David G. Legrand Cross (Contd), Re-direct, Re-cross, Further Re-direct, Further Re-cross; Mark Geragos Direct, Cross.

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 13, 2005
20
21 8:30 A.M.
22
23 (PAGES 10145 THROUGH 10188)

24
25
26
28 BY: Official Court Reporter 10145
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
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 LEGRAND, David G. 10150-A
12 (Contd.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28 10147
2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.
3
4 263 MJJ Productions office records 10184 10185
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2 Friday, May 13, 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: (To the jury) How was it?
9 A JUROR: What?
10 THE COURT: The breakfast.
11 THE JURY: (In unison) We didn’t have a
12 breakfast.
13 JUROR NO. 7: It’s lunch.
14 THE COURT: Oh, you’re getting lunch? That’s
15 what they promised.
16 JUROR NO. 4: My cereal was okay.
17 THE COURT: I had information that you were
18 going to get breakfast. So you’re getting lunch.
19 A JUROR: We got presents. We got cups.
20 THE COURT: All right. Let me just say
21 don’t eat too much at lunch.
22 Okay. Counsel, are you ready to proceed?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I am, Your Honor. But,
24 I’m sorry, with the Court’s permission, I’d like to
25 have a brief sidebar to discuss a matter that I
26 don’t want to go into without your permission.
27 THE COURT: All right.
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
3
4 DAVID G. LEGRAND
5 Having been previously sworn, resumed the
6 stand and testified further as follows:
7
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
9 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. LeGrand.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. Yesterday we talked about the LLC Fire
13 Mountain, and you indicated that that LLC, that
14 limited liability corporation, was formed to act as
15 the corporation under which the proceeds from the
16 FOX special, “The Footage You Were Never Meant To
17 See” or what we’ve been calling the “Take 2” video,
18 to basically funnel those assets or those -- the
19 cash that was produced from that program and then
20 disburse to various parties. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And I asked you -- I’m not sure if we
23 ever got the answer, but I asked you, and I’m asking
24 you now, was that corporation formed to conceal
25 assets from Mr. Jackson’s creditors?
26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
27 relevance.
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In any way.
3 A. There were multiple concerns with regard to
4 the “Take 2” video at the inception of the process.
5 There was a letter from Granada basically demanding
6 that no footage of Martin Bashir be utilized without
7 Granada’s permission, so we had significant concerns
8 about potential liabilities associated with Fire
9 Mountain.
10 There were also concerns, not so much about
11 trade creditors in general, but, rather, that the
12 mounting financial demands of the lawyers, the
13 accountants, the production people be met, and we
14 had not yet -- there was -- we had not yet
15 accomplished a complete transition of money
16 management affairs and open --
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object at this
18 time as nonresponsive.
19 THE WITNESS: Okay.
20 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
21 I’ll allow him to complete his answer.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
23 THE WITNESS: I opened a dialogue with Bank
24 of America and discussed with the bank
25 representatives the relationship of Fire Mountain
26 with FOX, and to my knowledge, there was never a
27 demand of default made by Bank of America with
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question was, was
3 that Fire Mountain, Limited Liability Corporation,
4 formed in any way to conceal assets from Mr.
5 Jackson’s creditors? And my question goes beyond
6 the Bank of America.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And do you understand
9 the question?
10 A. Yeah. It was not my intent to conceal. It
11 was my intent to protect the cash flows being
12 received in order to address the financial needs of
13 my client, Mr. Jackson.
14 Q. All right. Well, you testified that Mr.
15 Jackson had creditors with outstanding bills in
16 excess of ten million dollars, true? Yes?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And some of those creditors had initiated
19 lawsuits; isn’t that true?
20 A. I don’t know that creditors had initiated
21 lawsuits. The two primary lawsuits that were
22 pending that I had knowledge of early on were the
23 Avram case and the Myung Ho Lee case.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. I don’t know that those gentlemen were
26 creditors at that time, because I don’t remember
27 seeing them listed in the payables listings. There
2 late February or early March, filed by an auction
3 house in New York with respect to a painting.
4 Q. Would that be Sotheby’s?
5 A. Yes. Yes, that was Sotheby’s.
6 Q. And that dealt with a painting Mr. Jackson
7 purchased but never paid for; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. But in
12 effect, the Fire Mountain corporation would prevent
13 any of these creditors from getting their hands on
14 the money, the proceedings from the FOX production;
15 true? I’d like a “yes” or “no” question -- answer
16 to that question.
17 A. I don’t know --
18 Q. If you know.
19 A. I don’t know how it would prevent creditors
20 from getting to it. I mean, if a creditor took a
21 judgment debtor exam of someone and found that this
22 subsidiary of MJJ had these funds, the question is
23 creditor of whom, I guess? I mean, the goal of Fire
24 Mountain was to serve as a subsidiary to MJJ
25 Productions.
26 Q. Who is Marcel Avram? You just mentioned
27 that. Who is that?
2 You may answer.
3 THE WITNESS: What I’ve read is that he was
4 a promoter who had entered into some agreements
5 with -- and I’m not sure who with, but with Mr.
6 Jackson or entities affiliated with Mr. Jackson.
7 I’m not even sure who the parties were in that
8 litigation.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that was a
10 multimillion-dollar lawsuit?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that was here in Santa Maria?
13 A. I don’t know where it was.
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question -- I’m sorry.
16 THE COURT: Next question. Overruled.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that lawsuit was
18 going on during February of 2003?
19 A. I think so, yes.
20 Q. And --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If that lawsuit went bad, wasn’t it your
23 opinion that bankruptcy was assured for Mr. Jackson?
24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
25 misstates the evidence.
26 THE COURT: Foundation sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you ever send an
2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
3 leading; relevance.
4 THE COURT: Overruled.
5 You may answer.
6 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall such a specific
7 e-mail. It’s possible. But I don’t recall.
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I could have a moment,
9 Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: You may.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Let me just ask a
12 follow-up question. Was that your opinion?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
14 foundation.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll come back to that.
17 Q. Mr. LeGrand, did you talk to anybody after
18 you left the stand here today (sic) about your
19 testimony in this case?
20 A. I did not speak about my testimony in this
21 case. I did speak to several people last night.
22 Q. Who did you talk to?
23 A. Talked to my wife.
24 Q. Did you talk to anybody that was involved in
25 this case in any fashion?
26 A. I don’t know whether “involved” or not. I
27 did call Al Malnik.
2 been any day for the last couple of weeks. And I
3 called to inquire as to his wife’s health and the
4 prospect of delivery.
5 Q. Do you work for Mr. Malnik?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you been employed with Mr. -- by Mr.
8 Malnik in the past?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Mr. Malnik has never paid you for any
11 services --
12 A. No.
13 Q. -- is that your testimony?
14 A. That’s my testimony.
15 Q. Have you ever taken any directives from Mr.
16 Malnik concerning legal matters regarding Mr.
17 Jackson?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Why did you take directives from Mr. Malnik
20 concerning Mr. Jackson’s affairs?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 You may answer.
24 THE WITNESS: I was instructed by Mr.
25 Jackson to do so.
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And did Mr. Malnik work
27 for Mr. Jackson, as far as you knew?
2 A. I believe he was a friend and I believe he
3 was an attorney.
4 Q. Do you know if Mr. Malnik was retained by
5 Mr. Jackson as an attorney?
6 A. I did not see an engagement letter. I was
7 instructed by Mr. Jackson to submit all documents
8 that were to be signed by Mr. Jackson, they were to
9 be reviewed by Mr. Malnik before presentation to Mr.
10 Jackson. That instruction was given to Ronald
11 Konitzer and Dieter Weizner as well.
12 Q. Have you attended meetings with Mr. Malnik
13 and Mr. Jackson?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. On how many occasions?
16 A. Once for sure. There may have been a second
17 meeting during that same weekend, but I’m not sure.
18 But I know of one in particular. It was mid to late
19 March. Mr. Fishman and I flew to Florida. I think
20 that’s when. I’m not sure of the dates, though.
21 Q. And did Mr. Konitzer attend that meeting?
22 A. There were several meetings and Mr. -- there
23 were several meetings with myself and Mr. Malnik and
24 Mr. Konitzer attended one of those meetings.
25 Q. Was Mr. Jackson present?
26 A. I think so.
27 Q. Was Mr. Weizner present?
2 Q. Do you know what time in March that was?
3 A. Well, it was before the 28th. I think it
4 was a week to ten days before the 28th of March, but
5 I’m not sure exactly.
6 Q. Was it before your services were terminated
7 as Mr. Jackson’s attorney?
8 A. Yes. That’s why I know it’s before the
9 28th.
10 Q. And the purpose of that meeting was what?
11 A. To discuss the overall positions, to discuss
12 the -- to discuss how or whether we would continue
13 the various relationships, because Ronald was upset
14 with me for having pointed the finger at him with
15 respect to the $965,000.
16 We were attempting in that meeting to
17 construct a framework under which we would -- you
18 know, Ronald and Dieter would remain involved in --
19 as, you know, consultants, advisors to Mr. Jackson.
20 But Mr. Malnik essentially emerged, in my opinion,
21 as the primary person with Michael Jackson’s trust
22 and confidence for business decisions.
23 Q. Mr. Malnik was one of the people you had
24 investigated?
25 A. Yes, he is.
26 Q. So you were suspicious of him, too?
27 A. Yes.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You voiced those suspicions to Mr. Jackson
4 about Mr. Konitzer?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And Mr. Weizner?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Jackson’s
9 personal assistant, Evvy?
10 A. Yes. Primarily because Mr. Konitzer --
11 Q. There’s no question pending.
12 A. Oh. Sorry.
13 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Geragos?
14 A. Yes, I was.
15 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Jackson’s
16 attorney, Mr. Cochran’s associate, Zia Modabber?
17 A. Less so, but yes.
18 Q. Well, you had him investigated?
19 A. Less so, but yes.
20 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Gross, who
21 worked for Fred Haber, the foreign rights people,
22 Edgar Gross? Maybe I’m misstating that. Did you
23 have Edgar Gross investigated?
24 A. I don’t remember that name. Was it -- do
25 you mean -- I’m sorry, I don’t recall.
26 Q. You were suspicious about a Dr. Armen
27 Kazanchian?
2 long-standing business manager, Trudi Green?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. These people had really very little
5 connection with one another, did they? I mean, you
6 tell me. Did they have connection with one another?
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In effect, you had
10 investigated everybody who was within Michael
11 Jackson’s inner circle; isn’t that true?
12 A. I don’t know, because I don’t know your
13 definition of “inner circle.” I investigated
14 people that I viewed as being close to Michael or
15 having the potential to do harm to Michael as I saw
16 it at the time.
17 Q. And you were suspicious of them all,
18 correct?
19 A. Um, I was -- I was cautious. I was becoming
20 more cautious as time went on.
21 Q. Well, didn’t you testify that you had
22 everybody investigated that you found suspicious?
23 A. I’m not sure those were my exact words, sir.
24 Q. Well, was that true or not?
25 A. No. I did not have everybody investigated
26 whom I found suspicious. There were certainly
27 people who I had concerns about, but who did not
2 Q. But you had concerns about all these people.
3 Will you go that far?
4 A. Concerns about a lot of people.
5 Q. Okay. And as far as this $900,000, you
6 don’t know what that money was for, do you?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You don’t know if that money was owed to
9 Dieter and Ronald, do you?
10 A. No, I don’t. I never saw -- I never saw
11 evidence it was.
12 Q. Right. But you never saw any evidence
13 whatsoever about what that $900,000 was for, did
14 you?
15 A. No, I never saw evidence of it.
16 Q. You don’t know if Mr. Jackson knew about
17 that at the time or didn’t know about it at the
18 time, do you, at the time it was disbursed?
19 A. No, I didn’t.
20 Q. So you just pointed the finger with
21 virtually no evidence against these people because
22 of your suspicions; isn’t that fair to say?
23 A. I discussed the matter with Mr. Malnik, and
24 at his direction prepared the letter. He reviewed
25 the letter. So this was not my independent action.
26 Q. Well, if this was an embezzlement, wouldn’t
27 it be an incredibly lame attempt to embezzle money
2 embezzlers?
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would you agree with me
6 that it would be a very poor plan to embezzle money?
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would you agree with me
10 that there was never any attempt to conceal that
11 that money went from the trust account to Mr.
12 Weizner and Mr. Konitzer?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
14 evidence and foundation.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 You may answer. Do you want that question
17 read back?
18 THE WITNESS: I believe that --
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to --
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s cutting off
21 the witness, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Sustained. Let the witness
23 answer the question.
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
25 THE WITNESS: I believe that Mr. Konitzer
26 was unhappy that Mr. Finkelstein gave me that
27 accounting.
2 moneys went from that trust account to Mr. Weizner
3 and Mr. Konitzer; yes or no?
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and
5 misstates the evidence.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 You may answer.
8 THE WITNESS: I do not know -- I do not have
9 actual knowledge of an attempt to conceal those
10 disbursements.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Michael Jackson
12 Universe, MJ Universe, that was the plan that Ronald
13 and Dieter were working on with Mr. Jackson to
14 remake his image and career, correct?
15 A. I’m -- I’m not sure I agree with the
16 characterization, “remake his image and career.” It
17 was the business plan that Ronald and Dieter had put
18 forth.
19 Q. It was a promotional plan for Michael
20 Jackson, correct?
21 A. It involved elements of using Michael
22 Jackson’s trademarks, image and likeness to gain
23 revenue.
24 Q. Wouldn’t that be a promotional plan?
25 A. I’m not trying to be difficult. I just
26 don’t know what you mean by “a promotional plan.” I
27 mean, that’s all.
2 promote Mr. Jackson’s image and likeness, his name,
3 to sell products to make profit?
4 A. I certainly agree it was part of the plan to
5 use his image and likeness to sell products and make
6 profit.
7 Q. Was it also the idea of this plan, this new
8 enterprise, MJ Universe, to save Mr. Jackson from
9 impending financial ruin? Yes or no.
10 A. When the plan was first -- the first
11 development of the plan, none of us had knowledge of
12 Mr. Jackson’s financial affairs. So the plan was
13 developed in a context where we, that is, Mr.
14 Konitzer, and he expressed to me his belief that Mr.
15 Jackson had significant financial resources to call
16 upon. So the original plan was not about financial
17 ruin. It was developed before any of us knew of the
18 financial circumstances that ultimately were
19 disclosed to me in February of 2003.
20 Q. Is it true that the plan was designed to
21 make everyone, including Michael Jackson and
22 yourself, a lot of money?
23 A. The intent of the plan was to make money,
24 yes.
25 Q. One of the mechanisms for this plan was to
26 use the Internet as a platform; is that true?
27 A. Yes. There was a portion of the plan
2 everybody around Michael Jackson was interested in
3 profiting; is that accurate? That was your opinion?
4 A. Many people, yes.
5 Q. Did you see something wrong with that, with
6 people profiting who worked for Michael Jackson?
7 A. I see nothing wrong with people earning
8 appropriate income from providing services.
9 Q. And Michael Jackson Universe --
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. I don’t think the
11 witness has completed his response, Your Honor.
12 THE WITNESS: I got concerned about where it
13 appeared people wanted to have excessive amounts of
14 money in relation to their contribution.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. And this is
16 where some of your suspicions took off?
17 A. That’s where they were derived, yes.
18 Q. But as it turned out, you really didn’t know
19 where those funds were going, you’ve testified,
20 correct?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and
22 misstates the evidence.
23 THE COURT: Vague; sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: As far as this plan,
25 the idea or hope was to make hundreds of millions of
26 dollars, true?
27 A. That was the hope.
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
4 THE WITNESS: Whoops.
5 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,
6 “Yes.”
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Next question.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And Mr. Konitzer, from
10 your point of view, had a genuine interest in the
11 success of Michael Jackson, both for his own benefit
12 and for the benefit of Mr. Jackson; isn’t that fair
13 to say?
14 A. Yes. That’s -- I mean, that’s true. Mr.
15 Konitzer, I believe, was quite sincere in many
16 respects and there was no question that he saw the
17 opportunity for significant financial gain and that
18 that gain would -- the largest gain would come if
19 Mr. Jackson also realized a significant financial
20 benefit.
21 Q. If this plan took off, Mr. Konitzer had a
22 very legitimate hope of earning millions and
23 millions of dollars, true?
24 A. Yes. But I’ll also tell you that both Mr.
25 Malnik and I were very skeptical about Mr.
26 Konitzer’s plan.
27 Q. I understand that, but that’s not a question
2 between you, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Konitzer, that was the
3 reason for Michael Jackson Universe, correct?
4 A. The reason was to create profit, yes.
5 Q. So would you agree it doesn’t make much
6 sense for Mr. Konitzer to attempt to steal a few
7 hundred thousand dollars at the very beginning of
8 his relationship with Mr. Jackson?
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative;
10 foundation.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
13 Q. Your investigation of these various people
14 was designed to clean house again, wasn’t it? Do
15 you understand that question? Maybe I should start
16 over again.
17 You’re aware that Mr. Jackson had just
18 cleaned house, he just fired all the people he had
19 been working with for years, including some he
20 hadn’t worked with for very long?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation and
22 misstates the evidence.
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll simplify the
24 question.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You’re aware Mr.
27 Jackson had just cleaned house by firing a number of
2 A. No, I don’t think I did. What employees
3 were terminated?
4 Q. Well, people that worked for Mr. Jackson. I
5 don’t mean to quibble about semantics.
6 Mr. Branca was fired, correct?
7 A. I’m not aware he was ever an employee of Mr.
8 Jackson. I believe he’s an attorney who was
9 providing services to Mr. Jackson. Yes, his
10 services were terminated during this process.
11 Q. Are you saying that Mr. Branca was never
12 employed by Mr. Jackson in any fashion?
13 A. No, I’m saying he was not a W-2 statutory
14 employee, which is the sense in which I’m used to
15 using the term. I don’t mean to be difficult, but,
16 you know, this is -- my background is corporate law,
17 and “employee” means something very specific to me.
18 Q. Okay. When I’m asking questions, just so
19 you know, I’ll be asking them in the common lay
20 term, not in any technical sense. When I say
21 “employee,” I mean he worked for him, he was paid by
22 him.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative and
24 vague. Object to the colloquy.
25 THE COURT: Counsel, I don’t think you can
26 ask this person to accept your definitions. You
27 need to know how he defines various corporate terms.
2 THE COURT: And that be helpful to the jury,
3 I’m sure, if they knew that too. But you -- just as
4 an instruction from me --
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Sure.
6 THE COURT: -- you need to find out how he
7 defines them, not tell him how to define them.
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.
9 Q. All right. So you would agree with me that
10 Mr. Branca worked for Mr. Jackson, was paid for by
11 Mr. Jackson, correct? He received money from Mr.
12 Jackson for services, true?
13 A. I believe the Ziffren law firm received
14 compensation from Mr. Jackson for legal services,
15 yes.
16 Q. Do you think Mr. Branca ever received any of
17 those moneys for work that he performed?
18 A. I believe Mr. Branca was paid by his firm,
19 yes.
20 Q. All right. And Mr. Jackson (sic) was one of
21 the people he fired when he was cleaning house,
22 true?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As was Trudi Green?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Okay. So we went through the list. I don’t
27 need to go through it again.
2 report on Mr. Jackson’s inner circle, to become a
3 trusted associate of Mr. Jackson to the exclusion of
4 the people that you were having investigated?
5 A. I don’t believe that was my intent. It was
6 my intent to gain knowledge about the people who
7 were involved. For example, with respect to Mr.
8 Malnik, I had no intent to eliminate him from Mr.
9 Jackson’s circle.
10 I had much greater concerns about Mr.
11 Konitzer and Mr. Weizner than, say, for example, Mr.
12 Malnik. But at the same time, I felt it
13 appropriate, granted the history, to have greater
14 knowledge about these people. You know, there’s an
15 aphorism, knowledge is power. And I felt it
16 appropriate, and my colleagues, Mr. Joss, my
17 partner, Mr. Gibson, concurred in those iterations.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; nonresponsive.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He cut off the
20 witness.
21 THE COURT: Sustained. I’ll allow him to
22 complete the answer.
23 Do you want part of your answer read back,
24 so you know where you were, or --
25 THE WITNESS: Well, I’d just like to say
26 that I and my partner called for those
27 investigations. It was not simply my intent that
2 providing services to Mr. Jackson. And the decision
3 to have those investigations done was not my
4 unilateral decision.
5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You said, “knowledge is
6 power.” Wasn’t this an effort to obtain more power?
7 A. Absolutely, for Mr. Jackson to be empowered.
8 Q. Okay. Let’s -- let me ask you a couple of
9 questions, a couple of background questions. I
10 don’t think I finished inquiring about people you
11 may have talked to last night.
12 Did you talk to Mr. Mesereau at all between
13 the time that you took the stand today and the time
14 that you left the stand yesterday?
15 A. I’m not sure if -- he might have come in the
16 room and left, you know, 30 seconds. I’m -- I’m
17 sorry, I was upstairs in the room for a little bit.
18 I don’t remember. I don’t have -- I didn’t have any
19 substantive conversations if I did see him at that
20 time.
21 Q. Have you met Mr. Mesereau before?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On how many occasions?
24 A. Three, I think. Maybe four.
25 Q. Did you talk to him about your testimony in
26 this case?
27 A. We did not discuss my testimony in this
2 case?
3 A. I met with Mr. Mesereau, Mr. Cochran, a
4 number of lawyers when I was delivering files and
5 reviewed with them some of the contents of the boxes
6 of files.
7 Q. When did you deliver those files?
8 A. I’m sorry, I don’t know.
9 Q. Can you tell me --
10 A. It was 2004.
11 Q. Okay. 2004. Can you tell me if it was in
12 the beginning or towards the end of 2004?
13 A. It was by -- I know it was by mid-September,
14 by Labor Day weekend, that I had delivered the bulk
15 of the files. There’s been some bits and pieces
16 that have just -- you know, either were delivered to
17 me or were found, you know, in another file, because
18 I had people in Reno working that were delivered
19 later. But I’m pretty sure 90 percent of it was
20 delivered by Labor Day of 2004.
21 Q. Did you go through these files with Mr.
22 Mesereau and Mr. Cochran in any fashion?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was an investigator present?
25 A. I think so.
26 Q. Do you know Scott Ross?
27 A. Yes.
2 There was an investigator, but I thought it was
3 somebody different. I don’t know that I met Scott
4 before arriving here.
5 Q. Mr. Mason, perhaps?
6 A. Mason. That name’s familiar. I honestly
7 didn’t pay a lot of attention to the investigator.
8 Q. Okay. But there was an investigator there?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. And have you talked to any investigators
11 between the time you left the stand and the time you
12 took the stand this morning?
13 A. Yeah. Scott Ross took me back to my hotel
14 last night, and then took me to drop me off at the
15 mall so I could go get something to eat.
16 Q. And did you talk to Mr. Ross about anything
17 to do with this case?
18 A. We really didn’t discuss the case. We were
19 quite conscious that we -- or I was conscious that I
20 didn’t feel that was really appropriate.
21 Q. Okay. So that’s a “no,” you did not talk to
22 Scott Ross about anything about this case?
23 A. We didn’t talk about this case.
24 Q. All right. How about Mr. Castillo, did you
25 talk to him about this case at all?
26 A. Who?
27 Q. Jesus Castillo?
2 yesterday that you were aware of the “Home Movies”
3 production, the “Michael Jackson Home Movies”
4 production. True?
5 A. Is that the program that involved Chris
6 Tucker that was produced with FOX?
7 Q. I can’t answer questions.
8 A. I’m sorry, I’m not sure what --
9 Q. Weren’t there -- I’m sorry, go ahead.
10 A. I’m not sure what you mean by “Home Videos”
11 productions.
