grabbed his wife's arm in a domestic argument. that is i think the substance of what ms. madison and ms. williams will tell you that ms. lopez told them. i am not convinced they have anything that you would need to hear. chairperson hur: thank you. >> before you leave. in view of what you just said, have you asked the city attorney, if we stipulate to those facts that you just said, will the city attorney agree that there is no need to put on witnesses who presumably are primarily going to testify to what ms. lopez told them happened? >> not in so many words. but just to give you a sense of what is happening.

i believe it was last monday or tuesday. mr. keith and ms. kaiser sent us a fairly -- a fairly long stipulation. we look to the that over and gave them our response. end of last week. that fact was included. i did not say, if we -- the commission does not need to hear from ms. madison or ms. williams. we have not fleshed out to that extent yet. i'm not going to leave. >> i am sure you will be back appear again. -- up here again. >> we should take up the issue of witnesses by declaration. i appreciate that declarations are less burdensome for the fact

finders that live testimony. that said, i am still concerned -- i do not want a situation where because it is just declaration, the parties can submit whatever they want regardless of whether it is relevant. i would like, even if you intend -- even if your view is that some of these people should come in by a declaration, i would like to know who on the list you would like to come in by declaration and why they are relevant to our proceedings. >> one of the benefits of this process of the back and forth regarding witness list and the briefing is we came to the realization that with a volunteer commission, we cannot have a three-week, eight hour a day hearing. it is impossible. from our standpoint what we're proposing is essentially to do everybody by declaration. even those witnesses who we put in should be left because we expected there to be cross- examination. if they do not want to cross-

examine ivory madison, we will put in her declaration. we will put in declarations for one and subject her to a bright of cross-examination. -- a right of cross-examination. chairperson hur: do you object to that? are you comfortable with the procedure of direct examination going in by a declaration and cross-examination live? >> i am comfortable with the procedure, yes. i'm not comfortable with the idea that they're giving 25 declarations and we will have relevant -- to 22 of those. i do not think that is unfair not just to the commission but to us. i think that all the subject matter -- i will stick to the fact witnesses if you like me to. there are things -- many

witnesses that we do not think will offer information that is relevant. then we have to submit something in writing why we think testimony is not relevant? chairperson hur: i will give you the chance to address that. is there any objection by which examination comes in by declaration and cross examination is done live? that is something we had initially talked about last time. >> i have no objection. it would streamline the proceedings given our limited capacity as a volunteer commission. i know that everyone wants this -- we do not want this to drag out. i do have the same concern about narrowing the witnesses so that it is not everybody under the sun. so that we are not poring through 50 declarations trying to figure out the relevance.

commissioner studley: i am wondering if there are places where we would have questions about the declaration but the sheriff does not have cross- examination from their perspective. i wonder what we would do under those circumstances, how we would -- because we have the ability to ask questions as well when this live testimony, whether we could get clarification on the declaration if the share of's council did not seek to win. -- weigh in. chairperson hur: i think that is a good point. i think that could be addressed. we could subpoena the witness if we thought we needed to examine

them and the parties not indicate they would appear live. >> i have no idea if that will happen. i do not want us to be left without the ability to clarify simply because the sheriff did not want to pursue that particular offer of proof. thanks. chairperson hur: are the party is in agreement that anyone who appears by declaration but does not appear for cross-examination that their testimony would be disregarded? >> yes. >> no. we're not. if the commission is going to take care say outside -- hearsay outside the california evidence code, the wiser course is to accept declarations and give them what -- whatever weight you think they're worth. i can also envision -- they're

trying to bring in evidence subject to the hearsay rule. we could bring in hearsay evidence to undermine that evidence. the better course is if there is a witness who submits a declaration and does not appear for cross for whatever reason, you accept it and give it whatever weight you think it is -- it deserves. chairperson hur: which may not be very much. >> it may not. as i mentioned, we do not know what is happening with ms. lopez. if we cannot work out something where she can testify for molly, we might want to have a declaration. chairperson hur: thank you. any further comments from the commissioners about the procedure, whereby we would

examine or have live witness testimony? >> did i a understand you to say it is your intention to submit a declaration on behalf of putting aside those who might come left? everyone else on your list, you intend to submit declarations? >> we would submit a declaration for the mayor, for every current city employee, and every independent witness that is not -- a witness who was not affiliated with the city who would agree to do it. i will -- we will do our best and work with them to accomplish that. there is one witness who is hostile to us. ms. haines. we would probably want to subpoena her for live testimony. chairperson hur: let's go through your witness list, then. i want to hear why we need to hear at all from some of these people.

why do we need -- what is inspector becker's testimony going to be and what charge in your charging document is this related to? >> both inspector becker and -- were the domestic violence unit investigators said they serve the collection of evidence. they did personally observe ileana lopez and testified to her demeanor. they interviewed ms. -- >> why do we need to hear -- if we are going to hear from ms. mattison and ms. lopez and mr. merton, why do we have to hear from inspectors becker and danielle?

