less so, what happened on the 31st. the second reason the statement is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose is that there are substantial similarities between the account that ms. lopez gives to ms. williams and gave to ms. madison on the first. that tends to defeat the claim,, a claim of fabrication are in accuracy. it essentially gives greater weight to their testimony, in that they independently say that ms. lopez was relating to them the same basic facts about what happened. it tends to corroborate the credibility of these witnesses. the third reason we think it is admissible is we already have evidence that there was an incident on the 31st. we have other admissible

evidence about what happened in that incident, in the form of the statement to ms. madison on the first. this is basically under the administrative hearsay exception. it is here say that is allowed to be considered. there is no fact exclusively based on it, but it can be considered by the commission, to add greater weight to the evidence that is admissible. those are our major arguments. chairperson hur: although this may not make me popular, i do think we have to go through this, particularly with respect to four through 18. there was an objection lodged to paragraph 4. the objection was relevance. mr. keith, what is your view,

with respect to pare graph for? -- paragraph 4? >> this is basically recording the past relationship, establishing the relationship and the existence of loud arguments, which is about what is going on in the background of this relationship, leading to the incident on the 31st. chairperson hur: i think paragraph 4 is irrelevant. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. i do not see why we need to get into what the person could or could not hear, prior to december 31, 2011, particularly

when the statement is he never personally had seen ross acting physically abusive toward eliana. any dissent from the commissioners? paragraph 4, objection sustained. it shall be excluded. paragraph five, mr. kopp has objected on hearsay grounds. i have heard the objection, based on hearsay. do you have a view, as to the need for paragraph 5? >> there is not a here say problem. it is just saying what the witness knows about. >> i will withdraw my objection.

chairperson hur: ok. herger of 6, there was an objection based on hearsay. could you address that objection, specifically? >> properly, the tears that objection is only to the statements she is relating that ms. lopez told her. starting on line 10, finishing on line 12, beginning with the word she. actually, the middle sentence is not her. >> i am sorry. i do not know what you mean. chairperson hur: i am sorry. starting with the word "she" on

line 10, and ending with "then o" on line 12? >> yes. those of the portions we object to. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. again, cautioning that it has been conceded that it is here say, we could be -- is here say -- hearsay, we likely would not rely on it as sole evidence to establish the fact. is there descent from the commission? -- dissent from the commission? that objection is overruled. paris graphs 7? >> hugh -- paragraph 7? >> hearsay, as to the entire

paragraph. also, withdrawn. just here said. -- hearsay. >> as i stated before, this is offered as an administrative hearsay, and to bolster the reliability of the other statements, not for the truth of the matter. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule. any dissent from the commissioner specs -- commissioners? paragraph 8? >> i am sorry, chairperson. i am not sure if you want me to -- i have already launched these objections.

i could probably tell you -- if you would just give me a moment, i could tell you whether or not there are any additional objections, besides here said, as to the remainder of these paragraphs through 18. chairperson hur: sure. i will give you a moment to do that.

i am sorry. i do have some additional objections. chairperson hur: let us talk about paragraph eight. your objection is here said. anything beyond your arguments with respect to how to handle here say? >> -- hearsay? i would be inclined to overrule the objection with the same caveat. any dissenting view from the commission? paragraph nine, maybe i will first to view the opportunity, if there are other attractions besides here say -- hearsay.

>> in paragraph 9, beginning on line 5, starting with eliana, through the end of that paragraph on line 11, irrelevant. it does not deal with the december 31 incident. commissioner renne: that is in addition to your hearsay argument? >> yes. >> this is a new objection, but i am happy to explain why it is relevant. first of all, i will do with the relevance issue first. this describes the state of mind and where she was on the fourth, in terms of her

intention, influenced with what had gone on in the relationship before. this kind of information tends to show she had a reason for having the feeling that she originally had at the time. that is the second reason, in addition to being administrative here said. it is evidence of other stuff that is already in. it shows that she was thinking about divorce at the time. this is her state of mind. she is thinking about divorce and leaving her husband at this time, as opposed to essentially retreating later from the accusation of abuse and no longer thinking about divorce. this shows where her state of mind was. that is the issue. chairperson hur: is it relevant to your allegations whether the

physical conduct that allegedly occurred on december 31 was the first or second time it had occurred? >> what is relevant about the earlier incident is that it makes it more likely that the account ms. lopez gave on the 31st is accurate, the account should give to mismanagement and ms. williams. it makes it more likely that is true. in that aspect, yes. chairperson hur: mr. kopp, do you have a response on that point? >> it is pure character evidence, which should not be allowed. there was reference to penal code section 1109, allowing prior conduct to be used in criminal prosecutions to prove

conduct on a particular date by showing past instances, but that is not where we are. this is not a criminal proceeding, as i have been told. this should not be relevant to the inquiry. all these references, anything that happened before december 31, are not admissible. chairperson hur: what authority do you have that it only relates to criminal proceedings? >> it actually says that. we think it should nevertheless apply here. in administrative proceeding, the idea is to use reliable evidence. if something is reliable enough to use in a criminal prosecution, it is reliable enough to be used in a criminal proceeding, particularly when the subject matter is so similar. that is what happened in this incident of the 31st.

it is very appropriate to be using those rules in this proceeding, regarding admissibility. that is what the minister of hearings turn on, is reliable evidence. chairperson hur: why the limitation in the code that it relates to criminal proceedings? >> there are not many civil proceedings that relate to domestic violence. i do not know what the legislature did. it is unusual for it to come up in a civil proceeding, but here we are.