12 Q. Well, weren’t there documents in your files
13 regarding the “Home Movies” production involving
14 Michael Jackson?
15 A. I think so, yes. We had started -- we had
16 started a negotiation with FOX for some additional
17 production.
18 Q. And that production was also going to be run
19 through Fire Mountain; that was the plan, correct?
20 A. Yes, I think so.
21 Q. And was Mr. Schaffel going to work on that
22 one as well; do you know?
23 A. It was my goal to minimize the involvement
24 of Mr. Schaffel as much as possible. And I do not
25 know what I was -- I was terminated before that
26 really got rolling. That’s my recollection.
27 Q. Was your concern about Mr. Schaffel related
2 Q. Did you ever express a concern to Mr.
3 Jackson about Mr. Schaffel being associated with the
4 rebuttal video or the “Take 2” video because of his
5 background?
6 A. I’m not sure that I had a direct
7 conversation with Mr. Jackson about that or not. I
8 don’t know.
9 Q. And he was also one of the people that you
10 had investigated, true?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, as far as money goes, profiting
13 involving Mr. Jackson, isn’t it fair to say that
14 that was one of your goals here too, to make money
15 by being associated with Mr. Jackson?
16 A. My goal was to get paid for providing legal
17 services.
18 Q. Weren’t you very excited about becoming
19 Michael Jackson’s attorney?
20 A. It was exciting.
21 Q. You perceived it to be a means to make a
22 great deal of money, didn’t you, Mr. LeGrand?
23 A. Actually, I really didn’t know what it was
24 going to involve.
25 Q. But you had hopes that it would result in
26 something very good for David LeGrand, true?
27 A. I saw it as an opportunity to work in a
2 was exciting.
3 Q. Potential for wealth, true?
4 A. I don’t know about wealth. But certainly
5 gain.
6 Q. You won’t admit that it’s -- that there was
7 financial gain, that was one of your motives in
8 becoming Michael Jackson’s attorney? You disagree
9 with that?
10 A. All I wanted was to be paid for my hourly
11 work.
12 Q. And you wanted to do a lot of hourly work
13 for Michael Jackson, didn’t you?
14 A. As it turned out, I didn’t have much choice.
15 At least for a while.
16 Q. Would you answer my last question?
17 A. The hours ended up being considerable.
18 Q. And you wanted to do a lot of hourly
19 business with Michael Jackson, true? Can you answer
20 that “yes” or “no” for me, sir?
21 A. It’s very hard to answer “yes” or “no,”
22 because it really wasn’t formulated in my mind that
23 way.
24 Q. Mr. LeGrand, didn’t you communicate to Mr.
25 Konitzer that you were worried about getting paid
26 for your services and being first in line for money?
27 A. I was concerned about that, yes.
2 wanted to be paid?
3 A. Yes. And when we say “I,” my firm.
4 Q. Your firm.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That’s fair. And Mr. Konitzer asked you to
7 calm down about that, didn’t he?
8 A. Yes, he did.
9 Q. And he said, “Don’t worry, you’ll be first
10 in line,” true?
11 A. Yes, he did.
12 Q. And he did that through e-mail, correct?
13 A. He also said it to me.
14 Q. And you did a considerable amount of
15 communication with Mr. Konitzer through e-mail,
16 e-mails, true?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if your file is complete, then all of
19 those e-mails should be in it, shouldn’t they?
20 A. If you mean that a file comprising the
21 totality of my work involving Mr. Jackson would
22 include the e-mails to Ronald Konitzer, the answer
23 is yes.
24 Q. And my last question was, if your file that
25 you turned over did not include e-mails such as
26 that, it would not be complete, true?
27 A. I -- I think that follows logically.
2 and Mr. Cochran?
3 A. I don’t remember removing any e-mails. I
4 don’t remember removing any documents from the
5 files.
6 Q. You can conceive of it, though?
7 A. No, I really didn’t even personally prepare
8 the files. Staff did. I -- I really wasn’t
9 directly involved in the file production process.
10 Q. Is (702) 222-2520 the direct line to your
11 office at Hale Lane?
12 A. Yes, it was.
13 Q. Did you have a cell phone at that time?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what was that number?
16 A. (702) 218-6736.
17 Q. At some point in time, Mr. Geragos came into
18 the picture. Do you remember when that was?
19 A. First week of February 2003.
20 Q. Is that when you first met Mark Geragos?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And Mr. Geragos is a criminal attorney?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And who introduced you to Mr. Geragos?
25 A. I believe it was Ronald Konitzer who
26 selected Mr. Geragos to be interviewed.
27 Q. Was there an interviewing process going on
2 Q. And can you explain why -- well, let me back
3 up.
4 Was it perceived that some criminal conduct
5 might be alleged against Michael Jackson at that
6 time, and therefore a criminal attorney should be
7 retained?
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
9 relevance.
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, what was the
12 question?
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll ask to have it read
14 back.
15 THE COURT: I’ll have the court reporter
16 read it.
17 (Record read.)
18 THE WITNESS: The press outcry was such
19 that -- and the calls for investigation, calls for
20 removal of his children were such that I and the
21 other lawyers agreed it was appropriate to have a
22 criminal attorney in California to address any
23 possibilities of that kind.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. So the answer to
25 that question would be “yes”?
26 A. I think I’ve answered it.
27 Q. My question is, so the answer to that
2 criminal investigation resulting from the video, the
3 Bashir video. There were people, you know, calling
4 for investigation.
5 Q. Who -- well, let me phrase that differently.
6 Who was in charge in terms of the legal
7 advice provided to Mr. Jackson at that time? We’re
8 talking about the beginning of February. You?
9 Mr. Geragos? Who was running the show there?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.
13 Q. What exactly was Mr. Geragos -- do you know
14 what Mr. Geragos was tasked with at the time he was
15 retained, what he was asked to do?
16 A. I know that we asked him to attempt to
17 ascertain if any criminal investigation had been
18 commenced, and if there was any child custody
19 removal efforts being commenced.
20 Q. That would be a family law matter, wouldn’t
21 it?
22 A. I guess it’s more family than criminal, yes.
23 Q. Do you know who Brad Miller is?
24 A. I believe he’s an investigator that works or
25 worked -- was engaged by Mr. Geragos’s firm.
26 Q. Did you ever meet Brad Miller?
27 A. You know, I don’t know. I might have.
2 Q. Did you meet with Mr. Geragos in his office?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. More than once?
5 A. I think so, yes.
6 Q. How many times did you meet with Mr.
7 Geragos, either in his office or elsewhere?
8 A. Maybe four or five times.
9 Q. Four or five times?
10 A. I think so.
11 Q. Did you ever communicate with Mr. Geragos by
12 e-mail?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know where those e-mails are?
15 A. Not specifically, no.
16 Q. Did you give those e-mails to Mr. Mesereau
17 and Mr. Cochran?
18 A. I think so.
19 Q. Did you ever talk to Brad Miller on the
20 phone?
21 A. I don’t know. It’s possible.
22 Q. Do you know what Brad Miller was retained by
23 Mr. Geragos to do?
24 A. Not really. I know that it had to do with
25 the Arvizos, but I really don’t know in detail what
26 Brad Miller was asked to do.
27 Q. Do you know who Asaf Vilchic is?
2 A. I don’t think I’ve heard that name before.
3 Q. I’m going to have trouble with this next
4 one. Can you tell me if you’ve heard of the name
5 Johnny Majetich, something of that nature?
6 A. That name does not ring any bells, sir.
7 Q. Have you ever heard of a private
8 investigator referred to as “Johnny in the Sky”?
9 A. No, sir. I don’t think so. It’s the sort
10 of thing one might remember, but I don’t have a
11 recollection of that one.
12 Q. Okay. Now, I want to come back to this
13 rebuttal film or the “Take 2” video.
14 You participated in getting or I should say
15 preparing releases for the entire Arvizo family,
16 correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And who asked you to do that? Maybe I’m
19 making an assumption there. Did you do that on your
20 own or did somebody else ask you to do it?
21 A. I don’t really know. I know it needed to be
22 done, but I’m not sure whether it was, you know,
23 Lachman Productions, Marc Schaffel, or who it was.
24 The consents and releases started with Debbie Rowe,
25 and then we just started thinking, “Oh, well, we
26 need releases for everybody that might be in this
27 video.” I prepared a release for Hamid as well.
2 A. I don’t know.
3 Q. Okay. But you knew that the plan was to
4 have the Arvizo family filmed for the “Take 2”
5 video, correct?
6 A. I knew there was a desire to have some
7 footage of the Arvizo family for possible inclusion
8 in the “Take 2” video, yes.
9 Q. And that was the reason why these consent
10 forms were prepared?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you sent those consent forms to Ann
13 Gabriel, true?
14 A. I don’t know. I might have.
15 Q. Did you send a consent form to Ann Gabriel
16 and ask her to put “Gabriel Media” on the top of it?
17 A. I don’t -- I don’t remember. It’s possible,
18 but I don’t remember that.
19 Q. If it’s possible, can you tell me why that
20 would have happened?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; unintelligible.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, you admit it’s
24 possible.
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for
26 speculation.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 Q. Okay. Can you tell me if you can envision a
3 reason why you would send a consent form to Ann
4 Gabriel and ask her to put “Gabriel Media” on the
5 top of it?
6 A. I really don’t know today. We were moving
7 quick on a lot of things, and it, you know, if it
8 happened, may have seemed like a good idea at the
9 time, but I really don’t know why in retrospect. It
10 could have been that I was trying to give Ann, you
11 know, a bit of a role. It --
12 Q. Did you send consent forms to Neverland
13 Valley Ranch by way of fax for the Arvizo family?
14 A. I think so, yes.
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may approach, Your
16 Honor.
17 Q. Mr. LeGrand, I show you People’s Exhibit No.
18 263. It appears to be one, two, three -- five, six,
19 seven, eight -- nine separate pages. Would you look
20 at that for me, please, and identify it if you can.
21 A. This appears to be a fax from Hale Lane to
22 Joe Marcus at Neverland Valley Ranch containing
23 appearance consents and releases for various members
24 of the Arvizo family.
25 Q. Did you prepare those consent and release
26 forms?
27 A. I think my associate, Ann-Marie Levy, did.
2 Q. Is that the consent and release form that
3 you wrote or prepared?
4 A. Well, I directed the preparation. It
5 appears -- the language looks familiar.
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, at this time
7 I’d move into evidence People’s Exhibit 263. I’ll
8 show it to counsel.
9 MR. MESEREAU: No objection.
10 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. LeGrand, at the top
12 of those consent and release forms is the logo for
13 MJJ Productions, correct?
14 A. On some of them, yes.
15 Q. Did you place that logo there? Did you
16 direct, I should say, the placement of that logo at
17 the top of those appearance consent and release
18 forms?
19 A. I don’t believe I did. I have no
20 recollection of so instructing.
21 Q. And then at the back, a couple of pages,
22 that logo appears to have been removed. Did you
23 direct that appearance consent and release forms for
24 the Arvizos be provided without the MJJ Productions
25 logo?
26 A. I don’t recall instructing that they be
27 presented in one form or the other.
2 it, true?
3 A. If the files of my firm were complete, it
4 should be in there.
5 Q. And if it wasn’t in your file, can you
6 explain that?
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; calls
8 for speculation.
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 You may answer.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I can’t explain it. That
12 portion of the file was kept by Ann-Marie Levy. She
13 was subsequently -- her services at my firm were
14 later terminated.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is there any reason why
16 Ann-Marie Levy would go through the files and remove
17 those documents, as far as you know?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you also send the same consent forms to
20 Hamid Moslehi?
21 A. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure that my firm
22 sent appearance and consent forms to Hamid Moslehi,
23 but I don’t know exactly when or if they were
24 absolutely identical. But -- because I’m not sure
25 we knew where the Arvizos were in order to get the
26 documents executed, and since Hamid was supposed to
27 do the videography, it would not surprise me that we
2 different, weren’t they? They weren’t the same as
3 the ones you sent to Neverland, correct?
4 A. I don’t know.
5 Q. But you agree that your associate sent those
6 to Hamid at your direction?
7 A. I don’t recall making that instruction
8 today.
9 Q. Would you agree that your associate would
10 not send those to Hamid on her own without some
11 direction from you?
12 A. I -- it’s certainly possible that she would
13 have. I mean, she can have been instructed by Mr.
14 Konitzer directly to do so. It’s possible she would
15 have sent them or that she would have interpreted my
16 instruction to prepare and get the consents out as,
17 you know, a broad mandate.
18 THE COURT: Let’s take a break.
19 (Recess taken.)
20 --o0o--
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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 10149 through 10187
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 13, 2005, and thereafter
20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided
21 transcription under my direction.
22 DATED: Santa Maria, California,
23 May 13, 2005.
24
25
26
27 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304
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 13, 2005
20
21 8:30 A.M.
22
23 (PAGES 10189 THROUGH 10362)
24
25
26
27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304
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
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 LEGRAND, David G. 10207-M 10232-A
12
13 10240-M 10241-A (Further) (Further)
14
15 10242-M (Further)
16
17 GERAGOS, Mark 10248-M 10288-Z
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28 10191
2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.
3
4 899 Letter from David LeGrand to Barry Siegel 10193 10194
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
2 short period.
3 If I may approach, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: You may.
5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. First of
6 all, Mr. LeGrand, I show you People’s Exhibit No.
7 899. Can you identify that for me, please?
8 A. Yes. This is a letter I prepared for Mr.
9 Jackson’s signature directed to Barry Siegel.
10 Q. Okay. And that was a letter turning over
11 the financial reins to you for Mr. Jackson’s
12 concerns involving Provident Financial Management;
13 is that correct?
14 A. I believe the document speaks for itself.
15 It states in one relevant paragraph that, “Mr.
16 LeGrand is engaging a new management company to
17 serve my interests, and you are specifically
18 authorized and instructed to transfer any available
19 funds you are holding on my behalf or for any of my
20 businesses to such management company or Mr.
21 LeGrand’s trust account pursuant to Mr. LeGrand and
22 Miss Brandt’s instructions.”
23 Q. Okay. Is that Michael Jackson’s signature
24 at the bottom of that document?
25 A. Yes, it is.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Move to admit People’s
27 Exhibit No. 899 into evidence.
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Showing you
3 the People’s Exhibit -- the 400 series. Didn’t mean
4 to scare you.
5 Okay. Beginning with Exhibit No. 406, it
6 appears to be a Hale Lane fax transmittal sheet on
7 the front page. Can you identify that document for
8 me, please?
9 A. This appears to be the transmittal between
10 myself and Marisa Fermin of the final agreement for
11 the “Take 2.”
12 Q. And that agreement calls for Fire Mountain
13 to receive three million dollars on behalf of Mr.
14 Jackson; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And did you send that document to Miss
17 Fermin at FOX?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Move to admit
20 People’s Exhibit 406 into evidence at this time.
21 MR. MESEREAU: No objection.
22 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Showing you People’s
24 Exhibit 412, can you identify that for me, please?
25 A. This appears to be a transmittal from Hale
26 Lane to Hamid Moslehi containing some appearance
27 consents and a -- yeah. Containing appearance
2 Q. Did you send that fax transmittal with
3 accompanying documents to Hamid at (818) 224-4664
4 on -- I’m sorry -- February 10th, 2003?
5 A. Based on these documents, yes.
6 Q. And the first document that appears in that
7 group after the fax sheet is entitled “Gabriel
8 Media, Incorporated. Appearance Consent and
9 Release.” Did you send that document to Hamid
10 Moslehi?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you explain to me why the document is
13 entitled “Gabriel Media, Incorporated”?
14 A. Not today, no. I don’t remember.
15 And the second document has that whited out,
16 and it has a --
17 Q. There’s no question pending.
18 A. Oh. Sorry.
19 Q. I’m just asking about the first document.
20 A. No. I don’t know why.
21 Q. But you admit that you did send that to
22 Mr. Moslehi?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And Gabriel Media had nothing to do with
25 this production, did they?
26 A. I’m not sure I can say “nothing” to do with
27 this production. At the time, I believe Miss
2 Q. But can you -- go ahead.
3 A. I really don’t remember today why this
4 document had her company’s title on it.
5 Q. There’s no reason for that, is there?
6 A. I -- I don’t know of the reason for it. I
7 don’t remember. I’m sure there was at the time, but
8 I don’t remember it today.
9 Q. Was the reason “Gabriel Media, Incorporated”
10 appears on that appearance consent and release form
11 intended to distance you and Michael Jackson from
12 these consent and release forms?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative; no
14 foundation.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 You may answer.
17 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember what the
18 intent was.
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Let’s move on.
20 THE COURT: I want to ask a question.
21 The Exhibit 406, previously I admitted a
22 portion and not admitted a portion, and then he
23 offered it a minute ago and there was no objection.
24 But I just wanted to bring your attention to my
25 previous ruling.
26 MR. SANGER: Can we have just a moment?
27 THE COURT: Yes.
2 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I thought they
3 were complete documents, the ones I saw. Could we
4 hold off a ruling and discuss them?
5 THE COURT: All right.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: All right. I’ll hold off on
8 that.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Showing you page seven
10 of Exhibit No. 413, it also appears to be a Hale
11 Lane facsimile transmittal sheet. Can you identify
12 that for me, please?
13 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’m sorry, could we
14 just have that back? Page seven of what exhibit?
15 THE COURT: 4-1-3.
16 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: This is a fax from Hale Lane
18 to Vincent at MJJ Productions of some model releases
19 for the Arvizos; for Gavin, Star, and Janet.
20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you send a fax
21 transmittal to -- and we should say, for the record,
22 that you’re looking through -- you’ve removed the
23 document from its sleeve and there appears to be
24 several appearance and consent release forms that
25 are paper-clipped together.
26 A. I’m sorry, these are different documents
27 with different dates. The paper-clipped transmittal
2 earlier to Neverland.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Whereas these documents that are attached --
5 that are in this folder that I just referenced are
6 dated February 21. And I don’t know when they were
7 sent or how.
8 Q. Okay. Let’s talk about that. And why don’t
9 we keep this out for a moment.
10 A. Oh. Sure.
11 Q. The first document is dated February 17th,
12 2003, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it indicates a number of pages with
15 cover of nine; is that true?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But there’s only one, two, three, four,
18 five -- six pages paper-clipped together with this.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Now, did you direct that this
21 document, either with or without nine pages, was to
22 be sent to Vincent at MJJ Productions at (818)
23 224-4664 on February 17th, 2003?
24 A. Yes, I did so direct.
25 Q. Who is Vincent?
26 A. I think his name is Vincent Amen.
27 Q. Have you ever talked to him?
2 Q. Have you ever met Mr. Amen?
3 A. I don’t recall.
4 Q. And was your intent to send those forms to
5 Mr. Amen at that number so that he could get the
6 Arvizos to sign consent and release forms for the
7 “Take 2” video?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, moving on to the next form, page, I
10 guess what we would consider page eight of that same
11 exhibit number, 403. Let me double-check that.
12 413, I’m sorry.
13 Calling your attention to page eight, is the
14 language of that model release language that you
15 cleared for use in that consent form?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have a discussion with Vincent Amen
18 at 12 -- looks like 12:57 a.m. in the early morning
19 hours of February 21, ‘03?
20 A. I think so. I just don’t remember if it was
21 Vincent Amen. But I had -- I think I mentioned in
22 my testimony yesterday that I had one evening a --
23 late in the evening I had a conversation about the
24 Arvizo releases.
25 Q. Okay. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
26 I’m showing you People’s Exhibit 807. Have
27 you ever seen that exhibit before?
2 A. This is a document authorizing Theodore
3 Goddard to file, it says, “...this complaint on
4 behalf of my son Gavin Arvizo.”
5 Q. Was that a document that you had in your
6 file at Hale Lane for Michael Jackson?
7 A. I don’t know.
8 Q. Where have you seen that document before?
9 A. It was filed with the -- well, I don’t know.
10 I’m sorry, let me back up.
11 It was submitted to the law firm in the UK
12 of Theodore Goddard as support for their
13 authorization to file the complaint I referenced
14 with the British Broadcasting Standards Board.
15 Q. Based on your training and experience, does
16 that document look like it was prepared by an
17 attorney?
18 A. Well, it looks like it was prepared by
19 somebody who had legal knowledge.
20 Q. Is that the type of document you would
21 prepare for a release of that nature?
22 A. I don’t know if I prepared this or not. I
23 remember discussing this matter, and I remember
24 talking to, I believe it’s Ronald Konitzer, who was
25 in Florida at the time, regarding the need to have
26 the authorization for the Broadcasting Standards
27 Board complaint.
2 signature?
3 A. Yes, I am aware that Mr. Dickerman made that
4 statement.
5 Q. And were you present when this document was
6 signed?
7 A. I don’t believe so, no.
8 Q. And where did you get this document from, or
9 a copy of it from?
10 A. I’m not sure. I believe Mr. Konitzer
11 delivered this document to me. But I -- but I’m not
12 sure.
13 Q. I’m showing you People’s Exhibit 811. It
14 appears to be four pages, if you’d leaf through it.
15 Have you ever seen Exhibit 811 before?
16 A. Well, Exhibit 811 is a signed version of
17 these other documents that are -- have the February
18 21, ‘03, date on them that were faxed under the --
19 well, I’m not sure they were faxed or not under
20 that. But anyway, yes, I’ve seen these before, but
21 I don’t remember particularly seeing the signed
22 ones.
23 Q. Okay. Did you have copies of these signed
24 model releases in your file for Michael Jackson?
25 A. I don’t know if I did or didn’t. I
26 really -- Ann-Marie was responsible for the release
27 forms.
2 first consent forms were sent by you to Neverland
3 Valley Ranch to have the Arvizos sign them, correct?
4 That was the first time that you attempted
5 to get consent forms signed by the Arvizos, true?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And they didn’t sign them, did they?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you informed of why the Arvizos did not
10 sign those consent forms to be sent to Neverland
11 Valley Ranch?
12 A. The conversation I had, which -- based on
13 what you’ve presented, I believe --
14 Q. I’m sorry. That’s a “yes” or “no” question
15 first.
16 A. I’m sorry, what was the question?
17 Q. I just want to know if you were informed of
18 why those consent forms were not signed.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who did you receive that information from?
21 A. Based on what you’ve just reviewed with me,
22 I think it was Vincent Amen.
23 Q. All right. And what did Vincent Amen tell
24 you about that?
25 Well, let me back up. Did Vincent Amen tell
26 you that the Arvizos did not want to sign those
27 forms?
2 Moslehi, identical forms, except for some minor
3 changes. I think the “MJJ Productions” is removed.
4 Is that fair to say?
5 A. The body of the consents are the same. I’m
6 not sure -- we’ve looked at a number of these now.
7 I’m not sure -- did we send -- I’m not sure whether
8 the ones that went to Hamid were particularly for
9 the Arvizos or whether they were general forms.
10 Q. Would you like to see them again?
11 A. Yeah, if I could. I’m getting a little
12 confused.
13 Q. Again, I’m just showing you People’s Exhibit
14 412.
15 A. Yeah, these do not have the names of
16 individual people typed in to the body of the
17 document, so they are similar in form and substance,
18 but they are different.
19 Q. Okay. And was it your intent to have Hamid
20 obtain signatures from the Arvizo family on those
21 forms?
22 A. I don’t recall that I had any specific
23 intent with respect to the Arvizos in transmitting
24 those to Hamid. It was certainly my intent to have
25 Hamid further assure that we had consents from
26 anybody appearing in the video.
27 Q. All right. And then is the exhibit that I
2 A. I’m sorry, I have not been well.
3 Q. This is the exhibit that was removed from
4 the sleeve. I’ll put it back in. That will
5 necessitate me finding the missing sleeve.
