decide in making its recommendations? >> whether the sheriff's conduct on december 31 or thereafter, up to the end date of the written charges, which i believe is the date he entered his plea, constitute official misconduct. i am not sure if i can break it down any further for you. see, i just think that this is -- we are going far afield, when we start submitting this type of expert witness testimony. hong -- commissioner renne: of does it make a difference whether or not that conduct constituted domestic violence, or was merely just something that happened between a husband and a wife?

>> fundamentally, we think that what ever happened on that date cannot constitute official misconduct, because it is before he became sheriff. but considering the mayor's argument that it can predate taking the oath of office, i think the phrase domestic violence is susceptible to a lot of different interpretations. i notice that in one part of the declaration, mr. demint opines that the charge on which the share of -- miss lemon appliance the charge on which the sheriff was convicted was domestic violence, spousal battery. but i think that you all are more than capable of making that determination yourself, without having this expert opinion. i think you can decide that for

yourself. i think it is totally unnecessary, and a waste of time and resources. >> doesn't the amended charge charge the sheriff with an act of domestic violence? it is not just us trying to figure out whether certain things happen on a certain day. he has been charged with an act of domestic violence. why wouldn't a domestic violence expert help us sort through the issues of what conduct constitutes an act of domestic violence? >> the label you put on it is immaterial. it is what happened. whether it was him grabbing his wife's arm in the middle of a heated argument, or something more the mayor wants to to believe, you can decide for yourselves. was that official misconduct? you do not have to put that label on it. maybe i did not answer the

question for you. >> you think it is just a matter of labeling? >> yes. the charter does not say the domestic violence is one of the things for which a public official can be removed. the charter is vague. it attempts to define official misconduct. in my opinion, the task of the commission is to decide whether what occurred constitutes official misconduct, not whether it constitutes domestic violence. >> why don't i asked a different question? do you think that the crime of false imprisonment that the sheriff pleaded guilty to is domestic violence? >> i do not think i can answer that question, because it depends on how you will define the term.

if you want to define it by the terms and conditions of probation when you are convicted of that crime, and are they some of the terms and convictions you would get if you were convicted of a battery on your spouse or significant other, possibly. but i do not think the term is sufficiently definite for me to give a response to that question. >> if the term is not sufficiently definite for you, wouldn't expert in that field help us figure that out? >> maybe so. but that assumes the foundational question, which is, is that important to your determination? our position is that is not. it is just a little. commissioner hayon: from my point of view, we have at least two declarations, ms. madison's and ms. lopez's declarations,

which are fundamentally completely different stories of the same event. for me, i feel that i need some help in trying to figure out why there is such a wide discrepancy in these declarations of these witnesses, in terms of how they describe the events that took place. i think that an expert like miss lemmon could possibly be helpful. perhaps not. perhaps once we hear what she has to say, we will fill this does not apply to the witnesses that we have. but perhaps it will be helpful and will be relevant in helping us to decide which of these stories has more credibility.

that, and of course cross- examination of the witnesses themselves. i certainly could see the need to have her testify. chairperson hur: that is the purpose i would want it for. other than that, we can go through it, but i think a lot of it probably does need to be stricken. to the extent it relates to that, i think we need it. commissioner studley i do not think we need a seminar on domestic violence. that is not really what we are deciding. but we need to consider the testimony of these individuals. given such wide disparity, i think we could use a little help in making those decisions. and i think commissioner hayon

made good points. there is the action others assert ms. lopez took, and her own testimony. i think ms. lemon's testimony may be helpful in that regard. i do not feel we need the conclusions of law that she offers us. i think that is our responsibility. chairperson hur: i agree with that. i do not think we need the conclusions of law, and i do not think we need her to tell us how his actions relate to his duties. we have an expert for that. any dissenting views? >> may i speak to the issue? i think the question is not whether it missileman's

declaration is cumulative -- -- whether miss lemon's declaration is cumulative. it is about their relationship between a sheriff who has committed an act of violence and the duties of the sheriff. i think those are things for which there is a story. in terms of the ultimate issue, there is a difference in criminal law and in civil law. in civil law, there is explicit evidence that says it is admissible for an expert to offer you their opinion on the ultimate issue. that does not bind you to the expert opinion, but it is not an inappropriate opinion to make. it certainly is admissible under the evidence code. under criminal law, that is different. you cannot give an opinion about

