madison, her family, my neighbors, my department, the sheriff's department, and the people of san francisco. i realize that what was reported to the police was out of desire to help my family. i truly regret that these proceedings may have caused the madison family or anyone any suffering, greece, embarrassment, or harassment, or damage to their reputations -- grief. i want to think the district attorney and my counsel for their professionalism. sheriff, when you made that apology to ivory madison and her family, did you mean it? >> objection, irrelevant. >> overruled. >> yes. >> then you realize that what

occurred during the criminal proceedings included a lot of stories in the newspapers regarding ivory madison? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> the question again. >> of the time you did this apology, you knew there would be many stories in the newspaper about i very madison that painted her in not a very pleasant way? >> i believe so. >> she was blind to it -- painted as a fake lawyer. >> objection, speculation. >> you may answer. >> i believe so. >> ok. she was portrayed as a crazy feminist radical. >> i do not know. >> ok.

>> she was portrayed as a tool of your political enemies. >> no. >> you do not think she was portrayed that way in the media? >> i do not. >> objection. [inaudible] >> we have allowed some testimony with respect to how she was portrayed in the media. mr. keith committed to the point. >> part of your criminal strategy was a double- >> objection. >> share of, during the time to urges are pending against you, you spoke with political consultants outside the presence of attorneys, didn't you? >> maybe. >> in those conversations with

the political consulting, you discussed media strategy? >> sure, yes. >> and the the media strategy was part of your defense strategy? >> i do not know if i can say it was or not. >> that question was asked and the objection was sustained. >> now, ms. madison reported an incident that occurred between you and your wife on the december 31. >> yes. >> and that is an incident in which you committed a violent act against your wife. >> objection. >> sustained. you have gone well over your time estimate. if you're going to ask the same questions, it is problematic.

>> sheriff, but -- before march 12, did he make any public statement to disavow any of these portrayals of ms. madison that were in the media? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> i do not believe i made any public statement at all. >> did you ever direct anyone not to make attacks on ivory madison? >> i never direct anybody to attack or not attack.

>> share of, is it your testimony that on december 31, after you and your wife returned home from that trip to the restaurant, there was no argument at all in the house? >> my wife and i did not go to the restaurant together. my wife went to the restaurant on her own. >> i am talking about this lunchtime trip to the restaurant in the van on december 31, were you turned around in the event. >> there was no argument in the house. >> none whatsoever? >> none whatsoever. >> and it was your testimony there was no physical contact in the house. >> no, not on welcome to -- not unwelcomed.

>> your testimony, there was no pushing, pulling, or grabbing in the house. >> none, no. >> just a single grab by end the ban. that is your testimony. >> objection. >> sustained. >> sheriff, after you were convinced -- convicted and sentenced, the mayor met with you? >> yes, he met with me twice. >> there is a meeting you had with the mayor where he gave you a choice. he said you could resign or you would be suspended and he would initiate misconduct charges against you. >> that is right. i am sorry, i misspoke.

when i said it twice, i met before and after. >> sounds like when the mayor gave you the choice, that was after it was the second of those two meetings. >> that is correct. >> and that meeting was act -- after you are actually sentenced them on march 19, your sentence. >> yes. >> and that second meeting with the mayor when he gave you the choice between resigning or suspension was after you were sentenced. >> that is correct. >> after that time, you had been convicted. >> sentenced, yes. >> convicted and sentenced. you are on probation. >> yes. -- you were on probation. >> yes. >> and it was the very beginning

of your three years probation. >> yes. >> you had let down the sheriff's department. >> yes. >> under those circumstances, wasn't the honorable thing to do to resign? >> objection, irrelevant. >> a chief law enforcement officer can certainly testify to what is considered to be honorable under the circumstances. >> i will allow the question. >> that is a hard question, and the answer is a hard one, too. i believe that, given the

choices that had been presented to me by the mayor, i did exactly as i should. >> nothing further. >> thank you, counsel. >> redirect. >> may i request a five-minute recess. >> actually, that is probably a good idea so we can give the court reporter a break. we will take five minutes. thank you.

>> are the microphones on? ok, please proceed. >> good morning, commissioners. i will try to keep my questions brief. sheriff, i would like to take you back to the morning of december 31, 2011. you testified earlier that you had an argument with your wife. can you tell us, what was that argument about? >> it was about an impending trip that my wife, eliana, had informed me of that she was

going to take to venezuela, potentially a rather long trip. and this is not an unfamiliar discussion that we have had in the past because of previous trips that had taken place. >> and why did you become upset? >> i became upset because of the trip that took place about five to six months earlier where my wife had taken our son, which i was very supportive of, was under the impression that that trip would be for several weeks, and it turned out to be over two months. and that is not the first time that that had happened, and i was sad and scared to be without my family and be without both my wife and son.

>> why is that? >> well, i think for any -- at least for myself, any parent, i mean, i love my family and i did not want to be without my son for that long period of time. >> wide is talking about your son of said you? -- why it does talking about your son upset you? >> objection, lack of foundation. >> i am not sure actually got upset. i will abstain the objection. you mentioned you testified that that morning you became upset. you had an argument about a possible trip to venezuela. >> well, my wife had declared --

i am sorry, i should let you finish. >> what was it about that particular argument, what was said that made you so upset? >> of experiencing the loss and separation again for an undetermined period of time of how long we would be a part. this springs from a previous quarrel that we had and longstanding conversations about long trips abroad where she would take our son theo and it would be a lot longer than had been initially agreed upon. >> and prior to the morning of december 31, 2011, had you discussed with your wife another trip? to venezuela? >> in a general way, yes. in a general way, but it was only in that morning on our way

to lunch had informed that there was an impending trip. >> what was it about that particular trip at that time that made you upset? >> well, we had discussed and argued -- and wanted to make sure that there was a plan. this was something that i spoke with in correspondence e-mails with my wife last time that they were in venezuela, that we would have a plan as to how long, you know, there would be this separation for, and i had been concerned as a parent not knowing the previous trip, all the immigration issues and custody issues that had been involved win another parent takes a child for a long period of time, and i was really

insisting, hoping that we had a plan about what the duration of time would be. that was the body of the argument. >> how do you feel about what happened on december 31, 2011 and now? how do you feel about what you said and did? >> i wish i could turn back the clock, of course. i fear -- i feel horrible, ashamed. just all that. >> let me move forward now, sheriff. we have heard testimony about conversations you had with ms. linnette peralta haynes, your wife, and others. let me ask you very directly. at any time did you dissuade anyone from any law enforcement investigation? >> never. >> at any time, did you ever ask anyone to destroy any evidence? >> never. >> thank you.

we have also heard testimony about your weapons that were turned over to law enforcement. let me ask you first, how did you store those weapons? >> the two semiautomatic, at the six and the beretta, they are -- their slide chambers were completely setback. they were neutralized by a lot of tape. there was never ammunition in the weapons themselves at all. and it were completely immobilized from being of any use, and they were stored in a cabin vent -- cabinet in a storage room that would take both the padlock and a bald what, two keys, in order to gain entry. on at the smith, it was an open

a cylinder, no ammunition, a taped so that the cylinder would not be -- so that the cylinder cannot be engaged, so that, again, they would be rendered neutralized. >> thank you. at any time after your address in january -- arrest in january, at any time, did you have control over those weapons? >> objection. >> do you understand the question? >> yes, i believe i do. >> overruled. >> i had no control and no contact at all with those weapons. >> thank you. going to move on now to -- i believe that your inaugural, you testified earlier that you used the phrase at some point during the media interview or conference, you used the