6 Okay. Here it is. Well, I’ll ask my friend
7 Mr. Zonen to find the sleeve for that.
8 Q. The exhibit that was to Vincent at MJJ
9 Productions dated February 17th, 2003, that one was
10 specifically sent to have the Arvizos sign, correct?
11 A. Yes. The body of the document included
12 names of the individual members of the Arvizo
13 family.
14 Q. And the Arvizos did not sign those forms
15 either, did they?
16 A. No.
17 Q. And in the early morning hours, you received
18 a phone call several days later that the Arvizos
19 were still refusing to sign these consent forms, did
20 you not?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. From whom?
23 A. Again, based on what you’ve presented, I
24 believe it was Vincent Amen.
25 Q. And you revised the release form to the
26 state that we find in People’s Exhibit 811, which
27 has signatures on it; is that correct?
2 from your files on Michael Jackson?
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
4 relevance.
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 You may answer.
7 THE WITNESS: I don’t think so.
8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Can you tell me where
9 the e-mails are for that file?
10 A. As far as I know, they’re in the Hale Lane
11 computer system. And to the best of my
12 recollection, there was a CD-rom prepared and
13 delivered to the Katten Muchin law firm.
14 Q. Can you tell me where your personal notes
15 are regarding your communications with Michael
16 Jackson regarding that period of time of
17 representation for Mr. Jackson that should be in
18 that file?
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative;
20 misstates the evidence.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Can you tell me where
23 your personal notes of Michael Jackson -- involving
24 communications with Michael Jackson during this
25 period of time, early part of 2003, can you tell me
26 where those are?
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
2 You may answer.
3 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure today.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You stated that you
5 thought the Martin Bashir film was a hatchet job.
6 Did you ever say in an e-mail that, “Ronald
7 had nothing to do with this. The man did the
8 interview himself. Not good”? Did you ever say
9 that?
10 A. I don’t remember that. It’s certainly
11 possible.
12 Q. If I show you a copy of that e-mail, would
13 that refresh your recollection?
14 A. It might.
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I approach?
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I did say that.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. LeGrand, concerning
18 your files in this case, did you ever indicate that
19 you would, “Walk away as soon as I plug a few
20 document holes”?
21 A. I may have. There were some corporate
22 paperwork pieces that needed to get finished that I
23 had -- you know, that I had the knowledge of that we
24 just hadn’t had time to finish everything that
25 needed -- that should have been done, in my opinion,
26 so I wanted to complete some of that paperwork.
27 Q. Did you ever say, “I am cleaning up
2 they ever need to be defended”?
3 A. Could be. Again, there were resolutions,
4 there was some corporate paperwork that was no way a
5 fabrication that would reflect the events as they
6 occurred that, you know, should have been done.
7 Q. Did “cleaning up the documents” in this case
8 include destruction of documents, Mr. LeGrand?
9 A. No.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I have no further
11 questions.
12 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
13
14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. MESEREAU:
16 Q. Mr. LeGrand, do you have the exhibit book in
17 front of you that you had yesterday?
18 A. No, sir.
19 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor,
20 and --
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Oh. Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. LeGrand, isn’t it true the District
24 Attorney’s Office never subpoenaed documents from
25 you?
26 A. That’s correct.
27 Q. Isn’t it true that Prosecutor Auchincloss
2 A. That’s correct.
3 Q. Isn’t it true that Prosecutor Sneddon never
4 called you at any time and said, “Could we please
5 have your files?”
6 A. That’s correct.
7 Q. Isn’t it true Prosecutor Zonen never called
8 you at any time and said, “Mr. LeGrand, could we
9 just take a look at your files?”
10 A. That’s correct.
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Isn’t it true that no
14 representative of the Santa Barbara sheriffs ever
15 called your office and said, “Mr. LeGrand, please
16 give us your e-mails”?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Nobody associated with the prosecution has
19 ever called you or your firm and said, “Please let
20 us see your files,” right?
21 A. That’s true.
22 Q. Now, Mr. LeGrand, the prosecutor asked you
23 some questions about you and your partners’ efforts
24 to investigate people who were around Michael
25 Jackson, right?
26 A. Yes.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
2 you questions about an attorney named John Branca,
3 right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At the time you began an investigation into
6 some of the people around Mr. Jackson that you were
7 concerned about, one of the people you investigated
8 was Mr. Branca, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And to your knowledge at
13 the time, Mr. Branca had been an attorney in Los
14 Angeles doing music work for Mr. Jackson, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You yourself, as you’ve indicated yesterday,
17 were not a specialist in music law, right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. Mr. Branca purportedly was, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, you answered some questions yesterday
22 about the Sony/ATV catalog. Remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the Sony/ATV catalog was owned 50/50 by
25 Sony and Michael Jackson, correct?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 and Sony would have business discussions about their
3 respective ownership interests in the catalog,
4 right?
5 A. I was never privy to those discussions. It
6 would certainly seem that they would occur, but I
7 don’t have actual knowledge of that.
8 Q. But you were aware that negotiations went on
9 from time to time between representatives of Michael
10 Jackson and representatives of Sony about their
11 respective interests in that music catalog, right?
12 A. Well, absolutely, yes, because I obtained
13 files from the Ziffren law firm evidencing the
14 Ziffren law firm and Mr. Branca’s representing Mr.
15 Jackson in just such discussions over a period of
16 time.
17 Q. And just to clarify, Mr. Branca was a
18 partner at the Ziffren law firm in Los Angeles,
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That firm also represented Sony, correct?
22 A. I believe the answer is correct. Yes.
23 Q. And you were concerned that Mr. Branca and
24 that law firm might not be representing Mr.
25 Jackson’s interests properly because of their
26 connection to Sony, correct?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
2 Branca because you were concerned that he and Sony
3 had set up an offshore account to funnel money to so
4 they could defraud Michael Jackson?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you investigate
8 Mr. Branca?
9 A. I requested -- well, let me back up.
10 After consultation with my partner, Mr.
11 Gibson, and discussion with I believe Mr. Joss at
12 Paul Hastings, Mr. Gibson and I instructed the firm
13 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca, because Mr.
14 Konitzer had indicated in several conversations that
15 he was very concerned about Mr. Branca and that Mr.
16 Jackson had expressed concern about Mr. Branca’s
17 loyalty.
18 Also, there was -- Mr. Schaffel related
19 information that also was negative of Mr. Branca.
20 So we made collectively the decision to ask Interfor
21 to further the background investigation, to conduct
22 investigation into Mr. Branca.
23 Q. But at the time, Konitzer didn’t know that
24 you were also investigating him, right?
25 A. That’s correct.
26 Q. At the time, Schaffel didn’t know you were
27 also investigating Schaffel, right?
2 also investigating Weizner, right?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
4 foundation.
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 THE WITNESS: That’s correct. We did not
7 inform them of the scope of -- the full scope of
8 Interfor’s actions at our request.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you also investigated
10 somebody named Tommy Motolla, correct?
11 A. I’m not sure that’s correct.
12 Q. Do you recall asking Interfor to do some
13 investigation into an offshore bank account?
14 A. It’s kind of the other way around. We asked
15 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca. They indicated
16 to us that --
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object based
18 on hearsay.
19 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of
22 mind when you investigated the possibility that an
23 offshore account had been formed by various people
24 to defraud Michael Jackson?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as
26 leading.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 offshore bank account?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you investigate the
6 existence of an offshore bank account?
7 A. We requested Interfor to look into that
8 possibility, yes.
9 Q. Why?
10 A. Because there was a --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object based on
12 hearsay.
13 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind.
14 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
15 You may complete your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Because we had -- we, the
17 lawyers, had been given information from a source
18 that appeared to have some credibility that such an
19 account existed.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And why did you want to
21 investigate that account?
22 A. Be -- well, to me, that’s kind of obvious.
23 But if, in fact, there was an offshore account in
24 which money was being deposited for the benefit of
25 Mr. Branca or others, that would indicate very
26 serious violations of Mr. Branca’s responsibilities
27 to Mr. Jackson.
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
3 opinion; leading.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did your investigation
6 involve anyone you thought was involved in
7 transferring money to that bank account?
8 A. The best way I can answer that is to say we
9 asked the investigators to do as complete a job as
10 they could with the financial resources we had
11 available for them. And I didn’t delineate who they
12 should or shouldn’t look into with respect to such
13 an account.
14 Q. But at your direction, they looked into the
15 existence of that account, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it was your direction that they look
18 into that account because you were concerned that
19 Michael Jackson’s attorney and Sony were putting
20 money in that account so Mr. Jackson’s lawyer would
21 essentially sell him out, right?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
23 argumentative.
24 THE COURT: Sustained; foundation.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where was the offshore
26 account, if you know?
27 A. I’m sorry, I don’t recall. I believe it was
2 enough to establish that, in fact, this lawyer was a
3 signatory on that account?
4 A. I don’t believe so, no.
5 Q. But the investigation did indicate he was
6 somehow involved in the account, correct?
7 A. The investigator’s report so indicated.
8 Q. And the investigator’s report indicated it
9 appeared that Sony was involved in that account,
10 right?
11 A. The investigator’s report indicated that
12 Sony had transferred money to the account.
13 Q. Sony had transferred money to that account
14 for the benefit of Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, right?
15 A. That’s what was indicated in the report.
16 It -- I need to be very clear here that that
17 was not verified, with a reasonable degree of
18 certainty, that I would have acted upon that
19 information. And Mr. Branca’s a fine lawyer. And,
20 you know, there is no -- I have no proof of these
21 statements.
22 Q. You investigated Mr. Branca because, in your
23 words, you thought he was involved in self-dealing,
24 right?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
26 opinion; no foundation; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 other lawyers, and we collectively made a decision
3 to -- that it was prudent to have our investigator
4 look into the possibility of such actions being
5 taken by Mr. Branca.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were concerned that
7 all of the individuals you investigated were
8 involved in self-dealing, right?
9 A. No. That’s not right. For example, I did
10 not suspect Mr. Malnik of self-dealing in any way.
11 Q. Then why did you have an entirely separate
12 and more comprehensive investigation done of Mr.
13 Malnik?
14 A. I had done an Internet search on Mr. Malnik
15 before I met him. That Internet search indicated
16 that he had ties to organized crime; that he was
17 rumored to be the, you know, quote, heir of Meyer
18 Lansky.
19 There were, you know, sufficient clouds in
20 the public record of Mr. Malnik’s past that, again,
21 we, the lawyers, made a collective decision that it
22 was prudent to further investigate Mr. Malnik. We
23 did not know who he was. And he was becoming a more
24 and more powerful figure in Michael Jackson’s life.
25 Q. Did you at any point determine that Malnik
26 had ties with Sony?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not
3 Mr. Malnik has ever had a position with the Sony
4 corporation?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same
6 objection. Add relevancy.
7 THE COURT: Relevancy, sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you did your
9 investigation, you and your partner, both former
10 prosecutors, were you concerned about Mr. Malnik’s
11 relationship with Sony?
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: I really don’t recall that we
15 had any concern over Mr. Malnik’s relationship with
16 Sony. In fact, I’m not aware that he had a
17 significant relationship with Sony.
18 Our concern about Mr. Malnik was simply
19 based upon the, you know, public records indicating
20 these, you know, vague relationships to criminal
21 figures. And those -- you know, those are all long
22 in the past, but still, you know, in the public
23 domain.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you were concerned
25 that all of these characters were trying to steal
26 money and take advantage of Michael Jackson, right?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you and Prosecutor
3 Auchincloss ever had a discussion about this
4 investigation that you and your partner began?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Has Mr. Auchincloss ever tried to approach
7 you to find out why you were investigating all of
8 these people while you were Mr. Jackson’s lawyer?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Isn’t it true that you were trying to
11 investigate offshore accounts owned by Branca and
12 someone named Tommy Motolla?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who was Tommy Motolla?
15 A. He was a very powerful figure in the record
16 industry at one time. I believe he was the
17 president of the Sony Entertainment Division in the
18 U.S. I’m not sure of his exact title or position.
19 Q. Were you concerned that Tommy Motolla and
20 Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, John Branca, were working
21 together to defraud Michael Jackson?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
23 assumes facts; leading.
24 THE COURT: You may answer.
25 THE WITNESS: Based on the suspicions that
26 were expressed to me and my partner, we asked
27 Interfor to look into these rumors.
2 A. I’m not sure. Six, seven, eight maybe.
3 Q. But you had never investigated Konitzer
4 before you started this investigation, right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Even though you knew Konitzer all those
7 years, you had never hired an investigative firm to
8 check out his background, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. You were concerned that Konitzer was engaged
11 in self-dealing at the expense of Michael Jackson,
12 true?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
15 improper opinion.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I think the prosecutor’s gone
17 through all this, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
19 THE WITNESS: My answer is yes, I was
20 concerned.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were also concerned
22 that Dieter Weizner was engaging in self-dealing at
23 the expense of Michael Jackson, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You were -- you asked for an investigation
26 into Konitzer’s background in Canada, right?
27 A. Canada and Germany, yes.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you ever met Tommy Motolla?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Ever spoken to him?
6 A. No.
7 Q. To your knowledge, did Al Malnik have any
8 relationship with Tommy Motolla?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. Did you ever talk to him about that?
11 A. I don’t believe I ever talked to Al about
12 whether or not he knew or had met Tommy Motolla.
13 Q. Was it your belief when you started this
14 investigation that Al Malnik, Tommy Motolla, John
15 Branca and people at Sony were trying to find a way
16 to get Mr. Jackson’s interest in that music catalog?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
18 leading; relevancy.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure that I would
22 include Al Malnik in that group, but I certainly was
23 concerned that Branca and Motolla, in particular,
24 had set the stage, so to speak, for Sony to be able
25 to obtain Michael’s interest in the Sony/ATV joint
26 venture.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And as a former prosecutor
2 firm to do was to investigate these people to
3 protect Mr. Jackson as best you could, right?
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to the
5 prefatory remarks as argumentative.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 You may answer.
8 THE WITNESS: The investigation was one of
9 the tools we employed to try to be effective in
10 representing our client’s interest.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In response to Prosecutor
12 Auchincloss’s questions, you said you wanted --
13 excuse me, let me rephrase that.
14 In response to Prosecutor Auchincloss’s
15 questions about why you started this investigation,
16 you said you wanted Michael Jackson to be empowered.
17 Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what did you mean by the word
20 “empowered”?
21 A. I wanted him to have a higher degree of
22 detail and knowledge about the people who were
23 becoming influential in his business and financial
24 affairs, so that, having that knowledge, he could
25 then make better decisions about those people and
26 the positions they would occupy in his life.
27 Q. Did you feel that Michael Jackson had made
2 A. No disrespect intended to Mr. Jackson, but
3 it’s -- it was apparent from any review of the
4 lawsuits against him and some of his well-publicized
5 history that he’s been taken -- you know, that
6 people have attempted to gain significantly from
7 being associated with him.
8 Q. And you felt, looking at his history, that
9 he’d been taken advantage of repeatedly, right?
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
11 argumentative.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you make a
14 determination whether or not Mr. Jackson had been
15 taken advantage of?
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; improper
17 opinion.
18 THE COURT: Relevancy; sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you feel that one of
20 your responsibilities as Mr. Jackson’s new attorney
21 was to try and stop people from taking advantage of
22 him?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you have concerns that all of the people
25 that you were investigating were taking advantage of
26 Michael Jackson?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Asked and answered.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know that Mark
5 Geragos was investigating the Arvizos?
6 A. I don’t know. I don’t remember -- as I sit
7 here today, I don’t remember specifically that I
8 knew he was investigating them. I’m just not sure
9 about that. I’m sorry.
10 Q. I’m sorry. Did I stop you?
11 A. No. I just -- I don’t remember.
12 Q. Well, Prosecutor Auchincloss asked you if
13 you had ever talked to an investigator named Brad
14 Miller, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I believe you thought you might have,
17 but you weren’t sure; is that right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. At some point, you were one of the lawyers
20 responsible for hiring Mark Geragos, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recall ever discussing with Mark
23 Geragos his decision to investigate the Arvizos’
24 background in extortion and fraud?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
26 assumes facts; hearsay.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 Penney suit filed by the Arvizos?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
4 exceeds the scope.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you were
7 communicating with Mr. Geragos, did you ever
8 discuss, you and he, a J.C. Penney suit, that you
9 recall?
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, Prosecutor
13 Auchincloss asked you some questions yesterday about
14 Janet Arvizo turning down an offer of $25,000 from
15 you. Do you remember that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And at the point in time when you offered
18 $25,000 to Janet Arvizo, Janet Arvizo was being
19 represented in England by the same law firm that
20 represented Michael Jackson, right?
21 A. With respect to the British broadcasting
22 administrative complaint process, yes.
23 Q. If you know, who was paying Janet Arvizo’s
24 legal fees in that action?
25 A. Ultimately Mr. Jackson. I’m not sure which
26 exactly the source of funds was. But ultimately Mr.
27 Jackson.
2 England?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you discussed the
6 possibility of giving Janet Arvizo $25,000, you were
7 talking to her new lawyer named Bill Dickerman,
8 right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When you spoke to Bill Dickerman, did you
11 know that he had a profit-sharing arrangement with
12 an attorney named Larry Feldman?
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
14 hearsay.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: If Janet Arvizo was going
17 to file a lawsuit against Michael Jackson with
18 Attorneys Larry Feldman and Bill Dickerman, it
19 wouldn’t make sense to be joined with him in a suit
20 in England, would it?
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Approximately when did you
24 talk to Attorney Bill Dickerman about your offer of
25 $25,000 to Janet Arvizo?
26 A. As I think I said yesterday, it was I think
27 spring of ‘04. And whether that was March, April,
2 it was two weeks or six weeks. But there was a
3 little period of time. And I’m pretty sure it was
4 late spring of ‘04.
5 Q. Did the name Attorney Larry Feldman ever pop
6 up in your discussions with Bill Dickerman?
7 A. No.
8 Q. How about Jamie Masada?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How about Stan Katz?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Beyond the
12 scope; relevancy.
13 MR. MESEREAU: I believe counsel explored
14 this issue, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Attorney Dickerman
17 communicated to you his desire that Mrs. Arvizo not
18 be represented by any of Michael Jackson’s
19 attorneys, right?
20 A. Not exactly. What he communicated was that
21 he wanted the -- the representation with respect to
22 the British Standards Board complaint to be
23 terminated and he wanted the complaint withdrawn.
24 Q. And that was a complaint that Mr. Jackson
25 and Mrs. Arvizo had filed complaining about Mr.
26 Bashir’s actions and tactics, right?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts
2 THE WITNESS: Originally, as I said
3 yesterday, there was one complaint filed on behalf
4 of the Jacksons and the Arvizos. The Standards
5 Board subsequently instructed the lawyers in the UK
6 that the Arvizo complaint was a separate and
7 distinct matter and needed to be the subject of its
8 own complaint.
9 So that’s -- I mean, so there were two
10 separate complaints. Ultimately one for the Arvizos
11 and one for Mr. Jackson. And those complaints
12 alleged that Granada and Martin Bashir, as Granada’s
13 agent, had violated various aspects of the British
14 broadcasting standards with respect to their actions
15 in the video presented and produced by Granada.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At any point, did you feel
17 that you were a lawyer for Janet Arvizo?
18 A. No.
19 Q. At any point, did you feel you were giving
20 any legal advice to Janet Arvizo?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Now, Prosecutor Auchincloss showed you a
23 couple of model release forms that you had prepared,
24 right?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And when you prepared those release forms,
27 it was your understanding that Ms. Arvizo and her
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
3 assumes facts not in evidence.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you prepare model
6 releases to be signed by the Arvizos?
7 A. Because we -- because there could not be a
8 broadcast use of any video containing their images
9 without a release.
10 Q. And at some point, did you learn that Janet
11 Arvizo was bargaining for better terms in those
12 releases?
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
14 assumes facts not in evidence; and leading.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You indicated in response
17 to Prosecutor Auchincloss’s questions that there was
18 a point in time where Janet Arvizo didn’t want to
19 sign the release you had drafted, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I believe you said that that refusal to
22 sign was communicated to you by Vincent Amen,
23 correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I believe you said that you then
26 redrafted a release for Janet Arvizo to sign,
27 correct?
2 Arvizo to sign?
3 A. Because I needed -- because it had to be in
4 a simpler, more readable, user-friendly,
5 plain-English format, based on what had been
6 presented to me as the concerns and reservations
7 about executing the more formal release that I think
8 is two big paragraphs of like, you know, one
9 sentence per paragraph. It’s very legalese, so to
10 speak, and my understanding was that the Arvizos
11 would sign releases if they were drafted in a
12 fashion that were understandable by them.
13 Q. And was it your understanding that that was
14 Janet Arvizo’s request?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who communicated that request to you?
17 A. I think it was Vincent Amen.
18 Q. How many drafts did that release go through
19 before you learned that Janet had signed it?
20 A. I think it was just the one revision
21 process. We went from the more complex document
22 that I described that we looked at in the exhibits
23 earlier to a more simpler document I think titled
24 “Model Release,” and it’s much simpler, less
25 elegant.
26 Q. And did you ever learn whether or not the
27 Arvizos had even appeared in the “Take 2”
2 truth. I mean, I did watch it once, but that was
3 two years ago, and I don’t remember whether they’re
4 in it or not.
5 Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. LeGrand, that documentary
6 appeared on television, was a great success, and
7 they weren’t even in it?
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Counsel? I have this picture of this lawyer
11 upstairs walking back and forth, pulling his hairs
12 out of his head, wondering why the heck I ordered
13 him up here today under threat of warrant while Mr.
14 Mesereau goes on and on. What’s wrong with that
15 picture?
16 MR. MESEREAU: It’s pretty accurate, I
17 think, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Can we get on with it?
19 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Yes, I will. Okay.
20 (Laughter.)
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: All right. Prosecutor --
22 Prosecutor Auchincloss --
23 THE COURT: Thank you for laughing. That
24 relieves some tension here.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Prosecutor Auchincloss
26 asked you a question yesterday about Mr. Jackson’s
27 music career. Do you remember that?
2 all working on a “Take 2” documentary because you
3 were trying to shore up a falling music career for
4 Michael Jackson?
5 A. I think there was a question that had that
6 implicit in it. But I can’t recall the details of
7 the question. It’s been quite a few questions in
8 the last day.
9 Q. In the Bashir documentary, do you remember
10 Mr. Jackson received a BAMBI award?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In fact, in that
15 documentary Bashir talks about Michael Jackson as
16 the greatest musical artist of all time, right?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You indicated you spoke to
20 representatives of the Bank of America about the
21 Fire Mountain LLC, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it was your understanding they had no
24 objection to money from the “Take 2” documentary
25 being placed in the Fire Mountain account, correct?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
27 leading.
2 THE WITNESS: I had a conversation, I’m not
3 sure which individual at Bank of America. There
4 were two or three that I spoke with. And after
5 discussing with them the overall circumstances, the
6 uses in paying the attorneys and funding the
7 litigation in the UK and such, they indicated that
8 they would not view that as a default under the
9 loan, and to the best of my knowledge, they
10 subsequently extended the loan in negotiations with
11 Mr. Malnik.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And certainly Mr. Jackson
13 was not working with you in any effort to defraud
14 Bank of America, right?
15 A. That’s right.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions,
17 Your Honor.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just a few. I’ll be
19 brief.
20
21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
23 Q. Mr. LeGrand, you spoke to Attorney
24 Finkelstein at least two times. You testified to
25 that yesterday, correct?
26 A. I think that’s right.
27 Q. And Mr. Finkelstein was an attorney for Mr.
2 Q. That was your understanding, that he was an
3 attorney for Mr. Jackson, correct?
