>> in addition it is talking about the fact that there the sheriff was on that time and on that day, which is not hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule that objection with the same caveat with respect to hearsay. and the dissenting view? that objection is overruled. >> on paragraph 16, this is irrelevant and up fight to expand on that, -- if i can expand on that, you have heard this allegation that the sheriff persuaded either his wife or peralta hanes to persuade witnesses from talking

to the police. there is not going to be any evidence before you now or in the future that he ever did so. whenever these communications were between miss lopez and ms. williams, unless that can be linked to something sheriff mirkarimi did that was inappropriate, they are irrelevant. >> you agree there may not be direct evidence but we consider circumstantial evidence. >> i believe you can consider circumstantial evidence. but before you could to draw, there would have to be some kind of a link before you could draw the conclusions that he engaged in any of these allegations. i do not believe there is going to be any evidence upon which you could draw such a link.

>> i'm not sure where to begin. let me clarify what the serious. it is not just that the sheriff tried to get miss madison to not go to the police and was not successful. he dissuaded miss lopez and was successful. that is a claim in this klees and the other claim is that -- case and there were other attempts that were unsuccessful. with regard to the objection, the fact that miss lopez is sending an e-mail saying to not talk to anybody, that shows her state of mind and shows how different her position was earlier in the day from when she was telling miss williams she was thinking of going to her doctor and she says that his brave i'm glad you are telling

people. this shows where her state of mind is at that time regard to reporting this incident. that is why this is relevant. >> my view is this should be overruled. i think it could be relevant depending on what other evidence is elicited about what, if any conduct the sheriff engaged in with these allegations. i think at this point it would be difficult to rule the should be out. is there a descent to this view? -- dissent to this view? the objection to paragraph 16 is overruled. >> as to the remaining paragraphs, there are

objections as to 18, 19, and 20. chairperson hur: 18 was hearsay. relevance, too? >> 17 was hearsay -- all of them. relevance as to 18, 19, and 20. chairperson hur: my inclination with paragraph 17 is to overrule the objection. is there a dissenting view from the commissioners?

the objection is overruled. 18, a relevance objection was added. >> this goes to the witnesses' lack of bias in that what she did she did out of concern for ms. lopez and did not talk to the police and then finally did. i think it goes to the credibility of her statement. that is why it is relevant. it is all about bias or the lack thereof which is always relevant. chairperson hur: i would be

inclined to overrule the objection t18 through 20. dissenting views? >> says to paragraph 18, i would be inclined to leave everything starting on 19 with "i" through line 24 as being irrelevant. as to it showing the witness does not have baez, i am not sure at this point in the hearing any indication that ms. williams is being attacked for being biased. so until such time as her credibility is being attacked, i

would say it is irrelevant. chairperson hur: i think you are correct as to when it becomes relevant and given the way we have decided to handle evidence, and in the event we may not see a witness, i do not see the harm in having testimony regarding by a cynne declaration, and affirmative declaration. to the extent there is further examination, we would have it. i do not see the harm in it. i welcome the views of other commissioners.

to the extent we are evaluating witnesses on paper, it helps with credibility. >> i am willing to let it in. chairperson hur: given there are different viewpoints on this, is there a motion to overrule the objection to paragraph 18? all in favor? aye. commissioner renne: opposed. chairperson hur: the objection is overruled. any dissent with respect to overruling the objections 19 and

20? commissioner renne: what is the relevance of 19? what is contained in 19? >> it did to show the relationship between the witnesses and also to show they have not spoken with each other about what occurred. they have not spoken to each other about the substance of what ms. lopez told them. chairperson hur: how does it show that? >> that is what it says. i did not need to have a sharp response. chairperson hur: i was focusing on the other portion.

but what about the other portions of paragraph 19? >> part of me wanted to include everything that might be brought up on cross-examination including this idea, have you spoken with other witnesses? so that is why it is included. is there for a complete picture to evaluate the credibility of the witness. chairperson hur: i'm sharing your concern with respect to paragraph 19, 25 through the end of the sentence.

in fact the last sentence of paragraph 20, should be included. commissioner renne: i agree. chairperson hur: is there dissent from the commission with respect to paragraph 19, 25 through the end of the sentence on page 6, line 1? >> would then include exhibit two? chairperson hur: yes. the objection is sustained. paragraph 20.

my recommendation was to overrule the objection. does anyone have a dissenting view? the objection is overruled. i think the last issue we have with respect to the sheriff's objections, the video. do i have that right?

we have received a brief recently from the mayor on this issue. have you had an opportunity to review its? >> i have not. i do not recall if it came in yesterday or the night before, but i have not had a chance to review it and respond. i would like the opportunity to give you something in writing to analyze the issue. chairperson hur: do you have any objection? >> these objections were supposed to be made. it is the same issues. i do not see how they are any different serious one can look at the did you make that evaluation and i think the arguments are the same about excited utterances. chairperson hur: would you stipulate to us excluding your briefs?