>> we would attempt to limit their testimony to the demeanor of ms. lopez and the summary of what they did. >> how is her demeanor going to help us decide whether or not this contract has occurred? >> it pertains to the dissuasion count and to what happened between her and the sheriff. the sheriff has maintained there was a single grabbing of her arm in order to protect his son from his wife. and we disagree. we do not think the facts match that. the facts were different as ms. lopez told ms. madison and ms. williams, it was a much more serious conflict between her and the sheriff. every piece of evidence that bears on her demeanor and mental state and the credibility of her statements at different times is relevant to the determination

about what happened between the sheriff and ms. lopez. chairperson hur: why would we need the inspectors? >> we may not. chairperson hur: if you have to choose one of them, who would it be? >> without looking a great deal, we can go with one of them. we can select the one that has the most information about the conduct of the investigation and the observations of ms. lopez and others. chairperson hur: at least one of these witnesses should be removed from the list? >> could become a yes. -- could be, yes. chairperson hur: it is important for the commission to reach resolution on this. for each witness, i will some -- solicit views of the

commissioners and so we can do with them one at a time. views on the commissioners on inspectors becker and danielle? commissioner renne: i shared your observations and wonder why we need either one of them. it is up to the city. chairperson hur: you're not convinced that we need -- the commissioner renne: either of the inspectors. chairperson hur: any other comments on the inspectors? would you like to address? >> you will probably get tired of hearing me say that witness is irrelevant. those two witnesses will certainly be relevant. -- irrelevant.

commissioner hayon: if that happens, do we need either of these two inspectors? if everyone stipulates or greece to the events that occurred, do we need to hear from the inspectors? doesn't that eliminate a whole series of witnesses that we would have to either get their declarations or listen to them live? >> if we did agree, the parties do disagree about what happened. >> it sounded like that was a possibility. >> beyond that, we would disagree.

>> i don't see how these two inspectors are relevant. i would need to hear more as to how ms. lopez's demeanor would be probative of whether or not -- >> one of the other things the inspectors observed was ms. madison taking calls from ms. lopez and over during that conversation. -- overhearing that conversation. hearing his madison's account of that call. that intense to show that dissuasion is occurring. >> ms. madison would testify to that? >> we expect her credibility to

be attacked. >> iac. -- i see. >> the observations of the call coming in from ms. haines as the inspectors were coming to the house, ms. madison was getting off of the phone. that is an observation they made that tends to support the credibility of the testimony. commissioner studley: i thought it was a reasonable balance to have one of these officers provide declaration. the fact that we have this many questions means there may be something and i would rather have us argue after what that we did not have before us.

>> [inaudible] commissioner studley: i apologize. all of us are hearing the feedback. we're also trying to speak to the person -- i will repeat what i said. i think the earlier suggestion that you made that the city's select one of the two officers and would get the declaration from one officer, given the number of questions we have about it, and the issues that might arise, it seems like a reasonable balance to me. i think it is a fair question that we may not needed, and there are plenty of other witnesses will not need, but this one might be [inaudible]

we can give it whatever wait we think it deserves. >> i agree. i was kind of thinking that. these are inspectors that apparently have experience with many cases of domestic violence. >> [inaudible] >> is it possible to turn up the system? >> it is as loud as it can be? >> what i just asked is whether it was possible to turn up the volume. chairperson hur: we will do our best, but try not to have any interruptions trade and allow this process to play out as efficiently as we can. commissioner hayon: i am in

agreement. i think it would be worthwhile to have one of these inspectors speak to their experience. chairperson hur: any objection to that? ok, you are going to be able to remove one. >> i will pick wind. >> she is testifying only background matters. even if we could not reach a stipulation, her declaration would be a very short. chairperson hur: what would it be relevant to? >> the sheriff performing duties of office. chairperson hur: do we have to have a discussion about this? >> i think we already offer to stipulate to every fact that this person would testify to.

we might dispute that characterization of the official duties of the sheriff, but we could work out the language. >> isn't the sheriff's best person to testify to what he did during the time period? why do we need somebody to come in here? [applause] >> yes, and he will. from our standpoint, today, we have had no ability to get the test -- get the sheriff to testify about the facts related to the case. chairperson hur: we are trying very hard to hold an orderly proceeding. i appreciate that there are vehement views of many people in the public. again, i encourage you to share those views during public comment, but this is not the time.

