 Q. During the course of your representation of 28 Mr. Jackson you never saw that exhibit? 11410 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: At any time. 3 MR. MESEREAU: Beyond the scope. 4 THE COURT: Sustained. 5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did anybody tell you that Mr. 6 Mejietich, on behalf of Brad Miller, went to the 7 home of Janet Arvizo’s parents in El Monte? 8 A. I think I read a report, one of the 9 sheriff’s reports that mentioned that. 10 Q. If you were to learn that that note was left 11 by Mr. Mejietich at the Ventura family residence in 12 El Monte, would that be consistent with your 13 instructions to Brad Miller? 14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for 15 speculation; foundation. 16 THE COURT: Overruled. 17 You may answer. 18 THE WITNESS: I don’t know what -- I don’t 19 know how to answer that, because I don’t know why it 20 would have been left. 21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you know why an employee 22 of yours was requesting Gavin or Star contact Vinnie 23 or Frank? 24 A. I don’t know. It doesn’t say Gavin or Star 25 on it. 26 Q. Turn it over. 27 A. Is that what it says? It looks like “To 28 Stat” or -- I guess that could be “Gavin.” I don’t 11411 1 know. 2 Q. Do you know why an employee of yours would 3 be directing a 13-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy 4 to call Vinnie or Frank? 5 A. I don’t know why the note was left. Like I 6 said, I’ve never seen the note. 7 Q. All right. Now, after the 13th of March, 8 would you have -- 9 A. Of 2003? 10 Q. -- would you have any reason -- 11 A. Of 2003? 12 Q. Of 2003. Would you have any reason to 13 direct an employee of yours to have these children 14 contact employees of Michael Jackson? 15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for 16 speculation; foundation; relevance; beyond the 17 scope. 18 THE COURT: Overruled. 19 You may answer. 20 THE WITNESS: I don’t know why the note was 21 left. 22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Do you know if Brad Miller 23 was working with Frank or Vinnie during the early to 24 middle part of March? 25 A. When you say “working with,” I believe he 26 was talking to them. 27 Q. All right. Was he receiving instructions 28 from them? 11412 1 A. I don’t think he was receiving instruction 2 from them. 3 Q. Did you give any direction to Brad Miller to 4 take instruction from either Frank or Vinnie? 5 A. No. I don’t think that he was taking -- I 6 don’t know, but I don’t think he was taking 7 instruction from them. 8 Q. Did you know that in the early part of March 9 of 2003, there was an effort by some employees of 10 Michael Jackson to have the Arvizo family go to 11 Brazil? 12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 13 in evidence; foundation. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. 15 You may answer. 16 THE WITNESS: In March or February of 2003, 17 I don’t believe so. I think that was -- is that a 18 different question than what you had asked me 19 before? 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: No. 21 A. Before the break? 22 I don’t believe so. I think, as I indicated 23 before, if I had that conversation, it would have 24 been with either Dickerman or Brad. 25 Q. During February or March of 2003, did you 26 have a conversation with Marc Schaffel about the 27 Arvizo family going to Brazil? 28 A. I don’t believe so. 11413 1 Q. Were you aware, during the month of March of 2 2003, whether or not employees of Michael Jackson 3 checked the Arvizos’ sons out of John Burroughs 4 Middle School? 5 A. No, I’m not aware that that happened. 6 Q. When did you learn that happened? 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 8 assumes facts not in evidence; relevance; beyond the 9 scope; vague as to time. 10 MR. ZONEN: Leading, too? 11 MR. MESEREAU: Leading, too. 12 THE COURT: The objections are overruled. 13 MR. ZONEN: Mine too? 14 THE WITNESS: I don’t know that I’ve ever 15 learned that. 16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was there ever a conversation 17 with Brad Miller about the children going to John 18 Burroughs Middle School? 19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 20 relevance; beyond the scope. 21 THE COURT: Overruled. 22 You may answer. 23 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember. I mean, 24 they may have attended there. Maybe. I don’t know. 25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you aware that Johnny 26 Mejietich was seen filming the Arvizo children at 27 John Burroughs Middle School? 28 A. No. 11414 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was “No.” 3 Next question. 4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Brad Miller ever talk to 5 you about conducting a surveillance of the children 6 at John Burroughs Middle School? 7 A. No, not that I’m aware of. I don’t know 8 that I talked specific locations. Like I said, I 9 told him to find out where they were, what they were 10 doing, who they were meeting with. 11 And the middle school doesn’t ring a bell. 12 It’s not to say he might not have said they’re 13 attending school or might not have told me at some 14 point that they were attending school or he saw them 15 attending school. I just don’t remember John 16 Burroughs Middle School. 17 Q. Do you know why the children were checked 18 out of John Burroughs Middle School by Vinnie? 19 A. I don’t know that that happened. 20 Q. Well, let’s assume, hypothetically, in early 21 March 2003, Vinnie Amen, then an employee of Michael 22 Jackson, checked out these two boys from John 23 Burroughs Middle School. 24 A. I don’t know why he would have done that. 25 Q. Did anybody have any conversation with you 26 about Michael Jackson’s employees being involved 27 with these two boys being taken out of that school? 28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 11415 1 assumes facts not in evidence; relevance; beyond the 2 scope. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 You may answer. 5 THE WITNESS: Discussions with Vinnie? Is 6 that what you’re asking? Or with anybody? 7 MR. ZONEN: Could the question be read back? 8 THE COURT: Yes. 9 (Record read.) 10 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe so, no. 11 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, during this period of 12 time, of February and March of 2003, you were 13 representing Michael Jackson? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And your concern, of course, dealt with the 16 Arvizo family? 17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; 18 argumentative; foundation. 19 THE COURT: Overruled. 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Is that correct? 21 A. That was one of my concerns, yes. 22 Q. All right. I assume one of the other 23 concerns you had is whether or not the statements 24 Michael Jackson made in the “Living with Michael 25 Jackson” documentary were true? 26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 27 relevance. 28 THE COURT: Overruled. 11416 1 You may answer. 2 THE WITNESS: Which statements? 3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: About sleeping with boys. 4 A. Whether they were true? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. We went through this before. I told you 7 before. The suggestion that the sleeping with boys 8 was sexual, if that’s what you’re suggesting, no, I 9 did not believe that that was true. 10 Q. Mr. Geragos, the question was whether or not 11 any boys occupied the same bed with Michael Jackson 12 at the same time. 13 A. That wasn’t the question. 14 Q. All right. 15 A. You asked me about sleeping with them and 16 now you’re asking me whether they’re sleeping in the 17 same bed. 18 Q. All right. 19 A. Okay. So I don’t know what statements 20 you’re talking about. Be specific. 21 Q. Did you make any inquiry with Michael 22 Jackson during the months of February and March 23 about whether or not he shared a bed with a child 24 other than his own? 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 26 foundation. 27 THE COURT: Overruled. 28 You may answer. 11417 1 THE WITNESS: Michael Jackson, in the 2 discussion I had with him and my observation of him 3 with the kids, I did not -- 4 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as exceeding the 5 scope of the question. 6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; he’s cutting off 7 the witness. 8 MR. ZONEN: We’re going to have to resolve 9 that, too. 10 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. He’s 11 not cutting off the witness. He’s not answering the 12 question. 13 Read the question back. 14 (Record read.) 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ask him if it was 17 true that he shared a bed with a child other than 18 his own? 19 A. No, I did not ask that question. 20 Q. During February and March of 2003, during 21 the period of time that you had directed Brad Miller 22 to take account of who the Arvizo family were 23 associating with, did you consult with any employees 24 of Michael Jackson to determine what they were doing 25 with the Arvizo family? 26 A. Yes, I think that I talked to a number of 27 people. 28 Q. Did you talk with Marc Schaffel? 11418 1 A. I believe that I talked a number of times 2 with Marc Schaffel. I talked with, I believe, Joe 3 Marcus. And I had other lawyers in the office talk 4 with people at the ranch as well. 5 Q. Did you have conversations with Marc 6 Schaffel specifically about the Arvizo family? 7 A. I think that I’ve talked with Schaffel about 8 the Arvizo family. 9 Q. Did Marc Schaffel tell you that they were 10 making arrangements to move the Arvizo family to 11 Brazil? 12 A. I just don’t remember if he told me -- if he 13 ever told me that. I think that normally when I 14 talked to Schaffel about the Arvizos, my memory of 15 it is in regards to the video and this rebuttal 16 tape, as they called it. 17 Q. Mr. Geragos, with regards to conversations 18 with Marc Schaffel, are you telling us it’s possible 19 you had a conversation with him about moving the 20 Arvizo family to Brazil? 21 A. That if -- no. I don’t think that he ever 22 told me that he was moving the Arvizo family to 23 Brazil. I just don’t have any recollection of that. 24 Q. Do you have a recollection of any 25 conversation with Marc Schaffel wherein the subject 26 of Brazil came up? 27 A. You know, I think that Schaffel, during that 28 period of time, told me that he had gone to Brazil. 11419 1 Q. All right. Did you have a conversation with 2 Marc Schaffel at any time in February, March of 3 2003, where Marc Schaffel mentioned Brazil in the 4 context of the Arvizo family? 5 A. I don’t believe so. I believe that when he 6 talked about Brazil, it was because he had gone to 7 Brazil or was going to Brazil or something to that 8 effect. 9 Q. Did you have any conversations with Frank 10 Cascio during the month of February and March? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you have numerous conversations with 13 Frank Cascio during the months of February and March 14 of 2003? 15 A. I would say more than five. 16 Q. Could it have been more than 25? 17 A. It could -- well, I wouldn’t say 25. But I 18 would say more than five. 19 Q. Do you have a recollection as to whether any 20 of those conversations included a discussion of 21 Brazil? 22 A. I don’t know if the conversations took place 23 after I would have talked to Brad or Dickerman. I 24 just don’t know. I can’t put it in context. But I 25 don’t -- as I sit here, I don’t remember, but that 26 doesn’t mean I didn’t. 27 Q. Do you have a recollection of any specific 28 conversation you had with Frank Cascio regarding the 11420 1 Arvizos and Brazil? 2 A. I don’t have any specific recollection as I 3 sit here. 4 Q. Do you have a recollection of anything Frank 5 Cascio may have said to you about the Arvizo family 6 going to Brazil? 7 A. No, I still think that probably would have 8 been with Brad or with Dickerman. 9 Q. Did you have any conversations with either 10 Dieter Weizner or Ronald Konitzer during March or 11 February of 2003? 12 A. I think, as I testified last week, that in 13 February and March of 2003, I had very limited 14 contact with Dieter. 