All right. Back on the record. I understand we need to settle some scheduling matters. Counsel?

Yes, your Honor. May I address the Court--

Yes.

--just briefly? As I understand it, Judge Reid has listened to the arguments of counsel and has basically concluded that if the Defense were to proffer a declaration regarding materiality, which I represented we would have here tomorrow at 8:30, he would then ask that your Honor consider this declaration of materiality. He would then--if you found it material, which we trust you will, he will then make an order turning over certain reports conducted by Internal Affairs. And we were then in kind of a scheduling quandary. I indicated to him, as I told you, these are our next witnesses. We need to get an idea of scheduling. They're available, but we need time to go through the reports, sanitize them and get ready for the next witnesses. The Court is aware of who those witnesses are.

You know, this actually compounds the issues regarding the Bosco issue.

Yes. That's the other part.

This broadens the source of alternative sources, which is really where we're going with all of this.

Yes.

So you're saying that I need to make an initial finding of materiality first--

We think so.

--before I even get to the balancing test, the other balancing tests that are suggested in Delaney. Is that--

I think it's a threshold finding really, your Honor, that Judge Reid--I mean we all agree you are in a better position than Judge Reid being disadvantaged, you know, to make that particular finding. This issue can somewhat stand on its own, but we wanted--as Mr. Uelmen indicated to you, we think this issue should proceed before your other issues because it will assist you hopefully.

Yeah. I see the point. All right.

I think what--where we're at is, the threshold determination of materiality needs to be based on this declaration, but the issue of relevancy is part of the in camera review under section 1045. So all we're talking about is kind of a prima facie showing of materiality at this point to get the records turned over. At that point, your Honor reviews them. We believe that review can encompass a determination of whether there are witness statements that the Defense is entitled to, whether there is Brady material in the report and whether this alternative source has been exhausted in terms of the newsperson's shield law determination that your Honor has also considered.

All right. Mr. Walsh.

One question in terms of scheduling that was left unanswered is to what extent the city and the police department will have an opportunity to review the declaration and submit some sort of response regarding our view of its materiality.

How about if we do this? How about if I direct you and the representative of the Defense handling this matter to be present here tomorrow morning at 8:30 to--

I have a conflict, your Honor. I have a civil court appearance. I may be able to have a different attorney cover this or that, but at this moment, I'll have to work that out. All right. Why don't we--let's do the at 8:30, and I'm not sure it will be me.

8:30. And then on the record at 9 o'clock, I'll allow you to make any representations or any argument in contravention to the declaration of materiality rather than require a written response. So I think that will expedite matters. And I will be prepared tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock after I hear the arguments to rule on whether or not there's been a prima facie showing of materiality.

And we can then do the in camera if you make the determination?

Yes.

So I would have the custodian present for that.

Yes. Have them available within a short period of time on call.

All right.

All right. Okay. What else do we have left?

We have one other motion. But then based upon that, your Honor, I suppose, just as a matter, could the Court give me some inkling of then what your Honor's pleasure is going to be regarding the ruling that may also follow this ruling and because we'll know then better who our next witnesses are going to be, because that's the issue.

Well, here's the problem, Mr. Cochran. Once I make a finding of materiality, assuming that that occurs, then Delaney sets out four different criteria that I then have to contemplate a balance. I won't know what those criteria are unless and until I conduct the in camera hearing with IAD, or if that avenue is foreclosed, then that becomes a moot issue, and then it's a different equation. Then assuming we get past all of that--and let's assume that I issue an order directing Mr. Bosco to testify, then they are going to request a stay as they've indicated that they're going to challenge that. So--and it would be my preference to, you know, allow them some time to take whatever appellate remedies that they have available to them. So my guess is that we ought to probably prepare to go forward with witnesses in the next day or two other than these people. Because let's assume that all the cards fall in your favor and we do have--and I do require the news media people to testify. They are going to request stays and go to the Court of Appeal, and they won't be available until, at the earliest, the end of week, perhaps the beginning of next week.

All right. Given that thought, your Honor, we will then--

And the Prosecution has all along said they're going to raise 352 objections to all of this as being speculative unless there is a very clear connection between this and that.

We think we can make that. But we will out of an abundance of caution--

So my suggestion to you is that you be prepared to go forward with witnesses other than this circle of witnesses.

All right. By Thursday, is that what you're saying to me?

How about tomorrow?

Well, we have some work tomorrow morning certainly.

How about tomorrow afternoon?

Let me see if--I hope we can do that.

That would be fine then as far as the jury. Let us then see where we are. Let's try to be ready tomorrow afternoon with some witnesses. We don't want to delay the trial if at all possible. We'd like to go in the order we've talked about. But I understand the procedural problem.

Even if I ruled in your favor today--

Yes.

--we still wouldn't have live witnesses really available until next week my guess, and Dean Uelmen is nodding that he thinks that's probably true.

We probably can--well, we'll work that out, your Honor. We'll try to have some witnesses for tomorrow afternoon hopefully.

All right. Then let Mr. Darden and Miss Clark know.

I will. I think we can proceed with--

All right. Mr. Walsh, thank you very much, sir. See you tomorrow morning.

Judge, are we contemplating calling a witness other than Dr. Baden now?

What about the Stockdale matter?

I assume the Stockdale matter will be resolved this afternoon.

Will be resolved this afternoon?

My recollection is that counsel contacted the Court or the Court contacted counsel, and he and she are available this afternoon is my understanding.

I'm sorry?

She's en route.

Okay. I heard she was going to be here at 2:30. That's why.

If we could have an opportunity to confer with her, then proceed.

I assume we can resolve this without a full hearing once she's here.

I thought the Court wanted testimony to resolve it.

No. As I indicated to you, there's a factual dispute. One side says one thing, the other side says something else. If she's here, she can tell us one way or the other.

Right. I assumed you'd want that in the blue chair, but--

Well, if she comes in with a tape recording and says here it is--

That would be great.

You never know. All right. So my proposal is for this afternoon then that we release the jury, that we stand in recess until the arrival of Miss Stockdale and her counsel.