beginning on line 5, starting with eliana, through the end of that paragraph on line 11, irrelevant. it does not deal with the december 31 incident. commissioner renne: that is in addition to your hearsay argument? >> yes. >> this is a new objection, but i am happy to explain why it is relevant. first of all, i will do with the relevance issue first. this describes the state of mind and where she was on the fourth, in terms of her intention, influenced with what had gone on in the relationship

before. this kind of information tends to show she had a reason for having the feeling that she originally had at the time. that is the second reason, in addition to being administrative here said. it is evidence of other stuff that is already in. it shows that she was thinking about divorce at the time. this is her state of mind. she is thinking about divorce and leaving her husband at this time, as opposed to essentially retreating later from the accusation of abuse and no longer thinking about divorce. this shows where her state of mind was. that is the issue. chairperson hur: is it relevant to your allegations whether the physical conduct that allegedly occurred on december 31 was the

first or second time it had occurred? >> what is relevant about the earlier incident is that it makes it more likely that the account ms. lopez gave on the 31st is accurate, the account should give to mismanagement and ms. williams. it makes it more likely that is true. in that aspect, yes. chairperson hur: mr. kopp, do you have a response on that point? >> it is pure character evidence, which should not be allowed. there was reference to penal code section 1109, allowing prior conduct to be used in criminal prosecutions to prove conduct on a particular date by showing past instances, but that

is not where we are. this is not a criminal proceeding, as i have been told. this should not be relevant to the inquiry. all these references, anything that happened before december 31, are not admissible. chairperson hur: what authority do you have that it only relates to criminal proceedings? >> it actually says that. we think it should nevertheless apply here. in administrative proceeding, the idea is to use reliable evidence. if something is reliable enough to use in a criminal prosecution, it is reliable enough to be used in a criminal proceeding, particularly when the subject matter is so similar. that is what happened in this incident of the 31st. it is very appropriate to be using those rules in this

proceeding, regarding admissibility. that is what the minister of hearings turn on, is reliable evidence. chairperson hur: why the limitation in the code that it relates to criminal proceedings? >> there are not many civil proceedings that relate to domestic violence. i do not know what the legislature did. it is unusual for it to come up in a civil proceeding, but here we are. chairperson hur: do commissioners have views on this

objection? commissioner renne: 7 through line 11? chairperson hur: correct. commissioner renne: i would be inclined to sustain the objection. chairperson hur: i also am inclined to sustain the objection. are there dissenting views? >> i would like to be offered for the truth of the matter, rather than administrative here said purposes. commissioner renne: i guess i do not understand the distinction you are drawing. if we exclude it, we exclude it. >> if there is other evidence on

the record that tends to support this, it can come in. the fact that it is here say affects how much weight is given. -- is hearsay affects how much weight it is given. chairperson hur: i think we are allowing hearsay to be admitted, and just suggesting that it might not have any weight. if you bring it in in some other way, for example -- i do not want to speculate. i would just leave it at that. unless there is some clarification you feel that you need. >> it is in the video. it is also in the statement to ivory madison. chairperson hur: i have not seen

the video. whether it is in the statement to ivory madison is different than whether it should be admitted from ms. williams. i will sustain the objection, unless there is dissent from the commission. the hearsay objection is overruled. paragraph 10? i thought it was line 7, beginning with "eliana told me." >> yes. i have objected, i thought, to beginning on line 5, with eliana

described. chairperson hur: line 5, beginning with "eliana described." >> that is what my objection was to. chairperson hur: i think the same rationale would apply, there. dissenting views from the commissioners? commissioner renne: i agree. chairperson hur: paragraph 5, those lines excluded. per grafton? >> this entire paragraph appears to be speculation about -- without inadequate foundation. specifically, lines 21 through 22, the sentence that begins with "eliana" and ends with "ross" is more prejudicial than

probative. chairperson hur: i understand your here say objection. i want to hear every objection to this paragraph that is not related to hearsay. for efficiency purposes. >> no foundation. chairperson hur: what part? >> the way i understand the entire paragraph is this is the witnesses' interpretation of the things that were said to her by the ileana -- eliana lopez. chairperson hur: some of this was statements made by eliana. what do you mean when you say impressions? >> she says "as eliana described it." it seems to me this is her interpretation of what's the

comment means. that is why i think it is speculative. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. that is something you could cross-examine a witness to. again, it is hearsay. i would give it the same weight we otherwise would. i would be inclined to permit that. commissioner studley:>> i have y starting at the word that in mind 17, which appears to be her comment on what she had heard or read in the press about what mr. mirkarimi was saying.