15 And I talked with Ronald. And I don’t think 16 I talked to Ronald about any of -- any of those 17 things. Ronald’s discussions with me generally 18 wouldn’t have been about things like that. 19 Q. Do you have a recollection at all during the 20 months of February and March of 2003 of thinking to 21 yourself that Michael Jackson or his employees ought 22 not be involved in moving the Arvizo family to 23 Brazil? 24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; 25 foundation. 26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 27 THE WITNESS: Of thinking to myself? 28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Yes. 11421 1 A. I don’t know. 2 Q. Did you have a conversation with anybody at 3 all during the months of February or March of 2003 4 where the subject of that conversation was the fact 5 that Michael Jackson’s employees ought not be 6 involved in moving Janet Arvizo and her children to 7 Brazil? 8 A. If I would have had that conversation, like 9 I said, it would have been with Dickerman and/or 10 Brad. 11 Q. All right. And you’re saying you would 12 have, but you have no independent recollection of 13 it? 14 A. I don’t remember what the conversation was 15 or who brought up Brazil. I know that there was 16 discussions, and I just don’t remember if it was 17 Dickerman or Brad. 18 Q. Were any bills paid for passports or visas, 19 passports or visas or birth certificates that were 20 paid for by you? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Were there any bills paid for by you that 23 involved moving the Arvizo family from their 24 apartment or their rents? 25 A. Not that I’m aware of. 26 Q. Only the storage unit, then, was paid by 27 your office? 28 A. If he submitted it with an expense bill, but 11422 1 I don’t believe that he did. I would have to take a 2 look at the bills. 3 Q. Mr. Geragos, I asked you a question early on 4 about the DCFS taped interview, the tape of that 5 interview. And you answered that you thought it may 6 have come from Mr. Sneddon. 7 A. The tape would have been turned over as a 8 copy after the search warrant was executed. 9 Q. All right. Mr. Geragos, you know that that 10 tape was not in our possession until just prior to 11 the trial? 12 A. I didn’t -- 13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; 14 assumes facts not in evidence 15 THE COURT: Sustained. 16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, when you say the 17 tape was received, do you mean in discovery? 18 A. I believe that, yes, in discovery, the tape 19 was received. 20 Q. All right. You think that that tape was 21 then seized from Michael Jackson’s residence? 22 A. No. 23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: I think -- 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation. 26 MR. ZONEN: Well, then we need to resume 27 this at sidebar, based on the earlier conversation 28 as to how to resolve this. 11423 1 THE COURT: Do you have any other questions 2 you want to ask? 3 MR. ZONEN: Perhaps, if I could have just a 4 moment, yeah. 5 May I have just a moment, please? 6 (Discussion held off the record at counsel 7 table.) 8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, did you at any 9 time have a conversation with your client, Michael 10 Jackson, during the months of February or March 11 where the subject of Brazil came up? 12 A. No. 13 Q. He never told you he was going to go to 14 Brazil? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did he ever talk to you about the Arvizo 17 family? 18 A. Going to Brazil? Absolutely not. 19 Q. Were you aware that employees of yours were 20 standing guard outside the Country Suites in 21 Calabasas? 22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; 23 assumes facts not in evidence. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 You may answer. 26 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe any employees 27 of mine were standing guard outside of the Country 28 Suites. I don’t buy that for a second. 11424 1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you aware that Johnny was 2 there at the Country Suites at the time that the 3 Arvizo family was staying there? 4 A. If he was there, I don’t believe he was 5 standing guard. 6 Q. Do you know what he was doing there? 7 A. I don’t. But I don’t believe that he would 8 be standing guard. 9 Q. Did Brad Miller ever talk to you about his 10 involvement with the Arvizo family at the 11 Calabasas -- at The Country Suites & Inn in 12 Calabasas? 13 A. At the time in February or March, no. 14 Q. All right. Did he tell you that he was 15 surveilling them while they were at The Country Inn 16 & Suites in Calabasas? 17 A. I don’t believe that he was. 18 Q. Did he tell you that he was doing that? 19 A. I don’t believe that he did, no. 20 Q. Did he tell you that he was conducting any 21 kind of surveillance of the family between the days 22 of the 25th of February and the 2nd of March? 23 A. I think that he was, yes. 24 Q. All right. Now, that, of course, was during 25 the period of time that you had directed him to do 26 an investigation of the Arvizo family; is that 27 right? 28 A. I wanted to know where they were and what 11425 1 they were doing. 2 Q. And that direction included finding out 3 where they were and what they were doing, right? 4 A. Exactly. 5 Q. Did word get back to you from Mr. Miller 6 that for that five-day period they were at a hotel 7 in Calabasas? 8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to 9 relevance. 10 MR. ZONEN: The 28th of February -- I’m 11 sorry, the 25th of February to the 2nd of March, 12 19 -- 2003. 13 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 14 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember if he did. 15 It wouldn’t surprise me if he did, but I don’t 16 remember. 17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you what they 18 were doing there? 19 A. Like I say, I don’t remember if he did. 20 Q. Did you learn from him if they were there 21 with Vinnie and/or Frank? 22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 23 relevance; beyond the scope. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 THE WITNESS: As I indicated, I don’t have an 26 independent memory of what he would have told me 27 back then as to the Country Suites. 28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was Brad Miller working 11426 1 directly with Vinnie and Frank to determine the 2 whereabouts and location and movement of the Arvizo 3 family? 4 A. I don’t believe that he was, no. 5 Q. Did you instruct employees of Michael 6 Jackson to cooperate with Brad Miller so that he 7 could do his investigation of the Arvizo family? 8 A. I instructed Brad Miller to talk to people. 9 Q. Did you tell him to specifically talk to 10 Vinnie and Frank about where the Arvizos were going 11 and from where they were coming? 12 A. I would tell him to talk to Vinnie and 13 Frank, absolutely. 14 Q. So it would be reasonable to assume that 15 Brad Miller knew where they were during this period 16 of time if they were in the company of either Frank 17 or Vinnie? 18 A. I think that’s reasonable. 19 Q. All right. Did you ever learn that they 20 were at The Country Inn & Suites in Calabasas during 21 that period of time? 22 A. Did I learn it in February or March? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. I don’t think that I did. But like I say, 25 he may have told me. 26 Q. If, in fact, Johnny was there at that time, 27 he would have been there at Brad Miller’s direction; 28 is that true? 11427 1 A. As I sit here today, yes. 2 Q. Did you know something back then different 3 from that? 4 A. I didn’t -- as I explained to you, I didn’t 5 know Johnny was working for him at the time. I know -- 6 Q. When did you first learn the expression -- 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He cut off the 8 witness. 9 THE COURT: Sustained. 10 You may complete your answer. 11 THE WITNESS: It’s okay. 12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you first hear the 13 statement “crack whore” in connection with Janet 14 Arvizo? 15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not 16 in evidence; foundation; argumentative. 17 THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation. 18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever have a 19 conversation with Marc Schaffel about Janet Arvizo 20 where the term “crack whore” came into the 21 conversation? 22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 23 argumentative. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe so. 26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you have a conversation 27 with Brad Miller about the content of the telephone 28 calls that he had been monitoring between Frank and 11428 1 Janet Arvizo? 2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 3 assumes facts not in evidence. 4 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry? 5 THE COURT: Foundation, sustained. 6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you learn from Brad 7 Miller that Janet Arvizo and Frank Cascio had been 8 having telephone calls during the month of February 9 while she was away from Neverland Ranch? 10 A. In -- did I learn that in February or 11 March -- in March of 2003? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. I believe that I knew that they had 14 called -- that they had talked to each other on the 15 phone, yes. 16 Q. All right. Did Brad Miller tell you about 17 the content of those telephone conversations? 18 A. He might have. I don’t have any memory of 19 it. 20 Q. Did he tell you specifically that Janet 21 Arvizo told Frank Cascio that she could not be 22 bought and that she would not sell a story to any of 23 the media or the tabloids? 24 A. No. 25 Q. He never said that to you? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Did he tell you about the content of any of 28 those telephone calls that she had with Frank? 11429 1 A. Yeah, and that -- one of the things that 2 sticks out in my mind is that she was complaining 3 about what she called “the Germans.” 4 Q. All right. She was scared of the Germans? 5 A. She wasn’t scared. She didn’t indicate she 6 was scared. But she was complaining about them, 7 that they were limiting her. 8 Q. Now, you never listened to those phone 9 conversations, right? 10 A. Which phone conversations? The ones between 11 Frank and Janet? 12 Q. Janet, yes. 13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 14 relevance; beyond the scope. 15 THE COURT: Overruled. 16 You may answer. 17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever listen to those? 18 A. In February or March of 2003, no. 19 Q. All right. When did you finally listen to 20 that telephone conversation or conversations? 21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 22 the scope. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 THE WITNESS: Sometime after February or 25 March of 2003. 26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. And in fact, she 27 said that she was scared and upset about the 28 Germans, right? 11430 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; assumes 2 facts; foundation. 3 THE COURT: It’s vague. The question is 4 vague. 5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you listen to the 6 tape-recording of the phone conversation between 7 Janet and Frank? 8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 9 the scope; vague as to time. 10 MR. ZONEN: That’s what I asked, was when. 11 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. He 12 did answer that. He said, “Sometime after,” and he 13 gave a period of time. 14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I would like to know when 15 that was, please. 16 A. I don’t know the exact date. It would have 17 been sometime well after. 18 Q. All right. Prior to -- 19 A. It would have been after the time of the 20 search warrant on Mr. Miller’s office. 21 Q. All right. And when you listened to it, you 22 heard what she had said; is that correct? 23 A. That’s right. 24 Q. All right. And did you listen to that tape 25 in the company of Brad Miller? 26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope; 27 relevance; vague as to time. 28 THE COURT: Overruled. 11431 1 You may answer. 