available. chairperson hur: great. i understand that the mayor based on our previous conversations is available on the 29th? >> that is correct. chairperson hur: we had discussed the possibility of experts testifying out of order, having been testifying on the 29th. it sounds like they agree that will be ok. do i have that correct? >> there may be no need to take them out of order. chairperson hur: but you still want haynes. >> i do not know about the other witness. we are still deciding. i do not know about the availability of their expert witness.

>> i do not have an answer on the former sheriff. i need an indication as to whether they intend to cross- examine them. >> we agreed to do that on thursday. chairperson hur: i think we need to hear from any experts we have on the 29th. i thought that is what we had discussed and i thought we were also going to get an indication they were available. yours are.

>> i can find out in short order. again, i still have not had a chance to digest or read the expert witness declarations submitted. depending on if we have objections, we may not require them to appear. chairperson hur: on the 28, we will deal with objections to any experts, for their objections to miss madison, in an potentially the testimony of the sheriff. on the 28.

an exhibit for, the video. i assume it is no problem for the sheriff to testify on the 29 to for some reason we run out of time. >> getting our experts on the 29th without knowing whether or not they have to be here is difficult. i guess we will know on the 22nd whether the sheriff wants to cross-examine the experts but we would need to know whether the commission wants to hear from them. i know they start to have availability problems in july. chairperson hur: why don't we plan to have them here. that is what i thought was going to happen. you did not want to cross them and they would need to appear if the commission wanted to question them but that otherwise we would be able to make that decision on the 28

when we see all the papers. >> chief williamson has to travel from san diego. we will make the travel plans as if he is going to be here. he will have to come on the 28 for that. chairperson hur: he is only available on the 28. >> he asked to travel on the 28. >> my concern is first of all he is a chief of police. being away from his position for two days if he is not going to testify is burdensome for him and for the city to pay for that travel if his testimony is not going to be needed. i was wondering if there could be a way in the advance of the 28th to know whether, we know that sheriff mirkarimi will indicate whether he has interests in cross-examining.

i wonder if commissioners could indicate their interest so it is no need for him to appear we will not have to be a burden to the city. chairperson hur: i am not aware by a procedure we could accomplish that. one thing that comes to mind is we could designate a commissioner and to make that decision. but beyond that, unless we had a meeting to address that, i cannot think of a way to make that happen consistent with our obligations. i welcome other legal advice. >> each of us could look at the

declarations and make a decision. i could call you and say, i do not care to cross-examine. individually, we are not conferring with each other. we are simply saying what our desire is. can we do that? >> is the indication to council would be that anyone commissioner expresses a desire to testify, then i would be open to receiving calls from any commissioner who has that intention and i could communicate that by the 22nd to counsel. the commissioners should not confirm them themselves. >> you cannot discuss this a monster cells carry -- amongst yourselves.

you can decide if any of you want it, then you're going to do it, or from the jury. >> solely for my purposes, if this is related to both of the expert witnesses, i would be able to do it by the night of the 22nd. but not sooner than that. >> it would be helpful for both of our witnesses to know that travel is not an issue. she lives in the bay area. >> but it might be for planning purposes. >> why don't we let you know? we are all in agreement that that is consistent with our sunshine and brown act obligations. >> i do have a problem with

pulling the commission. the decision by commissioners expressed an interest to me. if i could pass that on the council for both sides, i think that works. >> if anyone commissioner one a year from an expert, that expert would be asked to appear. if we let you know that by the 25th, is that sufficient? by the 22nd, we will know whether he will be bringing them anyway i do not think it makes sense to hear from the witnesses before then. >> please do it as you see fit. i am also wondering. maybe we should also do it this

way. just so all of the experts are on notice of what is going happen. just a suggestion. chairperson hur: yes. i think that is right. >> i just want add, once he has one, it does not matter when the others respond. he can just advise us that that expert will appear. that way we would not have to rush to review the material. chairperson hur: why don't we make a deadline so commissioners need to respond by 5:00 on the 22nd -- on the 25th. the 22nd is when you all will tell each other. that is fine. >> we could also hear from the commission by then.