chairperson hur: do commissioners have views on this objection? commissioner renne: 7 through line 11? chairperson hur: correct. commissioner renne: i would be inclined to sustain the objection. chairperson hur: i also am inclined to sustain the objection. are there dissenting views? >> i would like to be offered for the truth of the matter, rather than administrative here said purposes. commissioner renne: i guess i do

not understand the distinction you are drawing. if we exclude it, we exclude it. >> if there is other evidence on the record that tends to support this, it can come in. the fact that it is here say affects how much weight is given. -- is hearsay affects how much weight it is given. chairperson hur: i think we are allowing hearsay to be admitted, and just suggesting that it might not have any weight. if you bring it in in some other way, for example -- i do not want to speculate. i would just leave it at that. unless there is some clarification you feel that you need. >> it is in the video.

it is also in the statement to ivory madison. chairperson hur: i have not seen the video. whether it is in the statement to ivory madison is different than whether it should be admitted from ms. williams. i will sustain the objection, unless there is dissent from the commission. the hearsay objection is overruled. paragraph 10? i thought it was line 7, beginning with "eliana told me." >> yes. i have objected, i thought, to

beginning on line 5, with eliana described. chairperson hur: line 5, beginning with "eliana described." >> that is what my objection was to. chairperson hur: i think the same rationale would apply, there. dissenting views from the commissioners? commissioner renne: i agree. chairperson hur: paragraph 5, those lines excluded. per grafton? >> this entire paragraph appears to be speculation about -- without inadequate foundation. specifically, lines 21 through

22, the sentence that begins with "eliana" and ends with "ross" is more prejudicial than probative. chairperson hur: i understand your here say objection. i want to hear every objection to this paragraph that is not related to hearsay. for efficiency purposes. >> no foundation. chairperson hur: what part? >> the way i understand the entire paragraph is this is the witnesses' interpretation of the things that were said to her by the ileana -- eliana lopez. chairperson hur: some of this was statements made by eliana. what do you mean when you say impressions? >> she says "as eliana described

it." it seems to me this is her interpretation of what's the comment means. that is why i think it is speculative. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. that is something you could cross-examine a witness to. again, it is hearsay. i would give it the same weight we otherwise would. i would be inclined to permit that. commissioner studley:>> i have y starting at the word that in mind 17, which appears to be her comment on what she had heard or

read in the press about what mr. mirkarimi was saying. i think that is probably improper. one witness commenting on another as to whether or not they think their statement is consistent. chairperson hur: i apologize for my lack of clarity. i was referring to the objection of 13 -- line 13. that was my fault. i was not clear. >> the next sentence, line 15, i think it shows the uncertainty in her own mind as to what the comment was directed to. i have trouble with that paragraph.

chairperson hur: ok. so you would sustain the objection as to line 13 through 15? >> yes. chairperson hur: other views of the commissioners? we can take a vote. >> a point of clarification, we're talking about "as eliana?' chairperson hur: correct.

>> of would find that sentence acceptable and we keep it in. although the freezing is a little different from other it -- phrasing is a little different from other things she was told by miss lopez. i think it could be successfully cross-examine. chairperson hur: i am not making any statement how probative is but i think it passes muster to be admitted. is there a motion to sustain the objection -- i am sorry, to overrule the objection with respect to lines 13 through 15? all in favor? aye. . the motion passes. anything between 16 and 23?

>> no. i would like to reiterate line 21, 22, irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative beginning with eliana and ending with ross. it tends to show that ms. lopez had the impression from what sheriff mirkarimi told there was he was trying to intimidate her with his personal power. it may be prejudicial but it is not unduly prejudicial. it is not to for the sheriff's case but that does not mean it is inadmissible. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the

objection. i think we're getting close to the line but i think it should be admitted. for its limited purpose. any dissenting view from the commissioners? hearing none, the objection is overruled. paragraph 11. >> yes, i made the objection that this entire paragraph was irrelevant. i find it also to be prejudicial. excluded on those grounds. >> again, sheriff mirkarimi's public statements have been that

when he is referring to a child custody, this is an instance in which a sheriff mirkarimi speaks for itself. he threatened to have dbi shut down the building because he was angry with miss williams. that tends to show the presence of intent or the absence of her mistaken interpretation. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it is irrelevant. the state of purpose, i think, would not go to providing us that additional assistance. any dissent from the

commissioners? >> i agree it is irrelevant. i do not think it helps us with what we are tasked to do. chairperson hur: the objection is sustained with respect to paragraph 11. ." ? -- paragraph 12? given we have heard on here say, i would be inclined to overrule that objection but the same caution. is there a dissenting view? the objection is overruled. paragraph 13. >> besides hearsay, it is irrelevant.

>> it is relating a fact about the nature of the relationship that miss lopez had with the sheriff which goes to -- [phone ringing] -- whether this is a domestic violence incident. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it is far of film, -- from what we're trying to accomplish. is there a descent to that proposal? the objection to paragraph 13 is sustained. paragraph 14. >> hearsay. chairperson hur: i think the objection should be overruled with the same caution.

>> if i might be heard, it does describes her observation on that date. paragraph 14. >> he is keeping it. >> i am sorry. it does describe a personal observation. i do not know how these rulings are going to be reflected. i think we need to consider those statements submitted. chairperson hur: the objection to 14 is overruled. if we admit something, it is admitted. what weight we give the evidence will depend on whether it is hearsay or not. if it is sustained, or if it is

overruled, mr. keith, you have one that objection. >> i apologize he had a more subtle question. >> 14 was overruled. 15. >> line 27, the portion of that sentence beginning with the word "see" and ending "talk," there is no foundation and that is speculation, not just on the part of miss williams but on miss lopez. chairperson hur: i will say, and give mr. keith an opportunity, i think that is right that it could not come in to prove that the sheriff was actually scared. but it could come in to say that missez