2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you listen to it in the 3 company of Brad Miller? 4 A. I don’t think so. 5 Q. After you listened to it, did you call Brad 6 Miller? 7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 8 relevance. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 THE WITNESS: Overruled? 11 THE COURT: You may answer. 12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Probably did, yes. 13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You probably listened to it 14 in the company of Brad Miller? 15 A. No, I listened to it and then probably 16 called him afterwards, yes. 17 Q. Did you ask him why it was that he had a 18 tape-recording of a conversation that was clearly a 19 telephone conversation? 20 A. Yes, I -- 21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 22 foundation; vague as to time; and argumentative. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. The objection is -- 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. 25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did he tell you? 26 A. He told me -- 27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay. 28 MR. ZONEN: A declaration against penal 11432 1 interest. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead. What did he tell 4 you? 5 A. He told me that Frank had expected that 6 there was going to be some kind of a -- an admission 7 or crime that Janet was going to propose on the 8 telephone call and that’s why he taped it. 9 Q. Now, you understand that that should be 10 monitored by law enforcement, right? 11 A. That’s one of the exceptions, yes. 12 Q. Can you tell us what Penal Code section says 13 that a private citizen can decide on their own to 14 tape-record a conversation because they think 15 there’s going to be a crime? 16 A. If you give me the Penal Code at the break, 17 I’ll be happy to point it out to you, and I’ll give 18 you the case as well. 19 Q. Did you give Brad Miller instruction to do 20 that, to tape-record telephone conversations between 21 Frank and Janet? 22 A. No, I did not. 23 Q. In fact, what you listened to didn’t 24 evidence any crime whatsoever, did it? 25 A. I did not hear any crime on that phone -- on 26 that phone call. 27 Q. She did not ask Frank for money at all, did 28 she? 11433 1 A. That’s correct. 2 Q. She did not tell Frank that she was going to 3 take her story to the press, right? 4 A. That’s correct. 5 Q. And that wouldn’t have been a crime either, 6 would it have? 7 A. It would not have been. 8 Q. The only crime that you anticipated would be 9 her telling Frank, “I would like some money or I’m 10 going to make a false claim against your client, 11 Michael Jackson”? 12 A. When you say I “anticipated,” I told you I 13 didn’t listen to it until after it was seized out of 14 Mr. Miller’s office. 15 Q. Did Mr. Miller make the decision on his own 16 to tape-record that conversation? 17 A. That’s what he told me. 18 Q. So he didn’t consult with you in advance? 19 A. He did not. 20 Q. Did he tell you that that was a compilation 21 of a number of different phone calls? 22 A. He did not. 23 Q. Did you hear breaks in that recording? 24 A. I didn’t notice any breaks in that 25 recording. The only breaks that I noticed were in 26 the ones that we talked about last week, the one 27 that I think was on February 16th. 28 Q. Did you ask Brad Miller if he made multiple 11434 1 tape-recordings of conversations? 2 A. I asked if there were any others. 3 Q. What did he tell you? 4 A. That there were not. 5 Q. Did you ask him if he altered that tape in 6 any way? 7 A. I didn’t ask him that. I asked him 8 specifically as to the February 16th tape. 9 Q. Did he tell you that that tape was an 10 accurate recording of a single conversation? 11 A. He said that they had sat down in the 12 location of the apartment and had recorded it all at 13 one sitting. 14 Q. Did he tell you who was present at the time 15 of that recording? 16 A. I believe that he did. I believe he told me 17 that it was the family, and I think at one point the 18 boyfriend was there as well. 19 Q. Did he tell you that there was nothing said 20 in the course of that conversation that would cause 21 you concern about Janet Arvizo? 22 A. I’m sorry, what? 23 Q. Did he tell you that there was nothing said 24 in the course of that conversation that would cause 25 you concern about Janet Arvizo? 26 A. No, on the contrary. He told me that he 27 thought that they were telling the truth and that 28 Michael Jackson hadn’t done anything -- 11435 1 Q. I’m sorry? 2 A. -- to the kids. 3 Q. Did Brad Miller tell you that, in the course 4 of the telephone conversation he monitored, that 5 there was nothing Janet Arvizo said that would cause 6 him concern about her taking any kind of legal 7 action against Michael Jackson? 8 A. We’re talking about the Frank and Janet, not 9 the other -- 10 Q. The telephone conversation. 11 A. Okay. There’s two tapes. One tape is 12 February 16th with the family. The other tape that 13 you found in the office was a tape-recording of 14 Frank’s call to Janet. 15 Q. Mr. Geragos, I’m asking about the telephone 16 conversations that were surreptitiously taped. 17 A. Frank’s call to Janet. 18 Q. Yeah. Because Brad Miller thought she was 19 going to shake him down for money, right? 20 A. That’s correct. 21 Q. That phone call was placed to Janet Arvizo, 22 correct? 23 A. That’s correct. 24 Q. Now, why exactly was Brad Miller placing a 25 telephone call to Janet Arvizo wherein he 26 anticipated she would then hit him up for money? 27 A. I don’t know why he was -- why -- I don’t 28 think Brad placed the phone call. I think that 11436 1 Frank placed the phone call. It sounds like it’s 2 his voice. 3 Q. Well, but they’re in the same room, right? 4 A. I don’t believe that they were. I think 5 that was a three-way call. 6 Q. Well, all right. But somebody set that up, 7 right? 8 A. I don’t know. You’d have to ask him. I 9 believe that the -- that Frank said he was going to 10 call her. Brad told me that he was going to tape 11 it. I don’t think that they did it in the same 12 room. 13 Q. And Brad and Frank, Brad Miller and Frank 14 Cascio, then coordinated with each other to be able 15 to have this conference call tape-recorded without 16 Janet Arvizo’s knowledge; is that right? 17 A. I would just be assuming that. I don’t 18 know. I didn’t ask that question. 19 Q. All right. Now, did you ask Brad Miller if 20 he had a conversation with Frank Cascio in advance 21 of that, of that call, as to what Frank Cascio 22 should say to Janet? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did he offer to you the fact that there was 25 a conversation between he and Mr. Cascio about what 26 would be said to Janet Arvizo? 27 A. Not that I remember, no. 28 Q. Did he tell you? 11437 1 A. I just assumed it, because it was recorded. 2 Q. Did he tell you in advance that they were 3 going to set up that telephone call, “he” being Mr. 4 Miller? Did Mr. Miller tell you in advance? 5 A. Mr. Miller didn’t tell me about it until you 6 seized -- or “you” being the progression -- seized 7 it from the office, and that’s when I asked. That 8 would have been sometime after November of 2003. 9 Q. Did Brad Miller write any reports to you 10 about his surveillance or investigation of the 11 Arvizo family? 12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague as to time; 13 relevance; beyond the scope. 14 MR. ZONEN: I didn’t hear the ruling, I’m 15 sorry. 16 THE COURT: It hasn’t come yet. 17 MR. ZONEN: Ahh. Maybe that’s why. 18 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he write those reports to 21 you during the months of February and March of 2003? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did he write them after March of 2003? 24 A. Yes. 25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; beyond 26 the scope. 27 THE COURT: I’ll leave the answer in. Next 28 question. 11438 1 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you receive a report 2 from Brad Miller that specifically dealt with that 3 telephone conversation between Janet and Frank? 4 A. I don’t think that I did. 5 Q. Did he never -- did he never write a report 6 about that conversation? 7 A. I don’t believe that he did. 8 Q. Did you ask him to write a report about that 9 conversation? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Why not? 12 A. Why? 13 Q. Did you think it was illegal? 14 A. At the time I felt, when I talked to him, 15 that he articulated to me at least a reasonable 16 expectation that a crime was going to be committed, 17 so, no, I did not think this was illegal. 18 Q. How many reports did Brad Miller write to 19 you about his investigation of the Arvizo family 20 prior to the end of April 2003? 21 A. I couldn’t tell you. 22 Q. Where are those reports today? 23 A. If they exist, I would have turned them 24 over. 25 Q. You don’t have them in your possession 26 anymore? 27 A. I don’t believe so. 28 Q. What do you mean by “if they exist”? Is it 11439 1 possible you destroyed those reports? 2 A. No, I’m saying if he made them. 3 Q. You don’t -- 4 A. I wouldn’t have destroyed them. But if he 5 had made a report, I would have turned them over. 6 Q. You believe that during a three-month 7 investigation, he might not have written any reports 8 at all? 9 A. No, the -- the period of time for the 10 investigation would have been sometime after 11 February 7th through March, which would have, as I 12 indicated before, been about 35 to 40 days. I 13 believe that what he was doing would orally update 14 me on what was happening. 15 Q. At any time -- at any time, Mr. Geragos, at 16 any time up through the end of June of 2003, did 17 Bradley Miller write any reports of his activities 18 involving the Arvizo family? 19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance. 20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And submit those reports to 21 you? 22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 23 foundation; beyond the scope. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 THE WITNESS: I couldn’t tell you as I sit 26 here. I know that I talked to him about it, and I 27 don’t know if he wrote up a formal report. 28 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You don’t have a clear 11440 1 recollection at this time of receiving any reports 2 from Brad Miller prior to the conclusion of 2003? 3 A. Not as I sit here. If you’ve got one, you 4 can show it to me. 5 Q. Did you ever take possession of any of the 6 surveillance tapes from Frank -- excuse me, from 7 Brad Miller? Did he ever give you any of the 8 surveillance tapes? 9 A. No. Are we talking the same tapes you were 10 asking me about? 11 Q. The surveillance tapes from the Arvizo 12 family. 13 A. I was told those were seized through the 14 search warrant, and I got those through discovery. 15 Q. Did Brad Miller ever give you copies of 16 those surveillance tapes? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did Brad Miller ever furnish you written 19 reports of the surveillance activities that he was 20 conducting? 21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 22 foundation; beyond the scope. 23 THE COURT: I think it’s been asked and 24 answered. I think he said he doesn’t know. 25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Brad Miller ever send you 26 e-mails that detailed his activities, specifically 27 with regards to the surveillances? 28 A. He might have. 11441 1 Q. All right. Now, where are those e-mails? 2 A. If they -- as I indicated last week, if I 3 saved them, I probably would have saved them into 4 the -- at the risk of being mocked, into my Word 5 Perfect file. 6 Q. I promise I won’t do that today. 7 A. Thank you. 8 Q. Do you still have that in your office? 9 A. My Word Perfect file? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you check that file over the last week 13 since you were here last Friday? 14 A. I checked on the date of the retainer after 15 you had asked me. 16 Q. Did you check to see if you still have notes 17 in any capacity, either by way of e-mail or 18 handwritten notes or typed notes, from Brad Miller 19 still in your file? 20 A. I didn’t check on notes. I checked on -- 21 because you were asking me about whether it was late 22 January or early February. I checked on when the 23 retainer agreement was, and it looked to me to be 24 February 4th. And that’s the thing that I was 25 focused on checking on. 26 Q. Did you check in your Word Perfect, Series 27 11 -- 28 A. 11. 