the ultimate issue, or the fact of the defendant picked up. under this setting, it is appropriate. it is not something you need to exclude from the record. there is a code section that makes it admissible. commissioner hayon: -- chairperson hur: my response to that is, to me, it is not the ultimate issue problem. i just do not think she is uniquely qualified to help us determine whether the acts relate to the sheriff's duties, or whether the act constitutes official misconduct, or even domestic violence. maybe i am wrong, but there should be illegal answer to that question. i do not think she is uniquely qualified. i do think she is uniquely

qualified on other parts, but not for this. >> i would like to then address those foundational concerns. first of all, miss lemmon is actually here. i am happy to cross-examine her on the basis of her expertise, to talk about the duties of a share of related to domestic violence. she has been working with all aspects of the criminal justice system about domestic violence for 32 years, i think. i do not want to prematurely aged her. she looks quite young, by the way. i think that constant contact as an expert trainer does give her a substantial foundation to have direct knowledge about what it is sheriff's do in regard to domestic violence. i do not think she is an interloper or journalist making a statement about what a sheriff

does. she is an established expert and trainer on that topic, who has worked for years with law enforcement, including the sheriff's department. and i am happy to bring her up and ask for more specifics, to the extent you think that would be helpful. in terms of whether or not the act in question was an act of domestic violence, you mentioned that you think that is a legal question. i agree there is a legal answer, certain offenses that, under different sources of law, are or are not defined as domestic violence. there is also -- i do not know how to characterize it. i guess more of a specialized lay opinion about this thing, a syndrome of people trying to exert power and control over

their partners are family members. whether or not it is ever tried or convicted under a particular statute, it is considered to be and treated as and understood to be domestic violence. that is distinct, by the way, from just an arm grabbed. the sheriff has been saying, not only in the media, but in his declaration to you -- the extent of the description of the action, that you need to determine the nature and severity of, you need to determine if it is misconduct. everything the sheriff has said so far is, on december 31, 2011, i had an argument with my wife. at the end of the argument, i grabbed her arm. this resulted in a bruise. it was wrong of me to grab her

arms. i pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of penal code section 236. this entire description skirts the fact. it skirts the circumstances, nature, and severity of the act that is the basis of the mayor's charge. the mere reviewed the criminal record to see what the facts were. he testifies to that in his declaration. his charge is based not simply on the existence of a bruise, but on something that is commonly understood by experts to be domestic violence, and not just by judges. chairperson hur: if we are going to talk about california law, we have lots of discretion to talk to experts. for all the reasons we have talked about, i do not think we need it for that purpose. if you want to find out from the sheriff more details, we are going to give you more leeway to

do that. you will not be limited to the statements of declaration. you will have the opportunity to examine him. whether other comments from the commissioners, or questions? commissioner renne: what is the proposal to do with the declaration? are you saying excluded in its entirety? chairperson hur: here is my proposal. because you did such a nice job when you had some guidance from us on miss madison, i am hoping we can get that again. i understand that you all have your objections. i think you now understand what parts of it we think are relevant, and what parts are not. you are not going to waive your objections with stipulations. you can express the reserve that in whatever document. based on the interim decision we have made here, could you please

identify the parts and that we have indicated will be relevant, and then tell us the parts that are not relevant, based on the discussion we have heard here? does that make sense? >> with all due respect, i am not sure you have made an interim decision. i heard commissioners discuss something, but i did not hear other commissioners expressed their views about whether there might be other topics that might be relevant. i mean you no disrespect. this is a very significant issue in this case, in my opinion. i do not want to be hasty about retreating from it. chairperson hur: a fair point. i apologize if i was tasty. is there any disagreement that we will permit missileman, for the purpose of helping us a guy with the credibility -- miss lemmon, for the purpose of

