All right. Back on the record. Mr. Shapiro or Miss Chapman, did you have some witnesses you wanted ordered back?
Yes, we do, your Honor. We have one witness who is in court, Detective Andrew Purdy, who is present with his counsel. We'd like him back for tomorrow.
Your Honor, we have three members of the District Attorney's office we'd like to have for testimony tomorrow that we've informed Mr. Hodgman of. We need not give their names tonight. And we have several other officers that Mr. Hodgman has been kind enough to accommodate us with but we have not had time to interview, and we would like to give you that list, but not in open court. We have no other witnesses in court. Is that correct, Mr. Hodgman?
Your Honor, we are still in the process of interviewing some of the witnesses. Mr. Purdy has been very, very cooperative. We have about another half hour with him, and we would like to interview the remainder of the witnesses today. I would be in a better position to give you that estimate tomorrow morning when Mr. Scheck, Miss Chapman and I have had a chance to assimilate all of the material.
All right. So what advice do you give the court on the question that weighs most heavily on my mind?
I would say that certainly no earlier than 10 o'clock, your Honor. I think by that time--
Your Honor, I think I've made it pretty clear. They've had six months to talk to these people and now they want more time. Another delay with this jury on ice again, it's so unnecessary. And as the court pondered--
No. I'm just asking, do you have any estimate as to how long you think the hearing will take based upon what you know from the moving papers, who the witnesses are and what the issues are posed? I mean, do you just have a guess--I'm just inviting you to help me a little so we cannot keep the jurors too inconvenienced for too long. That's all I'm asking.
Well, there's no testimony necessary on the motion, your Honor. Counsel can make their pitch to the court. The bottom-line issue of this I think comes back to what the Defense likes to characterize as a log, and that's--of officer Purdy and that's it. There is very little else to talk about, but it certainly does not require the testimony of witnesses. And if this hearing is conducted in that fashion, which is all that is required, then it should be done in about half an hour, because there is no exculpatory information that has not been turned over, Judge.
You know, the People in this matter turned over everything that came to them back in February as the court knows, submitted it to the court for examination, for IAD investigation, all of which was turned over to the court back in February of this year. So at this point, you know, the People have satisfied their obligations. There's nothing that we haven't done, and the court should be able to make that finding in about 2 minutes.
Your Honor, for the court's edification, ordinarily, the facts would not be in dispute when we're dealing with Deputy District Attorneys and members of the Los Angeles Police Department. However, we're in a paradoxical situation here where we have certain statements and one under penalty--a declaration that's been filed that has not been signed that indicates a certain set of facts from at least one and possibly two Deputy District Attorneys and a statement that we understand was given under oath in Internal Affairs, saying that the Deputy District Attorney was a liar from one of the members of the Los Angeles Police Department. If we could get a resolution of the facts with the help of the District Attorney's office, that would certainly move this proceeding along.
May I remind the court that it asks counsel to bring in their reports and notes to assist the court in determining what stage they were at, and I think the court asked them to do it last week. Was that turned over?
All right. 10 o'clock with the jury. All right. Anything else. All right. We're in recess.
They've had six months to talk to these people and now they want more time. Another delay with this jury on ice again, it's so unnecessary.
We have a paradoxical situation here where we have certain statements and one under penalty--a declaration that's been filed that has not been signed that indicates a certain set of facts from at least one and possibly two Deputy District Attorneys and a statement that we understand was given under oath in Internal Affairs, saying that the Deputy District Attorney was a liar from one of the members of the Los Angeles Police Department.
There is no exculpatory information that has not been turned over, Judge. You know, the People in this matter turned over everything that came to them back in February.
All right. I'll guess an hour then.