11442 1 Q. -- file -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- on Mr. Jackson, the Jackson file, on 4 whether or not there were e-mails from Brad Miller? 5 A. I did not. 6 Q. Did you check -- over this last week, did 7 you check to see if there were e-mails from any of 8 the people we’ve previously discussed, Mr. Schaffel, 9 Mr. Weizner, Mr. Konitzer, Amen or Cascio? 10 A. No. Like you, I’ve been in trial for the 11 last week. 12 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take a break. 13 (Recess taken.) 14 THE COURT: Counsel? 15 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I have concluded my 16 cross-examination. 17 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone’s off, sir. 18 MR. ZONEN: You’d think after three months I 19 would have learned this. 20 I’ve concluded my cross-examination. I had 21 indicated before that we needed a conference prior 22 to that, and I think we may have resolved that 23 issue. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. ZONEN: Don’t need to do that. 26 I will require an additional conference, but 27 it does not have to be until the conclusion of 28 redirect examination. 11443 1 And before the witness is excused, I would 2 like to have a conference. It doesn’t need to be in 3 the presence of the jury. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. MESEREAU: 9 Q. Mr. Geragos, during February and March of 10 2003, did you know whether or not Janet Arvizo ever 11 told anyone she wanted to go to Brazil with Michael 12 Jackson? 13 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Lack of foundation; 14 lack of personal knowledge. 15 THE COURT: Sustained. 16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Geragos, during 17 February or March of 2003, did you have any personal 18 knowledge of whether or not Janet Arvizo ever told 19 anyone she wanted to go to Brazil with Michael 20 Jackson? 21 MR. ZONEN: Personal knowledge being limited 22 to conversations with Janet Arvizo? 23 THE COURT: Just a moment. 24 Sustained. 25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During February or March 26 of 2003, did you have any personal knowledge of 27 whether or not Janet Arvizo wanted Michael Jackson 28 to get her a new home? 11444 1 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to “personal 2 knowledge,” and vague. 3 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone’s off. 4 THE COURT: Sustained. 5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Geragos, during 6 February and March of 2003, was it your 7 understanding that Janet Arvizo wanted possessions 8 moved out of her apartment in East L.A., wanted 9 those possessions stored, and wanted someone else to 10 pay for it? 11 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as to lack of 12 foundation and speculation. 13 THE COURT: And compound. 14 MR. ZONEN: And compound. 15 THE COURT: Sustained. 16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Geragos, during 17 February and March of 2003, did you have any 18 personal knowledge of whether Janet Arvizo wanted to 19 move out of her apartment on Soto Street in East Los 20 Angeles? 21 MR. ZONEN: “Yes” or “no.” I’ll object 22 beyond “yes” or “no.” 23 THE COURT: You may answer that “yes” or 24 “no.” 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. 26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what was your 27 knowledge based upon? 28 A. Based on my conversation with Brad Miller. 11445 1 Q. During February and March of 2003, did you 2 have any personal knowledge of whether or not Janet 3 Arvizo wanted someone to retrieve her possessions 4 from the apartment on Soto Street? 5 A. From Brad Miller, I -- 6 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object, Your Honor, as a 7 lack of foundation. 8 THE COURT: I’ll strike the answer. But you 9 are to answer that question “yes” or “no.” It’s a 10 question about -- do you want it read back? 11 THE WITNESS: “Yes” was the answer to the 12 question. 13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what was your personal 14 knowledge based upon? 15 A. Conversations with Brad Miller. 16 Q. And what was your personal knowledge? 17 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay. 18 THE COURT: Overruled. 19 THE WITNESS: That she wanted the -- she 20 wanted to move in with her boyfriend, she wanted 21 those items stored, and that she arranged with Brad 22 to do that. 23 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to move to strike as 24 hearsay. 25 MR. MESEREAU: It was his personal 26 knowledge, Your Honor. 27 THE COURT: Well -- 28 MR. ZONEN: If it’s for the truth of the 11446 1 matter -- 2 THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment. 3 This is another one of those situations 4 where that is what he testified to under your 5 cross-examination. The objection is overruled. 6 Next question. 7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Geragos, during 8 February and March of 2003, did you have any 9 personal knowledge of whether Janet Arvizo wanted 10 the storage costs for storing her possessions paid 11 for by someone else? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what was your personal knowledge based 14 upon? 15 A. Conversations with Brad Miller. 16 Q. And what was your personal knowledge about 17 that subject? 18 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay. 19 THE COURT: Overruled. 20 You may answer. 21 THE WITNESS: Precisely that. That she 22 wanted the items stored there and she wanted 23 somebody else to pay for them. 24 Q. BY MR MESEREAU: During February and March 25 of 2003, did you have any personal knowledge about 26 whether or not Janet Arvizo was planning to go to 27 Brazil with Michael Jackson? 28 A. If I did, it would be the same answer I gave 11447 1 to Mr. Zonen, that the conversations would have been 2 either through Brad or through Dickerman’s 3 conversations, which would have stretched into April 4 and May. 5 Q. During February and March of 2003, did you 6 have any personal knowledge of whether or not Janet 7 Arvizo changed her mind about Brazil when she 8 decided Michael Jackson was not going with her? 9 A. I don’t think that that was in February or 10 March of 2003 that I heard that. 11 Q. During February and March of 2003, did you 12 know whether or not Janet Arvizo was using the Soto 13 Street address in East Los Angeles to defraud 14 welfare authorities? 15 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Exceeds the scope of 16 the cross-examination. Lack of foundation. Also 17 legally speculative. 18 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. It’s 19 argumentative. 20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During February and March 21 of 2003, Mr. Geragos, did you have any personal 22 knowledge of what purpose Janet Arvizo had in 23 keeping that Soto Street address? 24 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Speculative; lack of 25 foundation; and irrelevant. 26 THE COURT: All right. You may answer that 27 “yes” or “no.” I’ll overrule the objection. 28 THE WITNESS: Can I answer it “I don’t know”? 11448 1 THE COURT: Yes. That’s an option. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. I don’t know. 3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During February and March 4 of 2003, Mr. Geragos, did you have any personal 5 knowledge of whether or not Janet Arvizo arranged to 6 have someone else pay the rent at Soto Street? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what was your personal knowledge based 9 upon? 10 A. Conversations with Brad. 11 Q. And what was your knowledge about that? 12 A. Brad said that she wanted the rent paid and 13 I believe at some point produced some document from 14 the landlord, or something like that, that I saw 15 later on after February or March. 16 Q. And was it your personal knowledge in 17 February and March of 2003 that someone else 18 actually paid Janet Arvizo’s rent for the Soto 19 Street address? 20 A. I was told that. 21 Q. By who? 22 A. Brad. 23 Q. And what were you told? 24 A. That he had paid it. 25 Q. Did you learn how many months he had paid 26 Janet Arvizo’s rent at Soto Street? 27 A. I think he told me two. 28 Q. Did you ever learn for how many months Brad 11449 1 Miller paid Janet Arvizo’s storage costs? 2 A. Only through Mr. Zonen’s questioning. 3 Q. Okay. You didn’t know -- 4 A. I didn’t know at the time. I think I had 5 assumed it was from the time that the storage -- or 6 the items had gone into storage to the time that I 7 was dealing with Dickerman, which would have been, I 8 don’t know, 45 or 60 days, something like that. 9 Q. Now, during February and March of 2003, was 10 it your understanding that Janet was spending most 11 of her time living at Jay Jackson’s apartment? 12 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object. Lack of 13 foundation. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. 15 You may answer. 16 THE WITNESS: I knew she was -- I believe 17 she was there on February 16th, because that was 18 when that tape-recording was made with her and the 19 family and I believe with her then boyfriend. And I 20 know that Brad told me that they were spending time 21 there; that they had moved in there. 22 So I don’t know that I can tell you back in 23 February or March exactly which days they were there 24 off the top of my head, but I know that I was aware 25 of the fact that they were there. 26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, in cross-examination, 27 you stated words to the effect that you wanted a 28 videotape of the movement of Janet Arvizo’s 11450 1 possessions from the Soto Street address, right? 2 A. I specifically have a memory of telling 3 Brad, “If you’re going to do that, you better 4 videotape it, so that nobody’s later going to accuse 5 you of taking some of the possessions.” 6 Q. And was it your understanding in February 7 and March of 2003 that, in fact, the move was 8 videotaped by Mr. Miller? 9 A. He told me that was -- something to the 10 effect that that was a good idea. And I assumed he 11 did it. 12 Q. Okay. Now, in February and March of 2003, 13 were you aware of any effort by Mr. Miller to hide 14 from anybody where those possessions were stored? 15 A. On the contrary. I think he wanted to turn 16 it over and get off the hook for paying for them. 17 Q. And to your knowledge, in February, March of 18 2003, was the storage locker in the name of “Brad 19 Miller, Licensed Private Investigator”? 20 A. I believe that it was. 21 Q. Did you know, in February and March of 2003, 22 whether anyone else’s possessions, separate and 23 apart from Janet Arvizo, were in that locker? 24 A. No, not back in February, March of 2003. 25 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you 26 questions about whether or not a private citizen has 27 a right to record a telephone conversation if they 28 think a crime is going to be committed, right? 11451 1 A. That’s correct. 2 Q. And in February and March of 2003, what was 3 your knowledge about the right of a private citizen 4 to record a conversation if they think a crime is 5 going to be committed? 6 A. My knowledge of the Penal Code has always 7 been that there is a code section in the Penal Code 8 that allows a private citizen to do that if there 9 are certain enumerated crimes that you expect to 10 occur, and that you’re gathering evidence. 11 Q. And one of those crimes is extortion, 12 correct? 13 A. That’s correct. 14 Q. If a private citizen reasonably believes 15 someone might be attempting to commit extortion, 16 they can, in fact, lawfully record a phone 17 conversation without the other party’s consent, 18 right? 19 A. That’s my understanding of the law. And I 20 believe that there’s an addition to the code section 21 that there is a specific case, although I don’t have 22 access to Lexis right now - I do use Lexis, not West 23 Law - and I would assume that I could find that case 24 that also has interpreted that code section the same 25 way. 26 Q. Now, you indicated that when you first were 27 retained by Mr. Jackson, you did a quick search and 28 learned about the J.C. Penney case filed by Janet 11452 1 Arvizo and her children, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Did you know at that point in time that 4 Janet Arvizo was arrested that day? 5 MR. ZONEN: Objection; beyond the scope. