suggest the dismissal of the other charges means they did not occur. that is -- i'm not hearing that from you right now. >> correct. we did not mean to suggest that. we do not argue that the dismissal of the other charges means that nothing happened. we will be able to prove what happened is what i've been telling you. we do not intend to argue with a legal effect of the dismissal of the other charges. that is correct. chairperson hur: in light of that statement and i can understand your confusion prior. does that obviate the need to have ms. aguliar? >> if we can reach appropriate stipulations, that might obviate

this. if we could nail him down in a stipulation. at least the subject matter would be firm. we may be able to forgo her. i am concerned about what is at issue here is the guilty plea to a misdemeanor. that is not what is at issue. what is at issue is the burkle behavior. not the guilty plea. the guilty plea is an admission of criminal guilt but it is not an element of official misconduct and should not be mistaken for the truth and love the a good dog -- of the inquiry. we cannot agree to be limited to what share of mirkarimi is willing to admit to. >> no one is saying you should

be. you needed this because the sheriff was suggesting that the dismissal of the other charges was evidently did not occur. he stipulated this in open session in front of the public that is not what he is going to say. why do we still need her? assuming you can get a written stipulation on that. >> we need her to also explained that false imprisonment as a matter of law is not co- extensive with turning a band around from going to the restaurant to going home, that would not satisfy false imprisonment. the parties stated there was that charge. there is a discrepancy between what he is saying and what can be supported by his plea deal. we would like to have that and please understand this in the

context that the only state -- we have had access to are the statements in the media. we do not have stipulations or have an interview of sheriff mark renée. he will not talk to us. we need to be able to bring witnesses who are responsive to the arguments we have made -- heard him make all swear. -- elsewhere. if that means we don't need to bring a witness we're prepared not to do that. we're not in a position where we can give that up. we do not know what it is that we're going to encounter. >> could ask you one question of clarification. is it not your position that the guilty plea to false imprisonment, standing alone is

sufficient grounds for the mayor to find and suspend the mayor? >> suspending the sheriff. >> is that not one of your positions that that standing alone is sufficient? you said it is not. assuming it is not. we want to be able to prove the rest of it. >> yes, we do believe that standing alone, the conduct that was adjudicated in the context of a man filling the office of sheriff and being share philip and being a member of the board of supervisors, we think that is sufficient to state a cause of action for official misconduct and lead to his removal. it is that our case is not limited to that. we also do not agree with the position that is somehow without content that the argument that

it is not a crime of moral turpitude relies on a ninth circuit case about whether it is possible to commit without moral turpitude. an offense that can be a crime of moral turpitude can lead to deep trichet -- to deportation in some cases. what is at issue is the behavior and that behavior and the case law is in moral turpitude. we have -- want to be able to present you with the actual conduct that is the basis of the charges. not an empty form. >> thank you. shercommissioner studley: i woud

find it helpful to hear from the expert second witness. we will each be asked to determine something about the standard of decency, good faith, and right action required of public officials and it appears to me that this testimony would be helpful to me. if prof. tillemann -- lemmon is the primary domestic violence witness, that is a witness from whom i would like to hear. i think the issues related to ms. adler -- aguilar, if there is an answer if she is a legal expert. the best evidence is what we will get more from the fact

witnesses and i would be prepared to put that one aside unless and until we feel we have a question, that would hold if that is permissible. and that for me would leave -- whether it is something chief still would add. the comment about the expert witness is well taken. >> you heard from -- will hear from experts 1 and 2. >> 1 and/or two. if the mayor thinks they speak two different issues. there is some effort to say that they have somewhat different focuses in what they would be speaking to. >> one or two. number three. i have not responded as to four

and five, not now, and 6. i also wondered if we have the authority to pay summit declarations. just in terms of providing some clarity and manageability. you would know better, you and the other litigators would know better if that is appropriate. >> thank you. i echo a lot of your views on this. one concern i have with experts over percipient witnesses is experts typically are paid. by the party. if we differ ruling on experts who we think are not relevant, that will lead to the defense having to as a protective measure hiring experts to offer