4 A. It was my understanding he was being engaged
5 to handle the funds with respect to Fire Mountain,
6 which was --
7 Q. My question is, he was an attorney for
8 Michael Jackson; true or false?
9 A. I don’t know that.
10 Q. Was that your understanding?
11 A. I am not aware that Mr. Finkelstein believed
12 he was representing Mr. Jackson as an individual.
13 Q. Who was he representing?
14 A. I thought he was acting for Fire Mountain.
15 Q. And Fire Mountain is completely owned by MJJ
16 Productions?
17 A. Yes, a corporation.
18 Q. Which is completely owned by Michael
19 Jackson?
20 A. Yes. That was my understanding.
21 Q. So he would be answering to Michael Jackson,
22 true?
23 A. Ultimately, yes.
24 Q. Okay. Mr. Finkelstein is a specialist in
25 offshore money, isn’t he?
26 A. I don’t know what he specializes in.
27 Q. Well, isn’t it true that you transferred two
2 establish offshore bank accounts, true, or for
3 deposit in offshore bank accounts for Mr. Jackson?
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevancy;
5 foundation.
6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: True?
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 THE WITNESS: I have, and had, no knowledge
9 of establishment of offshore accounts for the
10 benefit of Mr. Jackson at that time.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, you were
12 entrusted with this two million dollars, correct?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And you were entrusted with that two million
15 dollars to act in Michael Jackson’s interests,
16 correct?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And when you transferred that two million
19 dollars to Mr. Finkelstein, Mr. Jackson’s interests
20 were what you were serving when you did that,
21 correct?
22 A. That was my intent, yes, sir.
23 Q. And are you telling us you had no idea where
24 that two million dollars was going?
25 A. I thought it was going to be used to pay the
26 expenses that were being incurred on Mr. Jackson’s
27 behalf in terms of the Granada litigation, to pay
2 established. That’s what I believed.
3 Q. But it wasn’t, was it?
4 A. Actually, I believe a significant portion of
5 the funds ultimately were delivered to Allan
6 Whitman.
7 Q. Do you know that?
8 A. I’m not sure today, but I thought -- I
9 certainly thought that the residual of the money
10 after that $965,000 was disbursed, I thought that
11 was delivered to Mr. Whitman. But I could be wrong
12 about that.
13 Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla
14 investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any
15 evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged
16 in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
17 A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered
18 with that report to substantiate those claims.
19 Q. And in fact, that report only indicate that
20 Sony was depositing money in some offshore account,
21 apparently for Mr. -- on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, true?
22 A. I’m not sure about the “Mr. Jackson’s
23 behalf.” I would need to see the report.
24 Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe
25 that any funds transferred to an offshore account by
26 Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds
27 were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
2 Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.
3 Q. Did you consult with Mr. Jackson before you
4 took two million dollars of his money and sent it to
5 Mr. Finkelstein?
6 A. I don’t think so.
7 Q. Did you ever talk to him about that, ever?
8 A. I believe we talked about it when we were at
9 Al Malnik’s house in Florida later.
10 Q. And Mr. Finkelstein -- or Mr. Jackson had
11 knowledge of that two million dollars being
12 transferred to Mr. Finkelstein, didn’t he?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: He never indicated that
16 he didn’t know that you had transferred two million
17 dollars of his money to Mr. Finkelstein without his
18 permission or without his agreement, did he?
19 A. He never indicated to me that he was
20 dissatisfied with what -- with those transfers.
21 Q. As far as this litigation or complaint, or
22 whatever was going on in England regarding the
23 airing of the Bashir special, Janet Arvizo never
24 authorized her joinder in that action, did she, as
25 far as you know?
26 A. The only evidence I saw of her authorization
27 for that action was the page you showed me earlier
2 Q. And as far as you know, Janet Arvizo has
3 never authorized any law firm in England to
4 represent her, as far as you know today, based on
5 everything?
6 A. Yeah, that’s true.
7 Q. And Janet Arvizo was reluctant to sign those
8 consent forms because she felt that she was burned
9 in the Martin Bashir special; that her family was
10 hurt because Gavin appeared in that special without
11 anybody’s consent. Isn’t that one of the reasons
12 why she was reluctant to sign those consent forms?
13 A. I don’t know what was in Janet Arvizo’s
14 mind.
15 Q. No one ever communicated to you that that
16 was part of her reluctance in signing those forms?
17 A. I don’t remember that. I think Mr.
18 Dickerman said words to that effect in 2004. But I
19 don’t remember anybody at the time, the week or ten
20 days or so that we were engaged in getting
21 appearance consents and releases from various
22 people, I don’t believe I heard that kind of
23 statement at that time.
24 Q. As far as the allegations of double-dealing,
25 self-interest involving the Interfor investigation,
26 Interfor never came up with anything substantial,
27 substantive, about Mr. Konitzer, did they?
2 Michael Jackson, was there ever any indication that
3 he was double-dealing with Michael Jackson based
4 upon that report?
5 A. No, but that wasn’t -- the report wasn’t
6 about that.
7 Q. Was there ever any indication that he was
8 double-dealing -- that Dieter Weizner was
9 double-dealing with Michael Jackson in any way,
10 shape or form?
11 A. Not in that report.
12 Q. That report was basically full of rumors and
13 unsubstantiated allegations, true, because it was
14 incomplete?
15 A. Ultimately that was my view.
16 Q. And if Bank of America knew that you were
17 sending two million dollars to Mr. Finkelstein, do
18 you think they would have gone ahead and authorized
19 the handling of these funds through the Fire
20 Mountain account?
21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. Well, didn’t you know that they were
23 concerned about paying bills and not putting money
24 offshore?
25 A. I don’t know. I can’t speak for Bank of
26 America, I’m sorry, sir.
27 Q. Janet Arvizo, based upon everything you
2 Moslehi’s house, true?
3 A. I don’t know.
4 Q. Well, you didn’t disburse any funds to her
5 from the account that you pulled in three million
6 dollars from FOX on, correct?
7 A. That’s true.
8 Q. And she didn’t get a dime of that, did she?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. And you knew she was a poor individual,
11 indigent, her family did not have money?
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
13 misstates the evidence.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did it ever occur to
16 you that you were engaging in an exploitation of
17 Janet Arvizo along with Michael Jackson?
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
19 leading; misstates the evidence.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. LeGrand, as far as
22 any requests from the People regarding files or any
23 requests from law enforcement regarding files, the
24 reason why no requests were made is because that
25 would have been futile, because there’s an
26 attorney-client privilege that protects those files;
27 isn’t that accurate?
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 You may answer.
4 THE WITNESS: I’m not an expert in that area
5 of law, but I think generally you’re correct, that
6 the prosecution in this case could not have
7 compelled me to produce those files without Mr.
8 Jackson’s consent.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And in fact, you were
10 contacted by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office and
11 asked to be interviewed, and you refused; isn’t that
12 true?
13 A. I informed your -- I’m not sure what his
14 title was, but I informed the investigator who
15 called from the office that I would only be able to
16 be interviewed if they obtained Mr. Jackson’s
17 consent.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.
19
20 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. MESEREAU:
22 Q. Mr. LeGrand, do you know whether or not Mr.
23 Jackson has waived the attorney-client privilege as
24 far as you’re concerned?
25 A. Yes. I received documents signed by Mr.
26 Jackson waiving privilege so that I could appear
27 here today and yesterday.
2 privilege, correct?
3 A. Well, I was informed that he was prepared to
4 waive it with respect to my testimony, yes.
5 Q. Nobody from law enforcement has ever asked
6 you if there was any waiver of the attorney-client
7 privilege, right?
8 A. That’s correct.
9 Q. Nobody from the prosecution has ever asked
10 you if there was any waiver of the attorney-client
11 privilege?
12 A. That’s correct.
13 Q. Mr. Jackson doesn’t even know who Mr.
14 Finkelstein is, right?
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Assumes facts;
16 foundation; argumentative.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
19
20 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
22 Q. As far as this waiver goes, when did you
23 ultimately obtain a waiver from Mr. Jackson on the
24 attorney-client privilege?
25 A. I believe it was Wednesday morning, this
26 week.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.
2 BY MR. MESEREAU:
3 Q. Mr. LeGrand, do you remember learning that
4 we had turned over your files to the prosecution
5 last December?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did they ever ask you to
9 follow up, give them some more documents after they
10 got your files last December?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I had no contact from the
15 prosecutor’s office other than that one phone call
16 from the sheriffs a long -- or investigator a long
17 time ago. But since December, no.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And were you aware that
19 Mr. Auchincloss had your files as of last December?
20 A. I didn’t even know who Mr. Auchincloss was
21 before yesterday, but I had been informed by you
22 that my files had been delivered to the office
23 headed by Mr. Sneddon.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I have no further
26 questions, Your Honor. But there is one
27 housekeeping matter that I don’t think is
2 jury for lunch. We’ll take our break now, and I’ll
3 remain for a moment.
4 (To the witness) Just a moment. I’m not
5 sure if this involves you or not.
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.
7
8 (The following proceedings were held in
9 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
10 jury:)
11
12 THE COURT: Go ahead.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, this witness
14 has indicated that he turned over five boxes of
15 documents to the defense. He has indicated that
16 there should have been e-mails in that -- in those
17 files, as well as his personal notes regarding
18 communications with his client.
19 I would like to state for the record, we
20 have none of those items. We have what I would say
21 would probably be one banker’s box of materials.
22 And I would like this witness ordered back. I would
23 like him ordered to produce the entire file
24 regarding Mr. Jackson. And I would like an
25 opportunity to review those documents and, if
26 necessary, have him brought back on
27 cross-examination concerning those documents.
2 else. I mean, he doesn’t claim that he has any of
3 the documents.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And if that is the state
5 of the record, then I’d ask that the Court order the
6 defense to produce the documents that I’ve
7 mentioned.
8 THE COURT: Is that your position, that
9 you’ve already turned over everything you have on
10 this case to someone else?
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, with respect -- I
12 am no longer associated with the firm of Hale Lane.
13 THE BAILIFF: No one can hear you, sir.
14 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
15 I am no longer associated with the law firm
16 of Hale Lane. And I have no control over any of the
17 files that remain at Hale Lane. I have no access to
18 any of those materials.
19 I did, when I left Hale Lane, have a few
20 legal pads of notes. I don’t know whether those
21 notes include any references to Mr. Jackson or not.
22 And I will be pleased to, you know, look through
23 those and see if there are. But I have no access or
24 control.
25 THE COURT: Other than that, is it your
26 belief that all the file was turned over, or do you
27 have any way of knowing that?
2 was terminated originally back in March of 2003, I
3 prepared copies of all the files at that time and
4 delivered them, I believe to Mr. Malnik in Florida,
5 who at the time I understood to be the primary
6 attorney serving Mr. Jackson.
7 Subsequently, I was re-engaged for the
8 limited purpose of continuing to manage the Granada
9 litigation in the United Kingdom, and continued in
10 that role until -- for quite a while, until the
11 charges were brought against Mr. Jackson in this
12 case, at which time the litigation in the UK was put
13 on hold.
14 Shortly thereafter, I communicated with Mr.
15 Malnik, asked him what I should do. And I
16 corresponded with, I think it was Steve Cochran, Zia
17 Modabber, whom I knew from the dealings with Mr.
18 Jackson, and indicated that I felt it appropriate to
19 turn over my records to the Katten Muchin law firm,
20 which at the time seemed to have a continuing
21 representation of Mr. Jackson.
22 I instructed my staff to prepare, you know,
23 copies of files. I -- this discussion of
24 completeness is somewhat baffling to me. Nobody
25 ever requested that I turn over every single piece
26 of paper, e-mail or document, that we make, you
27 know, a thorough search of every crevice and cranny
2 THE COURT: Have you turned over everything
3 that you have control of at this point to somebody,
4 other than --
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think so.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 THE WITNESS: It’s possible I have some
8 boxes that may contain some notes.
9 THE COURT: I’ll ask you to look through
10 whatever records you have, and if you find that you
11 have some, prepare -- notify both sides and give
12 both sides access to those documents.
13 THE WITNESS: Very good, sir.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: There was one other thing.
15 He mentioned that he delivered a CD of
16 e-mails to the defense, which we have not received.
17 THE COURT: Well, my recollection of the
18 testimony was that he thought he did.
19 Did you --
20 MS. YU: Your Honor, I believe everything
21 was produced. We printed everything from a CD
22 that, it is correct, that Mr. LeGrand -- and we
23 printed it out and we produced them.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MS. YU: Every page.
26 THE COURT: So you should have those.
27 So the Court will -- you may step down.
2 THE WITNESS: There’s still a binder here.
3 Somebody -- I’m not sure whose it is.
4 (Recess taken.)
5
6 (The following proceedings were held in
7 open court in the presence and hearing of the
8 jury:)
9
10 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. The defense will call
12 Mr. Mark Geragos.
13 THE COURT: Come forward, please. When you
14 get to the witness stand, remain standing.
15 Face the clerk and raise your right hand.
16
17 MARK GERAGOS
18 Having been sworn, testified as follows:
19
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 THE CLERK: Please be seated.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 THE CLERK: State and spell your name for the
24 record.
25 THE WITNESS: Mark Geragos. G-e-r-a-g-o-s.
26 THE CLERK: Thank you.
27 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 A. Good morning, Tom.
3 Q. Would you please give a little summary of
4 your education?
5 A. I went to college, I went to law school, I
6 passed the bar.
7 Q. Okay.
8 (Laughter.)
9 Q. That was kind of long-winded, wasn’t it?
10 A. It was not a very distinguished
11 undergraduate or graduate career, so....
12 Q. And you are a lawyer in Los Angeles,
13 correct?
14 A. I am. I’ve got a firm in Los Angeles, which
15 I share with my father and my brother, named
16 Geragos & Geragos. We stayed up all night thinking
17 it up.
18 Q. All right. Do you know the fellow seated at
19 counsel table to my right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And who is he?
22 A. Michael Jackson, who was a client of mine
23 for about 16 months.
24 Q. And when did you first meet Mr. Jackson?
25 A. It would have been probably about
26 February -- the first week of February of 2003, I
27 believe.
2 A. That’s correct.
3 Q. And how did that come about?
4 THE WITNESS: Although I know you’ve told me
5 out of court that there is a waiver, Your Honor, I
6 have not seen nor heard it on the record, and I’m
7 more comfortable if I have that first.
8 THE COURT: Certainly.
9 MR. MESEREAU: I can represent to the Court
10 there is a waiver of the attorney-client privilege
11 so Mr. Geragos can testify.
12 THE COURT: You have a written waiver you’ll
13 provide him with after court today?
14 MR. MESEREAU: We will do that, Your Honor,
15 sure.
16 THE COURT: Is that satisfactory?
17 THE WITNESS: That is, Your Honor. Thank
18 you.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When were you first
20 retained to represent Mr. Jackson?
21 A. It would have been sometime shortly before I
22 met him the first time. The first time I met
23 Michael was at Neverland, and I was contacted by
24 somebody from, I think, Paul Hastings. And then was
25 sent -- or there was a series of transactions, I
26 guess, or faxes back and forth, and ultimately I was
27 retained and then went up to Neverland and met
2 A. At that point, there were allegations that
3 were being made in the media and there was also, as
4 I remember, complaints that were being made to Child
5 Services about him, his fitness as a parent, as
6 well.
7 Q. And did you represent Mr. Jackson in those
8 two areas?
9 A. I did. I was given the role, so to speak,
10 among a cast of thousands, to kind of coordinate and
11 be a person who would look out for his interests in
12 those areas.
13 Q. And when you began to represent Mr. Jackson,
14 were you reporting to anyone in particular?
15 A. Well, when I first came on board, there was
16 a gentleman, who I saw in the hallway just a minute
17 ago, David LeGrand, who was there, who was a lawyer
18 who was coordinating a lot of the stuff.
19 There was a gentleman who he introduced me
20 to named Ronald Konitzer. And there was a gentleman
21 over at Paul Hastings. And I feel awful, I can’t
22 remember his name, because he’s the person who
23 referred me over there in the first place. But
24 there was another lawyer there.
25 But generally what would happen is, it
26 wasn’t so much reporting as we would have these
27 interminably long conference calls.
2 A. It seemed like everyone. There were all
3 kinds of people on the conference calls. There were
4 PR people. Paul Hastings lawyers. David LeGrand
5 would be on the conference call. I would plug into
6 the conference call. Ronald Konitzer would be on
7 the conference call, among others. Those are the
8 ones that come to mind.
9 Q. And were these conference calls occurring on
10 a daily basis?
11 A. It seemed like it.
12 Q. Typically who would initiate the conference
13 call?
14 A. I think David’s office would be my --
15 would -- but that would be a guess. I really don’t
16 know.
17 Q. Was Michael Jackson usually involved in
18 these conference calls?
19 A. Usually not.
20 Q. Was he involved in any of them?
21 A. He -- there were a couple of calls. You’re
22 talking about February of ‘03.
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. There were a couple of calls where Michael
25 would get on the phone for brief periods of time,
26 but generally were not the same as what I’m talking
27 about with these conference calls. Those would be a
2 than, I don’t know, 45 seconds or a minute, usually,
3 it seemed like. It was very quick.
4 Q. And I believe said your work involved
5 response to the Bashir documentary?
6 A. Well, the lawyers who were responding to the
7 Bashir documentary, as I understood it, was there
8 was -- I think it was Paul Hastings English
9 barristers who were dealing with the documentary
10 there and dealing with some issue that they kept
11 talking about, some board that was involved that
12 they were making complaints about.
13 And then here, my role was to see if there
14 was any kind of -- anything that needed to be done
15 to protect him in terms of his parental rights or
16 anything else from the accusations that were being
17 made against him.
18 Q. Was your firm exclusively involved in the
19 area of child custody, parental rights?
20 A. No. There was -- he had a -- I don’t know
21 if he still has, but there was a lawyer by the name
22 of -- I think his name was Lance Spiegel, from a
23 firm on the west side of Los Angeles, and he was
24 clearly primarily with the custody issues.
25 My role was if there was any DCFS
26 involvement, if there was anybody who was trying to
27 do anything else. Basically to see if there was
2 investigation you were concerned about at the time?
3 A. No, no, I was concerned about -- obviously
4 at the same time that the documentary came out, at
5 the time, there were people making all kinds of
6 accusations about Michael, and specifically with one
7 young man who was involved in that documentary, and
8 I was supposed to look into that as well.
9 Q. And was his name “Gavin Arvizo”?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. At some point, did you ever hear the
12 name “Janet Arvizo”?
13 A. At the very -- probably before I heard the
14 name “Gavin.”
15 Q. And how did you hear her name?
16 A. Initially there was a rundown of exactly
17 what the situation was. And I couldn’t tell you
18 exactly if it was Paul Hastings or if it was the
19 English counterpart or the American counterpart or
20 if it was David, but there was a rundown of the
21 situation. I was told about the Arvizos.
22 I was also told and the first thing that was
23 done that had any urgency is there was a 60 Minutes
24 taping that was scheduled, and they wanted me to be
25 up there to make sure that Michael didn’t make any
26 statements or questions weren’t asked that were
27 inappropriate.
2 Q. Did you see Janet Arvizo at Neverland on
3 that day?
4 A. I remember seeing Gavin at Neverland that
5 day. And then we were there for, I don’t know,
6 maybe 12 hours or so. And during that time there, I
7 was getting downloaded with information as well from
8 a number of people at the ranch itself.
9 Q. And what was your role as far as your
10 representation of Mr. Jackson went on that occasion?
11 A. Well, that was really -- they just wanted
12 me, I guess, as a backstop on the interview.
13 And ultimately, after sitting there for
14 about 12 hours, it was my decision, or I told them
15 that, look, if I was going to be involved, I didn’t
16 want him doing the interview, and I pulled the plug
17 on it.
18 Q. So ultimately that interview with 60 Minutes
19 did not take place, correct?
20 A. On that occasion in February of 2003, it did
21 not. I -- I said that it was not going to happen,
22 and asked that they -- politely asked Mr. Bradley,
23 and there was another producer, whose name I think
24 was Radotsky, Michael Radotsky, who was there, told
25 them that this was not going to happen.
26 Q. And you say you were at Neverland
27 approximately 12 hours that day?
2 whole time?
3 A. Well, portions, is my memory. I remember --
4 I have vivid memories about Gavin Arvizo talking
5 with Ed Bradley and Gavin Arvizo talking with
6 Radotsky, which I think is his name, the producer,
7 and then seeing what was going on there. And also
8 hearing these stories that people were telling me,
9 and trying to just take it in and sort out whatever
10 it was.
11 Q. And was it your understanding that the
12 Arvizos wanted to have a role in that 60 Minutes
13 documentary?
14 A. I watched as --
15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as to
16 speculative.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Referring only to your
19 state of mind at the time, Mr. Geragos, did you have
20 any knowledge one way or the other whether or not
21 the Arvizos were supposed to be involved in the
22 documentary?
23 MR. ZONEN: I object as irrelevant to this
24 question.
25 THE COURT: You have to let him finish the
26 question so I know what you’re objecting to.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Geragos, just
2 other whether or not Janet Arvizo and the children
3 were supposed to appear in a 60 Minutes documentary?
4 MR. ZONEN: Objection to his state of mind
5 as being irrelevant to this proceeding.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In your capacity as Mr.
8 Jackson’s attorney on that day, did you have any
9 understanding as to why the Arvizos were at
10 Neverland?
11 A. The -- I saw an interaction between Gavin
12 Arvizo --
13 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to any
14 vision of interaction as being irrelevant to this
15 proceeding, and the question is irrelevant and
16 lacking in foundation.
17 MR. MESEREAU: He’s cutting off the witness,
18 Your Honor, I object.
19 THE COURT: I think that question can be
20 answered “yes” or “no,” and we can go from there.
21 Do you want the question read back?
22 THE WITNESS: God, I hate to say “no.”
23 Did I see -- did I see an interaction? Yes.
24 THE COURT: I’ll have the question read back
25 so you understand it.
26 (Record read.)
27 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 MR. ZONEN: Objection; lack of foundation.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: As Mr. Jackson’s attorney,
5 were you under any instructions to do anything with
6 the Arvizos at Neverland on that particular day?
7 MR. ZONEN: Objection; vague. Instruction
8 from whom?
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you talk to Janet
11 Arvizo that day?
12 A. Briefly, I believe. But -- I know that I
13 didn’t talk to her. I watched her interact or
14 converse with Mr. Radotsky, who was the producer.
15 I believe Mr. Bradley.
16 Q. Did you see Ms. Arvizo talking to Mr.
17 Radotsky for any length of time that day?
18 A. I don’t know if I would say a length of
19 time. I saw at least on two occasions, I think.
20 Q. And why were you at Neverland that day?
21 A. I was asked to come up by Mr. LeGrand
22 specifically to, I guess, monitor the interview.
23 Q. And were you under the impression, as you
24 arrived, that the Arvizos were going to be there?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Why?
27 A. It’s what I was told.
2 Q. And were you told why they were going to be
3 there?
4 A. I believe Mr. LeGrand told me that --
5 MR. ZONEN: That would be “yes” or “no,”
6 Your Honor. I object to any answer beyond that.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 “Yes” or “no.”
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what was your
11 understanding as to why they were going to be there?
12 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Hearsay; lack of
13 foundation.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you give any advice to
16 the Arvizos on that particular day?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you talk to Gavin Arvizo on that
19 particular day?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Who else do you recall being at Neverland on
22 that particular day, other than the people you’ve
23 identified?
24 A. Dieter Weizner was there. I think a
25 gentleman by the name of Jack Sussman from CBS was
26 there. There was a woman which -- also with CBS
27 with the last name of Simon, I think was there.
2 a -- I don’t know, a cast of probably 30 or 40
3 people, production people, who were there as well.
