as significant. but i will not say that was not domestic violence, no, i am not going to say that. >> you would not stipulate that it was? >> no. >> any other questions for mr. kopp? ms. kaiser? >> i frankly think that even as mr. kopp would stipulate to the term domestic violence, that would not make car of evidence irrelevant or cumulative because it is not really the term that controls, it is the act we are trying to show and the significance of the act. we believe that the act is a true act of domestic violence as placed within properly understood within the context that was supplied by nancy lyman and again by linnette peralta haynes. i have to agree with mr., bu ko

that whether we leave that, neither of us really want that. we want you to understand and explore the significance of the act. to do that, we are permitted to submit this relevant evidence, and it is relevant. >> ok, but what fact in dispute are using miss florez's testimony to help prove? >> we are trying to prove that this is not an insignificant -- >> ok, i don't want descriptive words. i want what fact, the actual piece of evidence, the thing that happened that will -- that this will help us decide. >> well, it will help you determine whether or not the act was more likely just a crab

and indignant pull, or more likely in fact a grab and a push against the wall. if i cannot attach significance, i can point you to that factual dispute. i believe the dispute is very significant. that happens within context. we have various descriptions, one minimizing, and one -- >> any question for ms. kaiser? ok, my view it is in light of the argument of counsel and in light of the fact that we are not a jury, though i think it is very close, i do not think it is particularly relevant in light of the representation of counsel. i would be inclined to let aid and for the purpose to the

extent that it is relevant for helping us determine the severity of the combat on december -- of the conduct on december 31, 2011, and to the extent that it impeaches the sheriff's testimony. i did not recall that testimony specifically, but we will let you are rheostat. -- we will let you argue that. at least that is my view. i welcome the feel of my fellow commissioners. >> i would be inclined to agree with you, mr. chairman, but i would caution the city attorney, when you file your proposed findings of fact, that that is the form they are going to be in. and you are relying on any portion of the flores testimony, you point specifically to that part so we can decide whether or not it is

truly relevant. there are many portions -- i have read the testimony, and are many portions that i think have nothing to do with this case ought -- that have nothing to do with this case, and particularly the allegations there was some prior location with mirkarimi with ms. flores. i will tell you now that i do not think that should be in at all. so, you cite need that for some reliance of finding of fact, you'll have a tough time convincing me. >> i would agree with both of you about letting in on a limited basis. the background is helpful relative to some of the pattern in miss lopez's testimony as well. >> ms. kaiser, we are ruling

your way. >> ok. >> ok, so is there any dissenting view from the commissioners? ok. next item are the rebuttal exhibits from the sheriff. mr. kopp, the you have any objections to them? >> if he could hold them up, because i did not have a hard copy? >> while he is pulling back up, we conferred during the break and i raised an issue of a portion of the declaration that had previously been excluded, and in light of miss lopez's testimony, i thought it was a prior inconsistent statement that could come in. mr. kopp had no objections. was wondering if that would be

ok for the commission? >> sure, no objection, you can do it. >> it is paragraph nine, page three, line seven, beginning with, " eliana told me," ending >> any objections from the commissioners? do we have that? ok, great, thank you. mr. kopp, have you found the exhibits? >> yes, i have. >> to you have any objection to 84 through 87? >> well, i think i had previously -- i just want to make sure the police report we discussed yesterday is not included. >> i think it is. >> i made in objection and i

understood that to be sustained last night. >> i don't think that we addressed it. you have a different recollection? >> we discussed it, but we did not settle it. >> i think we got rid of the rebuttal testimony from backeec. which do you have an objection to? >> e85, the report, hearsay. then 87, relevance. i am happy to expand upon that. >> ok, you may have to, but i don't think you will. ok, 84, 86 are in by stipulation? >> yes. >> okay, let's take 85 first. i think it is here say.

if he could asked at the officer? >> it falls within the evidence code, 1280, it is for writings made by and within the scope of duty of a public employ about an act, condition, or event that fits the bill. this is an incident report about the act and event that occurred when they arrested sheriff mirkarimi and discussion. under case law, this provision applies to incident reports, and they, and an administrative cases. i have a copy with a bunch of case cites, which i'm happy to supply the council and the commission. >> you could have submitted becker's instead of daniele's. we gave you the option. >> that is right.