testimony on the same issues. i am less willing to delay the decision about the relevance of a witness when it comes to an expert than i am my comes to recipient witness. >> i share your view. i do not think we need colonel. same with ms. upton. to me, chief still is duplicative. the experience seems more a relative to what we're dealing with. a local issue rather than the state issue or cdc issue. as of now, my view would be at most we hear from one, too, and 3. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> i would like to know generally speaking when you have

an expert witness, euless what opinions that 6 -- expert will address. to the extent the other side could prepare itself with a counter. i have not heard from you as to any of these experts we're talking about. i would like to know what specific opinions are you going to ask these efforts -- experts to provide and how do the opinions of this first expert differ or how is it different from what you will get from chief lansdowne and wendy?

why isn't wone -- one of them sufficient? there will help in preparing a hearing record and sending it down to the board. taiex thank you. the witnesses are based out or aimed at the subject matter. the first one is aimed at law- enforcement discipline and the consistency of treatment -- between this and other officers who have committed crimes. the second witness is about being a chief law-enforcement officer and the ethical considerations that go with that. the third one, domestic violence, fourth one, not running a state prison -- to be

in charge of an antheil gerald apparatus and it is analogous to a criminal prison, is that it is at a local level. we're giving just a number of topics that relate to any share of's duties. -- sheriff's duties. >> how are those opinions relevant to the issues in this case? >> they are going to set forth the standards of professional conduct associated with the position of -- the second prong of the misconduct definition goes to the standard of professional conduct and we have assembled a list of peers of the sheriff who can speak to the conduct

requirements from the position of being a peer of the sheriff. that is the legal test associated with the definition of a right conduct standard. i do want to respond to your question about how we have not provided a list of opinions. prior that has to do with a tight schedule we face. at the last hearing where we briefed all the substantive issues and other investigative issues as well. put together all our fact witnesses and found and listed for you all our experts. i have not had time yet to work extensively with each expert to find out what their opinions are. it is not a matter of i have a list of opinions for them. it is a matter of if they have a list of opinions for me. i need to know they have the qualifications and they were willing to participate.

that is more or less what can tell you right now. , that was a way to signal to the share of -- sheriff with the other experts would be. chairperson hur: i would invite your response especially on the first few witnesses we have discussed. >> thyey are preparing expert witnesses without knowing why opinions will be. , i suppose to respond? >> you can respond -- whether the topics are -- merit extra

testimony at all. >> i do not think the mara liasson exploration. again, i do not think it goes to the court in kory here. was the conduct of sheriff mirkarimi related to his duties with turner? i do not think it witness who has expertise in the cellar happens and los angeles will help this commission or private recommendation. i cannot think this chief andy -- in san diego will offer a thing there will help your determination. i do not think that the domestic violence experts have anything to offer. i understood the mayors to argue that this will tell you there was more domestic violence conduct committed by sheriff

mirkarimi that he was willing to commit to. apparently -- htat is not -- that is not going to help the inquiry. it should not be an opinion. i did -- do not know if i answered your questions on this three witnesses. i would be happy to try and add. thank you. >> man just speak briefly to the measure of beverly upton -- i do not have any questions. thank you. chairperson hur: that is

exceptionally rude. is there an officer outside? >> that is 11. >> if you could stay and if there are people who are making recurrence during our attempts to conduct these proceedings, if you could instruct them to leave, i would appreciate that. are the commissioners in agreement that we do not need beverly upton? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> do we not need elizabeth? >> yes.