4 Q. And what time did you arrive there that day?
5 A. I couldn’t tell you. It was light outside.
6 But I don’t -- I would imagine late morning, early
7 afternoon, but that’s just a guess.
8 Q. What time do you think you left?
9 A. Whatever, eight, ten, twelve hours after I
10 arrived.
11 Q. When you left, do you know whether or not
12 Janet Arvizo was still there?
13 A. I do not.
14 Q. Do you know whether or not Gavin Arvizo was
15 still there?
16 A. I do not. Not as I sit here today.
17 Q. Did you hear Janet Arvizo say anything to
18 Mr. Radotsky?
19 A. Not that I can remember as I sit here.
20 Q. Did you see Janet Arvizo talk to Ed Bradley
21 of 60 Minutes?
22 A. I believe that I did.
23 Q. Did you hear what she said?
24 A. Not that I can remember.
25 Q. Okay. Did you see either Mr. Bradley or Mr.
26 Radotsky talking to Gavin Arvizo?
27 A. Yes. I think Radotsky, with Mr. Bradley. I
2 Q. And approximately what date was this, Mr.
3 Geragos?
4 A. I want to say February 7th, and I just -- I
5 don’t know if that was a Saturday. I don’t believe
6 it was a court day. So it was either a Saturday or
7 a Sunday, but I’d just be guessing again.
8 Q. Have you seen the Bashir documentary at this
9 point?
10 A. I have seen it. But not recently.
11 Q. No, had you seen it at this particular point
12 in time?
13 A. No, I had not.
14 Q. Did you ever see Janet Arvizo again?
15 A. No, I don’t believe that I have.
16 Q. Have you ever spoken to her on the phone?
17 A. No, I don’t believe that I have.
18 Q. Okay. Following that visit to Neverland,
19 you continued to represent Mr. Jackson, right?
20 A. That’s correct.
21 Q. And what were the things you were doing as a
22 lawyer for Mr. Jackson?
23 A. Well, one of the first things that I did
24 after that was to get ahold of the -- a copy of the
25 documentary by Mr. Bashir. I watched it. We
26 were -- on these conference calls, they would talk
27 about what the various allegations were against
2 private investigator. And I involved a private
3 investigator and I had some associates in the firm
4 do some database searching on various players
5 involved.
6 Q. Now, was it your understanding at that point
7 that Mr. Sneddon had started any investigation?
8 A. No. It was not my understanding that he
9 had.
10 Q. Had you heard of any statements Mr. Sneddon
11 had made anywhere about an investigation into
12 Michael Jackson at that point?
13 A. In early February, no. The only thing
14 that -- as I remember, in early February, that
15 sticks out in my mind now as I sit here, was
16 something about somebody complaining to DCFS.
17 Q. Now, you said you started your own
18 investigation, right?
19 A. That’s correct.
20 Q. And why did you do that?
21 A. I was -- the things that I was hearing about
22 the Arvizos gave me great pause.
23 Q. What were you hearing?
24 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay and
25 irrelevance and lack of foundation and vague as to
26 time.
27 THE COURT: I’m going to overrule the
2 point, what he states that he heard about the family
3 is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
4 But it’s offered to explain why he did certain
5 things thereafter.
6 Go ahead.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 I had -- when I was up there, sitting up
9 there that day, somebody had told me a story about
10 Gavin being told to refer to Michael as “Daddy,” and
11 that -- that Michael was uncomfortable with that;
12 that the person that was telling me was probably one
13 of the people who were -- it was either Weizner or
14 Konitzer or somebody, somebody who was up there, and
15 that that concerned him greatly.
16 That obviously gave me pause, and so in
17 response to that, I decided to run some database
18 searches on the Arvizos.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you run those database
20 searches on the Arvizos?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. And what did you find?
23 A. The -- a lawsuit against J.C. Penney’s
24 and -- a lawsuit against J.C. Penney’s and then a
25 purported -- and then I had somebody, and I don’t
26 know if it was in-office or not, take a look at the
27 file or do a little bit more due diligence on it.
2 Q. Okay. And why did you do that?
3 A. Well, I had a concern at that point that
4 given what was going on, that somebody might use the
5 situation to manipulate my client.
6 Q. And when you say “manipulate” your client,
7 what do you mean?
8 A. It was not unknown to me that my client is
9 frequently the target of litigation, so I -- and
10 you’ve got a whirlwind of activity going around and
11 you’ve got people making accusations. It occurs to
12 me that I want to know if some of the players that
13 are involved have a litigious history, so that’s why
14 I ran the database search.
15 Q. Now, did you do the database search yourself
16 or did you have an investigator do it?
17 A. That’s what I said before. I don’t know if
18 it was inhouse or out. I can’t tell you, as I sit
19 here, for sure, whether I had Brad do it, whether I
20 had somebody just run it on either Lexis or West Law
21 in the office, but somebody did it and came up with
22 it.
23 Q. Who is Brad?
24 A. Brad Miller is the investigator who I hired
25 to start to do an investigation on the Arvizos.
26 Q. And approximately when did you start your
27 investigation into the Arvizos?
2 8th, it would have been within a couple of days.
3 Q. And when do you think you learned about the
4 J.C. Penney lawsuit that had been filed by the
5 Arvizos?
6 A. Within a couple of days.
7 Q. Okay. And what was your reaction to what
8 you learned about that suit?
9 A. I was gravely concerned.
10 Q. Why?
11 A. I thought that given the situation, and I
12 was also given information that they were attempting
13 or that there were rumors that the family was
14 attempting --
15 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to any
16 reference to “rumors” or any information from an
17 unnamed source as lacking in foundation,
18 speculative.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was the investigation you
21 did into the J.C. Penney lawsuit the first part of
22 your investigation into the Arvizos?
23 A. Probably. I mean, to that extent that you
24 run some kind of a database search, I suppose that
25 was -- if it wasn’t the first, it was in the top
26 five.
27 Q. And was Mr. Miller involved in that search
2 find it, that I quickly brought it to his attention
3 and he did do -- he probably would have -- he
4 probably would have been the guy that I assigned to
5 follow up on it. But I -- I don’t know as I sit
6 here.
7 Q. Is Mr. Miller a licensed private
8 investigator in California?
9 A. He is.
10 Q. And had you worked with him before?
11 A. I had, on, I think, probably three or four
12 occasions.
13 Q. Okay. And where was his office at the time?
14 A. You know, I believe at the time it was in
15 Beverly Hills. But I can’t -- that’s only because I
16 know it was in Beverly Hills at one time and it’s no
17 longer in Beverly Hills. I don’t know in February
18 of ‘03 if it still was in Beverly Hills. I couldn’t
19 tell you.
20 Q. Did the investigation into the Arvizos that
21 you started continue?
22 A. Yes. I had him -- or I asked him to please
23 find out where they were, and to document what they
24 were doing, who they were meeting with, and whether
25 or not they were either trying to sell a story to
26 the tabloids, or meeting with lawyers, or anything
27 even more grave than that, at least from my client’s
2 are you talking about?
3 A. Well, I -- I thought at that time that it
4 was a problem that somebody could manipulate the
5 situation. I don’t know -- I don’t want to run
6 through a parade of horribles in my mind, but I
7 thought that, given what the situation was, somebody
8 could take advantage of it, and I was worried about
9 that. And I -- so I decided I wanted to know, and I
10 told Brad, “Tell me where they are, tell me what
11 they’re doing, and tell me who they’re meeting
12 with.”
13 Q. Were you concerned that the Arvizos might be
14 planning to extort Michael Jackson?
15 MR. ZONEN: Objection; leading.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 THE WITNESS: I was; I was concerned.
18 MR. ZONEN: There’s an objection.
19 THE COURT: Just a moment.
20 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
21 THE COURT: Next question.
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What else did you do to
23 investigate the problem of the Arvizos possibly
24 manipulating Michael Jackson?
25 A. Well, I -- besides have Brad do that, we
26 investigate -- they were not the only -- they
27 weren’t the sole focus, but for your -- to answer
2 Q. And why did you want Brad Miller to get a
3 statement from the Arvizos?
4 A. Because I found that -- in the past, at
5 least, with other cases, that if somebody gives a
6 statement right at the time, that it’s much more
7 difficult later for them to make up something and
8 change the story, because you’re locked into it.
9 That’s what the truth was, and that’s why I wanted a
10 statement.
11 Q. And in your experience, it’s pretty typical
12 for an investigator to try and get statements,
13 correct?
14 MR. ZONEN: Objection; leading.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 You may answer.
17 THE WITNESS: It’s what investigators do.
18 The reason you have the investigator take the
19 statement and not the lawyer is so that the lawyer
20 doesn’t end up being like I am up here, on the
21 witness stand.
22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And to your knowledge, did
23 Mr. Miller take a statement from the Arvizos?
24 A. Yes, Mr. Miller took a statement. I told
25 him to identify himself. I told him to tell them
26 that he was taking it for me, and I told him that I
27 wanted him to ask questions.
2 A. Later I saw a transcript of it. But I don’t
3 know that I saw -- I think he downloaded it to me in
4 essence saying, “This is what they said, this is
5 what they said, this is what they said,” in a
6 telephone call is probably what he did.
7 Q. Was it your understanding, Mr. Geragos, that
8 statement would be recorded?
9 A. I wanted a tape-recorded statement of them,
10 detailing all of -- or as extensively as possible,
11 and I wanted it done -- I probably told Brad
12 something to the effect, “I want it done yesterday.
13 I don’t want to wait. Get it done.”
14 Q. Did anything else go on in the investigation
15 of the Arvizos?
16 A. Well, at the same time that that was
17 happening, the -- there was a rebuttal video being
18 made by a gentleman named Schaffel, who seemed to be
19 running that end of things, and that rebuttal video
20 involved the Arvizos as well.
21 So at one point I instructed Brad, “Go watch
22 when that gets made and sit there, and don’t leave
23 until you get a copy of that videotape. Because I
24 want a copy of the videotape. I don’t want it to
25 disappear into the ether.”
26 Q. To your knowledge, did he do that?
27 A. I know that he went there. I don’t know
2 to investigate the Arvizos?
3 A. I don’t know. Off the top of my head, the
4 things that I described is what I remember, as I sit
5 here.
6 Q. Did you ever arrange to have the Arvizos put
7 under surveillance?
8 A. I told him at one point I wanted to know
9 where they were, what they were doing, who they were
10 meeting with, and to report back to me.
11 Q. And as far as you know, putting people under
12 surveillance is part of an investigation, and it’s
13 perfectly lawful, correct?
14 A. I have done it on more than one occasion. I
15 know most lawyers do it with great frequency. I
16 know D.A.s do it. And law enforcement does it.
17 Q. Okay. And do you know whether or not the
18 Arvizos were actually put under surveillance at some
19 point?
20 A. I do now, and I did then.
21 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, was anyone working
22 with Mr. Miller in your investigation of the
23 Arvizos?
24 A. I know now that they were. He may have told
25 me that a gentleman by the same of Asaf did
26 something for him on one occasion. I know now that
27 he had somebody named Johnny working for him. And I
2 of the Arvizos last, if you know?
3 A. If he started sometime after February 7th,
4 it would have gone through probably the middle or
5 end of March would be my guess.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned someone named
7 Schaffel. Did you meet Marc Schaffel at some point?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you ever speak to him?
10 A. I’ve spoken to him on the phone.
11 Q. How often do you think you’ve spoken to him
12 on the phone?
13 A. I couldn’t tell you. Anytime that anything
14 came up about this video that was being made, I was
15 always told to talk to Schaffel.
16 Q. How many conversations do you think you had
17 with Schaffel about the making of the video?
18 A. It would just be a guess. I have no idea.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. I would say five to ten, probably. Maybe
21 more.
22 Q. Now, was Schaffel typically involved in the
23 conference calls you have described before?
24 A. Actually, no. He was not typically involved
25 in the conference calls. In fact, at one point,
26 David LeGrand and I had discussed excising Schaffel
27 from the whole situation --
2 hearsay.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 MR. ZONEN: Motion to strike.
5 THE COURT: Strike it after, “Actually, no.”
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you and Mr. LeGrand
7 have any discussions about Marc Schaffel?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How many do you think you had?
10 A. At least three.
11 Q. Okay. Did you have more discussions with
12 Konitzer than you did Schaffel?
13 A. Clearly. Clearly.
14 Q. And why do you say that?
15 A. Ronald Konitzer was, from my perception, the
16 person who was kind of the backstop or the person
17 who was running things.
18 Q. And did you meet with him personally?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. On how many occasions, do you think?
21 A. Probably at least three.
22 Q. Okay. Did you ever talk to a guy named
23 Dieter Weizner?
24 A. During the time period of February and March
25 of ‘03, only the time that I was at Neverland did I
26 speak to Dieter, and it was for just a very brief
27 period of time.
2 to Dieter maybe a year after that more extensively.
3 But February and March, no, I had very little
4 contact with Dieter.
5 Q. Now, as part of your investigation into the
6 Arvizos, you described the statement that Mr. Miller
7 obtained, his attendance at the rebuttal video, and
8 you say you learned about some surveillance that
9 went on. Is there anything else that was part of
10 that investigation that you remember?
11 A. Well, I remember a series of letters with a
12 gentleman named Dickerman. And storage of Janet
13 Arvizo’s things in a storage unit. And I remember
14 going back and forth with Mr. Dickerman as to where
15 he wanted those items and the things that he was
16 claiming.
17 Q. You mentioned Janet Arvizo’s possessions
18 being in a storage unit. How did that happen?
19 A. I -- I don’t know, because I wasn’t there.
20 Everything I know was later related to me. If
21 that’s okay, I’ll get into that. You don’t have --
22 there’s no objection.
23 Okay. It was later related to me by Brad
24 that she was moving in with her boyfriend who was --
25 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as to
26 hearsay. Nonresponsive to the question.
27 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
4 THE COURT: He gave you the opening line, but
5 you were talking to counsel.
6 THE WITNESS: I tried to prompt you, Mr.
7 Zonen.
8 THE COURT: He was prompting you. Go ahead.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you have anything to
10 do with the storage of Janet Arvizo’s possessions?
11 A. I told Brad at one point, “If you’re going
12 to do this, film it, so that you don’t later get
13 accused of taking something.”
14 Q. And did you have any understanding as to why
15 Brad was going to store that material?
16 A. I believe --
17 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 You may answer.
20 THE WITNESS: I believe it was because he
21 was trying to remain in the good graces to get
22 whatever information he could as to what they were
23 up to.
24 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
25 speculative, move to strike.
26 THE COURT: I’ll strike that.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your understanding
2 speculative.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know why those
5 possessions were stored?
6 MR. ZONEN: Objection; lack of foundation.
7 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever at any point
9 have any knowledge as to why those possessions were
10 stored by Mr. Miller?
11 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object beyond “yes” or
12 “no.”
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 I’m sorry, I may have jumped the gun.
15 THE COURT: That’s fine.
16 Go ahead. Next question.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why were they stored?
18 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Lack of foundation;
19 hearsay.
20 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know why they were
22 stored?
23 A. I believe they were stored --
24 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object to anything beyond
25 “yes” or “no.”
26 THE WITNESS: Yes.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How did you obtain your
2 Q. Did he tell you why they were stored?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you give any instructions to him about
5 storing that material?
6 A. I told him when he did the move --
7 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were those possessions
10 stored at your request?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Were they stored because Mr. Miller wanted
13 to store them?
14 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Lack of foundation;
15 hearsay.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see those
18 possessions at any time?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you ever go to storage to see those
21 possessions?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Now, you had some correspondence with
24 Attorney Bill Dickerman about those possessions,
25 right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And what can you tell us about that?
2 had.
3 Q. And did he start writing to you about
4 wanting those possessions returned?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you know approximately when that
7 happened?
8 A. I do not. It was sometime after -- it was
9 sometime after February.
10 Q. And you were still representing Michael
11 Jackson at the time, correct?
12 A. I represented Michael all the way through, I
13 don’t know, whatever -- February to whenever,
14 December, I guess.
15 Q. Now, at some point, did you try to return
16 those possessions to Mr. Dickerman?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And please explain what you did.
19 A. I directed -- when I first got the letter
20 from Mr. Dickerman, I told somebody to fax it over
21 to Brad, somebody in my office to fax it over to
22 Brad. And at some point, then received another
23 letter, and letters kept coming back and forth. And
24 there would be phone calls. And I kept trying to
25 get this stuff over there, suggesting that either
26 they take over the storage unit, that they pay for
27 the storage unit, that they do anything to get it
2 that the move was videotaped?
3 A. I believe I’m the one who told Brad, “If
4 you’re going to do this, you better videotape the
5 move.” I believe that’s what I told him. It was
6 almost those exact words.
7 Q. And did he ever tell you that Janet wanted
8 him to move that stuff?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When did he tell you that Janet wanted him
11 to move that stuff?
12 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay.
13 Move to strike.
14 THE COURT: Overruled. The question, though,
15 now, is, “When did she tell you” -- no. “When did
16 he tell you that Janet wanted him to move the
17 stuff?”
18 THE WITNESS: Probably in the same
19 conversation I said, “If you’re going to do it, you
20 should videotape it.”
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And to your knowledge, was
22 that material ever returned to Mr. Dickerman?
23 A. You know, I assume so. But I know that
24 there was one instance where I got so fed up with
25 what was going on, that I actually told --
26 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as nonresponsive.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 A. I know at one time I directed that it just
3 be dumped into his law office so that he would take
4 it, and the building wouldn’t accept it.
5 Q. That was done at your request?
6 A. To return it? Yes. At all times I said,
7 “Return the stuff.”
8 Q. Okay. Do you know someone named Frank
9 Tyson?
10 A. I’ve met Frank Tyson.
11 Q. And when did you first meet him?
12 A. Probably it would have been mid-February of
13 2003, would be a guess.
14 Q. Do you know approximately where you met him?
15 A. No. I can’t tell you where I met him. I
16 think he came to my office once with another guy
17 whose name I can’t remember. But I -- but I don’t
18 know if that was the first time I met him or not.
19 Q. Did you have much communication with Frank
20 Tyson?
21 A. I talked to Frank occasionally.
22 Q. Would he typically call you?
23 A. Most always. I wasn’t calling him.
24 Q. How many conversations do you think you had
25 with him?
26 A. Well, if he would call me, I might call him
27 back. But I don’t know how many conversations. I
2 Q. Okay. Now, at some point did your
3 investigation into the Arvizos terminate?
4 A. Yeah. I would say probably -- probably
5 about five or six weeks after it started.
6 Q. And did you reach any conclusions about the
7 Arvizos, based upon your investigation?
8 A. Yeah. They -- that Michael could have
9 nothing to do with them.
10 Q. Why is that?
11 A. I just felt like it was a pending disaster.
12 Q. And what do you mean by “pending disaster”?
13 A. I just was not comfortable with what I was
14 finding out, what I was hearing. I just wasn’t
15 comfortable with that.
16 Q. What were you finding out?
17 A. Well, I --
18 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you ever concerned
21 that the Arvizos were going to try to extort Michael
22 Jackson?
23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; leading.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were the results of your
26 investigation negative or positive when it came to
27 the Arvizos?
2 THE COURT: Sustained.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What did you conclude?
4 A. I concluded that they -- that they should --
5 MR. ZONEN: Objection; calls for a
6 conclusion.
7 THE COURT: You should have said “asked and
8 answered.”
9 He’s already discussed that. Move on.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. As Mr. Jackson’s
11 lawyer at that point in time, did you think it was
12 in his interest to be involved with the Arvizos?
13 A. I --
14 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
15 MR. MESEREAU: No, it wasn’t.
16 THE COURT: It is. Next question.
17 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 MR. MESEREAU: All right.
20 Q. Did you ever hear anything about the Arvizos
21 taking a trip to Brazil?
22 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’m going to object
23 as to hearsay. And vague, “hear anything about.”
24 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone’s off
25 again, sir.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn whether
2 A. I learned later that there were --
3 MR. ZONEN: I will object to anything beyond
4 “yes” or “no” as nonresponsive.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What did you learn?
7 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you have anything to
10 do with any planned trip to Brazil involving the
11 Arvizos?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you ever learn if anyone did?
14 A. I learned that someone --
15 MR. ZONEN: Objection beyond “yes” or “no.”
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What did you learn?
18 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn that
21 the Arvizos were traveling to any federal buildings
22 to obtain passports or visas for a trip to Brazil?
23 MR. ZONEN: Objection; beyond the scope.
24 Objection; lack of foundation and leading.
25 THE COURT: Sustained on leading.
26 Sustained.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
2 potential trip to Brazil with the Arvizos?
3 A. I didn’t do anything involving a potential
4 trip to Brazil with the Arvizos.
5 Q. Did you ever learn anything about such a
6 trip?
7 A. I did, yes.
8 Q. When did you learn that?
9 A. Sometime after Michael was arrested.
10 Q. Okay. And at some point, did you ever have
11 possession of passports of the Arvizos?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And could you explain that?
14 A. The passport -- when I was going through all
15 of the materials that we had in our office in order
16 to itemize them for you, in turning over all the
17 files, the passports were located in a locked file
18 cabinet where we kept a lot of Michael’s files.
19 I then directed one of the lawyers in my
20 office to file the passports with the Court so that
21 I did not give them to you, so that you wouldn’t be
22 in a position where you would have to testify as to
23 them.
24 Q. And did you, in fact, turn them in to this
25 Court?
26 A. I directed one of the lawyers in my office
27 to bring them to the Court and file them with the
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Were you involved in any business
4 matters related to Mr. Jackson during the first
5 three months of 2003?
6 A. There probably were times when Mr. Konitzer
7 would ask about certain projects. And then if it
8 was something somebody in the office, one of the
9 other lawyers, could deal with, I would refer him to
10 one of the other lawyers. So, yes, I would say that
11 there were some occasions.
12 Q. And what kind of projects are you referring
13 to?
14 A. My understanding of what Mr. Konitzer’s
15 relationship was with Mr. Jackson was that he was
16 helping to promote, I don’t know, technological
17 applications of various things. And it was usually
18 surrounding those kind of items and usually it was
19 beyond our expertise. So usually I would tell
20 him -- refer him over to somebody else or to some
21 other lawyer. But he would come and seek advice on
22 those things.
23 Q. Was any of this business-related legal work
24 done in your office?
25 A. Some could have been. I mean, there could
26 have been -- I could have sent -- probably my
27 brother Matthew would have done some work in
2 There was also a marketing idea that they were doing
3 or they wanted to pursue.
4 Q. And were you having discussions with Mr.
5 LeGrand about Mr. Jackson’s business matters?
6 A. Mr. LeGrand would bring up those issues, but
7 it was really -- that was really Mr. LeGrand’s area
8 of -- I guess his purview, so to speak. That was
9 really what his niche was. He’s what’s called a
10 transactional lawyer who deals with corporate
11 matters, and that was really his expertise.
12 Q. In the discussions you had with Konitzer and
13 Weizner about Mr. Jackson’s business affairs, do you
14 recall Mr. Jackson ever participating?
15 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Lack of foundation;
16 assumes facts not in evidence as to those
17 conversations.
18 THE COURT: Overruled.
19 You may answer.
20 THE WITNESS: It was my understanding that
21 there was -- in fact, it was more than an
22 understanding because I believe that my retainer
23 initially was signed on a power of attorney that --
24 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as nonresponsive to
25 the question.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you have any
2 A. To the extent that Mr. Konitzer represented
3 to me that he was running the business affairs.
4 Q. Is that what he told you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr.
7 Weizner about Mr. Jackson’s business affairs?
8 A. Not in 2003, in February or March. Like I
9 said, the only contact I really had with Dieter was
10 that first time I saw him briefly, discussed it
11 briefly. But I didn’t really have that much contact
12 with him. I really talked mostly with Ronald.
13 Q. And when you were retained, you had a
14 retainer agreement signed, correct?