>> no -- chairperson hur: we did not authorize the brief, either. >> that is true but i do not see how council is handicapped in any way by not having the opportunity to brief this issue because the same thing we have been discussing. if the commission wishes to give them the opportunity, and that is fine but i do not see how the legal difference -- the legal issues are different. >> i would be inclined to provide the sheriff with an opportunity to review the issue. is there a dissenting view from the commissioners? >> has this issue been briefed both in the criminal aspect and in the civil motion that was

filed? whether or not the video was to be admissible? >> i am not sure if it was brief but i know it was -- i believe there were. but not by me. number two, with respect to the civil motion, i am unclear as to what you are referring. >> wasn't there a motion brought by somebody, maybe miss lopez, to have her privacy rights protected and not allow the video to be released and not allowed to be made part of the records? >> i think that is correct but that is a different inquiry to its admissibility here.

if your question is on the issue of how these issues been decided already such that you do not need to decide them, i would am notthat in the negative. suggesting that but in whatever brief you file i am suggesting that you tell us why we should not follow whatever rulings have been made. why this circumstance is different than was true in the previous hearings where there were attempts made to exclude this video. if it was going to be excluded in the criminal case, which is a much higher standard for amiss and -- admissibility, i would like to see what reason there should be why we should take a position that says even though

some other court has said it is admissible, we should not admit it. >> i would probably be telling you that was incorrectly decided. but i feel -- i understand this issue. the only reason i asked for more time is if you were going to consider this brief that was filed by the mayor. a i just wanted a chance to look at what they're saying. if you want to strike that, i will argue it right now. commissioner renne: i am happy to let you file, when you do it, address that question. >> understood. chairperson hur: we're not talking about a piece of evidence, a person having to come in and can be shown as -- if it were admitted. the additional time is not a

problem and i would like to give the sheriff an opportunity to brief it if he chooses. >> i do not know how many of the members sought it, but i think he would be hard-pressed to make a ruling as to its admissibility at this point in time. >> we brought a way to play the video but you need to see it weather to determine to admit it. i think it is an important part of the ruling to observe the demeanor of the witness. chairperson hur: when can we see the brief? >> how long before the next hearing? would a day or to be sufficient? -- two be sufficient? chairperson hur: i think that would suffice. commissioner renne: i'm going to

be easy on this one. that is fine. chairperson hur: that would be the 26th. >> i will file something. chairperson hur: we will deal with it then. it sounds like the parties would like the commissioners to review the video. my suggestion is that the commissioners do so on their own time. i do not think we need to set up whatever audiovisual to show it for us to out -- evaluate whether it should be admissible.

how will we get a copy? >> i have sent seven copies. they have delivered them. chairperson hur: we have them? ok. it sounds like i will be able to figure out a way. next we should not be -- address the objections submitted by the sheriff. mr. keith, i understand you have no objection. that is still the case? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok.

what about -- >> i have three objections. i can make them all or early -- orally. chairperson hur: ok. >> if you look at the fifth paragraph of the declaration, and beginning i never suspected, there is a sentence beginning with the word "

usually." we would move to exclude that for a lack of foundation and it is getting toward an expert opinion. commissioner renne: which paragraph is this? >> beginning i never suspected. five lines down you see the word usually. chairperson hur: ending with "no." commissioner renne: i am still lost. chairperson hur: it begins with i never expected anything going -- this is mr. deleone. commissioner renne: i thought you were talking about linette. that explains it.

chairperson hur: was there anything else you wanted to say? >> the foundation appears to have been made previously when she describes her experience in caring for children.chairpersons on this? >> when you say she describes

her experience caring for children, are you talking about the first sentence? >> where she says she is a child care provider. it is implied it is not just for sheriff mirkarimi and miss lopez's son. chairperson hur: are would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it lacks foundation in this would be more appropriate for expert testimony if it were relevant. is there a dissenting view with respect to that objection? commissioner renne: the whole paragraph? chairperson hur: "usually children have."

the objection is sustained. you said you had two others? >> the next paragraph after that beginning when they were separated. that is basically a lot of statements about observations of the child's behavior after the sheriff was arrested. >> i will submit on that. chairperson hur: i do not see how it is relevant to the task we have. are there dissenting views? what is the last objection to this? >> on the second page, the paragraph beginning "theo

began" for the same reasons. concerns of the child behavior after he received the stay away order. as well as the witness's feelings and observations about the family, which to not seem to be relevant. chairperson hur: the objection is sustained. the remainder of mr. deleon's testimony will be amended. -- omitted.

is submitted written objections, mr. keith, we will deal with those. are there any others? >> no. >> as to the first objection dealing with the statement in the second paragraph, i would argue that the foundation was not shown for the statement. if it is an opinion by the previous sentencing in which she said she has a training regarding domestic violence. moreover, i do not believe that this is an expert opinion. it appears to communicate peralta haynes' belief that she did not have to do anything for

herself. she was satisfied miss lopez was not in danger. i do not think she is trying to say this is an empirical fact. this is on her -- her own perception. >> mr. keith? >> if this is only offered to show why her state of mind and why she decided to do whatever she did, we do not have an objection for that purpose. we have an objection to it being an assessment about whether she was actually in danger. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule this objection. i do not think this is being offered as an expert. it is being offered as her opinion. what value that has, there is some, -- >> we were not given on -- any of the facts on which she relied. we get none of the information. of course whatever she relied

on would be here say. -- hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to allow it. questions from the commissioners? the objection is overruled. mr. kopp, do want to address the second objections? >> yes, in the third paragraph, and leave the portion objected to was the italian sized portion that the woman responded know. -- italicized portion that the woman responded no. that shows that she had not contacted any agencies or tried