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. 7 You may answer. 8 THE WITNESS: I believe if it wasn’t that 9 day, it was very shortly thereafter. 10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During February and March 11 of 2003, Mr. Geragos, did you think or reasonably 12 suspect that the Arvizos might attempt to extort 13 Michael Jackson? 14 A. That was exactly what my concern was. 15 Q. Did your knowledge of the J.C. Penney case 16 cause you concern in that regard? 17 A. Combined with the fact that there had been 18 an arrest, I thought that the fact that the civil 19 lawsuit was being used to blunt the criminal case is 20 what gave me great pause. 21 Q. What do you mean by that? 22 A. The civil case appeared, at least, to be an 23 outgrowth of a criminal incident, and I just had 24 grave concerns about that. 25 Q. Are you suggesting that Miss Arvizo used a 26 civil case to nullify her arrest? 27 A. That thought had crossed my mind. 28 Q. Have you seen that happen before? 11453 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you ever, in February and March of 2003, 3 represent Marc Schaffel? 4 A. Not that I’m aware of. I don’t think I ever 5 represented Marc Schaffel. 6 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you 7 represent Dieter Weizner? 8 A. No. 9 Q. In February and March -- 10 A. No. 11 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you 12 represent Ron Konitzer? 13 A. No. 14 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you 15 represent Frank Tyson? 16 A. No. 17 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you 18 represent Vinnie Amen? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Now, in February and March of 2003, Mr. 21 Geragos, did you ever give legal advice to Marc 22 Schaffel? 23 A. No. 24 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you ever 25 give legal advice to Dieter Weizner? 26 A. No. 27 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you ever 28 give legal advice to Ron Konitzer? 11454 1 A. To the extent that they would ask questions 2 and I would -- Ronald would ask questions about 3 specific things and whether they should do things, 4 and I would say I want it run by me if it was -- for 5 instance, they’re going to make a statement, or 6 they’re going to issue some kind of a press release 7 or something, I would say, “Please let me have some 8 input into that.” 9 Q. Now, in February and March of 2003, did you 10 ever give legal advice to Frank Tyson? 11 A. No. 12 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you ever 13 give legal advice to Vinnie Amen? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Now, is the statute you’re referring to that 16 allows a private citizen in California to secretly 17 record a conversation if they think there’s a 18 reasonable belief that extortion might happen, is 19 that Penal Code 633.5? 20 A. I believe that it is, because I think the 21 section that prohibits it is 632. So it would be 22 my guess, at least, that it’s the 630 section or 23 633. 24 Q. And prior to February and March 2003, were 25 you aware of instances where, in fact, private 26 citizens have secretly recorded others who they 27 thought were going to try to commit a crime? 28 A. Yes. In numerous instances. 11455 1 Q. And in fact, private investigators sometimes 2 do that if they think they’re going to get evidence 3 of a crime, correct? 4 A. That’s as a private citizen. A private 5 investigator has no more and no less rights than a 6 private citizen. So I am aware of various private 7 investigators doing that, only with the caveat that 8 they have that expectation that a crime is going to 9 be committed. 10 Q. Now, was there anything else about Janet 11 Arvizo that made you suspicious that she might try 12 to shake down Mr. Jackson other than what you’ve 13 described? 14 A. Not other than what I’ve described to you 15 and to Mr. Zonen. 16 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you have 17 any personal knowledge that Janet Arvizo had told 18 anyone that her husband came from a family of drug 19 dealers? 20 A. No, not -- not that I remember. 21 Q. In February and March of 2003, did you have 22 any knowledge of Janet Arvizo claiming that her 23 husband was using all of their money on a drug 24 habit? 25 A. No, I don’t believe so. 26 Q. In February and March of 2003, were you 27 aware of any bank accounts Janet Arvizo had set up 28 allegedly for the benefit of her son? 11456 1 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object unless 2 counsel has a good-faith offer of proof that the 3 answer is “yes.” Because otherwise it’s simply 4 inadmissible questions. 5 THE COURT: Overruled. 6 You may answer. 7 THE WITNESS: I may answer? 8 THE COURT: Yeah. 9 THE WITNESS: I -- I believe that I had 10 received information, but I don’t think that I was 11 able to verify it in February or March. I had just, 12 what I would call, suggestions that was the case. 13 But I did not have anything to substantiate it. 14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, in February and March 15 of 2003, Mr. Geragos, did you have any personal 16 knowledge of Janet Arvizo trying to get money from 17 various celebrities? 18 A. I -- not from celebrities. I had knowledge 19 of her trying to get money from other people, but 20 not from various celebrities. 21 Q. When you retained Brad Miller in February of 22 2003, was that your first effort to have an 23 investigator investigate the Arvizos? 24 A. Do you mean had I used any other 25 investigator prior to Brad? 26 Q. Yes. 27 A. No, I had not. I don’t believe I have used 28 any other investigator in February. 11457 1 Q. Okay. So Brad Miller was the first licensed 2 investigator you ever retained to investigate the 3 activities of the Arvizos? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, you said that the period of 6 surveillance and investigation by Mr. Miller was 7 approximately 35 days; is that right? 8 A. Give or take. It was -- it started in 9 February and it ended sometime in March. 10 Q. And to your knowledge, was Mr. Miller doing 11 an investigation into public records involving Ms. 12 Arvizo other than the J.C. Penney case? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What other public records do you believe he 15 was examining as part of his investigation into the 16 Arvizos in February and March of 2003? 17 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Irrelevant; exceeds 18 the scope of the cross. 19 MR. MESEREAU: I don’t think it does, Your 20 Honor. 21 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 22 You may answer. 23 THE WITNESS: I believe that he had 24 checked -- I mentioned before that he had checked 25 what are called the civil indexes, which are a list 26 of cases that people file in civil court. I believe 27 he also checked the criminal indexes, and I believe 28 he came up with various cases that she was listed as 11458 1 either a complaining witness or involved in one way 2 or another or as a witness. 3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And did the information 4 you were aware of in February and March of 2003 5 about the Arvizos and their record of civil 6 litigation and noncivil litigation concern you? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you believe that what you knew about the 9 Arvizos in February of 2003 almost required you to 10 put them under surveillance? 11 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as speculative and 12 argumentative. 13 THE COURT: Sustained. 14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In your experience, prior 15 to February of 2003, when a lawyer like yourself is 16 concerned about a client being extorted or shaken 17 down, typically what does the lawyer do? 18 A. I know what I do in that situation, is I 19 want to find out everything I can about the person 20 who I’ve got concerns about. And if I think that I 21 can -- that I’m going to get somewhere with having 22 somebody check them out, I’ll have an investigator 23 check them out. And I believe that any lawyer who 24 gets hired by a client has an ethical obligation to 25 do that. 26 Q. And in February and March of 2003, was it 27 your understanding that putting someone under 28 surveillance by a licensed private investigator was 11459 1 lawful? 2 A. To my understanding. 3 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered. 4 THE COURT: The answer is in. The objection 5 is overruled. 6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In February and March of 7 2003, when you put the Arvizo family under 8 surveillance through a licensed private 9 investigator, was this the first time you had done 10 such a thing? 11 A. That I had had somebody investigated and -- 12 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered. 13 THE COURT: Sustained. 14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Mr. Geragos, the 15 prosecutor asked you questions about what you did 16 with these passports when you located them, okay? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And what you did was, you had them lodged 19 with this particular court, correct? 20 A. I told one of the lawyers in my office to 21 take them to Judge Melville’s court. I believe we 22 prepared some kind of notice of lodging, and we 23 notified the court of what we were doing, and it was 24 lodged, I believe, with the clerk of the court. 25 Q. And that would be Judge Melville’s court? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Is there any reason why you preferred giving 28 those passports to Judge Melville rather than Janet 11460 1 Arvizo? 2 A. I believed that they were something that 3 both -- either Mr. Sneddon or yourself would want 4 for various reasons. I believed that based upon 5 that, that they had evidentiary value. I believed 6 that I had no business holding on to them myself, 7 and I didn’t want to put you in a position where you 8 would have to be a witness and be conflicted out of 9 the case. 10 So I made the decision, after consulting 11 with numerous lawyers, that the best thing to do was 12 to file them directly with the court, which I 13 thought was my ethical -- also my ethical 14 obligation. 15 Q. And when you did that, were the passports 16 addressed to Judge Melville? 17 A. I believe -- I assume that the document is 18 here. I believe a document was prepared by my 19 office in connection with the lodging when it was 20 filed. Either a notice of lodging or a notice of 21 filing. I believe I saw something to that effect. 22 Q. Now, you knew when you lodged those 23 passports with Judge Melville’s court that Janet 24 Arvizo wanted them, right? 25 A. Well, I would assume that those were things 26 that would go to Janet Arvizo, Gavin, Star, and the 27 daughter, yes. 28 Q. And my question is, were you concerned about 11461 1 what Ms. Arvizo or her attorney, Mr. Dickerman, 2 might do with those passports? 3 A. Well, I knew that it was -- that it was not 4 going to be a great situation when I filed it with 5 the court. I wasn’t happy that I was in that 6 situation. I gave consideration, or at least 7 thought about the idea of turning them over to Mr. 8 Dickerman, but thought that it made more sense to do 9 it with the Court so that there was at least a 10 record that -- in the chain of custody, so to speak, 11 so you could document where they were and what had 12 happened. 13 I wasn’t comfortable with the fact of giving 14 them back to Mr. Dickerman. I thought that the 15 thing to do, and several other lawyers that I talked 16 to, that the thing to do was to lodge them with the 17 court. 18 Q. Now, you indicated on cross-examination that 19 you did not trust Mr. Dickerman, correct? 20 A. That’s correct. 21 Q. Why? 22 A. Because I would get -- 23 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as irrelevant. 24 THE COURT: Sustained. 