>> what about chief still -- still? >> i am in agreement. >> as an expert. >> it sounds like we will hear about running the jail system here. i do not think we need her. chairperson hur: do we need nancy lemmon with respect to domestic violence? >> i would like to hear from her. >> so would i.. >> i would as well. i would like to hear from effort

number one or two for the reasons are shielded by commissioner city. >> i agree. one or two, not both, >> i agree with that as well. among the ted -- the two. ms. kaiser, if we were to exclude one or teo, do you have a preference? >> arlette to be able to -- i would like to hear from a witness to give you -- opinions based on solid expertise and experience. i would like to how well as her office " -- i do not know which one will be better qualified to

do that. >> i would find that acceptable. to let the city to use. chairperson hur: we should have an exclusion or timeline but i find that exceptional as well. ok. we have the sheriff's list of experts. >> there is two additional experts under tab 14.

chairperson hur: thank you. >> if i may go ahead and offer, i am happy to reserve the potential of a barbaro war of it -- witness. he can speak to that but until those arguments are made, i am happy to put him aside. >> mr. kopp? >> which witness would that be? >> i do not have a report -- i do not have the testimony. i will not -- will let mr.

rattner address this. >> we object to mr. sinclair's testify in any fashion. he made public statements that were very harshly critical of sheriff mirkarimi cyrus to -- as to the underlying issues. on that basis, we will expect that he not be included as an expert or otherwise. >> do you agree that your have to be offering affirmative expert testimony on the subjects listed? >> we are concerned about his own self description as fully

rehabilitated, accepting accountability, coming to you from the perspective of restorative justice, having already traversed that process. we do not agree with those statements. we have heard them again in the media. we do enough will confront than they -- confront them. i am not comfortable saying the issue will not come up. it may not come up with an affirmative expert on their side. we might need extra test run to rebut some of the testimony based on what he says his media. >> may i make one point. normally experts come to cases with backgrounds. bijan a promise to be neutral observers. some people knew i am in no --

it is not usually, in civil practice, the normal practice is to determineif th if they have additional. that is standard practice. it may not be with the commission decides to do here. chairperson hur: comments from the commissioners with respect to mr. sinclair. mr. sinclair was offered as a subject matter expert. that was based on say the experts disclosures of the

mayor. >> no. i believe the -- the only reason is supplemental is not in response to anything we saw from the sheriff. it had to do with the short term and we were working on. it's difficult in reaching wises and making sure that the there would speak to the issues. it is an administrative difficulty. >> i do not see the relevance of mr. sinclair and up -- i do not see how that will make as help our decision.

>> i would agree. the fact is that happened and how it relates to his job and duties and in and around -- not to determine his conduct post- sentencing. i do not think you need to hear from this expert. >> would you like to speak to sheriff smith? >> we believe she is -- will be able to speak to the duties and relationships of eight bay area's sheriff. it is a different focus. these go to the duties that the sheriff. i do not believe any of these are duplicative.

to the extent you would like us to narrow down list, we will combine and the masai can say is perhaps we should put her on analyst with water to enter to be one or two or three and we could talk to that group of witnesses and see who can best represent the positions we would like to offer. >> i have no objection to that. >> we object to sheriff lori smith. at this point, the commission has approved receiving testimony in the formal declarations from

mr. henderson -- chairperson hur: we're talking about the expert witnesses. the mayor may call one of the three witnesses. >> and henderson is a principal in twitter's till we have invited a declaration. i'm not sure where presented herein -- i do not think that has been stated. what facts he would testify to. with all due respect, you opposed including a declaration from mr. henderson. >> i did. the commission decided we would get a declaration. we went through that.

we had not made an alternate determination as to whether his testimony will come in but we will get a declaration from him. you have an objection to the sheriff's experts and the procedure of choosing from one, too, or three. >> we object to any of them, to choosing even one. they're not relevant as commissioner renne said. on that basis and the basis of relevance, we would continue to maintain an objection to any of those witnesses. chairperson hur: you have a standard -- an expert on the standard of care. you do not think you need either of them? >> respectfully, commissioner, we're prepared to tell you what