the campaign and that bias somehow motivated their reporting of this incident. chairperson hur: i tend to agree that and that it ised a miss missable to combat bias. -- that it is admissible to combat bias. any objection to that? ok. paragraph six? >> we object on relevance grounds as to its entirety. in addition we don't believe there is foundation or the last sentence and we believe that the last -- or -- excuse me -- the third sentence, we don't think there is foundation -- strike that. we also think that the last

three, four, five, mr. kopp can you just say the line number? >> yes. >> is that easier? >> yes. >> we think that line 17 through 23 are speculative. again, more prejudicial than probative. >> mr. keith? >> we think that this does not offer -- well, this is offered to show the relationship between ms. lopez and ms. madison that is really relevant to why ms. madison chose to make the report and the kind of advice that she was giving to ms. lopez later. for that purpose, it is relevant. i mean, i think there is a lot of details in here that are probably not necessary. but it's offered simply to show the course of the relationship and the motivation for reporting later on. >> i would sustain the objection, the entirety of

paragraph six. any decenting views from the condition? -- commission? >> i'm sorry, if i could just ask the commission to keep the first sentence simply that this was something that they discussed at this time without reference to the content or ms. madison's reaction to it. again, that just goes to the relationship. >> any objection to that mr. kopp? >> i'm sorry. i'm ok with this. >> so six will be stricken ex-cement for this first sentence. >> commissioner could i have clearance with paragraph five? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> i'm just waiting. >> oh, yeah, i'm waiting for you mr. can kopp. i thought everybody was reading paragraph seven. >> we objected this paragraph on its entirety on relevance grounds, additionally there's no foundation for most of these sentences and finally this kfings is much more prejudice than any other issue. >> can you tell us the next paragraph you don't object to

just in case there are consecutive paragraphs, we can maybe deal with them. >> may i just have a moment, please? >> yes. >> i think i'm going to have to all the way through paragraph 38

before i don't have an objection and that's down the road. >> ok. >> there's going to be a standing here say objection to anything ms. madison says that ms. lopez told her at any point in time. >> ok. >> and then there are going to be numerous other objections. chairperson hur: let's take it paragraph by paragraph then. paragraph seven, is there a -- mr. keith can you object to the strike in paragraph seven? >> yes, i mean, i think i can talk about a few of these paragraphs together. paragraphs seven through nine. these are paragraphs that describe what eliano lopez is telling ms. madison about her relationship. this is foundational or information that's relied on by nancy lemon in analyzing the state of the relationship that they have. it's well accepted that expert opinions regarding domestic

violence situation and relationships can and do rely on this kind of confidences given to friends and other people close to -- close to the victim even if they are here say. we're not offering this for the truth of the matter. we're offering this to establish the nature of the relationship so we can figure out what it is that's going on. and to some extent -- to the extent that the -- that the paragraph also discuss ms. lopez's response to these thihe marriage. they pertain to her state of mind and her conduct that would be our point from seven through nine. chairperson hur: commissioner studly. chairperson studley: i wonder if her testimony is the better source of any kind of that information. chairperson hur: go ahead. >> i don't doubt that her

testimony would be helpful. i think one reason that this kind of testimony is permitted in cases involving domestic violence, again not for the truth of the matter but for the nature of the relationship and the motivation of the victim into explaining the actions of the victim, it's -- it's often because victims recant which is again that's something that's in her statement. these kinds of statements can come in to support an expert opinion even if they're not for the truth. >> when you say you're not introducing them for the truth or falsity of the statements that are being made and attributed to ms. lopez, if they're untrue, they're meaningless, right? so you are -- you're trying -- you are arguing that what she -- what ms. madison says ms. lopez

told her was in fact a true statement of facts. isn't that a classic here's? >> -- heresay. >> except insofar it claims that ms. lopez's course of conduct and why she was doing what she was doing at a later time. then it's permitted under the exception of the heresay rule. even if it is heresay and for the truth of the matter it is still permitted for an expert witness to relay on these types of confidence given to a friend about the nature of the relationship. >> i would strike paragraph seven, eight and nine in their entirety. i think they're more prejudicial than probative. i think none of the statements

