when witnesses, people out there see how this witness was treated, that affects the ability of law enforcement to prosecute crime. and furthermore, our argument is this is an incident in which the sheriff in fact committed a crime. he admitted to it and admitted to hurting his wife and let these attacks go on, on this witness and attempts to discredit her go on when he knew that he had done a wrong, we would argue falls below the standard of decency. another issue for us is that relevant -- relevance is a baseline standard. to say that something is irrelevant to exclude it on that basis, cuts off any consideration of that issue later on. i would encourage the commission not to keep itself from considering an issue and making a recommendation to the board of supervisors on an issue where there is testimony about what

chief law enforcement officers are supposed to do with regard to promoting witnesses, reporting crimes. >> here's -- i appreciate that concern. but one thing -- one other concern when it comes to what the board has to do is the board has to sit through what is going to be an incredibly large record. and don't think we serve the board by admitting evidence we don't think is relevant because we are afraid or worried that we may exclude something that in our good judgment should not be part of the record. i appreciate the concern. i think we've all been making efforts to ensure that the record is complete and i think in close calls, we have admitted evidence for that very reason. but at the same time i don't want to take that admonition as license to just admit everything. i frankly do not see how the

sheriff's alleged failure to prevent some public outcry towards miss madison is relevant to what we've been asked to do. don't see anything in your charges that relate to that conduct. >> it's part of the course of conduct in going to the decency provision. >> where are the allegations he should have prevented the alleged press abuse to miss madison? >> well, again, the argument sent the press abused her. it's the abuse was happening and we would argue at the behest of those working on behalf of the sheriff. >> where is that? >> the sheriff didn't speak out against it. that specific -- that level of

specificity is not in the charges. if i can take a moment, i will locate on the charges where this issue is addressed. >> ok. >> in a more general sense.

>> so the answer to the question, commissioners is while this particular aspect of the conduct is not spelled out effortlessly, it is embraced in our witness dissituation charge, what happens to a witness after they report a crime is something that is relevant to the idea a sheriff should be protecting witnesses and safeguarding them. but more significantly on count five of our charge, charges rather. that these are acts of wrongful conduct that are going to be proven in conformity of proof at trial and they go to the standard of conduct and that's a standard of conduct that we outlined through chief lansdowne. i mean, i -- i was under the impression that we were -- that

this fleeting document, we were under the impression this pleading document didn't have to be encyclopedic. so i think that's one of the difficulties that we're facing now. >> well, look, i mean this is not your typical civil proceeding where you can provide notice pleading, there's no consequence to the defendant until you prove your case. i mean, this is a case where you brought official charges that led to the immediate suspension without pay of the sheriff. so i -- i at least and i think we all discussed this, expect a higher level of detail and full notice of what these charges really are so we can adjudicate them. this is not a -- i don't view this as a situation where based on discovery, you should be able to significantly supplement the charges. commissioner studley? >> you're not like -- not going

to like this. but i'm less certain because this is a relatively tested initiative by the people what the pleading expectations are or whether we have more closer to a notice leading or de novo ability to determine what we think and to what degree is the mayor's charge, limiting or controlling more and exactly the issue they're raising. i'm not sure -- we haven't discussed what that line is. and it may not be appropriate to do so here. but it does have consequences because the issue that we're talking about that it testimony goes to is one where i was interested in inquiring about exactly the witness mr. keith referred to. >> the witness chief lansdowne. >> but it led know have that

very same question about whether we are -- how closely we must view to the, call it a charging document or statement of concerns if we -- and it's extreme if we found that there had been behavior that we felt fit within the initiative definition but hadn't been -- the definition -- the definition in the initiative but not in the charging documents, whether we would be precluded from considering it. that's a hypothetical we don't have to address right now but we're on that line of how closely or how specifically these issues need to have been identified or put another way, what room and responsibility we have to determine whether there's behavior that fit the

definition or behaver that fit the definition and was raised by the mayor's charge. >> i think that's a fair point. the charges are, this is the bill of particulars so this is actually more detailed than the charging document and we provided the mayor with the opportunity to amend the charges to add more substantive allegations. but i certainly understand we don't have a lot of precedent here with respect to level of detail for these charges. i think the caution is a good one. with respect to -- i'm sorry, we're on 382. let's take it a little more specifically perhaps.