>> i can do it. chairperson hur: 5:00 p.m. on the 20 secondary the commissioners will say whether or not want to hear from an expert. >> the police chief coming from san diego does not need to come the night before. san diego is not a tough place. people do it every day. >> i understand but i know you are a practicing lawyer as well and you probably prepare witnesses before they testified. we will need a little time to consult with the chief. chairperson hur: ok. on the 28, we may hear from the share of. we will certainly hear from him by the 29th. the 29th, we will hear from the mayor and any other experts.

we then need a date to hear testimony from ms. haynes and i think we should, whatever that date is, hold that we could get them to the extent they need to be cross-examined. >> based on some conflicts among lawyers, i think the earliest we would be able to do that would be july 16. chairperson hur: i am sorry. the commissioners just got the schedule. is july 16 available for all of the commissioners? that is monday, july 16. >> it is not. chairperson hur: ok.

i guess this is a question to the commission staff. there are no rooms available from the 17th to the 20th? >> it is possible that this room is available. in the evening. but we have to double check the schedules of who is meeting during the day. also with sfg tv to see if they have broadcast slots available. for those evenings, if you wish to meet, we can schedule them tentatively and hopefully they stayed together. i would recommend doing that. chairperson hur: right. mr. kopp, you look like he

wanted to say something. >> i just won the task. our weekends out? chairperson hur: yes. the building is closed on weekends. >> mizzola was there on sunday. we also reservations on the 20th, 23rd, 24, 27, and 30th. chairperson hur: the 20 it will not work after all writ -- the 20th will not work after all. here is what i propose. i want this to be clear, on the record. i propose that council reserved the 17th through the 19th -- wait, we need to make sure the commissioners can make that. between the 17th and 19th, are

commissioners available on any of those days? >> i will need to check the 17th. the 18th and 19th are ok. chairperson hur: ok. why don't we have everyone, for the moment, blocked out on their calendars the 18th and 19th as potential days. does that work for council? >> yes. >> i am sorry. during the day or during the evening? >> evening. >> there is not any time we can get a full day and get it done in one sitting? >> not on those days. >> and you are releasing the 20th? chairperson hur: i am releasing the 20th. the 23rd, i think, is unavailable because of other

availability. it looks like we have the 24 of july as a possibility. >> that is available all day. chairperson hur: july 24, is that -- >> i am supposed to start a trial the day before. it could easily result. i could try to continue that case so we can get this done. i am assuming that this is if the 18th and 19th are not available. chairperson hur: is there a conflict with the evening of the 18th and 19th among commissioners? >> i can move what i have. chairperson hur: apologies for

the difficulty here. >> if i am the only problem on the 23rd, i can adjust that. chairperson hur: ok. thank you. we appreciate that. is the 23rd available? no. >> that is when i am supposed to start my trial. even if it does get resolved, i will have to be there to resolve it. the 24th would be better because i will file a motion to continue the case. chairperson hur: i think we should leave open the evening of the 18th and 19th. it is possible we will have one witness and it is possible we will have up to 3. i do not see a situation with more than three witnesses. is that fair? i do not think we need both of those days. i think we can get it done in one evening.

with madison and mertens, there is a possibility but you look skeptical. >> i am not skeptical. i think we may be able to resolve the objections. we will see. chairperson hur: ok. if people could block out the evening of the 18th and 19th, we will hopefully need only one and be able to finish the testimony by that time. >> but not the 17th? chairperson hur: the 17th, this sounds like there is some commissioner on availability. -- unavailability. chairperson hur: perhaps we should do another schedule and call shortly to nail down dates. ok. any objections to the july 17 --

i am sorry, 18th or 19th as another hearing date? assuming we can getms. haynes here one of those days. >> no. >> should we lockdown the 24th if we can, just in case? chairperson hur: 24, mr. kopp may be in trial. i am reluctant to schedule it. certainly, if your case resolve's shortly, it might be helpful to have that available, but as of now, i do not think we should. >> i will see if i can figure that out. chairperson hur: ok.

exhibit list. do you all exchange exhibit lists today? >> we prepared it. we had some technical difficulties filing. it will still be filed. chairperson hur: ok. you all will get copies of your respective a the lists. we have made rulings today that affect a number of the exhibits. do you want to resubmit exhibit lists tomorrow in light of our rulings today? >> may be just the same exhibit list with a notation of what the ruling was would make sense. for the record of what we have. >> we would like that have until wednesday. we are in the process of filing the exhibit list based in part

on the response of the receipt of declarations from mr. mertens and miss madison. chairperson hur: who would be the sponsoring witness? >> they are voluminous. i cannot tell you off the top of my head. chairperson hur: ok. can you describe the nature of these exhibits? what are they? >> some of them are transcripts of interviews with ms. madison and mr. mertens. police interviews with those individuals. also a transcript of an interview with miss williams. also, other documents we would like to submit relative to the sheriff's declaration. documents relative to nearly all of the declarations. there are many of them and i do not have all of them memorized and ready to go immediately