>> i do not see becker's report as anything new, i think it is cumulative. if we gave you the choice and you made your selection. plus, i have not heard of police reports been able to come in under these kinds of circumstances. i open it up to my fellow commissioners, but i would be inclined to sustain the objection. >> may i ask a question? >> course. >> can you indicate to us what is different, what we would learn what different about the affidavit that we already have, the declaration that we already have from the other officer? >> no, it is correct. as the chairman mentioned, it was cumulative. that is true. it is consistent. when you have a credibility battle, it went to get in as many witness statements as you can, and that is why we are submitting it. the sheriff had testimony one way, we had testimony another

way, but this is nothing new. >> the only thing that has sympathy for this in light of what you pointed out is the fact that we know there is an issue raised by the sheriff's testimony. but i defer to your greater knowledge of it. >> that may be a mistake. well, and the other views of this from the commissioners about whether this should be admitted? ok, then 85 should be excluded. 87, 87 is a video of mr. wagner talking to a reporter. i have a very hard time seeing the relevance of that mr. keith. >> the reason is offered is because we argued, as i argued earlier tonight, there has been a pattern of basically mistreatment of our reporting

what this by a law-enforcement official, and it is continuing. this is basically belittling and making fun of the reporting witness, the wood is to correct the reported a crime. the idea that he would have his lawyer is going to a news agency and basically making fun of her and sang she is not credible because she has written a comic book, i think that is not decent and it is not the right thing to do. i think that is why it is relevant to the conduct charge. >> ok. any questions for mr. keith? mr. kopp, i will give you an opportunity to say something. >> last night, i said some things about miss madison's credibility to some reporters. i mean, the mayor is out there, permitted to make comments about his view of sheriff mirkarimi's

actions, but we are still supposed to fight with one hand behind our back? i don't think so. this is not a playground. i think -- well, i don't want to say what i really think about this, but i don't think there is any way this is relevant to what you have. i think we are perfectly permitted to comment on the credibility of witnesses. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection of 87. any dissenting views from my fellow commissioners? ok, that will be excluded. ok, moving along to nancy lyman. unlike ms,. lopez's declaration, you were more successful narrowing your scope of the disputes. unless i misread it. >> no, but i did not mean to

give you the impression we had to go through this paragraph by paragraph. we have an overarching objection because, repeating myself, we don't think a domestic violence expert is needed to understand the situation and make a decision. i am aware from past comments that some of you have made to that. i am probably in the minority here, but really, they agreed to take out those paragraphs. i alluded to 185 to 190, inclusive. other than the overarching irrelevance objection, really the only outstanding point that is in dispute is the bullet

point number 6, or vi. >> i took your objection seriously and went through this paragraph by paragraph to determine what i thought was relevant. should i have not done that? >> i'm very sorry, the relevance objection is not too specific individualize paragraphs, but to the expert opinion. >> i don't know what that means. does that mean that you were objecting on relevance or not? >> yes. >> ok, here is my view of what should be stricken. 64-65.

82-87, 95, 96, 128, 135, 139, 142, 146-150, and 182-180. -- 184. so, ms. kaiser, you are welcome to address them. >> ok. i really thought i was directed to the way it -- to do that.

objections. i apologize, but i will be a little off the cuff, but i am happy to do this. i am just less prepared than i would have otherwise been. i apologize. ok, so 64 through 75 appears to be about the relationship between prior domestic violence, better intervention programs, and about a prominent intervention program and the san francisco jail and the san francisco sheriff's department. this is offered as background information, at the same way the preceding paragraph to this point had been offered. there is a clear relationship, i

think, and the experts believe between firearms and domestic violence. it seems to me this is relevant explanatory information out the significance about the issue, and it also seems to me the sheriff is participating now in a batterers' intervention program and the principles and importance of those programs are relevant in terms of the fact that his conviction and his presence are the basis of one of the misconduct charges. so the fact he is under three years' probation and is mandated

to attend this sort of court makes this information relevant to understanding the components of his sentence that we believe are important to determining whether or not it is consistent with professional standards. >> ok, i thought we had instructed you wall to give us lemon testimony that speaks to the credibility of ms. lopez, because that was the basis for it in the brown case, and that is what i insisted we were going to rely on miss lemmon for. whether or not there is someone who is legally authorized to have weapons, the sheriff is allowed to have them. i am not sure that it will be helpful to whatever additional bodies have to review this record. i am cognizant this record is already huge. i and stand that we have erred

on the side of letting things and, but i think we want to draw some lines and limit the record to what is truly relevant or at least related to relevant information. >> commissioner, does that mean that you are not intending on transmitting the full record? >> no, the whole thing will go, but i expect that whoever reviews this will rely in part on what is determined as relevant. so -- >> i don't know. i assume that all of the decisions that you make will be taken as recommendations by the final decision makers out. does that mean that they will not read the rest? i really don't know. >> i am not really understanding your point, ms. kaiser. >> i am just curious about mending the page numbers when all of the pages are going in any way.