15 A. That’s correct.
16 Q. And that’s your normal practice as a lawyer,
17 right?
18 A. And the State Bar rules generally encourage
19 that, if not require anything that’s going to
20 involve a certain amount of money.
21 Q. And a retainer agreement basically sets out
22 the terms and conditions under which you’ll
23 represent a client as a lawyer, right?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Who signed your retainer agreement?
26 A. I believe that it was signed by Konitzer and
27 Weizner on a power of attorney, which I also was
2 other documents on behalf of Mr. Jackson while you
3 were representing Mr. Jackson?
4 A. Not that I can pinpoint. I mean, I -- no,
5 not that I can think of right now.
6 Q. And did the power of attorney that you saw
7 appear to give Mr. Konitzer the ability to sign
8 documents for Mr. Jackson?
9 A. It did -- my understanding of it was that it
10 did.
11 Q. And do you recall at any point in time when
12 that power of attorney was revoked?
13 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object to lack of
14 foundation.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 You may answer.
17 THE WITNESS: I believe the power of attorney
18 was revoked about the time that David LeGrand got
19 fired. But that’s just my memory as I’m sitting
20 here. I don’t have anything to pin that on.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And I believe you said,
22 Mr. Geragos, that you were under the impression that
23 Konitzer was trying to take over Mr. Jackson’s
24 business affairs?
25 A. It was my perception of Mr. Konitzer that he
26 was the one who was running the business affairs in
27 terms of hands on, and that Mr. LeGrand was the
2 Q. And based on your involvement in discussions
3 about Mr. Jackson’s business, did it appear to you
4 that Mr. Jackson wasn’t involved much at all?
5 MR. ZONEN: Objection; leading.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 MR. ZONEN: Objection; speculative as well.
8 THE COURT: Leading; sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever meet Mr.
10 LeGrand in Las Vegas?
11 A. I met Mr. LeGrand at Neverland. And I met
12 Mr. LeGrand at another -- at Paul Hastings, I
13 believe, downtown L.A. As I sit here, I don’t
14 remember Las Vegas. If you’ve got something to
15 refresh my memory, maybe, but I don’t recall that as
16 I sit here.
17 Q. Now, obviously, having represented Mr.
18 Jackson, you’re aware of what the charges are in
19 this case, right?
20 A. I am.
21 Q. And you’re aware that the prosecutors are
22 claiming there was a conspiracy to commit various
23 crimes on the Arvizos, right?
24 MR. ZONEN: Objection; leading.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 THE WITNESS: I am aware of that.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you ever part of any
2 Q. Were you part of any conspiracy to extort
3 anything from the Arvizos?
4 A. Absolutely not.
5 Q. Were you ever part of any conspiracy to
6 commit any crime against the Arvizos?
7 A. Absolutely not. I was trying to prevent a
8 crime against my client.
9 Q. And what crime was that?
10 A. I thought that they were going to shake him
11 down.
12 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions.
13 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
14
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. ZONEN:
17 Q. Mr. Geragos, good afternoon.
18 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Zonen.
19 Q. Now, you were retained to represent Mr.
20 Jackson in the early part of February; is that
21 correct?
22 A. That’s correct.
23 Q. Could that have been the latter part of
24 January?
25 A. I don’t think so. But, I mean, if -- I
26 don’t want to quibble with you for a couple of days.
27 I’ve always thought it was -- I’ve always thought it
2 Q. Now, prior to your being retained, were you
3 familiar or did you know about the documentary
4 “Living with Michael Jackson”?
5 A. I don’t -- I don’t know.
6 Q. At the time that you were retained, did you
7 know about the documentary “Living with Michael
8 Jackson”?
9 A. At the time that the retainer agreement was
10 signed, yes.
11 Q. At the time that you were first contacted by
12 somebody --
13 A. I was going to say --
14 Q. -- for Michael Jackson’s organization about
15 your representing Mr. Jackson, did you know about
16 the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson”?
17 A. Probably not.
18 Q. Who was the first person to call you about
19 your representing Mr. Jackson?
20 A. I think it was a lawyer from Paul Hastings,
21 the same guy I said I’ve got a mental block on the
22 name, who said that one of his partners was an
23 ex-U.S. Attorney who had a case with me and wanted
24 to know if I was interested in it.
25 Q. All right.
26 A. I just don’t remember. I just don’t
27 remember the name. And it was -- it could have
2 Q. Do you know if that was before the screening
3 of the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson”?
4 A. I have no idea.
5 Q. Do you know when “Living with Michael
6 Jackson” was screened?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Either in the United States or in England?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you know -- did you know the content of
11 the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson”?
12 A. At what time?
13 Q. At the time that it was aired in the United
14 States.
15 A. Well, you’d have to tell me when it was
16 aired and then I’d tell you.
17 Q. I guess you didn’t see it, then; is that
18 correct?
19 A. Well, no, I saw it. But I didn’t watch it
20 when it was aired. I --
21 Q. All right. When you were contacted by
22 somebody --
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor. He’s
24 cutting off the witness.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was your answer completed?
26 A. All I was going to say is, I remember
27 watching it for the first time when somebody sent
2 the first time because it was probably a subject of
3 one of these conference calls.
4 Q. And -- all right. Now, when is the first
5 time you spoke with your client, Mr. Jackson?
6 A. Would have been probably that day at
7 Neverland.
8 Q. There’s no question that your client was
9 Michael Jackson; is that right?
10 A. My client was Michael Jackson.
11 Q. It was not Ronald Konitzer?
12 A. No.
13 Q. It was not Dieter Weizner?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. It was not Marc Schaffel?
16 A. That’s correct.
17 Q. Nor was it Vinnie or Frank?
18 A. Clearly it was not.
19 Q. And at all times you understood that you
20 represented Michael Jackson alone?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. You did not represent the enterprise
23 Neverland Valley Entertainment?
24 A. I did not.
25 Q. Did not represent any of Michael Jackson’s
26 corporate interests?
27 A. I did not.
2 liability and liability with regards to custody of
3 his children; is that correct?
4 A. That’s correct.
5 Q. Your concern was that his children might be
6 taken away from him?
7 A. That was one of my concerns.
8 Q. Your concern was that he might be prosecuted
9 for some criminal matter?
10 A. I think initially my concern was -- were the
11 children and any allegation of the fitness of him as
12 a parent, because that was a subject of a lot of the
13 media firestorm surrounding him at that point.
14 Q. Was that because of his allegedly dangling
15 his youngest child over a second-story balcony in a
16 hotel in Germany?
17 A. I think that that’s what started some of
18 that, but then the -- there was -- with the
19 documentary, there was the same usual suspects
20 hurling allegations at him about his fitness once
21 the documentary came out.
22 Q. All right. But are we talking about simply
23 neglect of his own children, or are we talking about
24 his relationship with other children?
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
26 evidence; lack of foundation; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 his children.
3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: But the issues that you were
4 dealing with as a consequence of that documentary,
5 “Living with Michael Jackson,” had to do with how he
6 interacted with his own children, correct?
7 A. The issues dealt with the fact that there
8 were people who were calling for DCFS to take the
9 children out of the house --
10 Q. All right.
11 A. -- and to conduct an investigation. That
12 was what -- that was what was the overriding concern
13 initially.
14 Q. At some point in time, you had an
15 opportunity to either read the transcript of that
16 documentary, “Living with Michael Jackson,” or view
17 it; is that correct?
18 A. I viewed it. I didn’t read the transcript.
19 Q. Did you view it before you arrived at
20 Neverland?
21 A. I couldn’t tell you, as I sit here, whether
22 I did it before or after. It was sometime within a
23 very close period of time.
24 Q. At the time that you were at Neverland, you
25 saw Ed Bradley there; is that right?
26 A. That’s right.
27 Q. Ed Bradley is somebody you recognized as
2 A. That’s right.
3 Q. You also saw an entire film crew from 60
4 Minutes?
5 A. That’s right.
6 Q. 60 Minutes you were familiar with. You had
7 seen it in the past; is that right?
8 A. That’s right.
9 Q. You were a little concerned about Michael
10 Jackson appearing on 60 Minutes; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Had you had a conversation with Michael
13 Jackson prior to your arrival at Neverland on that
14 date?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know if that date was the 7th of
17 February?
18 A. I think I stated before that that date
19 sticks in my mind. If that is a Saturday, that
20 would be my guess. My best guess.
21 I believe that when you executed the -- or
22 the officers executed the search warrant, they took
23 some gate logs also. I don’t know if the gate logs
24 are accurate, but I later saw where I signed it on
25 the day that I got there.
26 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Jackson
27 on the 7th?
2 content of the documentary “Living with Michael
3 Jackson”?
4 A. At that point, I was more concerned with
5 what -- the fact that he was going to sit down with
6 60 Minutes and what the content of that was going to
7 be.
8 I spent most of my time talking with and
9 trying to weasel out the information from the
10 producers as to what was going to be the ground
11 rules, which they said there were none. But the
12 content, where they were headed, what they were
13 trying to do, that was my concern.
14 Q. Did you ask any questions of Michael Jackson
15 about whether he had been sleeping with boys during
16 your conversation with him on the 7th of February at
17 Neverland?
18 A. No, I did --
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; lack of
20 foundation.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 THE WITNESS: No, I did not start
23 questioning him about whether he was sleeping with
24 boys when I was up there.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know, at the time
26 that you were at Neverland on the 7th of February,
27 assuming that is the date, that the issue of him
2 A. I think that I did know that. I don’t know
3 whether it was through the documentary or whether it
4 was from the download of information. I think I
5 probably had that information.
6 Q. Did you understand, at the time that you
7 were at Neverland on the 7th of February, that Gavin
8 Arvizo was one of the children it was believed that
9 Mr. Jackson was sleeping with?
10 A. I don’t know that -- when you say one of the
11 children that he was sleeping with, I’m not clear on
12 what you’re -- what you’re implying there.
13 I knew that Gavin Arvizo, when I was up
14 there, was somebody who was reputed to be in the
15 documentary. But I don’t know that anybody said,
16 “Hey, Michael Jackson is sleeping with Gavin
17 Arvizo.” I don’t think that that happened.
18 And I certainly -- as I sit here today, I
19 don’t know if Gavin Arvizo says in the documentary,
20 “Yeah, I was sleeping with Michael Jackson.”
21 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as nonresponsive as
22 to what he knows today. The question dealt with on
23 the 7th of February. And move to strike.
24 THE COURT: All right. I’ll strike from --
25 well, actually, I won’t. He actually says as he
26 sits here today, he can’t remember what he knew
27 then, so the objection is overruled.
2 issues that you were dealing with, as his lawyer,
3 was the issue of whether or not he had been sleeping
4 with a succession of different boys over the last
5 number of years?
6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. No foundation
7 and misstates the evidence.
8 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you understand that Mr.
10 Jackson, in the interview with Mr. Bashir, said, “I
11 slept with all of them,” in reference to a number or
12 succession of boys?
13 A. On February --
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
15 argumentative.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 You may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: On February 7th, I don’t
19 believe -- I know you asked this. I just don’t
20 believe that I can tell you whether I had seen the
21 documentary. I probably had not until after I got
22 back from Neverland is my best guess. So, no, my
23 guess is, as I sit here, but I’m not 100 percent
24 sure of that.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you have a conversation
26 with Michael Jackson about Michael Jackson doing a
27 press conference in Florida?
2 scheduled to do a press conference in Florida?
3 A. On what date?
4 Q. The 7th of February.
5 A. On the 7th of February. No, I did not know
6 that.
7 Q. Did you know that Michael Jackson had
8 brought the Arvizo family to Florida to do a press
9 conference?
10 A. On February 7th, I did not know that.
11 Q. Did you know, on the 7th of February, that
12 Janet Arvizo had never had a conversation with
13 Michael Jackson other than a brief conversation back
14 in the year 2000?
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
16 evidence; foundation.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 You may answer.
19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.
20 A. On February 7th, I can’t tell you what Janet
21 Arvizo did with Michael Jackson. The only thing
22 that I can tell you is I saw the Arvizos interacting
23 with --
24 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: My question was whether you
25 knew about any conversations between --
26 A. No.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He cut off the
2 MR. MESEREAU: Move to admonish counsel not
3 to cut off the witness.
4 THE COURT: I’ll strike after the sentence,
5 “The only thing that I can tell you....” From there
6 on, I’ll strike that. Next question.
7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, did you have a
8 conversation with any employee of Michael Jackson or
9 representative of Michael Jackson directing them to
10 have the Arvizos brought to Florida?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you have a conversation with Michael
13 Jackson or any representative of Michael Jackson
14 directing that the Arvizos be brought from Florida
15 to Neverland?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you know that they were being brought
18 from Florida to Neverland?
19 A. On February 7th? No.
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. That misstates
21 the evidence. Foundation. They weren’t being
22 brought anywhere.
23 THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the
24 objection as vague.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you aware that the
26 Arvizo family was flown from Florida to Santa
27 Barbara County and then driven to Neverland?
2 A. I’m asking you. Do you mean did I know that
3 on February 7th?
4 Q. On February 7th did you know that?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you make any inquiry as to what that
7 family was doing there?
8 A. Later.
9 Q. When later?
10 A. Probably middle February.
11 Q. Two weeks later? A week later?
12 A. No, by middle February would have been about
13 a week later.
14 Q. On the 7th of February, did you recommend to
15 your client, Mr. Jackson, that the family, the
16 Arvizo family, be taken home immediately?
17 A. No.
18 Q. A week later, did you tell Mr. Jackson that
19 the Arvizo family should be taken home immediately?
20 A. No.
21 Q. At any time during the month of February,
22 did you tell Mr. Jackson that the Arvizo family
23 should be taken home immediately?
24 A. No, I did not.
25 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr.
26 Jackson at any time on the 7th of February about the
27 Arvizo family being there on his property?
2 ‘daddy’” story was told to me.
3 Q. Did you talk with Mr. Jackson at any time on
4 the 7th of February about the Arvizo family leaving
5 Neverland?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you talk with Mr. Jackson at any time on
8 the 7th of February about whether or not Gavin was
9 staying in his bedroom?
10 A. No. Not on the 7th.
11 Q. Did you know on the 7th of February that
12 there was an issue dealing with boys staying in his
13 bedroom --
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: -- that had become quite
16 public?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
18 evidence; argumentative.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 MR. MESEREAU: And foundation.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 You may answer.
23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.
24 THE COURT: Do you want the question read
25 back?
26 THE WITNESS: No.
27 I just don’t know what you mean by “an
2 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And did you discuss it with
3 Mr. Jackson?
4 A. No.
5 Q. As his attorney and hopeful of avoiding any
6 criminal liability on his behalf, did you tell Mr.
7 Jackson on the 7th of February that he ought to
8 refrain from having young boys come into his
9 bedroom?
10 A. No. I didn’t give him, as I told you, any
11 advice right then and there. I was -- the first
12 time I met him, I was trying to do an investigation.
13 I was also trying to stop the 60 Minutes interview,
14 once I got a sense that it was not going to be a
15 warm and fuzzy piece.
16 Q. All right. You’ve seen 60 Minutes before,
17 haven’t you?
18 A. If it’s Morley Safer, you tend to get a
19 different piece than if it’s Ed Bradley or Mike
20 Wallace.
21 Q. So even without knowing the issues, as soon
22 as you saw it was Ed Bradley, you assumed it
23 wouldn’t be warm or fuzzy, right?
24 A. I’ve watched Ed Bradley do some pieces that
25 weren’t exactly hard-hitting.
26 Q. Now, at any time within the next seven days
27 after the 7th, the next week after the 7th, did you
2 A. I don’t know that I talked directly to him
3 that following week. The only conversations that I
4 had for the next six weeks were usually over the
5 phone and fairly brief.
6 Q. With Mr. Jackson?
7 A. If he was on the phone, briefly. But they
8 weren’t extensive.
9 Q. All right. Do you know if you had any
10 conversations with Mr. Jackson over the next seven
11 days over the telephone?
12 A. I couldn’t tell you. I don’t think so.
13 Q. Do you know if you had any conversations
14 with Mr. Jackson over the next 14 days?
15 A. Probably one.
16 Q. Just one conversation?
17 A. Probably one.
18 Q. Can I assume that that conversation did
19 address the issue of whether or not boys were still
20 sleeping in his bedroom?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
22 argumentative.
23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 You may answer.
25 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t think that the
26 discussion revolved around whether boys sleep in his
27 bedroom.
2 21st of February, that you had by this point seen,
3 personally viewed, the documentary “Living with
4 Michael Jackson,” the Martin Bashir documentary?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you had seen at that point Mr. Jackson’s
7 admission to sleeping with boys; is that right?
8 A. Well, when you say “admission to sleeping
9 with boys,” what are you saying? The statement that
10 boys will stay in his room?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. Okay. Are you implying that’s necessarily
13 something sexual?
14 Q. I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to
15 be answering questions, Mr. Geragos. Let’s go back
16 to the question again.
17 A. I’m confused as to when you say “sleeping,”
18 “boys sleeping in his room,” I didn’t -- I didn’t
19 think -- my concern was, Mr. Zonen --
20 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
21 nonresponsive.
22 THE WITNESS: I was trying to answer it.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Cutting off the witness, Your
24 Honor. Objection.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Everyone, we’re going to
26 have a time-out.
27 MR. ZONEN: Next question?
2 wait for the head to relax.
3 Go ahead. Relax a minute.
4 All right.
5 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Geragos, when you watched that film, you
7 did see the portion where Mr. Jackson refers to
8 sleeping with boys; is that right?
9 A. Mr. Zonen, as I sit here today, I don’t
10 remember seeing in that documentary - I’ll take your
11 word for it - that he said, “sleeping with boys.”
12 The one thing that I drew from seeing
13 Michael Jackson on February 7th and seeing the kids
14 there was a gentleman who, to my mind, was almost
15 childlike in his love for kids. I didn’t see
16 anything nefarious. I didn’t see anything that
17 struck me as potentially criminal. But I did see
18 somebody who appeared to me to be ripe as a target.
19 And so I took action that I thought was to protect
20 him.
21 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
22 nonresponsive.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 MR. ZONEN: Move to strike the last part of
25 the answer.
26 THE COURT: I’ll strike after, “I don’t
27 remember seeing in that documentary....”
2 Culkin?
3 A. No. As I sit here, I don’t remember him --
4 I wasn’t fixated on whether or not he slept with
5 Macaulay Culkin. I really -- that was not a concern
6 of mine.
7 Q. Do you recall him saying he shared a bed
8 with boys?
9 A. I know that he has said that since then. I
10 know -- I’ve sat next to him, or in the same room
11 when he said that, so I know that; that I know that
12 he said that.
13 Q. Do you recall seeing the portion of the
14 documentary where he’s sitting next to Gavin Arvizo?
15 A. That I have a vivid memory of.
16 Q. And in that portion of that documentary,
17 he’s holding Gavin Arvizo’s hand?
18 A. I have a vivid memory of that.
19 Q. And Gavin Arvizo is resting his head on Mr.
20 Jackson’s shoulder?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Gavin Arvizo shared a room with Mr. Jackson;
23 is that correct?
24 A. I -- you’re telling me --
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative.
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 You may answer. Do you want the question
2 If what you’re telling is Gavin Arvizo spent
3 the night in his room --
4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you aware of that?
5 A. I know that that’s one of the things that’s
6 been claimed, yes.
7 Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Jackson if that was
8 true, that Gavin Arvizo shared his bed or spent the
9 night in his room?
10 A. I think we discussed that.
11 Q. What did he tell you?
12 A. That nothing happened.
13 Q. No, I didn’t ask you that. What did he tell
14 you about whether or not he shared his room or his
15 bed?
16 A. What he has consistently said the entire
17 time that I represented him, which is that he didn’t
18 do anything; that there was nothing untoward; that
19 there was nothing sexual; and that if somebody
20 spends the night in his room, that that was just an
21 act of unconditional love. That it wasn’t anything
22 that you’re getting in here and --
23 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to move to strike as
24 nonresponsive.
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He cut off the
26 witness.
27 THE COURT: You did cut him off. Your
2 answer, Your Honor?
3 THE COURT: Yes, he may.
4 THE WITNESS: The problem was, Mr. Zonen,
5 as I saw it, when people say he’s sleeping with
6 somebody in his room, the jump is, with a lot of
7 people, that that is something that is awful, that
8 is something that is really, really bad because it
9 must be sexual.
10 THE COURT: Just a minute. You’re lecturing
11 the jury. Let’s back up. I’ll strike that. Do you
12 want to go back to the question again?
13 MR. ZONEN: I’d like to ask a new one.
14 Q. Mr. Geragos, did you ask Mr. Jackson
15 specifically if Gavin Arvizo had ever spent the
16 night in his room?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope
18 and foundation.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes. And he said nothing ever
21 happened.
22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you that Gavin
23 Arvizo had spent the night in his room?
24 A. He said he may have spent the night in the
25 room, like a lot of the other boys did, and nothing
26 happened.
27 Q. Did he tell you how many nights Gavin Arvizo
2 Q. Did he tell you whether or not Gavin Arvizo
3 specifically shared a bed with him?
4 A. I didn’t ask him about sharing a bed. I
5 asked him in the room, I asked him if anything
6 happened. His answer was, “No.”
7 Based on my observations --
8 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
9 nonresponsive.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He cut off the
11 witness.
12 MR. ZONEN: Maybe we better resolve this, I
13 think.
14 THE COURT: Just a moment.
15 The ruling is that, “Based on my
16 observations...,” that will be stricken. Next
17 question.
18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, you never asked him at
19 any time whether or not he shared a bed with Gavin
20 Arvizo?
21 A. I may have later on, after the arrest. I
22 assumed we were still talking sometime in
23 February --
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. -- of ‘03.
26 Q. Yes.
27 A. February of ‘03, no. After the arrest, yes.
2 Jackson about Gavin Arvizo?
3 A. Other than the ones we’ve talked about, no.
4 Probably not.
5 Q. Did you ever tell Michael Jackson that the
6 Arvizo family should be taken home as soon as
7 possible?
8 A. In February of ‘03, no.
9 Q. Did you come to learn that the Arvizo family
10 was spending a great deal of time at Neverland
11 during the month of February?
12 A. No, I came to learn that Janet Arvizo was
13 making accusations about Dieter.
14 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as nonresponsive.
15 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.
16 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, did you come to
17 learn that the Arvizo family was spending a great
18 deal of time at Neverland during the month of
19 February?
20 A. Did I learn that in February?
21 Q. In February.
22 A. Probably, yes.
23 Q. All right. Did you immediately call Mr.
24 Jackson and tell him that the Arvizo family should
25 be taken back to their home in East Los Angeles?
26 A. No. I think I told him that in March, or
27 told Ronald that in March; that they should -- they
2 directed that your investigator have an interview
3 with the Arvizo family?
4 A. That’s correct.
5 Q. And I think you said, “Do it yesterday,”
6 right?
7 A. He said, “When do you want it done?” And I
8 said, “Like yesterday.”
9 Q. As quickly as he can possibly do it?
10 A. That’s correct.
11 Q. This is Brad Miller?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Brad Miller has been your investigator for
14 some number of years; is that correct?
15 A. I think at that time Brad Miller I had used
16 on three or four other cases. I’ve used him on a
17 number since.
18 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller to tape-record that
19 interview?
20 A. I believe I told him to tape-record the
21 interview, that I wanted a taped statement by the
22 Arvizos.
23 Q. Did you tell him to turn off the
24 tape-recorder and not to record certain pieces of
25 information?
26 A. Absolutely not.
27 Q. Did you ever listen to that tape?
2 he asked the question about whether or not Gavin
3 slept in the same bed with Michael Jackson, Gavin
4 did not answer the question and Brad Miller then
5 turned off the tape-recorder?