>> because we do not have access to the sheriff, we have access to the other individuals at the meetings. we have access to the other individuals at the meetings. we would propose to use them. we do not know what the sheriff's testimony will be. chairperson hur: we expect you guys to reach stipulation on dempsey. we do not expect to see a declaration from the undersheriff. christina flores. >> this was the prior the victim of domestic violence. [crowd murmuring] chairperson hur: i apologize,

please proceed. >> that is ok, i am used to it. we would simply attach the transcripts of that. the testimony of prior intimate partners, persons accused of domestic violence, it is relevant to determining whether domestic violence occurred and to determine the kind of power relationships that occur in domestic violence relationships. that would lead to things like this is -- like witnesses recanting their stories. we do not think she should be called live. >> this witness personifies the mayor's attempt to turn this into a circus. prior testimony under evans -- evidence code is relevant only

were the instant incident is in dispute, and it is not. sheriff mirkarimi said he grabbed his wife during an argument and he bore repeat that statement under oath. -- grabbed his wife's arm during an argument and he will repeat that statement under oath. this witness was not fully cross-examined during the criminal trial. if you somehow decided that you wanted to hear from her, we will need her life because there are plenty of questions she will be passed. i do not think that needs to happen. i do not think we need a mini- trial. i think that should be the last that we hear of ms. flores. chairperson hur: views of the commissioners? commissioner renne: i find myself, i guess, in a view that

at this point i am not prepared to say if that testimony would be admissible. but i can only make that decision, i guess, if he introduces the transcript. it seems to me it should be limited to the transcript. at that point, i would be prepared to make a decision. >> i have not heard anything about this witness that makes me think she would be relevant here. if the underlying actions are not disputed, you know, there are lots of witnesses for whom we time you're very important testimony from. to me -- >> and the underlying actions are disputed. the extent of the of this is far

greater than what the sheriff has admitted to. and we dispute that. this is a witness who has testimony relevant to that. chairperson hur: ok, let me stop you there. other than -- i want to set aside the witness dissuasion. that is part of the charges. other than the grabbing of the arm, what other actions are you alleging that took place that constitute official misconduct? >> i think it is relevant in assessing whether official misconduct occurred to assess the level of abuse. chairperson hur: what other abuse are you talking about? >> there was pushing and pulling of ms. lopez in the house. there was a threat to ms. lopez that the sheriff would use his power in a custody dispute if she tried to divorce him. there were attempts to control

her, to control what she ate, to control the amount of money she got. chairperson hur: this is gone to come through which witness? -- this is going to come through which witness? >> this is going to come through a correspondence that ms. lopez sent to ms. madison. this is going to come through conversations she had would ms. williams. if miss lopez does appear and tries to testify contrary to this, these will be admissible to prior inconsistent statements. chairperson hur: other views from the commissioners? >> i think it would be fine to take a look at the transcript and give it what weight we think. beyond that, we would have to take a look to see if there is any probative value, at any

value as a rebuttal witness for any reason. right now, i cannot see a reason how it ties cin. >> i am concerned that if we allow the transcripts, and consider it as evidence, it seems difficult for me to figure out how he would not have a right to cross-examine that witness. and so, i think if we consider it at all, we need to have some basis for why we think it is relevant. i am not sure we would able to base a decision just on the transcripts. >> one of the other witnesses we have is a recognized expert in domestic violence. her testimony would be that it is relevant whether there have been past instances of domestic abuse because abusers repeat. the relationships follow similar patterns. if there is past evidence, it

tends to show that it is happening here. the time for a lot of these objections is more after these declarations are submitted, rather than before. going down the list now without seeing which testimony they are offering under oath. chairperson hur: i see your point to some extent. i guess my concern is i still do not want to get 18 declarations. to me, several of these people are clearly irrelevant. for people on the line, i can understand. i disagree that we want to defer the decision. >> again, it is what we would prefer. otherwise, that is understandable. we are doing our best to

essentially go through the list and take people out to can be taken out to see it who has a facts that can be stipulated to, and that is a work in progress. there may be a witness who has testimony that only takes a two- page declaration. we do not want to waste the time of the commission. it may be that the witness has a little bit of relevant testimony, and then we will be done with that. i do not want to foreclose the chance of a witness that has a small amount of relevant information. commissioner studley: i am just wondering if we might be able to get a complete picture of this if we said this one aside because it is one of the more complicated ones. go through the rest of the proposed witnesses, see how many are in contention. we may be able to narrow the list substantially if it is a

wait and bergen issue. -- weight abd burden issue. it would not take time to develop the initial offer, we might not need to get to its early in this round of decisions. once we have the sworn testimony of share of mirkarimi -- sheriff mirkarimi and mds, lopez, we might not need that alternative source of information. [applause] id which the audience would let us proceed, like it or not, let us proceed quietly. this is hard enough. chairperson hur: any objections to that proposal? i think that makes sense. let's move n