i think that is probably improper. one witness commenting on another as to whether or not they think their statement is consistent. chairperson hur: i apologize for my lack of clarity. i was referring to the objection of 13 -- line 13. that was my fault. i was not clear. >> the next sentence, line 15, i think it shows the uncertainty in her own mind as to what the comment was directed to. i have trouble with that paragraph. chairperson hur: ok.

so you would sustain the objection as to line 13 through 15? >> yes. chairperson hur: other views of the commissioners? we can take a vote. >> a point of clarification, we're talking about "as eliana?' chairperson hur: correct. >> of would find that sentence

acceptable and we keep it in. although the freezing is a little different from other it -- phrasing is a little different from other things she was told by miss lopez. i think it could be successfully cross-examine. chairperson hur: i am not making any statement how probative is but i think it passes muster to be admitted. is there a motion to sustain the objection -- i am sorry, to overrule the objection with respect to lines 13 through 15? all in favor? aye. . the motion passes. anything between 16 and 23? >> no.

i would like to reiterate line 21, 22, irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative beginning with eliana and ending with ross. it tends to show that ms. lopez had the impression from what sheriff mirkarimi told there was he was trying to intimidate her with his personal power. it may be prejudicial but it is not unduly prejudicial. it is not to for the sheriff's case but that does not mean it is inadmissible. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. i think we're getting close to the line but i think it should

be admitted. for its limited purpose. any dissenting view from the commissioners? hearing none, the objection is overruled. paragraph 11. >> yes, i made the objection that this entire paragraph was irrelevant. i find it also to be prejudicial. excluded on those grounds. >> again, sheriff mirkarimi's public statements have been that when he is referring to a child custody, this is an instance in

which a sheriff mirkarimi speaks for itself. he threatened to have dbi shut down the building because he was angry with miss williams. that tends to show the presence of intent or the absence of her mistaken interpretation. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it is irrelevant. the state of purpose, i think, would not go to providing us that additional assistance. any dissent from the commissioners? >> i agree it is irrelevant.

i do not think it helps us with what we are tasked to do. chairperson hur: the objection is sustained with respect to paragraph 11. ." ? -- paragraph 12? given we have heard on here say, i would be inclined to overrule that objection but the same caution. is there a dissenting view? the objection is overruled. paragraph 13. >> besides hearsay, it is irrelevant. >> it is relating a fact about the nature of the relationship

that miss lopez had with the sheriff which goes to -- [phone ringing] -- whether this is a domestic violence incident. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it is far of film, -- from what we're trying to accomplish. is there a descent to that proposal? the objection to paragraph 13 is sustained. paragraph 14. >> hearsay. chairperson hur: i think the objection should be overruled with the same caution. >> if i might be heard, it does describes her observation on

that date. paragraph 14. >> he is keeping it. >> i am sorry. it does describe a personal observation. i do not know how these rulings are going to be reflected. i think we need to consider those statements submitted. chairperson hur: the objection to 14 is overruled. if we admit something, it is admitted. what weight we give the evidence will depend on whether it is hearsay or not. if it is sustained, or if it is overruled, mr. keith, you have one that objection. >> i apologize he had a more

subtle question. >> 14 was overruled. 15. >> line 27, the portion of that sentence beginning with the word "see" and ending "talk," there is no foundation and that is speculation, not just on the part of miss williams but on miss lopez. chairperson hur: i will say, and give mr. keith an opportunity, i think that is right that it could not come in to prove that the sheriff was actually scared. but it could come in to say that miss lopez said that. >> 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?