6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
7 evidence; no foundation.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9 You may answer.
10 THE WITNESS: I’m not so sure that that’s
11 what happened.
12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What is your recollection of
13 hearing that tape-recording?
14 A. It appears to me, in listening to that tape,
15 that the tape was turned on, off, at least two or
16 three times. And I can’t tell you as I sit here
17 what the question was before each one. But the tape
18 is taped and is turned off and then turned on, so
19 I’d agree with you as to that extent.
20 Q. Did you ask Brad Miller if he specifically
21 turned off the tape-recorder about the time that he
22 asked the question of whether or not Gavin was
23 sleeping with Michael Jackson?
24 A. I -- you bet I did.
25 Q. You’re aware that other children have
26 accused Michael Jackson of molesting them. You’re
27 aware of that?
2 argumentative; Court ruling; move to admonish
3 counsel.
4 THE COURT: Just a moment.
5 The objection is overruled. The answer is,
6 “Yes.”
7 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. You’re aware that
8 back in 1993, there were -- there was one lawsuit
9 that was filed against Michael Jackson that was
10 settled on behalf of a child named Jordan Chandler?
11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; beyond the scope.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. You’re aware that
16 there was another incident of a resolution of a
17 claim against Michael Jackson involving a child by
18 the name of Jason Francia?
19 A. No. Not at -- if you’re talking February
20 and March of ‘03, no.
21 Q. You didn’t learn that until some later time?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. All right. But at the time that you were
24 meeting with Mr. Jackson on the 7th, you were aware
25 of the incident involving Jordie Chandler; is that
26 correct?
27 A. I knew --
2 THE COURT: Sustained.
3 MR. ZONEN: I don’t believe the last time I
4 said in February. I may stand corrected if I’m
5 wrong.
6 THE COURT: Well, that could be. I’ll allow
7 the question with that understanding.
8 MR. ZONEN: All right.
9 Q. Was that, in fact, something you knew about
10 on the 7th of February?
11 A. I think so, yes.
12 Q. All right. Did you ask Mr. Jackson about
13 that allegation?
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
15 beyond the scope.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were you concerned when you
19 saw Gavin Arvizo there, a child of the same age as
20 Jordie Chandler?
21 A. I don’t know that I knew that Gavin Arvizo
22 was the same age as Jordie Chandler. I suppose,
23 obviously, at one point they were the same age, but
24 I don’t know that that was something that ever went
25 through my mind.
26 Q. Were you concerned about the presence of
27 this child at Neverland?
2 Q. Accusations by whom?
3 A. The -- at the time, in February of ‘03,
4 there was a swirl of publicity, and there were
5 accusations that were being made by numerous people
6 that his children should be taken out of the home.
7 THE COURT: Just a moment.
8 Let’s take a break.
9 (Recess taken.)
10 THE COURT: Counsel?
11 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
12 Q. Mr. Geragos --
13 THE BAILIFF: Oh, your microphone.
14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, did you keep
15 copies of notes of conversations with Mr. Jackson?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you make any notes of your conversations
18 with Mr. Jackson?
19 A. Probably not.
20 Q. You didn’t make any notes at all of any of
21 your --
22 A. Probably not. I generally don’t do that
23 with my clients. I generally just talk to them.
24 Q. Did you make notes of any of your
25 conversations with any of the other individuals who
26 were working for Mr. Jackson at the time?
27 A. I don’t think so.
2 A. Dieter Weizner, as I explained before, I
3 didn’t really talk to in February or March, other
4 than on that one occasion. Ronald I would talk to,
5 but I’m not a big note-taker.
6 Q. No notes of conversations with Ronald
7 Konitzer?
8 A. I wouldn’t say “no,” but none that I can
9 remember taking.
10 Q. Do you think that your file might have notes
11 of conversations with Ronald Konitzer?
12 A. To be honest, I’d have to look.
13 Q. Do you think that your file would have notes
14 of conversations with Mark Schaffel?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How about Frank Cascio?
17 A. No.
18 Q. How about Vinnie Amen?
19 A. I don’t know that I ever had -- unless he
20 was standing with Frank when I talked with Frank, I
21 don’t know that I ever had a conversation directly
22 with him. Maybe when he was with Frank, but, no, I
23 wouldn’t have notes.
24 Q. Did you have any e-mail communications with
25 Michael Jackson?
26 A. No, I don’t believe so.
27 Q. Did you have any e-mail communications with
2 A. Probably Ronald would be on -- e-mails that
3 would come from David LeGrand would have Ronald’s
4 name on them as well.
5 Q. So you would have kept communications
6 between yourself and David LeGrand through e-mail?
7 A. No, I wouldn’t have kept them, but I would
8 have had them at one point. I don’t know that I
9 would have kept them. Like I say, I would have had
10 them if they had sent them to me, but probably would
11 have deleted after I got whatever information I
12 wanted.
13 Q. Is it your habit and custom to print out
14 copies of your e-mails and keep them?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Is it your habit and custom to keep your
17 e-mails electronically stored in your computer?
18 A. No. If it’s something particularly
19 important, I’ll just click over and save it into
20 Word Perfect and then save it in the file, but I
21 generally do not keep the e-mails segregated with
22 whatever else.
23 Q. Do you have a Word Perfect file on Michael
24 Jackson?
25 A. I believe that I do.
26 Q. Does it contain e-mail communications?
27 A. I don’t think I had any e-mails with him.
2 Q. Did you have e-mail communications with Brad
3 Miller?
4 A. I think that I did.
5 Q. Did you save those e-mail communications?
6 A. I don’t think that I did.
7 Q. You might have?
8 A. Maybe.
9 Q. Would it be your habit and custom to title
10 those “E-mail communications” with your investigator
11 and put them in your file as a Word Perfect
12 document?
13 A. If I looked in Word Perfect, that’s -- if it
14 was something important and I saved it into Word
15 Perfect, that would be the way to tell.
16 Q. Is it the case that you’re the only lawyer
17 remaining in Los Angeles County who still uses Word
18 Perfect?
19 (Laughter.)
20 A. Probably so. But it’s the 11 series, so --
21 Q. Mr. Geragos, I’d like to show you an
22 exhibit.
23 Could I approach the witness?
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Number 347, would you take a
26 look at that, please?
27 A. Okay.
2 A. Yes. It’s got two blue pieces of paper with
3 handwriting on it.
4 Q. Do you recognize that as your former
5 client’s handwriting?
6 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me, could I see what
7 this is?
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 MR. ZONEN: It’s admitted in evidence, Your
12 Honor.
13 THE COURT: He just needs to see what it is.
14 MR. ZONEN: I understand. Thank you.
15 Q. Do you recognize that as Mr. Jackson’s
16 handwriting?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Were you familiar with Mr. Jackson’s
19 handwriting?
20 A. Familiar with his signature and familiar
21 with some of the way he signs off. But not -- this
22 does not appear -- there’s nothing about it that I
23 recognize.
24 Q. All right. Would you read those two notes,
25 please, out loud?
26 A. “But you have to really be honest in your
27 heart that I am your dad and will take care” --
2 Blanket, Prince and Paris are your brothers and
3 sisters. Love, Dad.”
4 Q. All right. Would you be surprised to learn
5 that that is, in fact, a note or two notes written
6 by Mr. Jackson to Gavin Arvizo?
7 A. I don’t know. Would I be surprised? I
8 don’t know. I probably would be surprised.
9 Q. All right. Mr. Geragos, if, in fact, those
10 are notes written by the defendant to Gavin Arvizo,
11 that would be inconsistent with what you tell us he
12 told you about not wanting to be called “Dad”; is
13 that right?
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
15 evidence. He said someone else told him.
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah --
17 THE COURT: Just a moment.
18 And no speaking objections, Mr. Mesereau.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, sir.
20 THE COURT: All right. You may answer. I’m
21 not sure you answered or you were responding to Mr.
22 Mesereau, so --
23 MR. ZONEN: Should the question be reread,
24 Your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Reread the question.
26 THE WITNESS: I believe that the -- that --
27 I don’t know what dates these were written on, and I
2 handwriting? If I assume it’s his handwriting, yes,
3 that would be -- that would be surprising to me.
4 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, to your knowledge, the
5 only trip that the Arvizos ever took to Florida with
6 Mr. Jackson was the one that they took just prior to
7 arriving in Neverland on the 7th; is that correct?
8 A. From the discovery, that’s my understanding.
9 Q. You have no other information that the
10 Arvizo family ever took any other trip to Florida
11 with Mr. Jackson?
12 A. Right. I don’t have any other information
13 that they took any other trip.
14 Q. Do you have any information that the Arvizo
15 family took a trip anywhere with Mr. Jackson other
16 than Florida and Neverland?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Now, I asked you a number of questions about
19 your giving counsel to your client about the Arvizo
20 family leaving Neverland.
21 When did you finally tell your client that
22 it’s time for the Arvizo family to go home?
23 A. I think I told -- I don’t know that it was
24 Michael or Ronald, or maybe on the same phone call,
25 but sometime in March that -- in March of ‘03.
26 Q. Now, were you aware in March of ‘03 that the
27 Arvizo family was still at Neverland?
2 Q. At the time of the conversation with Mr.
3 Jackson -- let me strike that and reask that.
4 Did you finally have a conversation with
5 Michael Jackson about the fact that the Arvizos
6 should not be at Neverland?
7 A. I had a conversation -- my only hesitancy is
8 when you say was it with Michael Jackson. I don’t
9 think it was with Michael. I think the conversation
10 was with either Ronald or Brad saying that, “This is
11 not a good situation.” I don’t think that the
12 conversation was with Michael.
13 Q. Well, Brad Miller was working for Michael
14 Jackson at the time?
15 A. Brad Miller was working for me.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. Brad Miller would be a liaison. If I were
18 in trial, I would have Brad communicate messages,
19 but Brad was not talking to Michael. Brad would
20 have been talking to one of the people that I
21 mentioned.
22 Q. All right. Is there a reason you didn’t
23 call Michael Jackson directly, given that he is
24 your -- was your client --
25 A. Well --
26 Q. -- and tell him to send the Arvizo family
27 home? Is there a reason you didn’t do that?
2 Neverland. I don’t think Michael was there then.
3 Q. Did you make any effort to determine when
4 Michael Jackson would be at Neverland?
5 A. Well, when you say, “make an effort to
6 determine,” I believe at one point he was out of
7 state and -- in March, and I was informed of that,
8 and so that’s -- that was the basis for my opinion.
9 Q. Did you --
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s cutting off
11 the witness.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 MR. MESEREAU: May the witness complete his
14 answer, Your Honor?
15 THE COURT: Had you completed your answer?
16 THE WITNESS: No, but I forgot what I was
17 going to say.
18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you make an effort to
19 contact Michael Jackson out of state?
20 A. No -- well, I think that I was told he was
21 out of state. I think it was one of those brief
22 conversations when he was on with somebody else. I
23 was having a conversation with somebody else, he was
24 either in the room or got on for a minute.
25 But, no, that was not -- I didn’t consider
26 that -- that I was dictating to him what he needed
27 to do. I was there, I thought, to do an
2 was my role.
3 Q. At some point in time around the middle of
4 the month of February, did you learn that the family
5 had left Neverland?
6 A. This was what was objected to before. You
7 want me to answer it now?
8 Q. I’d like to know if you learned at some time
9 in the middle of February that the family had left
10 Neverland. Yes or no?
11 A. Yes, I was told by somebody that the family
12 had left Neverland.
13 Q. All right. Okay. Now, were you aware that
14 there were telephone calls being made from Frank
15 Cascio to Janet Arvizo asking her to return to
16 Neverland?
17 A. I found that out later. I did not know it
18 at the time.
19 Q. Are you aware that your investigator, Brad
20 Miller, tape-recorded one or more of those
21 conversations?
22 A. I’m aware of one. I found that out when the
23 police searched Brad’s office and got that tape, and
24 later learned what that was.
25 Q. Did you direct Mr. Miller to tape-record
26 those telephone calls?
27 A. I said I was aware of one.
2 call surreptitiously. The only tape that I directed
3 him to do that was an audiotape, was the one where I
4 said, “I want you to sit down and interview them.”
5 And I also told him, “I want a log of where they
6 are.” I did not tell him to tape Frank Tyson or
7 that one phone call.
8 Q. Did Mr. Miller tell you about the
9 conversation that he tape-recorded between Frank
10 Cascio or Frank Tyson and Janet Arvizo?
11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not
12 in evidence; no foundation; misstates the evidence
13 as well.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 You may answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Brad later told me, when we
17 were -- you and I and Mr. Sneddon were litigating
18 this issue, and I asked him about it, that the
19 reason he did it is because Frank had led him to
20 believe --
21 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object at this time
22 to --
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s cutting off
24 the witness.
25 MR. ZONEN: Well, I --
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 The question is simply whether or not he
2 or “no”? Yes.
3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Now, when was the
4 conversation that you had with Brad Miller where he
5 acknowledged tape-recording that conversation? When
6 was that?
7 A. It would have been substantially after the
8 tape was seized from his office.
9 Q. All right. Back during the month of
10 February, was Brad Miller informing you as to the
11 content of his investigation?
12 A. He was -- he was pretty dil --
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading, Your
14 Honor. Vague as to time.
15 MR. ZONEN: I said February.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Can I assume 2003?
17 THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment.
18 All right. I’ll overrule the objection.
19 Do you want the question read back? I’ll
20 order it read back.
21 THE WITNESS: I remember. I was going to
22 answer.
23 He was being fairly diligent about telling
24 me. He did not tell me about that one particular
25 call until after it was seized when I started to
26 question him about it.
27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you about any
2 A. That conversation.
3 Q. Did he tell you that in the middle part of
4 February, Frank Cascio was trying to get Janet
5 Arvizo back to Neverland Ranch?
6 A. No. That’s not what he told me. Do you
7 want me to tell you what he told me?
8 Q. Did he tell you that anybody from Neverland
9 Ranch was making efforts to get Janet Arvizo back?
10 A. No. He told me that he was --
11 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
12 nonresponsive.
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, did you have
16 conversations with any employee of Michael Jackson
17 on whether or not the Arvizo family should be
18 tape -- videotaped and whether or not that videotape
19 should be included in a commercial production to be
20 aired on television?
21 A. I was told that they were going to be
22 videotaped, and it would have been by David and/or
23 Ronald. And I instructed Brad to go to the
24 videotaping and to remain there until he got a copy
25 of the videotape.
26 Q. Were you consulted at any time by any
27 employee of Michael Jackson as to whether or not
2 Q. Were you consulted by anybody employed by
3 Michael Jackson on the question of whether or not
4 any member of the Arvizo family should be
5 compensated for their involvement in this tape?
6 A. I was told that they wanted to be
7 compensated for the tape.
8 Q. All right. And did you tell -- who was that
9 who told you that?
10 A. As I sit here, I would just be guessing. I
11 know that I was told that they wanted to be
12 compensated for the tape.
13 Q. And did you tell that person that that would
14 be an appropriate thing to do, since it was a
15 commercial interest?
16 A. No. I don’t think I did -- had anything to
17 do with it. In fact, I think that that was dealt
18 with -- all of the licensing and everything having
19 to do with the rebuttal was handled by, I think,
20 David and Schaffel.
21 Q. At the time of the conversation with this
22 person about them wanting to be compensated for this
23 tape, did you ask that person if the Arvizo family
24 was still staying at Neverland Ranch?
25 A. I don’t remember if I did.
26 Q. Do you know if you told that person that it
27 was not a good idea for these people to be
2 Q. With whom?
3 A. I’m sure I’ve had it with Brad. I’m sure
4 I’ve had it with Ronald. And I’m positive that at
5 one point I had that conversation with David.
6 Q. With who?
7 A. David LeGrand.
8 Q. With David LeGrand.
9 Did any of them tell you that was difficult
10 to do because Mr. Jackson enjoyed sleeping with
11 Gavin Arvizo?
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not
13 in evidence; argumentative.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 You may answer.
16 THE WITNESS: No. Nobody told me that.
17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you first learn that
18 there was, in fact, a succession of young boys that
19 had been sleeping with Michael Jackson over the last
20 15 years?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the
22 evidence; argumentative; no foundation; move to
23 strike.
24 THE COURT: Argumentative; sustained.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever learn about
26 Brett Barnes?
27 A. Doesn’t ring a bell.
2 earlier --
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. -- from ‘93, yes.
5 MR. MESEREAU: Asked and answered.
6 MR. ZONEN: All right.
7 THE COURT: Just a moment.
8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And in the process of
9 investigating --
10 THE COURT: Just a moment. I’m ruling on an
11 objection here.
12 MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry. I thought you had.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever determine
15 whether or not Jordie Chandler had spent many
16 consecutive nights in bed with Michael Jackson?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope;
18 no foundation; argumentative.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you make any
21 investigation into any of the allegations against
22 Michael Jackson that occurred back in 1993 and prior
23 to ‘93?
24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope;
25 no foundation; argumentative.
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 You may answer.
2 through --
3 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone, sir.
4 THE WITNESS: The written waiver was up
5 through the time of arrest. To answer that, I would
6 have to go beyond that.
7 THE COURT: I didn’t understand that the
8 waiver was limited.
9 MR. ZONEN: Nor did I.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. If I didn’t
11 say that, I meant to. We were going to limit it
12 until up to the time of Mr. Jackson’s arrest.
13 THE COURT: That’s not what you informed all
14 of us. Take the jury out, please.
15
16 (The following proceedings were held in
17 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
18 jury:)
19
20 THE COURT: Counsel, you didn’t inform Mr.
21 Geragos, myself, or anyone else in the courtroom
22 that there was anything other than a waiver of the
23 attorney-client privilege. You didn’t indicate
24 there was any limitations on that waiver.
25 MR. MESEREAU: That’s my mistake, Your
26 Honor. I was thinking in terms of the period,
27 relevant time period, not after the arrest, the time
2 apologize. I didn’t think anything was relevant
3 after the arrest.
4 THE COURT: They can’t hear you talking back
5 there.
6 MR. MESEREAU: I didn’t think anything was
7 relevant after the arrest. And I should have been
8 clear about that. That’s my mistake.
9 THE COURT: Well, I consider you’ve made a
10 total, complete waiver on the record. You know, I’m
11 not going to allow you to give with one hand and
12 take away with the other.
13 MR. MESEREAU: Can I inquire, Your Honor?
14 With all due respect, what would be relevant after
15 the arrest to the time period that’s being litigated
16 in court? I don’t think there is anything. I
17 believe the allegations --
18 THE COURT: The relevancy is one issue,
19 granted. But that’s not what we’re talking about
20 now. We’re talking about the scope of the waiver
21 that you represented that you were -- that existed.
22 Mr. Geragos is on the witness stand. He’s
23 answering questions, and then you inform him during
24 a break that there’s some limitation. I think
25 relevance has to be dealt with on a
26 question-by-question basis. I’m not dealing with
27 that. I’m dealing with the extent of the waiver
2 MR. MESEREAU: I guess I did do that. And
3 unfortunately, I meant to cover the period involving
4 this case, which I thought was before the arrest,
5 and that was my mistake.
6 I didn’t think it included, Your Honor, the
7 period of time following the initial Information.
8 I didn’t think that was relevant. I wasn’t even
9 considering that. I was thinking about the time
10 period during which the prosecution has elicited
11 testimony and he elicited testimony regarding these
12 alleged events.
13 THE COURT: Well, what’s your position?
14 MR. ZONEN: I think it may be appropriate to
15 ask this witness questions about his conversations
16 with the defendant and questions about his
17 involvement in the case even after the arrest. It
18 could have bearing certainly on his conduct here, or
19 conduct that he took after the time of the arrest
20 could have bearing on whether or not he did or
21 didn’t do certain things prior to the arrest. I
22 just don’t think that we should be restrained from
23 having to limit our questions only up to the time of
24 his arrest.
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I just
26 interject one thing, since I’m going to be the one
27 asked the questions?
2 THE WITNESS: If there’s not a waiver --
3 THE COURT: No, he has my permission to
4 speak.
5 THE WITNESS: If there’s not a waiver by the
6 client, I believe under State Bar rules, I am
7 completely exposed. And I would inform the Court,
8 without a written waiver, I am not going to answer,
9 even under threat of contempt, any further questions
10 that have to do with anything which is stated at
11 least in the written waiver that I have, under -- or
12 after December of 2003, because I can’t put that
13 genie back into the bottle at this point.
14 Frankly, I think technically the arrest was
15 in November of 2003, in the first place, but the
16 letter states December of 2003. And I believe under
17 State Bar rules, I’m not allowed to answer anything
18 unless there’s a written waiver that is fully
19 informed by the client.
20 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, we haven’t been
21 furnished with a copy of that waiver. We would like
22 to see it, please.
23 THE COURT: Go ahead and --
24 MR. MESEREAU: We have another copy, Your
25 Honor.
26 THE WITNESS: Do you want to make a copy or --
27 MR. ZONEN: That’s okay.
2 1993 allegations. And that was when he advised us
3 that he had been given a limited waiver.
4 So I guess if the question was whether you’d
5 made any investigation into the allegations about
6 1993 back in February, that you would be able to
7 answer that question.
8 THE WITNESS: That’s correct, Your Honor.
9 In fact, if the question was limited to
10 anything prior to, I believe it was November -- I
11 want to say 18th or 19th of 2003, anything prior to
12 that date I’m comfortable with and don’t have a
13 problem.
14 Anything after that date, I’m going to
15 refuse or decline to answer. Respectfully, of
16 course.
17 THE COURT: I’m not quite sure how to deal
18 with it, but one way we can deal with it is that the
19 relevancy of his testimony is based on what happened
20 in February, March, and maybe up to the time of
21 arrest. And then we could complete that testimony,
22 and if you then thought you had some need to go into
23 other areas, we could get some points and
24 authorities on where we stand on the
25 misrepresentation that Mr. Mesereau has made to the
26 Court and to counsel.
27 That way, though, if we take evidence
2 trial in Los Angeles that he needs to be at. And if
3 we do it that way, then what I would do is hold you
4 on call to me.
5 THE WITNESS: I kind of thought I already
6 was.
7 THE COURT: Huh?
8 THE WITNESS: I kind of thought I already
9 was.
10 THE COURT: Yeah, you are. But, you know, in
11 the future, and --
12 MR. ZONEN: Judge, is the Court under the
13 expectation that we’re actually going to finish by
14 2:30 today?
15 THE COURT: Uh-huh. Aren’t you?
16 MR. ZONEN: Not optimistically, no. Not
17 with redirect as well. I may finish cross. I don’t
18 know that we’re going to finish redirect.
19 THE COURT: Well, let’s see what we do.
20 Sometimes -- anyway, I then will proceed in this
21 fashion, reserving what remedies exist -- what
22 should be done under the circumstances, but we don’t
23 waste the last hour, and perhaps we’re able to free
24 counsel and perhaps not.
25 Is that an agreeable way to proceed?
26 MR. ZONEN: It is.
27 And while the jury is out, let me also ask
2 of the arrest, which would include all of his
3 billing records, his notes, his e-mails, his
4 handwritings, communications and reports. There is
5 a waiver up till that time.
6 THE COURT: I’m not going to order that,
7 Counsel. You can use the proper process for that.
8 Now, is that an agreeable way to proceed,
9 Mr. Mesereau, today?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. And I
11 apologize for the -- it was not intentional, what
12 you’ve categorized as a misrepresentation. I
13 apologize for that. It was not intentional. I was
14 thinking of the period of the alleged conspiracy.
15 THE COURT: People can’t hear you.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I was thinking of the period
17 of the alleged conspiracy. I was not thinking
18 beyond that, and that’s my mistake. And I do
19 apologize to the Court.