-- i mean there, can be some foundation -- we've discussed some foundation that there is a relationship but i don't -- i don't think this is probative of what -- of the allegations and charges that we're seeking to aadjudicate. -- adjudicate. i welcome comments from the commissioners or questions for mr. keith. ok. hearing no objection, we can vote at the end, but i take it there's no objection to the sustaining of objections to seven, eight, and nine among the commissioners. >> no objection. ok. paragraph 10, i think that was where we had left off. i don't know if mr. keith, you

want to address that or mr. kopp -- >> think it's a little different in terms of trying to assess ms. lopez's attitudes and state of mind. regardless -- paragraphs can relate to various concerns she had about theo and his welfare. whether or not any of these incidents actually happened, she had that concern and that concern is relevant to the actions that she later took. so, in that sense, that is why this information is offered. it's not offered to show that all of these things actually occurred. it's offered to show her concern for theo which explains her actions from the 31st through the fourth. >> any questions for mr. keith with respect to paragraph 10? mr. kopp? >> thank you, again. we object on heresay and relevance grounds, also that

again this information is more prejudicial than it is probative. i would like to just address one comment made by mr. keith a moment ago which is their expert witness wants to rely on this stuff assuming the truth of it. i mean, why would you rely on it if it wasn't true. their ex-pirt ms. lemon can rely on whatever she wants. it doesn't mean that it has to come into evidence before the commission. so i'd like to make that comment. chairperson hur: my view is that the entirety of paragraph 10 should be stricken for the reasons stated by council. and i think it's similar in nature to paragraph seven through nine. any decenting view from the commissioners? ok. hearing none, paragraph 11, i do think may have some -- we may finally get to some potentially

relevant evidence. let me hear the objections to number 11 -- >> the objection is primarily going to be heresay. i would agree that there's more probative information in this paragraph than any of the previous ones we've objected to. some of it contains information that is prejudicial but our primary objection here is heresay. chairperson hur: mr. keith, are there questions for the commissioners, or mr. kopp? >> i think this is where we start to get into the issues that we submitted a brief on why this is subject to heresay exceptions, most notably the excited utterance rule but also exceptions to show the state of

mind and to explain the conduct of what happened and how ms. lopez ended up making this video. so again, i think the issue of the excited utter rans we had ample evidence of ms. lopez's description -- i'm sorry from ms. madison's description of ms. lopez's demeanor. that she was distraught. he burst into tears gone. she was emotional. and that likewise demeanor was likely to reflect on the video and her bursting into tears on the video. we think that this as well as some of the other paragraphs that we're likely to discuss should come in under the heresay exceptions so for the reasons we briefed. >> questions to mr. keith with respect to paragraph number 11? in light of the state court's

decision with respect to the testimony of ms. madison and the case law cited therein about what an excited utter rans can mean under california law it does mean that statements made by ms. lopez on january 1st should come in now. i don't think as we sit here today we have to decide whether they come in for the truth -- whether they come in -- admissible, nonheresay evidence. but i do think that statements made to ms. lopez -- made by ms. lopez to ms. madison should be considered to the commission. mr. kopp? >> i'd just like to respond briefly. i'm cog any santa of the rulings

that were -- i'm cognizant of the rulings that were made by the court on the issue. i would say that that determination does not bind you. there's no es stoppable effect because there's no preview to the parties. an excited utter rans or spontaneous statement exception typically, it duds not apply when the -- it does not apply when the statements made a daph after that caused the excitement their caution is urged when it is a statement made in anticipation of litigation. some of this explicitly states by ms. lopez is considering divorce proceedings. more over in this particular paragraph there are numerous references to questions being asked by ms. madison of ms. lopez. so it's more in the nature of an

interviewing process rather than a torrent of words that just came out of ms. lopez because she couldn't control herself and that's really what the heresay exception is aimed at. chairperson hur: yeah, mr. kopp, one thing that comes to mind as we discuss this issue, i think we asked if you would -- if you would be prepared today to tell us whether ms. lopez is going to submit a declare ration. do you have that information? >> i do. i do not speak directly to ms. lopez. i talk to her lawyer. i am informed that she is willing to submit a declaration. i don't have a firm grasp on what the timing of that would be. but i hope that it would be within the next week or so. part of it is because it's responsive to these declarations that were responded to the weekend or friday an then again on sunday. no decision has been made as to whether or not she is willing to

appear for live testimony or cross-examination or appear remotely. that's all i can tell you at this point. >> when will you know? will you get an answer? >> i expect it within a week. i'm going to know -- i should be able to get a declaration or hope to be able to get one and i should have an answer as to whether or not she'll submit to cross-examination. she's not a witness under our control. >> who's representing her? >> her lawyer is paula kenny. chairperson hur: i would recommend that we put this on our list of individuals we may want to sub peena to appear before us -- this session. i think hearing from her will help us figure out what evidence if any from ms. lopez will come in. >> i don't think you'll need to

sub pena ms. canty. chairperson hur: can i hold you responsible for getting her here then? >> she doesn't really listen to me. but i can certainly request -- i can relay the fact that you requested that she'd be here unless there is some conflict in her schedule i'm sure she'll come. chairperson hur: i think we should put her on the list with a supoena. >> i can try to give her a phone call and try to get an answer if we have a break. chairperson hur: did you have anything in response? >> i think dwelling on when this rule applies. the question is when is the incident -- this question isn't so much how much time has