25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At the time you lodged 26 those passports with this court, did you know 27 whether or not Janet Arvizo was represented by 28 Attorney Larry Feldman? 11462 1 A. Yes, I did know that. 2 Q. Did you ever consider giving those passports 3 to Attorney Larry Feldman? 4 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant. 5 THE COURT: Sustained. 6 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions. 7 8 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. ZONEN: 10 Q. Did Mr. Miller tell you in advance that he 11 was going to go ahead and pay a couple months’ rent 12 of Ms. Arvizo’s? 13 A. I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I know 14 that he paid the rent. I don’t know if he told me 15 after he did it or before. 16 Q. Would Mr. Miller be willing to pay my next 17 month’s mortgage? 18 A. I don’t know. How big is your house? 19 Q. I live in Santa Barbara. It’s small. 20 A. But I’m sure expensive. 21 Q. Mr. Geragos, did he talk with you at all in 22 advance about the propriety of Michael Jackson’s 23 employees paying Miss Arvizo’s rent? 24 A. Did who? 25 Q. Did Brad Miller speak with you in advance of 26 paying that month’s rent or two months’ rent? 27 A. Mr. Zonen, my experience with Mr. Jackson is 28 that this is a man with great -- 11463 1 Q. The question is, did Mr. Brad Miller speak 2 with you in advance? 3 A. You asked me about the propriety of Mr. 4 Jackson’s employees. 5 Q. No, the question -- 6 A. I was trying to answer that. 7 Q. -- is, did Mr. Brad Miller speak with you in 8 advance of doing that? 9 A. The answer is the same one I gave you when 10 you asked me the first time, which was I don’t 11 remember as I sit here if he told me before or 12 after, but I know at some point I knew. 13 Q. When did you first learn about it? 14 A. I don’t know. Sometime in February or 15 March. 16 Q. What was Mr. Miller’s explanation to you as 17 to why he felt it was a good thing to do? 18 A. I don’t know that I quizzed him on it. 19 Q. Now, you said that you wanted that videotape 20 to be done in advance of the move-out of the 21 apartment; is that right? 22 A. I wanted -- if he was going to move, I 23 wanted him to videotape the move. I didn’t feel 24 comfortable having him handle her possessions 25 because I thought she would come back later and make 26 some accusation that something was taken out of 27 there, or that she had some -- who knows? That 28 there was going to be five refrigerators and a 11464 1 $10,000 stove. 2 Q. So you knew about this in advance of them 3 moving her out of the apartment? 4 A. I knew that he was going to move her, 5 because as I said before, I told him, “If you’re 6 going to do that, you better videotape it.” 7 Q. And that means, yes, you knew in advance of 8 them moving her out of the apartment, that she was 9 going to do -- that they were going to do so in 10 advance; is that right? 11 A. I knew that he was going to help her move, 12 and I told him to videotape it. 13 Q. All right. And you knew that they had not 14 yet commenced the move? 15 A. Well, I would assume that. Yes, I would 16 assume that. 17 Q. So you still had the opportunity to tell 18 Brad Miller, “What? Are you nuts? Don’t do 19 anything for Janet Arvizo”? 20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative. 21 THE COURT: Sustained. 22 MR. ZONEN: I’ll leave out the “Are you 23 nuts?” 24 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you tell Brad Miller, 26 “Don’t do it. Don’t move her stuff. Don’t have 27 anything to do with her”? 28 A. No. 11465 1 Q. Did you tell him that you believed that she 2 was ready to engage in a shakedown of Michael 3 Jackson and you ought not be conducting any business 4 with her or association with her? 5 A. No. On the contrary. I wanted to know what 6 she was up to. 7 Q. Did Brad Miller tell you, up to that point, 8 that she had ever said that she wanted money from 9 Michael Jackson? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. For what? 12 A. She felt that she deserved money. She 13 wanted -- you know, he was wealthy and she wanted 14 money. 15 Q. How much? 16 A. I didn’t how much she wanted. I wasn’t 17 going to -- I wasn’t going to recommend that my 18 client pay the money. 19 Q. When did that conversation take place? 20 A. It would have been sometime shortly after we 21 discovered that she had filed suit against J.C. 22 Penney. 23 Q. Then why did you tell him to go ahead and 24 proceed and move her stuff out of the apartment? 25 A. I did not want him to lose track of her. I 26 didn’t want her to go into the ether, because I was 27 afraid that she would do exactly what she ended up 28 doing in this case, which is get into the hands of a 11466 1 lawyer who would refer her to a psychiatrist, and 2 all of a sudden we’d get a false accusation. 3 Q. Now, you’ve looked at that videotape, 4 haven’t you, the videotape of the move? 5 A. I know it exists. I don’t know that I -- 6 no, I don’t think I’ve sat down and documented the 7 videotape. 8 Q. Mr. Geragos, would you be surprised to learn 9 that that videotape does not show the items being 10 removed from the house? 11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the 12 evidence. 13 THE COURT: Overruled. 14 THE WITNESS: I would be surprised that he 15 took a videotape of not moving after I told him to 16 take a videotape of moving the items or documenting 17 what the items were. 18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he ever tell you what the 19 videotape was of? 20 A. Yes, the items that were placed into 21 storage. 22 Q. All right. Did he tell you that, in fact, 23 that videotape was of them cleaning an empty 24 apartment; that that’s what it was of? 25 A. I think that he -- I don’t know that it was 26 cleaning. I think he wanted to show what the 27 condition of the apartment was after the move. 28 Q. Did you ask -- so there’s another videotape? 11467 1 A. I think it’s all one -- one videotape. The 2 videotape is of documenting of the items is what I 3 was told, and what the place looked like after the 4 items were out. 5 Q. Do you believe that there exists today a 6 videotape of them documenting the items from Janet 7 Arvizo’s apartment? 8 A. I believe that the video -- that there is a 9 videotape and that the videotape is of the items. 10 Q. Did they do a written inventory of the items 11 that they moved from her apartment? 12 A. I don’t know if they did or if the moving 13 place did. I couldn’t tell you. 14 Q. Did you ask them to get on videotape Janet 15 Arvizo specifically making that request to have her 16 things moved from that apartment? 17 A. No, I don’t think I told him that. 18 Q. You now believe that Brad Miller is a liar, 19 don’t you? 20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; no 21 foundation. 22 THE COURT: Sustained. 23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever ask Brad Miller 24 why he arranged to have the DCFS interview 25 tape-recorded? 26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the 27 evidence; foundation; personal knowledge; and beyond 28 the scope; vague as to time. 11468 1 THE COURT: I’m thinking. There’s a lot of 2 material. 3 The objection’s overruled. 4 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe he was the one 5 who did it. I think that Asaf did it, if I’m not 6 mistaken. I don’t think Mr. Miller was there at the 7 DCFS. 8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever ask Brad Miller 9 if he was aware of the fact that Asaf was going to 10 do it? 11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time. 12 MR. ZONEN: At the time it was done. 13 MR. MESEREAU: Beyond the scope; relevance. 14 THE COURT: Sustained. It really is beyond 15 the scope. 16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever direct Brad 17 Miller to have Janet Arvizo sign a letter that said 18 she wanted her things moved out of that apartment? 19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope; 20 relevance; foundation. 21 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry? 22 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 23 Do you want the question read back? 24 THE WITNESS: No, I remember it. 25 I don’t know. I don’t know if I did or not. 26 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You knew during February and 27 March of 2003 that Janet Arvizo had a prior lawsuit, 28 true? 11469 1 A. I knew that she had filed a lawsuit, yes. 2 Q. You knew during February and March of 2003 3 that she had been arrested? 4 A. I knew that there was a criminal index with 5 some hits involving her. 6 Q. You were very concerned about her 7 involvement with Michael Jackson, true? 8 A. I had concerns, yes. 9 Q. You contacted Michael Jackson’s employees, 10 the ones that were closest to him, and told them of 11 your concerns about Janet Arvizo; is that true? 12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope; 13 foundation; vague as to time. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. 15 You may answer. 16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Is that true? 17 A. No, that isn’t true the way you phrased it. 18 Q. Did you contact Marc Schaffel and express to 19 him your concern about Janet Arvizo? 20 A. Actually, I was concerned about Schaffel. 21 Q. Did you contact Ronald Konitzer and tell him 22 your concerns about Janet Arvizo? 23 A. I probably would have told Ronald about my 24 concerns on one of the -- on one of our phone calls, 25 yes. 26 Q. During any of those phone calls, did he then 27 tell you that they’re sending Janet Arvizo to 28 Brazil? 11470 1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope; 2 foundation. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 You may answer. 5 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe he told me 6 that, no. 7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ask Ronald Konitzer 8 to tell you if Gavin Arvizo moved back into Michael 9 Jackson’s bedroom? 10 A. No, I did not tell him to tell me that. 11 Q. Did you have a conversation with Michael 12 Jackson about the Brazil trip? 13 A. No. 14 MR. ZONEN: I have no further questions. 15 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions. 16 THE COURT: You may step down. 17 Oh. I think there was an issue you wanted 18 me to take up. 19 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry? 20 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen, you want the witness 21 to remain? 22 MR. ZONEN: If he could, yes. 23 THE COURT: (To the jury) I’ll excuse you 24 for today. And we’ll see you Monday at 8:30. 25 26 (The following proceedings were held in 27 open court outside the presence and hearing of the 28 jury:) 11471 1 2 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to remain here? 3 THE COURT: Yes. 4 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I know the Court’s 5 preference is to have these matters done in writing 6 in advance, but we’re approaching the end of this 7 trial rapidly. I believe the defense has indicated 8 they might be resting as early as next Tuesday. 9 Given the waiver of both work product and 10 attorney-client privilege, as to Mr. Geragos’s file 11 and the comments as to representation of the 12 defendant and the testimony today, we would make a 13 demand at this time orally, if the Court will 14 entertain that, for the production of all e-mails 15 between Brad Miller and Mr. Geragos, as well as any 16 notes in his file for that period of time dealing 17 with communications between this witness, Mr. 18 Geragos, and Mr. Jackson, Mr. Konitzer, Mr. Weizner, 19 Mr. Amen and Mr. Schaffel and Mr. Cascio, as well as 20 the computer files that have been previously the 21 subject of litigation from Brad Miller’s office that 22 were previously determined to be inaccessible 23 because of the existence of that privilege. 24 We believe now that those files should be 25 turned over to us, at least for that period of time, 26 subject to this waiver. 27 THE COURT: And I think the -- now that you 28 have the waiver, all that work we did on those 11472 1 computer hard drives, based on the privilege which 2 he subsequently waived, should be turned over. 3 MR. SANGER: The -- let me use the mike for 4 just a second. 