helping us with the credibility of the conflicting stories, but not admitted for purposes of telling us why his conduct relates to his duties as sheriff, and that we will not allow it into the legal question of what domestic violence -- what constitutes domestic violence? is there any dissent from that? >> can i clarify it? in the first part of that, you would expect that we would -- that this process would keep the information about the nature of domestic violence and the background of how to interpret specific elements are factions within it. the syndrome of domestic violence might be a way, a phrase i would pick up on. chairperson hur: i would agree

with that. i think some of that background is necessary to inform our opinions about what a witness may not be reliable later on. >> i agree. not for the ultimate conclusion, but for how the behaviors may affect domestic violence. i agree with that. >> and the dissenting view? >> not necessarily but one of the concerns that i have is that much of what miss lemmon relies on in coming to our conclusions are alleged facts which we have excised from the record and said that they are not relevant.

they can rely on what is in the record or whether it is hearsay or not. here are events we have said we are not going to consider. the opinion is based upon what she says are prior acts, which color the conclusions she reaches. it may be for the limited purpose you are talking about, and that is credibility of a witness and why things could happen. it is not an important issue. but if we are going to consider it at all for whether or not the acts that took place on december 31 fit the definition of domestic violence as she describes it, i would tend to

agree with you that we keep it in, but recognize that we are using it for a very limited purpose. i am not sure it is necessary to go through it, paragraph by paragraph. we can make a judgment about whether we want to pay any attention to 90% of it. >> may i speak? i am not sure if you are thinking or not. that was one of the objections the sheriff raised. i looked carefully at that question. you are absolutely right on pretty much every account. the law is very clear about that.

that is pretty much the pipe, about spending more energy on it. a person who has made an allocation -- allegation of abuse and takes it back, the statements are important, or else you can't evaluate what happens. that is typical. it is also fine, under the established law, to put the it inadmissible evidence into the export declaration to explain the evidence. -- it in an miscible evidence coming into the export declaration -- into admissible evidence, into the expert

declaration. if people will be confused, there is a limit. that should not even be necessary, because you are the decision makers. chairperson hur: i hear that, and i think ms. kaiser is correct on the law. i still think it would be helpful for you all to get together and see if there are portions of this that are not relevant, based on what we have discussed. you can tell me if you are unsatisfied about the view of the commission on this. when you tell us down the road what the bases are for certain findings of fact, it is going to be helpful for us if we are clear what is in the record and what is not.

i am very tempted by it, because it is such a long declaration, and it is very time consuming. some of the things to bleed over. i think we should make the effort to cut it down. given that i think mr. kopp has called us he is not one to cross-examine, regardless of objections, i would like to give you the opportunity to meet and confer, bring us back something that looks like what you did for madison, and we can evaluate it later, since she is not going to testify anyway. does that sound acceptable to my fellow commissioners? >> i am happy to do that, just so you understand and do not get mad at me next time. i hear a range of viewpoints. >> i am not mad.

>> i will do my best to accommodate those instructions, but i may not match every view of where we should have been. >> this is where i see a dividing line in her declaration. there are a lot of progress explaining the characteristics of domestic violence, and of the relationship, and so forth. there is also a series of paragraphs that go toward her opinion of characteristics of an unreformed batterer. to me, i don't think that that line of paragraphs would be helpful to me in evaluating credibility and overall

evidence. that is where i see a distinction. there were a lot of progress going toward the sheriff's conduct and whether, in her opinion, that is consistent with the characteristics of an unreformed better. those paragraphs i did not see as very helpful. i did not know if anybody else had views on that. chairperson hur: i agree. >> thank you. that is helpful. chairperson hur: should we pick some dates? i know there have been lots of states, and i apologize. my latest thought is to try to make the dates mostly the same, so you do not have to keep remembering different deadlines. can we stick with july 10 and

july 17 for getting us? i suppose you can pick whatever dates you want for negotiating your stipulations. but if we are growing to meet on the 18th, it would be great if we could have at least the day before. is that possible? >> you mean to get something to the commission similar to the madison declaration by july 17? chairperson hur: right. >> that would be preferable. i will just be gone at four or five days. chairperson hur: that is a couple of weeks. i am hoping that can be addressed. >> assuming that we can start very shortly before that time frame, that is doable for me. we will make it work. chairperson hur: hand you very much.

appreciate that. how is our core report pursuing -- court reporter doing? let's take a break.