elapsed between when the utterance was made. it's what was the mental state of the speaker. and there are many instances in which statements that come, you know, a day later or two days later still come in as excited utter ranses. i think the issue is whether it comes in for nonheresay purposes or for the truth of matter than the weight that it's given. at this point we're not arguing weight. we're just arguing admissibility. if there's a rule that there's an excited utterance kit come in and then the commission can weigh that against whatever other evidence might be about what occurred. >> i'm inclined to agree that it should come in. i think we've -- we've discussed previously that the weight in heresay is the way we get nonheresay evidence. i don't think we need to decide right now as coming in as

nonheresay evidence. but in light of how up in the air the testimony of ms. lopez is, i would be hesitant to exclude these conversations from evidence. any objections from the commission? >> no. chairperson hur: mr. can kopp you had mentioned that you had a .5 -- an objection to 352. is there anything very specific within here that you're objecting to on 352 grounds? >> if i could just have a moment, i'll let you know. >> well, yes, lines 22 through

23, the last clause of that sentence, i find more prejudicial than probative. >> beginning online 23? >> beginning online 22 after often, comea. so that second clause -- or i gets it's -- i guess it's a third clause, i'm sorry. right here. >> through the word "abusive." >> yes. thank you. on page five. we won't waste your time. >> ok. for the objection to 20 begins with and and ending at that

particular sentence in line 23. it's a -- it will be admitted. online 24, the last part of that beginning with the word because, i don't believe there is a foundation for that. that's speculation. mr. keith? >> our response would be that this explains her mental state and motivation and why she's so emotional about this. we're not offering it for weather the child actually understood what is being said. but rather from ms. lopez's reason for her concern. chairperson hur: i'm inclined to allow the -- that -- that.

any oks? >> no. >> and then the last sentence on page five beginning online 26 with the word "ass," all the way until the end of the sentence. we think there's no foundation and speculative and prejudicial. >> it pro ports to be a court. so when you say no foundation it's what she's saying this is what iliana said to her. whether it's true or not it's another question. but it's not being offered for that purpose at all. it's been offered saying this is what she said when she spoke to her. i was a little unclear as to the reason why it's being offered.

>> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any hundreding view -- any more questions from the commission? >> paragraph 12? >> again, we have the standing hearsay objection. as to the sentence number two online to beginning with the words from her description. that's speculation. jerry: -- >> mr. keith? >> ms. madison is stating her interpretation of what ms. madison said. sometimes we have a conversation and we get an impression. she's repeating her impression. obviously, she wasn't there. but she is certainly able to get

her interpretation of what somebody else said and the gist of what was being conveyed. i mean that was -- that's standard conversation and communication. >> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? >> no. >> mr. kopp? >> yes. then online seven to line eight, the sentence beginning with i and finishing with the word am more prejudicial than probative, irrelevant. >> well, i actually don't have a problem with striking the last block of the sentence. three minutes over? the micro phone. the part whether and i still am.

that's not relevant. but what i do believe is relevant, i is it explains why ms. madison took the action that she did, the concern that she had and that prompted her to take the actions that she took. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection. the last part of line seven through the sentence that ends with am online e -- on line e. any decenting views from the commission? ok. >> just to clarify was the ruling the whole sentence goes? >> the whole sentence. so it begins with i at the end

of line seven and ends with am in the middle of line eight. >> and nothing additional on that paragraph. >> paragraph 13, mr. kopp? >> yes. again, heresay to the whole thing. but lines 18 through 20, the sentence -- sentences that begin i asked and the next sentence begins she said. relevance no foundation, it's speculation. prejudicial. >> mr. keith? >> i think that -- i think that -- i actually don't agree with most of the objection but it's probably -- it's probably not relevant within the stream of what's being conveyed. so i think that we wouldn't oppose that. >> ok. so that is -- the objection is

sustained by stipulation as to the sentence that begins "i asked" online 18 and ends with the word "career" online 20. do i have that correct? >> yep. >> thank you. >> paragraph 14. >> heresay as to the whole thing. and then the very last line which is online seven, lines two to three, the very last sentence in that beginning with the word "my" finishing with the word "do," there's no foundation. i'm sorry. was i going too fast? chairperson hur: no. >> no foundation for that and

speculation. chairperson hur: mr. keith? >> this is actually relevant to show ms. lopez's state of mind and to show her hesitancey to call the police and this of course part of the conversation. again, we're trying to ascertain why and how this investigation started. so it's relevant for that purpose. are we talki and three on page even? >> yes. >> oh, that's not miss -- that's as i understand it ms. madison speculating as to why she -- she says it's my impression. how is her impression -- how is that a factual evidence? >> i -- i think it's her interpretation of what ms. lopez was saying. she may be shearing her gloss on that. it's not clear from the declaration. so i think in light of the fact we can't