5 I just want the Court’s ruling to -- I want 6 to clarify the Court’s ruling. On Mr. Miller’s hard 7 drive, there were communications with Mr. Geragos -- 8 THE COURT: On another case, other cases. 9 No, I’m not ordering you to turn that over. Just on 10 this case. 11 MR. SANGER: Okay. And you are asking that 12 we turn it over? 13 THE COURT: Yes. 14 MR. SANGER: Okay. 15 THE COURT: Turn it over, say, by 5 p.m. 16 tomorrow, Saturday. 17 MR. SANGER: Yeah, for the -- for the period 18 of time of the waiver. I don’t think there are any 19 outside of the period. 20 THE COURT: For the period of the waiver, 21 right. 22 MR. ZONEN: If we could have that by 5 p.m. 23 tomorrow. 24 THE COURT: Yes, that’s the order. 25 I don’t think -- I think that takes care of 26 it. I don’t think I order -- 27 MR. ZONEN: Does that include the e-mail 28 communications as well? 11473 1 THE COURT: The e-mails, that’s primarily 2 what was on that material. 3 I’m not going to limit it to the e-mails, 4 but obviously on a hard drive between -- that was 5 primarily what was there was e-mails. And I don’t 6 know what other material was there. But any other 7 material that you held back because of the privilege 8 between Mr. Geragos, Brad Miller and Mr. Jackson, 9 you should release. 10 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. I think there was a 11 Word Perfect document, not to get back into that. 12 THE COURT: Yeah. 13 MR. ZONEN: I wonder how we’ll ever access 14 it. No, we’ll figure it out. 15 THE COURT: I’m not going to order Mr. 16 Geragos to do that. 17 THE WITNESS: Could I interject that my only 18 concern is that there’s -- if there is any e-mail 19 that contains any information related to this case 20 and if it’s related to any other case -- 21 THE COURT: Well, we know that. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 THE COURT: We are very familiar. You know, 24 you don’t know this, but we’ve had -- well, maybe 25 you do, but we had a couple -- we had an expert go 26 through the computer hard drives with some software 27 that doesn’t disturb anything in the drive. It’s 28 really unique. And then we had a special master 11474 1 review all of the files and segregate out privileged 2 documents. And then we had Mr. Jackson’s team 3 review that before what remained was turned over. 4 So there’s -- every effort to protect your clients 5 has been followed. 6 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I think what he’s 7 referring to -- I’ll just remain seated here and 8 talk into this if that’s all right. 9 I think what he’s referring to are there are 10 some e-mails that refer to more than one case, so we 11 would redact the part that refers to other cases. 12 THE COURT: Exactly. 13 MR. SANGER: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Then to the extent that 15 that’s what you’re asking, I grant that. And we 16 have that straight. To the extent that you’re 17 asking me to order Mr. Geragos to turn over 18 something, I’m not going to do that. 19 MR. ZONEN: As long the representation is 20 that they’re in possession of what Mr. Geragos has, 21 then I’m happy with it coming from the defense. 22 THE COURT: Well, I’m not -- what we know 23 that they have is what you seized under search 24 warrants of -- 25 MR. ZONEN: That’s fine. That’s fine. 26 THE COURT: All right. Then you may step 27 down. 28 THE WITNESS: Thank you. May I be excused? 11475 1 MR. ZONEN: Then, like the other witnesses, 2 this witness is not excused? 3 THE COURT: You’re not excused. You’ll 4 remain on call until the case is complete. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: All right. The next issue you 7 wanted to take up was the -- which witness was it? 8 MR. SANGER: Mr. Amen. I didn’t know if you 9 were looking at us, but the Vinnie Amen -- 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 MR. SANGER: -- issue. 12 THE COURT: Here’s my thoughts on this one: 13 It appears that the -- Mr. Amen did get a use 14 immunity to talk to the District Attorney as it 15 relates to just what happens in their office. They 16 couldn’t use that to prosecute him, or any of the 17 fruit of that interview could not be used to 18 prosecute him if they later decided to prosecute 19 him. 20 It’s not an immunity that extends to 21 anything that he says in the courtroom, and it’s not 22 an immunity that protects him except for what he 23 said to them in their office. 24 Absent an application by the District 25 Attorney to the Court to grant him immunity, I am 26 without power to grant him immunity on my own. 27 Under the code, it’s a procedure that the District 28 Attorney has the sole right to institute. If he 11476 1 institutes it, then I have some discretion. But 2 absent that, I can’t institute it, so he is not 3 protected. 4 I’ll reiterate, he is not protected if 5 called for anything he says here. So if -- if you 6 call him and he claims the privilege, then he would 7 not be compelled to answer questions under the Fifth 8 Amendment. If you called him and asked him 9 questions, and he didn’t claim the privilege, but 10 then the District Attorney called him -- or 11 cross-examined him, excuse me, and he claimed the 12 privilege, then we’d be somewhat back in the 13 position we were with some of the other witnesses. 14 And so somewhere I would have to -- that 15 leaves us with the remedies we had before. You 16 know, either strike his testimony or make him claim 17 the privilege in front of the jury, or, you know, 18 there’s -- all the same things. Now we’ve had three 19 or four witnesses that present this issue from, it 20 seems like, a different angle every time. 21 MR. SANGER: I think there’s a little 22 different angle here and I’d like to discuss that. 23 THE COURT: I’m sure there is a little 24 different angle, and I’ll let you speak to that. 25 Just let me make sure I’ve finished saying what I 26 was going to say. 27 Anyway, so the bottom line, I guess, is, we 28 would have to have some indication from him before I 11477 1 let him testify in front of the jury as to what his 2 position on his testimony was going to be. 3 Now, what do you want to say about that 4 special angle? 5 MR. SANGER: Well, I think this is a little 6 bit of a different angle, and therefore I’d -- I 7 don’t know if that was the Court’s ruling or a 8 tentative. 9 THE COURT: No, no, I said that’s where I’m 10 going, you know. 11 MR. SANGER: All right. Fine. 12 THE COURT: You’re not prevented from trying 13 to show -- persuade me otherwise. 14 MR. SANGER: I think the different angle is 15 this, Your Honor: That basically the California 16 Supreme Court has left the door open, because we 17 like that reference, to the possibility that there 18 might be a case in which immunity could be granted 19 by the Court where the prosecution has not stepped 20 forward and requested it. 21 And I know that the weight of the authority, 22 or the number of cases that are floating around in 23 various jurisdictions and a couple of DCA cases, 24 tend to indicate that there is no such thing as 25 defense immunity. But -- or defense-requested 26 immunity for a witness. But the reason I think this 27 might be the case that the Supreme Court had in mind 28 or would have left the door open for is that here we 11478 1 have an actual grant of immunity. 2 Now, you recall that Mr. Auchincloss 3 represented to this Court that absolutely nothing 4 ever happened, and that whatever happened happened 5 before the tape was turned on, and the officer got 6 it wrong, and the officer didn’t understand things. 7 And lo and behold, we got the tape, and he very 8 clearly says, “That’s the agreement.” And his words 9 include, “In California, we call it use immunity. 10 So nothing you say in this interview can be used 11 against you, and we can’t use the fruits,” et 12 cetera, et cetera. 13 Now, I understand the Court’s distinction, 14 that that doesn’t say that, “When you testify or if 15 you testify, we will ask the Court for immunity at 16 that time.” That is generally what happens. A 17 witness gives a statement to the prosecution under 18 immunity. They like it; they come in and they ask 19 for immunity, put the person on the stand and get 20 the benefit of it. 21 What happened in this case invokes this 22 small exception that I think the Supreme Court would 23 acknowledge is appropriate. What happened in this 24 case is you have a witness who’s debriefed for -- I 25 believe it’s like four hours, maybe over four hours, 26 on tape. He is asked every imaginable question 27 about this case. He is the witness who was with 28 Janet Arvizo more than anybody else, according to 11479 1 the testimony we have here. 2 And he answers the questions about what 3 happened. “What happened when you went to get the 4 passports? What happened? Did she want to go 5 Brazil?” All those questions are answered and they 6 are answered in a way that is consistent with the 7 defense position and inconsistent with Janet 8 Arvizo’s position. 9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, I’m going to 10 object to the description of the facts. That’s a 11 matter that is of some contention between the 12 parties. 13 THE COURT: I understand. But I don’t know 14 what -- I haven’t heard the tape, so I can’t rule on 15 your objection. 16 Go ahead. 17 MR. SANGER: And the point is, and the Court 18 has -- I don’t know if the Court wants to spend four 19 hours listening to it. The Court has the tape. 20 THE COURT: Oh, thank you. 21 MR. SANGER: I evidently have something to 22 do before Saturday at five o’clock myself, so I 23 thought the Court should as well. 24 The point of the story is that you have a 25 key witness in a case, who not only -- let us 26 assume -- so I don’t get in an argument with Mr. 27 Auchincloss, let us assume that his version of 28 events is consistent -- it’s Brady material, in 11480 1 essence. It’s consistent with the weight of the 2 witnesses who have testified, with the exception of 3 Janet Arvizo and her children. And primarily Janet 4 Arvizo, who testifies to all sorts of things that 5 are not consistent with anybody else. 6 They take that witness and they say, “Well, 7 it was Brady material. We got to turn it over to 8 you, but ha-ha, we are now going to revoke our 9 agreement to grant immunity. We’re not going to 10 give this person immunity.” 11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Object to this 12 characterization. May I make an objection? 13 THE COURT: What? 14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just that that 15 characterization is completely inaccurate. We are 16 not revoking the informal immunity for this witness 17 for that day’s interview. 18 THE COURT: I understand that. That’s 19 correct. 20 MR. SANGER: So they say, “Okay. We are not 21 going to take the next step and call you as a 22 witness in court and give you immunity. We now know 23 that your testimony is exculpatory, so we are going 24 to make it impossible for the defense to present 25 exculpatory evidence to the jury.” 26 Now, this is different than the cases that 27 are cited. Because most of the cases that are cited 28 are cases in which, for instance, the defense is 11481 1 trying to call a witness who has not been 2 interviewed by the prosecution, or it’s a witness 3 who is a witness on a collateral matter. It’s not a 4 witness who has been given immunity to talk to the 5 prosecution first. 6 That’s why this is different. He was talked 7 to. He was debriefed for four hours. And he gives 8 exculpatory evidence. And now they say, “You can’t 9 use it.” 10 It was the prosecution who decided to call 11 Mr. Amen an unindicted co-conspirator. It’s the 12 prosecution that decided to present him as a 13 criminal wrongdoer, unindicted though he may be, in 14 the eyes of the jury. It’s the prosecution that 15 interviewed him. It’s the prosecution that chose to 16 give him immunity. And then it’s the prosecution 17 that says, “King’s X, we’re not going to let the 18 jury find out what he really has to say.” 19 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. I 20 don’t know what the tape says, and I understand just 21 from listening to the two of you that there’s, 22 surprisingly, a disagreement over the content. 