20 THE COURT: All right. We’ll see where that
21 gets us. I don’t know where that gets us. Let’s
22 bring the jury in and see what we can achieve.
23
24 (The following proceedings were held in
25 open court in the presence and hearing of the
26 jury:)
27
2 Q. Mr. Geragos, the tape-recording of the
3 telephone call that I had asked you about
4 previously, the call between Frank Cascio and Janet
5 Arvizo, you did tell us that you listened to that
6 tape-recording; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, I -- well, we’re right back to where we
8 were before.
9 THE COURT: Excuse me. I was just -- let me
10 just take care of something.
11 I’ll just have the court reporter mark that.
12 Next question.
13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, at some time
14 after that interview that your investigator, Mr.
15 Miller, had with the Arvizo family at your
16 direction, you became aware of the fact that there
17 was going to be a filming of the entire family; is
18 that right?
19 A. I don’t know if it was the whole family, but
20 I was aware there was going to be a videotaping,
21 yes.
22 Q. And were you aware at that time that that
23 video was going to be used in a commercial
24 production?
25 A. I knew that the videotaping was going to
26 be -- they were trying to sell it. That’s what they
27 were going to do. So if you mean “commercial” that
2 Q. Was it your understanding that the Arvizos’
3 participation in that video would have commercial
4 value to your client, Mr. Jackson?
5 A. I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer
6 that.
7 Q. Was that your belief at the time?
8 A. I don’t know that I ever thought about it at
9 the time.
10 Q. Did anybody ever talk to you about the
11 commercial value of their involvement in this video?
12 A. Nobody was looking for my advice on
13 commercial value of the rebuttal video.
14 Q. Did anybody ever consult with you at all
15 about the propriety of using the Arvizo family in
16 this video?
17 A. I don’t know about -- well, I just said if
18 some statements were going to be taped, I wanted a
19 copy.
20 Q. Did you know that Gavin Arvizo was a cancer
21 survivor?
22 A. I did not then, when that tape was made.
23 Q. Well, that tape was made, what, the 20th?
24 A. I think that tape was made the 20th. And I
25 probably -- probably knew that either on that
26 following day or the day after. But I think very
27 close in time.
2 that?
3 A. I had, but I had -- I had not investigated
4 records or anything like that. I later got records
5 and confirmed what was being said.
6 Q. Isn’t it true that the documentary “Living
7 with Michael Jackson” has clearly stated that Gavin
8 Arvizo is a cancer survivor?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you did view that documentary prior to
11 the taping on the 20th?
12 A. Right, but I wasn’t buying anything until I
13 had documentation.
14 Q. All right. But you had information, at
15 least, that Gavin Arvizo was a cancer survivor; is
16 that right?
17 A. That’s what the claim was.
18 Q. Did you ever ask Michael Jackson if it was
19 true that Gavin Arvizo was a cancer survivor?
20 A. Not in February of ‘03.
21 Q. Of any of the conversations that you had
22 with David LeGrand or Ronald Konitzer, did you ask
23 either one of them if it was true that Gavin Arvizo
24 was a cancer survivor?
25 A. I think that the discussions were had
26 sometime in February about that subject.
27 Q. You were aware, were you not, that the
2 Gavin Arvizo considerable problems in his life?
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
4 THE COURT: Overruled.
5 You may answer.
6 THE WITNESS: I was aware that the claim was
7 made that he was being taunted at school.
8 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And you knew that prior to
9 the 20th of February; is that right?
10 A. I don’t think I knew it prior to the 20th.
11 I think I knew it closer to the end of the month or
12 the beginning of March.
13 Q. When you viewed the documentary “Living with
14 Michael Jackson,” did you understand at the time
15 that that documentary was going to cause Gavin
16 Arvizo problems?
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
18 THE WITNESS: My --
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: Gavin Arvizo wasn’t my client.
22 Michael Jackson was my client.
23 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I understand that.
24 A. I was not -- you know, I don’t want to sound
25 heartless, but I was worried about my client’s
26 problems.
27 Q. I understand you were worried about your
2 Gavin Arvizo problems because of how he was depicted
3 and portrayed?
4 A. I -- I suppose in retrospect, yes. At the
5 time, I thought that it was -- it would have the
6 opposite effect for him. He would be able to
7 exploit that for money. That was my worry; that he
8 was going to, or the family was going to go sell
9 their story for a six-figure sum. I had that
10 concern.
11 Q. Now, actually “sell the story,” sell the
12 story to whom?
13 A. One of the tabloids.
14 Q. Well, they would have a right to do that,
15 wouldn’t they?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about
18 selling your own story?
19 A. If it’s false, then you have actions that
20 you can take, and that’s -- that’s one of the
21 reasons I wanted to have the tape, because I didn’t
22 want -- I wanted to have them locked into what the
23 truth was and not later sell a false story, because
24 my experience is that the tabloids are not always
25 absolutely accurate.
26 Q. All right. Now, that’s not necessarily the
27 problem of the Arvizos, whether or not the tabloids
2 Q. All right. But the Arvizos certainly would
3 have a right, in this country, to sell their story
4 to anybody?
5 A. They would. And as I stated, I already had
6 a concern about the Arvizos because of the J.C.
7 Penney lawsuit, so I was not exactly looking at them
8 as being pristine or pure at that point. I had --
9 for lack of a better word, I had a rather jaded view
10 at that point.
11 Q. In fact, Michael Jackson was marketing the
12 Arvizo’s story for profit; is that true?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
14 assumes facts not in evidence.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 You may answer.
17 THE WITNESS: They were trying to do, my
18 understanding, what they called a rebuttal video.
19 And the reason they were trying to do a rebuttal
20 video, I suppose, was, as you indicated, for profit.
21 It wasn’t being done pro bono.
22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: And your client believed that
23 if the Arvizos were included and their story was
24 included in this production, it would be more
25 profitable to him; is that true?
26 A. Actually, I don’t know.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not
2 THE WITNESS: Actually, I don’t know what my
3 client believed. All I know is when I heard that
4 they were going to be included, I wanted to have a
5 copy of the statements, the videotaped statements.
6 I did not specifically talk to Michael
7 about, “Are you doing this for money?” “Is this
8 something that you have a belief we’re going to use
9 them for marketing?” or anything of that nature.
10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you have a conversation
11 with anybody at Hamid Moslehi’s home -- easy for me
12 to say.
13 A. Common spelling.
14 Q. -- (continuing) Hamid Moslehi’s home on the
15 19th of February of 2003?
16 A. I could have, if Brad was there. It would
17 have made sense that Brad might have called me and
18 said, “They’re not giving me the videotape,” because
19 they didn’t give me the videotape.
20 Q. Did you at any time during the evening of
21 the 19th, into the early morning hours of the 20th,
22 give any direction to any employee of Michael
23 Jackson about what they should ask or what they
24 shouldn’t ask --
25 A. Absolutely --
26 Q. -- the Arvizo family?
27 A. Absolutely not.
2 A. I didn’t know that there was a script.
3 Q. Did anybody ask you whether or not the
4 Arvizos should be specifically asked questions about
5 whether Gavin was molested?
6 A. I specifically said, “I want copies of the
7 videotape.” I do not believe that I talked to
8 Hamid. And I can’t pronounce his last name.
9 Q. Moslehi.
10 A. Easy for you to say.
11 And I don’t believe that I talked to anybody
12 else that evening but Brad. I could be mistaken.
13 But that -- my memory is that I would have talked to
14 Brad; that Brad told me that they weren’t giving up
15 a videotape, or that it was getting late, or I told
16 him, “I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Don’t
17 call me anymore. It’s late. I’ve got to go to
18 bed.”
19 Q. Did you talk to Mark Schaffel that night?
20 A. I don’t think so. I think I might have
21 talked to Schaffel the next day to find out why we
22 didn’t get a copy of the videotape.
23 Q. Did you talk to Christian Robinson?
24 A. I don’t think I’ve ever talked to Christian
25 Robinson. At least back in February or March of
26 2003, I don’t believe I’ve talked to Christian
27 Robinson.
2 Q. Did you refer anybody to Vicki Podberesky?
3 A. I think Brad called and said that --
4 Q. Mr. Geragos, did you refer anybody to Vicki
5 Podberesky?
6 A. I was trying to answer the question. Brad
7 called and asked for a referral. I did not refer to
8 Vicki Podberesky. I referred to Michael Nasatir.
9 Vicki Podberesky is Michael’s partner.
10 Q. All right. And you referred Brad Miller to
11 Michael Nasatir; is that right?
12 A. Brad said that Janet wanted a lawyer. I
13 said, “I can’t represent Janet. My firm’s not going
14 to represent Janet. Call Mike Nasatir and see if
15 it’s something he can handle.”
16 Q. All right. You were the one who then gave
17 Brad Miller the name of Mike Nasatir’s law firm; is
18 that correct?
19 A. That’s correct.
20 Q. You didn’t say “Vicki Podberesky”?
21 A. I did not say “Vicki Podberesky.” I said
22 “Mike Nasatir.”
23 Q. Did you have a conversation with Vicki
24 Podberesky that night?
25 A. I don’t believe it was that night. But if
26 she says it was, I would defer to her. My memory is
27 that I talked to Mike Nasatir.
2 over a case,” or “Brad’s going to call you. Talk to
3 him,” you know, “Do whatever you have to do.”
4 Q. Did you tell Mike Nasatir that you would be
5 financially responsible for his bill?
6 A. Absolutely not.
7 Q. Did you tell him that Michael Jackson would
8 be financially responsible?
9 A. Absolutely not.
10 Q. Did you know who was going to be responsible
11 for his bill?
12 A. It wasn’t my firm. It wasn’t my business.
13 Q. Did it come up in the conversation with Brad
14 Miller?
15 A. No. Why would it -- no.
16 Q. Now, at this point, you understood that
17 Janet Arvizo did not have a lot of money?
18 A. I don’t know that I understood that. I was
19 aware of a J.C. Penney lawsuit. I was aware that
20 she had a boyfriend who seemed to be making very
21 good money. So, no, I’m not aware that she was
22 completely limited in terms of her funding.
23 Q. Did you ever make any effort to determine
24 whether or not she was going to have to pay a
25 retainer to the law firm of Mr. Nasatir?
26 A. Absolutely not. It wasn’t my business.
27 Q. You did have a conversation with Mr. Nasatir
2 could be mistaken. It might have been that night.
3 And I believe the conversation was that, “I referred
4 somebody over, and this is the name and the number.”
5 And, you know, “Handle it however you want to handle
6 it.”
7 Q. Did you ask Mr. Nasatir to contact you after
8 his interview with Janet Arvizo and tell you the
9 content of that interview?
10 A. If -- if I talked to him that night, I
11 probably would have said, “Let me know what
12 happens,” yes.
13 Q. Would you have asked him to tell you about
14 the content of the conversation?
15 A. I would have wanted to know what was being
16 said, yes.
17 Q. Would you have asked him to get an express
18 waiver of attorney-client privilege from Janet
19 Arvizo so that he could talk to you about the exact
20 content of that conversation?
21 A. No. I wouldn’t have advised him how to
22 practice law. He’s a -- I think a certified
23 specialist in criminal law, and I would assume he
24 would know that.
25 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller that you wanted
26 Brad Miller to become informed of the conversation
27 that Janet Arvizo was having with this attorney?
2 Q. Did you have --
3 A. And Brad said he couldn’t go, and that’s why
4 he volunteered Asaf instead.
5 Q. Did you have a conversation with Brad Miller
6 wherein you specifically asked Brad Miller to get as
7 much information as he could of the conversation
8 between Janet Arvizo and the Nasatir lawyer?
9 A. No. In fact, I -- my understanding was, I
10 told them, “I can’t get in the middle of that.
11 Refer it out.” And she kept asking Brad to attend
12 with her at that interview.
13 Q. Did Brad Miller tell you specifically that
14 the interview they were referring to was a
15 Department of Child Family Services interview?
16 A. I think he did, yes.
17 Q. Did you understand that that interview was
18 existing, was taking place because of concerns about
19 whether or not her children were being exposed to
20 Michael Jackson?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the
22 evidence.
23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 You may answer.
25 THE WITNESS: I -- I learned that after the
26 fact, after the interview.
27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Who is it who told you that
2 representatives?
3 A. I believe it was Brad.
4 Q. And he told you that that night?
5 A. I believe so. I believe that it was that
6 night that he said she was asking him to go with her
7 to the interview.
8 Q. Do you know why this interview was conducted
9 at two o’clock in the morning, hours before the
10 start of the interview with Janet Arvizo and the
11 Department of Child Family Services?
12 A. I have no idea --
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the
14 evidence.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 You may answer.
17 THE WITNESS: I have no idea why it was 2:00
18 in the morning. I do have a memory of saying, “Stop
19 calling me, because I’m going to bed.”
20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you tell Brad Miller at
21 any time that they should have that interview done
22 before the start of her interview with the
23 Department of Child Family Services?
24 A. Absolutely not. One, in my mind, had
25 nothing to do with the other.
26 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller to tape-record that
27 interview with the Department of Family Services?
2 Q. Did you tell Brad Miller that he should have
3 somebody else tape-record that interview?
4 A. Absolutely not. I didn’t know that he was
5 going to have anybody there.
6 Q. Did you have Asaf there that day?
7 A. I did not have Asaf there that day.
8 Q. Did you know Asaf prior to that day?
9 A. I think I met Asaf on one prior
10 investigation that I had hired Brad on.
11 Q. Is that Asaf Vilchic?
12 A. I think that’s his last name.
13 Q. And did you understand him to be an
14 employee, a part-time employee, of Brad Miller?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is Brad Miller someone you had worked with
17 for a period longer than five years prior to that
18 day?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you feel that you knew Brad Miller
21 fairly well?
22 A. I thought I knew him, yes. At that time, I
23 don’t know if I would say “fairly well,” but I used
24 him, as I indicated, probably on three or four
25 different cases. I use a number of investigators.
26 Q. Was there any conversation between you and
27 Brad Miller that night, on the evening of the 19th,
2 A. No, absolutely not.
3 Q. When did you first learn that that interview
4 had been tape-recorded?
5 THE WITNESS: I can’t answer that, Your
6 Honor.
7 THE COURT: Mark that.
8 Next question, please.
9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: When did you listen to the
10 tape-recording for the first time?
11 A. I can’t answer that.
12 Q. Did you have a conversation with Brad Miller
13 within the next week about the -- about the meeting
14 with the Department of Child Family Services?
15 A. I probably would have, yes. I don’t have --
16 as I sit here, I don’t remember it, but it would not
17 have been unlikely.
18 Q. Did Brad Miller brief you about the content
19 of the Department of Child & Family Services
20 meeting?
21 A. I think I was told that there wasn’t any
22 problem. And I don’t -- and I don’t know if I was
23 told that within a week or within a day, but I think
24 I was just told that there was no problem.
25 Q. Did you ask him, Brad Miller, if he was, in
26 fact, present during the course of the meeting with
27 the representatives from the Department of Child &
2 would not have been unusual for me to have done it.
3 As I sit here, I don’t remember asking him that, but
4 it’s logical that I would have.
5 Q. Did Brad Miller tell you that he was
6 personally present during that interview?
7 A. I don’t remember the conversation, but I
8 don’t at any time remember Brad telling me that he
9 was present during that interview.
10 Q. Did he ever tell you who was present during
11 that interview?
12 A. That’s another question I can’t answer.
13 THE COURT: All right. Mark it.
14 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Brad Miller ever tell you
15 that Asaf was present during the beginning of the
16 interview?
17 A. That’s another question I can’t answer.
18 THE COURT: Next question. Mark it.
19 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did Asaf ever tell you how
20 that tape got in the hands of MS-NBC and Dan Abrams?
21 A. That’s another question I can’t answer.
22 THE COURT: All right. I think we’ll take
23 our recess early today. I don’t think this is
24 productive to proceed this way.
25 (To the jury) Any objection if you go home
26 seven minutes early?
27 A JUROR: Oh, no.
2 Counsel remain a moment.
3 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
4
5 (The following proceedings were held in
6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
7 jury:)
8
9 MR. ZONEN: Mr. Geragos, do you still have
10 that exhibit in front of you or did I take it back
11 already?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Mr. Geragos, you may step down,
14 but remain within the bar. You have an interest, a
15 stake here. I think you have counsel here.
16 MR. GERAGOS: Pat’s sitting here, but I’ll
17 be one of those pro pers.
18 My biggest concern is I’m engaged in
19 Department C35 in a jury trial that has been ongoing
20 now for eight weeks in Santa Ana court before the
21 Honorable Judge --
22 THE COURT: Could you come to the microphone?
23 There’s people that just can’t hear you back there.
24 MR. ZONEN: I’ll move out of your way.
25 MR. GERAGOS: I’m presently engaged in jury
26 trial in Department C35, long-cause court, in Santa
27 Ana. I’ve been there for eight weeks. We have 18
2 to last till August. The case is actually seven
3 years old. It’s been to the Supreme Court and back,
4 and there is a published decision on it. The -- all
5 the jurors are ordered back for Monday morning at
6 nine o’clock. I am ordered back by Judge Fasel at
7 8:45.
8 Obviously I do not want to incur the wrath
9 of this Court, but I believe that if I’m ordered
10 back for Monday, I’m going to be under competing
11 Court orders, and somebody’s going to find me in
12 contempt.
13 THE COURT: Who do you want to do that?
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. GERAGOS: I think I’d rather -- I hate
16 to say this, as much as I love Santa Maria, I’d
17 rather spend my time in the OSC jail, so --
18 MR. SANGER: We have a nice jail here.
19 THE COURT: We can call that judge. I
20 understand. In fact, that’s why I ordered you up
21 today, was when I heard that you were in a lengthy
22 jury trial, my choice was not to disturb the jury
23 trial on Monday, because I know how hard it is for
24 any jury to have to deal with these kind of
25 problems.
26 And I fully anticipated that we’d be able to
27 get all of your testimony in today. You know, the
2 so you were kept upstairs for a period I didn’t
3 anticipate this morning.
4 But his courtroom is dark on Fridays?
5 MR. GERAGOS: He I think -- I believe has a
6 law-and-motion calendar on Fridays, and that’s why
7 it’s dark for jury trials.
8 The jury was ordered back at -- for nine
9 o’clock. The next day off is the 20th. I’ve
10 already inquired here. I guess you’re not working,
11 I guess this court is dark on the 20th. And then we
12 do have, even though I’m supposed to be out of the
13 country, we’re dark on the 26th of May. I suppose I
14 could always delay that trip to later in the day if
15 I could get --
16 THE COURT: Well, I’m not going to put it
17 off that long. What I could do is cancel our day
18 off on the 20th. The 20th was going to be a day off
19 because Mr. Sanger had made a commitment to
20 appear --
21 MR. GERAGOS: If it’s just Mr. Sanger, I’ve
22 got no problems screwing up his day off.
23 THE COURT: So I’m trying to -- what I’m
24 going to require here is some points and authorities
25 from both sides. I’m not quite sure of what --
26 where we are and what we should be doing. And so it
27 wouldn’t hurt if -- I mean, clearly everyone’s going
2 and --
3 MR. GERAGOS: That’s fine. And I’d
4 appreciate it. The case I had on Friday I was
5 hoping that you would say that. I had somebody go
6 out to San Bernardino this morning and continue a
7 prelim that was set for the 20th, so I have -- I can
8 move the other two things that I have, so it’s not a
9 problem.
10 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, on Friday, from a
11 selfish standpoint, could we limit the day to Mr.
12 Geragos’s testimony?
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. SANGER: So when we’re through, then we
15 could go, because I could still make part of it.
16 THE COURT: Right. We can set Friday just
17 for Mr. Geragos’s testimony.
18 MR. SANGER: Thank you.
19 THE COURT: How much more testimony -- how
20 much longer do you think you’re -- I know. The
21 problem is if I give you a week, then it will -- to
22 think of questions, then....
23 MR. GERAGOS: Exactly.
24 MR. ZONEN: You’re asking me how many more
25 minutes of cross-examination I have?
26 THE COURT: Estimate your time.
27 MR. ZONEN: Oh, gosh. A half hour at least.
2 (Laughter.)
3 THE COURT: Well, we have a serious problem
4 to deal with, and I really don’t have a -- I really
5 am not -- all we can do is do some research.
6 MR. ZONEN: I’ll try to accommodate the
7 Court as best I can.
8 THE COURT: If I bring the jury in, I’m not
9 going to bring them in just for a half hour of
10 testimony on Friday, so we’ll use the whole day.
11 That would not be fair to the jury.
12 MR. SANGER: Whatever the Court decides.
13 THE COURT: I think that’s what we’ve got to
14 do.
15 MR. SANGER: If we quit early -- let me put
16 it this way. If we quit early on Friday, it would
17 be nice, but whatever the Court can do with that in
18 mind.
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 MR. GERAGOS: May I be excused, with the
21 promise that I will return at 8:30 on Friday the
22 20th?
23 THE COURT: You’re ordered to return on
24 Friday --
25 MR. GERAGOS: And I promise I’ll be here.
26 THE COURT: -- by 8:30.
27 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
2 from Mr. Sneddon.
3 Are you interested in --
4 MR. GERAGOS: Yes, I had hoped that you
5 would invite me to, but I was going to -- I’ll try
6 to keep it short, but I’ll point to what I think are
7 the applicable code sections that are appropriate
8 and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
9 THE COURT: The issue -- here’s -- the issue
10 I want addressed is not what the ethical rules are.
11 We know that. What I want to address is what
12 happens in the middle of testimony when the party
13 who’s asserted that they have given you a waiver on
14 the record, a waiver of the attorney-client
15 privilege, suddenly reveals in the writing that you
16 don’t have a complete waiver. And what are the
17 remedies? What should I do?
18 MR. GERAGOS: My belief is that under the --
19 THE COURT: Well --
20 MR. GERAGOS: I won’t give it to you now.
21 THE COURT: Don’t shoot from the hip. I
22 can’t believe that this ever happened to you before,
23 did it?
24 MR. GERAGOS: No.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s do some
26 research on it.
27 MR. GERAGOS: I just think it’s similar to
2 THE COURT: Well, that’s not the -- the
3 client -- the attorney made the waiver. The client
4 is sitting there, you know. There’s all sorts of
5 issues here that are different than that.
6 The question is what do we do now? So I
7 would like all of you to weigh in on the issue at
8 hand, which is what do we do now?
9 MR. GERAGOS: I’d be happy to. Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Now, will you fax your materials
11 to my office? Do you still have that number?
12 MR. GERAGOS: I do. I saved that on my Word
13 Perfect.
14 THE COURT: I’ll authorize fax service on
15 Mr. Mesereau and Mr. Zonen, Mr. Sneddon. And I want
16 to have all of this by eight o’clock Monday morning.
17 MR. GERAGOS: That’s fine.
18 THE COURT: And then would you call your
19 judge and tell him that I have accommodated him and
20 do understand the situation with him?
21 MR. GERAGOS: I will. Thank you very much,
22 Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Anything else?
24 MR. SANGER: I’m still struggling with this
25 matter that I have on Friday. Assuming we’re
26 through with Mr. Geragos by the 11:30 break, would
27 you be willing to call the jury in -- in other
2 the 11:30 break. Would that be all right?
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MR. SANGER: Okay.
5 THE COURT: Would you have -- I would like to
6 have the jury commissioner immediately leave a
7 message for all the jurors right now that the day
8 off on the 20th has been cancelled. We’re going to
9 use it so that any plans they have they can change,
10 and prevent them from making plans in anticipation.
11 Anything else?
12 Okay.
13 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
14 --o0o--
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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 10193 through 10361
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 13, 2005, and thereafter
20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided
21 transcription under my direction.
22 DATED: Santa Maria, California,
23 May 13, 2005.
24
25
26
27 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304