because i think -- >> can i ask a question here? if you were talking about paragraph 46, right, is that when you were talking about the standard of conduct and decency issue. were you addressing paragraph 45 or 46? >> i'm sorry, are we back on the charges or declaration? >> i'm sorry, declaration. >> let me see. >> because i think you may have been addressing paragraphs 46. >> i'm sorry, i was. >> and so my -- my concern since we were on that line of thought, paragraph 36, your understand of witness disuation count. but my concern is paragraph 46 it s it doesn't seem to make the connection between any alleged act by the sheriff and public

outcry against miss madison or the press, treatment of the press by miss madison. that's where i see a relevance issue in paragraph 46. >> if i may respond, miss madison knows the effect of what happened. she doesn't necessarily know what started the chain in motion or where it could have stopped. she only knows the impact. i would say that -- we would say we believe that we can present evidence that this was a strategy. but significantly one of our charges is -- or one of the statements made by chief lansdowne in his declaration is it's not ever he caused this, certainly if he caused this, that would not meet the standard. even seeing it happen and not doing something about it when he knew he committed a crime is a problem. and is -- and falls below the law enforcement standard.

so just the fact that he's not stopping it fall bees low the standard. the commissioners may or may not find that view persuasive. but it's a view chief lansdowne is qualified to give and to testify to and he can be cross-examined on. i would offer that. as for the notice issues that we were discussing a moment ago, we certainly want the scher toif have notice of all of our arguments and now that you have our declarations, he has notice of all of them. we tried to work flexibly with the other side. try to deal with deadlines cooperatively and witnesses cooperatively. miss lopez just submitted a declaration and she's a sheriff's witness. it's late but we're not going to argue it shouldn't come in. this is an administrative body. we're all moving as quickly as we can. i would say having the declaration cures -- that's our

position. what is stated in chief lansdowne's declaration is our position finance sheriff hennessey wants to answer that as their expert, he can answer that and be subject to cross on that as well. so we're not trying to hide the ball here. we're just trying to provide an effective charging document that gives sufficient notice. >> ok. we actually ended up jumping, i think, if commissioner liu pointed out to 3-b2. originally has to do with paragraph 45 not 46. given we just discussed 46, i think we should address this objection. because my -- my view with respect to 46 are different than 45.

so what is issue in 45 are lines 13 through 15. is that right?s0 i'm sorry -- >> 3 through 15. >> i think given the concern that's have been expressed by my fellow commissioners, perhaps we should permit the statements starting on line 9 with but and

ending with in 14 -- >> just for the commission's information, we stipulated to an objection beginning on line 15. >> right. stipulated 15 to 28 is out. >> yes, beginning with ross has repeatedly. >> right. i would strike the remainder except for the portion that i just mentioned. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> so three through nine would come out and the part you identified from but on line nine to him on line 14 would come in?

>> come in. and the following sentence would go out. >> right. any objections from my fellow commissioners? ok. so that disposes of 3b2. do we feel like we have that clearly? let's go back to paragraph 45. this paragraph, my problem with this paragraph has actually little to do with the charging document. my concern here is this paragraph is about what didn't happen or what was never told to miss madison. i'm not sure why we need that.

>> commissioners, this is -- this is, again, one of those things where when the testimony is coming in by declaration, you don't know quite what's going to come in. so what's happening here is the witness is responding to some of the media, some of the accounts the sheriff had given in media interviews about what has occurred and basically stating what her response would be to questions, did that happen? did miss lopez tell you this or tell you that? it's just trying to anticipate a potential conflict that's coming from the other side. i think that's a function of doing this by way of declaration. >> i see your point. >> well, certainly, there's no foundation for the very last

sentence there. and some of this i would agree with your concerns with it not being relevant because it talks about things that didn't happen, but it does appear to repeat some of the things that had been previously been admitted earlier in the declaration. other than that, i don't think i have further comment. we maintain our objection to the entire paragraph. >> commissioner renne? >> i'm not certain where we are on that. >> yeah, i thought you were going to withdraw the objection after you just -- >> no, we think it's cumulative, argumentative and prejudicial. the entire thing. >> where is it presidential if it contains everything state brd? >> for example, the last sentence miss madison's opinion about whether or not statements made in the press are consistent with things that happen -- >> we stipulated to that

objection. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> it certain lay peers to be a partisan paragraph. let's put it that way. >> this is a partisan process. you are on opposing sides here. >> i'll submit to the commission on this. >> commissioners, any views? >> we're talking about lines 19 through -- >> we're talking about paragraph 45 -- >> 19 or 25 with the word custody, is that the section? >> it's line 19 through line 1 that ends with video, i believe.

i would be inclined to sustain the objection. i don't think it's at issue now if there comes a time when when this testimony is relevant because it's rebuttal, maybe that's something we can revisit. but to me it's just not relevant now. >> i agree. >> let's go to d-2.

i know miss lopez submitted a declaration where she has made statements about the allegations about the relationship that she had with miss madison and this attorney/client issue. but what does -- i mean, we're not here to adjudicate whether there's an attorney/client privilege and frankly given the public disclosure, seems like there's really -- that, that ship has passed and it was adjudicate brd we were involved. so i'm not really sure what paragraph 49, lines 20 through 21 line 8 go to.