23 But let me assume for a moment that you’re 24 correct, that he tells the series of events exactly 25 what happened from his standpoint, and it in fact 26 supports your position that no crime’s been 27 committed in the conspiracy, which is the crime 28 we’re talking about on all of the elements, all of 11482 1 the various variations. And that the reason the 2 District Attorney doesn’t want to call him is 3 because, in fact, he doesn’t verify the criminal 4 activities of your client or anyone else. 5 So why would that person just not take the 6 witness stand, testify, and not claim the Fifth 7 Amendment since he’s not admitting to any crime? 8 He’s only telling the truth and, in fact, verifying, 9 as you point out, what everybody else except Janet 10 Arvizo says. 11 MR. SANGER: We would very much like him to 12 do that. I think that in the real world -- as the 13 Court knows, in the real world, a lawyer is going to 14 advise him, and the lawyer has advised him. 15 Everybody’s dealing with his lawyer here. The 16 lawyer’s advised him that he cannot testify. He is 17 being accused of being an unindicted co-conspirator 18 in a very serious case. 19 THE COURT: But they can’t prosecute him for 20 anything they learned. And if he says the same 21 thing here, they can’t prosecute him, can they? 22 Because they have given him use immunity. 23 MR. SANGER: Well, if the Court takes that 24 position, I think he would come and testify. 25 THE COURT: If -- 26 MR. SANGER: But I think -- 27 THE COURT: If he says -- your position 28 would be if he says the same thing that he told 11483 1 them, that they gave him use immunity for, only he 2 says it in a different room, the use immunity fails. 3 Is that what your position is? 4 MR. SANGER: No. Quite to the contrary. My 5 position is they’ve given him immunity, and he 6 should be allowed to testify. 7 THE COURT: No, no, no. 8 MR. SANGER: I understand what Your Honor 9 said. They just got through saying -- Mr. 10 Auchincloss just got through saying it was only for 11 the conversation in the room. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Let me talk to him, then. 13 If he testifies and says the same thing that 14 he told you, let’s say he doesn’t deviate from what 15 he told you under the use immunity -- 16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In this courtroom? 17 THE COURT: If he says it in this courtroom, 18 you could prosecute him? 19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. And here’s the 20 reason: The use immunity statute provides the 21 prosecution with discretion as to when and where and 22 how it’s going to ask for immunity. In virtually 23 every criminal case, the process -- and, you know, 24 virtually every, most criminal cases, the process 25 involves a proffer, involves coming into the office, 26 talking to that witness, assessing the credibility, 27 checking the facts against what they say, having the 28 District Attorney determine whether this witness is 11484 1 going to be accurate, is going to be telling the 2 truth, is going to be a fit witness in the case to 3 present the facts to the jury. 4 And when the District Attorney makes that 5 determination, then it’s appropriate for the 6 District Attorney to come into court and petition 7 the Court for immunity, testimonial immunity, which 8 is a completely different creature. Both sides 9 going at it, objections. It’s just a different 10 thing than an informal interview. And a proffer is 11 made to the District Attorney as far as what he’s 12 going to be saying or what he might have to say 13 about the facts of that case. 14 And we provided authority that immunity 15 agreements can be fashioned in a variety of ways, 16 and limitations can be presented, provided for, in 17 those immunity agreements. And it’s clear, even 18 from the tape, and while I did tell you there was 19 another discussion that occurred prior to us going 20 onto the tape, but even that little brief colloquy 21 that refers to the discussion that we obviously had 22 just had talks about “today,” “what’s said here 23 today,” specifically. 24 So, no, the immunity does not extend to 25 trial immunity, immunity in the court, testimonial 26 immunity and a formal grant of immunity. 27 THE COURT: What about the -- 28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just a moment. I’m sorry. 11485 1 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel 2 table.) 3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, Mr. Sneddon wanted 4 me to just make sure that I told -- that I 5 communicated to you that we believe that if Mr. Amen 6 takes the stand and incriminates himself, he will 7 not be protected. That the immunity -- he does not 8 have immunity from what he says on the stand in this 9 case. 10 THE COURT: I understood that. 11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I thought you did. Thank 12 you. 13 Is there another question you had? 14 THE COURT: Yes. Counsel suggested that the 15 Supreme Court has hinted that there’s a unique case 16 where the Court could grant immunity without you 17 asking me for it. What do you think of that? 18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I think that this Court in 19 this case should not go where any court has gone 20 before. 21 THE COURT: Where any court has not gone 22 before. 23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah. 24 THE COURT: I’ve been doing that for -- 25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Don’t go where any court 26 has gone before. 27 THE COURT: I thought that’s what I’ve been 28 doing here for the last few months. 11486 1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That may be. That may be. 2 I don’t think this is the case where the Court 3 should attempt to make new law. 4 THE COURT: Do you believe that’s possible, 5 though, that they -- 6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No, I don’t. It’s dicta, 7 and the overwhelming weight of authority is that 8 this is a statutory discretion that the prosecutor 9 has. 10 THE COURT: All right. Well, I am not going 11 to strike out on that trail. So.... 12 MR. SANGER: Then I have another question in 13 that regard. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. SANGER: The Court may sense I have a 16 deep belief that this anomaly in the law or what’s 17 unresolved in the law results in a true injustice in 18 a criminal case. That bothers me. 19 THE COURT: Yeah. 20 MR. SANGER: It would seem to me that 21 another remedy the Court could fashion, the Court 22 having turned down our request that this be 23 clarified, that this man has immunity if he comes in 24 and testifies to the same things he testified or he 25 talked about in the D.A.’s Office, if the Court’s 26 turned that down, then -- 27 THE COURT: I turn that down. 28 MR. SANGER: -- I would suggest that he is 11487 1 now unavailable as a witness. He has been made 2 unavailable by the acts of the District Attorney, 3 and that we should be allowed to -- assuming he 4 comes in here and says he’s taking the Fifth, that 5 makes him unavailable. Not in front of the jury 6 necessarily, but that we then be allowed to play his 7 tape as the statement of a witness who’s 8 unavailable. It is a tape that was not created in 9 an adversary situation, but it is a tape that was 10 created based on the questioning of one of the 11 prosecutors seated at this very table and two police 12 officers, a lieutenant and a sergeant. And they had 13 adequate opportunity to confront and cross-examine 14 him and they conducted an extensive interview. 15 There is no harm to the prosecution in allowing 16 that. He’s unavailable. I think we should be 17 allowed to do it. 18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can address that if you 19 need to hear from me. 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, that doesn’t satisfy 22 the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule. 23 It’s not former testimony. And there is no 24 exception. Moreover, this particular type of 25 testimony, I don’t want to probably even have to go 26 there, but Crawford deals with the issue of a police 27 interview coming in as testimony. So -- 28 THE COURT: It does when the District 11488 1 Attorney introduces it, but does Crawford -- 2 Crawford’s about the right of the defendant to have 3 cross-examination, not the People. 4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I agree. I agree. But 5 really the main point is, I mean, I think that an 6 argument could be made that Crawford has 7 applicability. We don’t even need to get there. 8 The point is, this is not -- there is no exception 9 to the hearsay rule. 10 THE COURT: This is not prior -- 11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s not former testimony 12 under cross-examination from both sides. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. SANGER: And the Court is correct, 15 Crawford is a confrontation clause case, which is a 16 defendant’s right. Has nothing to do with this. 17 THE COURT: Well, it does have something to 18 do with it if he -- if the District Attorney 19 attempted to -- 20 MR. SANGER: Yeah. 21 THE COURT: -- introduce his -- instead of 22 you being the person who suggested that, they had 23 suggested it, Crawford would apply. Because if you 24 had called him and he answered some questions, and 25 then they asked him some questions and he claims the 26 Fifth, and then they said, “Well, Judge, we’ve got 27 this statement,” then you would be screaming 28 Crawford, right? 11489 1 MR. SANGER: Well, confrontation clause, 2 which is the defendant’s right, but not a People’s 3 right. 4 THE COURT: Yeah, it’s -- 5 MR. SANGER: But I would suggest, though, 6 since we’re musing as the day goes on here -- 7 THE COURT: Yeah, we’re wasting -- 8 MR. SANGER: And it was my day. But that’s 9 all right. This is important. 10 THE COURT: You’re right, this was your day. 11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It was all of our day. 12 MR. SANGER: I think it is important. 13 The true hypothetical would be that the 14 defendant makes a long, detailed statement, and then 15 deliberately makes the person unavailable. 16 THE COURT: Or even doesn’t deliberately. 17 Just -- they become unavailable. 18 MR. SANGER: Well, I think -- 19 THE COURT: You want to say they’re 20 deliberately making him -- 21 MR. SANGER: They’re deliberately making him 22 unavailable. 23 THE COURT: Go ahead. I see the scenario. 24 MR. SANGER: Without going into all the 25 details, but, I mean, he explained what was 26 happening at Schaffel’s house, who he was working 27 for, he was working for Schaffel, why he rented a 28 car, what he was told to do. 11490 1 THE COURT: I know. 2 MR. SANGER: Everything is there. It’s 3 everything the jury wants to know about this case 4 that they haven’t heard, and fills in all the spaces 5 between the other legitimate witnesses in this case. 6 THE COURT: Yeah. But truthfully or not 7 truthfully, we don’t know the answer to that. 8 All right. That’s my ruling on that issue. 9 It is a -- it’s really a pleasure for a 10 judge to be dealing with both sides who are dealing 11 with very difficult issues and sometimes not 12 resolved. In this case, we’ve had several 13 situations where we’re just dealing with things that 14 there’s no law on, and it’s a pleasure to see the 15 quality of work that you turn out. It really helps 16 me. 17 Thank you. See you Monday. 18 (The proceedings adjourned at 12:55 p.m.) 19 --o0o-- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11491 1 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) 5 OF CALIFORNIA, ) 6 Plaintiff, ) 7 -vs- ) No. 1133603 8 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, ) 9 Defendant. ) 10 11 12 I, MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, 13 CSR #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby 14 certify: 15 That the foregoing pages 11324 through 11491 16 contain a true and correct transcript of the 17 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled 18 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at 19 said proceedings on May 20, 2005, and thereafter 20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided 21 transcription under my direction. 22 DATED: Santa Maria, California, 23 May 20, 2005. 24 25 26 27 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304 28 11492