writ i think i could have them by wednesday. chairperson hur: i thought that you all were exchanging the exhibit lists today. i will give you to the close of business tomorrow to its trains them with whatever notations you want. the parties need to exchange so that the -- so that you all can submit whatever objections you may have to documents and get them to us so that we them by the 28. i expected and that thing the commission agreed with me that we expected to see all documents that you intended to introduce in the case with your declarations. if you are talking about rebuttal exhibits or exhibits that you would use to impeach a witness, to me, i do not think these need to be on exhibit lists. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. it sounds like that is the type

of evidence you are talking about. >> to some extent, that is true. there may be some exhibits that we would wish to submit for impeachment purposes without necessarily calling the witness. chairperson hur: you want to introduce an exhibit to impeach a witness who is not here to testify? to be cross-examined? >> i am not saying we definitely want to do that but i am holding that out as a possibility. given the strict rules of evidence do not apply, we would also have exhibits in mind that we would like to submit in the interest of time. it may not make sense to cross- examine a witness for said. on the other hand, there may be exhibits, transcripts of

interviews that maybe probative for your deliberations. >> at that point, you could give them as the other exhibits and testimony that you have admitted or will admit. give them the weight that you think they deserve. chairperson hur: that is not what i had in mind for how exhibits would work. i know we have a number of litigators on this and we all have our views. i would welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners. >> what i anticipated is that each side would supply the other with a list of exhibits they intend to put in. if there are any foundation objections, those would be flaws. hopefully, there will not be or there will be very few.

the question is whether or not the document is admissible without any testimony. again, you may have agreement on that. if you do not, then those documents can be identified and presented to us and we can rule on them whenever you want to put them in. if you alerted us, at the beginning, for those where there is no challenge to the foundation of the document and the only challenge goes to whether or not they are admissible, for whatever reason, there might be an objection. if those are all going to be used in connection with the presentation of a witness, that is one way to do it. the other way is by saying, offering them the case. that is my understanding. chairperson hur: thank you.

any other use? >> i did expect -- i know the rules of evidence are being very relaxed, but i did expect the sponsor and witnessed for the exhibits unless there was a stipulation of some sort. when you say transcripts of interviews, what are you referring to? >> miss madison and mr. mertens and ms. williams were all interviewed by police. there are transcripts of those interviews. similarly to the transcripts -- well, it is not similar at all. earlier admitted the court transcripts from ms. flores' testimony gary >> we reserve on that but that is foreign testimony, correct? >> yes. you do not have to admit them. we do intend to submit them. then you can make a decision

whether or not you want to admit them as admissible. >> under your scenario, would we get them in time to allow us to have the witness in person to reconcile the documentary offer for the previous interview transcript with live testimony? if it came in late in the process, that could make it difficult. if we knew it was coming early on, it might signal that we wanted certain witnesses available. or we might feel that it did not trigger that and it was reconciled without them. >> i am not sure the question that you ask, but i can say that i will get the closing party and

the commission, our exhibit list by the close of business tomorrow. chairperson hur: that would be great. if we could have objections by the end of friday. is that possible? >> i am a little confused and seeking clarification. in the scheduling conversations we had had with commissioner hur, we discussed all together submitting a exhibits and a procedure whereby by today, both sides would submit the exhibits that did not come in through a declaration. that is what we have been prepared to submit. we only have four submissions. we have given to our evidence for declarations. it is unclear to me now if there is a whole new process where we are starting with objections to everybody's documents.

are we just talking about this subset of documents or is the door wide open again? >> my understanding was that any documents -- any documentary evidence not submitted with the declaration that you intended to lose -- that you intended to use would be included on the exhibit list. i am proposing that we extend the deadline until tomorrow because it sounds like there were some technical difficulties and there are some telephone records that needed redacting. perhaps that can all be done and we can have these lists in a complete form by the end of the day tomorrow. that is my point. by friday, i would like to see -- or monday, if that is too soon for it.

the process i thought we were discussing if you would meet and confer, stipulate to those documents which there was no objection. if there were objections, there would be submitted so we would be able to rule on them. >> is the commission going to entertain objections to a -- two documents attached to declarations you have are the reviewed? or is that topic close now? >> if we have sustained an objection to a paragraph that includes an exhibit, that document is out. >> would there be a second chance to object to other exhibits in the same declaration that has party -- that had already been considered? chairperson hur: i was not anticipating that. i think we are all talking about the same thing. please let me know if we are not. >> i am not, in any way, criticizing. it is just difficult to get clarity later if i do not have it today. >>