>> this goes to a specific instance of essentially harassing a witness who reported a crime that the sheriff knew what happened and this is just one instance of that harassment is that miss lopez's attorney sent her these threatening letters. >> i think you just said miss lopez -- >> that's correct, i did. >> i'm sorry if i missed it but how does that relate to the mayor's official misconduct? >> as if the sheriff did nothing to stop it and the sheriff funded miss lopez's attorney. >> please, we cannot have comments from the audience. >> to me, that is not relevant. i will sustain the objections and welcome the views of my fellow commissioners.

ok, hearing no objection. mr. murton. first objection is to paragraph 6 through 9. i had a hard time seeing the relevance here. i would sustain the objection. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. if there are any where you would like to be heard, we will certainly give you that opportunity. >> thank you.

commissioners, i want to say this, i recognize things discussed in these paragraphs. they are not flattering but we take to the fact as they come. from our standpoint, information like this about the past relationship between -- between miss lopez and the sheriff are relevant to our theory that domestic violence would occur, and our view of the fact domestic violence would occur. our it is extreme thrirs, the couple sentences about his account of what happened on the 31st. i don't know if he's going to expand on that. >> you will be able to ask him. >> yes. >> you're calling him as your witness. you could not get a declaration if him so you're not limited by his declaration, as long as the topics are relevant. >> right. so we know from the public statements that the sheriff has made, i can't say we know but we

suspect from the public statement the sheriff made what hiss story will be, which is this is a short, innocuous incident, which is contrary to the statement miss lopez gave to miss madison on the 1st about how this incident occurred. >> but these are not about statements on the 1st. >> that is correct. these are not about statements on the 1st. as miss lenin's testimony shows and is generally accepted in california, testimony from -- testimony about the existence of a battering or abusive relationship is rell vents to assessing the credibility of a witness who later recants and this goes to the distance of that relationship and with the declaration this just received from miss lopez, we have an issue of a victim recanting, which is not unusual in domestic violent situations. we have a statement given right after the incident. that the credibility of which will have to be tested against whatever the sheriff says now and whatever miss lopez says

now. and it's accepted that the kind of relationship that exists that pre-exists and predates the violent incident is welcome to make that determination. >> mr. keith, isn't it your position that the mayor -- that the sheriff having pled guilty to false imprisonment, that was pleading to domestic violence? >> yes. >> that's your position, isn't it? >> it is. >> why do you need anything about conversations or incidents that happened back in october if it's your position the official misconduct is proven by the mere fact of entering a guilty plea. >> commissioner, it's the mayor's position that the conviction alone, when we put it together with a sentence and probation consideration, et cetera, that's official

misconduct. but we -- but there's also an argument to be made and we expect the other side to make it, that it's not official misconduct. at which point we then have to start getting into questions of degree, where we might look at the facts and circumstances of the conduct that led to the conviction. and my concern again is i -- i think we would argue for categorical rule that whenever a tough law enforcement officer is convicted of it any kind of offense involving domestic violence, they have to go. i don't know the commission is going to accept that rule or commission is going to say we have to look at the facts and circumstances. so that's why we're focusing on some of these factual disputes because it may not be enough. >> how do paragraphs 6 through 9 advance a position saying what took place on january or december 31 was an act of

domestic violence. >> it puts the -- it says here are the relationship that predated the incident and the california supreme court says when you're talking about domestic violence type incident, that is important. our colleague miss kaiser submitted a brief on the lemon declaration, which the other side objected to in its entirety that discussed the issues in great detail. >> it's all hearsay. >> it is. >> you have to assume what statements are being made are true so in addition to the question of the potential relevance or how your expert witness may tie it in, have you to make the assumption that everything that witness is saying is crew. how do you get by that hurdle? >> i acknowledge the hurdle and it's there and i think evidence code 801 gets us over the hurdle which gets us to say it's the

kind of hearsay experts rely on. statements by the victim about the relationship and in the context of these types of experts and this type of testimony, that is hearsay that the experts rely on. i would say much of this is hearsay and there is nonhearsay purpose for it. really addressing the relevance points here. but there's not a problem with an expert relying on here, particularly this kind of hearsay for this kind of expert. >> mr. keith, we don't have to determine whether these past acts were -- whether they had domestic violence connotations. we jvuft to determine whether the incident on new year's eve constituted violence, correct? we don't have to go into the facts being portrayed in paragraphs 6 through 9. >> you do not have to make

findings about that. i think with any expert opinion, you want to look at what the expert is relying on. if you doubt that that's true, you might doubt the opinion. if you believe it's true, you might believe the opinion. tomes relevant in that sense, the expert opinion helps us understand how this victim recanted and helps us understand why she was telling the account that she told to miss madison on the first and to miss williams on the fourth about what happened and helps explain why those are more credible than the subsequent statements. so it does go to bhapped on the 31st. that is what the commission has to decide with regard to the facts and circumstances that led to this conviction. >> i think we're far afield here. i would sustain the objections to paragraphs 6 through 9.