i am trying to understand, to simply to address that concern and address it better and understand it. >> i think what we are trying to do here is figure out what the factual findings will be based on. that is the point of determining what is relevant, not just what record is going up to the board of supervisors. when we make factual findings, what are we relying on? we are only going to rely on the evidence that has been submitted, right? >> yes. >> so that is the point of all of the meetings we have been having to determine the admissibility of evidence. >> we expect you to follow our rulings and when you submit your findings of fact that have citations, we expect that you'll be citing things that will be deemed to be relevant, whether or not another body reviews are worker agrees or disagrees with that viewpoint. >> absolutely, and instead of

those concerns. i was just wondering about the desire to short for the sake of shortening. i completely understand the purpose of the rulings and the reasons why they are important to the findings of facts and conclusions. may i address your point about credibility in the brown case qwee? may i? >> do any commissioners have questions for ms. kaiser or comments about those paragraphs? ok, please proceed. >> ok. you remember i and at the last conversations and i hope you will not be mad at me if i do not represent each person's views perfectly because i'm hearing a panoply of use. -- a panoply of use. i did not ignore the credibility

of the victim as the main point of this declaration, but i also heard that the commissioner say, is and this important for us to determine what kind that the constitutes an act of domestic violence? i heard her ask if it was support for helping the commission determined whether sheriff mirkarimi pleaded guilty to a crime of domestic violence. commissioner stubbly was concerned that there be information about the nature of domestic violence and background about how to interpret several elements or actions within the context of domestic violence. commissioner lou said that was important or that it may be important, the facts that are discussed may be important to understand how the behavior's may affect the domestic violence or why a witness would recant. those are separate things.

commissioner randy wanted to know -- commissioner remy wanted to know whether it fit the definition of domestic violence, whether or not it is the legal definition. i heard many different views about why this might be relevant, which included victim credibility, but also exceeded it. that is why in my view, and frankly, i addressed the objections that mr. kopp raced to specific paragraphs and bullet 0.6, and it was my view and the first place that given the panoply of reasons that most of the declaration was from. >> i thought you were going to address brown. >> ok. brown is indeed a case that talks about -- in that case, and

that setting, the expert declaration went to helping the court understand the reasons why the victim would have recanted. but there are many other cases about the domestic violence expert, and are not limited to victim credibility. if you like me to bring in a series of case cites that show that is the evidence code that can include any reason why an expert would have more knowledge, i am happy to do that. it is true that is focused on that, but it did not limit the inquiry. >> of all the things you mentioned, i did not think paragraph 64-75 go to that. my fellow commissioners objections or concerns about the testimony? the paragraphs that talk about

the indications of domestic violence, the effect that it has on the victim, how victims react, those are all prior to these paragraphs. i would recommend that we strike a 64-75. are there dissenting views? >> no, i was just going to say that i had made a list, very similar to your list, of the paragraphs to exclude, given the concerns i had before. i was still going to exclude pretty much the same paragraph you are talking about. so i completely agree with your perch. >> -- with your approach. >> paragraphs 82-87. >> i'm sorry, what did you just strike? >> 64-75.

>> thank you. i'm sorry, what paragraphs are we discussing now? >> 82-87. >> thank you. >> you know, i agree that what happened with the guns has become relevant. it is just not clear to me what an expert in domestic violence should be saying about them.

the sheriff, obviously, was allowed by law to carry these guns, and her conclusions appear to be the types of conclusions that i would not expect an expert in domestic violence to make. so that is why i agree with the relevance objection. of course, mr. kopp, if i have that wrong or -- >> mr. chairman,. re 87 paragraph 87 may be excluded, but it does not necessarily relate to the guns in the previous paragraphs. >> that is true. this appeared to me to be essentially a neutral conclusion. >> it was excluded because it was a legal conclusion.

though i suspect expert witnesses are allowed to give legal conclusions, even though they may be wrong. >> she teaches domestic violence laws and wrote the textbook. boy, if there is anything that she is qualified to opine on, it is what domestic laws is. you may feel they did not need the help, but she is certainly qualified to offer that opinion. >> any objections from the commissioners to striking a 82- 87? >> i would keep 87 in. >> any other views? i can live with that. >> i agree. >> ok, so a 82-86 will be stricken.

mr. kopp, i'm tired of carrying your relevance objection. that i apparently took more seriously than you did. >> well, you have heard my view. >> i will let you did this. >> i will focus on the paragraph you have already raised. >> no, just the ones you raised. >> ok, so 95? yeah. i think much of this was already stricken in the various declarations. i think the determination was already made this was not relevant. >> ms. kaiser?