you read the question? >> was part of the message he wanted to send out that the district attorney was on a political witch hunt to get you? >> no. >> did you instruct people sending out the media and message to stay away from a tax on the district attorney? >> objection. >> overruled. >> i did not instruct any messaging order. anything that took place was speculative. >> who did you give a direction to send out this vibe? did you give linnette peralta haynes direction to send out this vibe as a political witch hunt? >> a few more questions, but we're getting off the subject. >> no.

>> did you send me to tell anybody to send out the -- did you tell anybody to send out the vibe this was a political witch hunt? >> it was just an exchange. >> you exchange text messages with linnette peralta haynes about a matter of media strategy. did you take any action to implement that media strategy? >> no. >> did anybody take any action to implement that media strategy? >> objection. >> sustained. >> let me put it this way, if anybody took steps to implement that media strategy, you do not know about it? >> objection. >> sustained.

>> sheriff, at one point you met with members of the deputy sheriffs association to discuss the charges against you? >> yes. >> what did you tell them in the meeting? >> i do not recall word for word, but explaining to them the situation so that they would be aware i was still able and capable and that the sheriff's department would continue to run well. >> the deputy sheriffs association is the union of sheriff's deputies? >> yes, but there are two unions in the sheriff's department. >> there is another union for

command staff? >> management. >> then there is the deputy sheriffs association, the line deputies. >> that is correct. >> when did you meet with the deputy sheriffs association to talk about the charges against you? >> objection, relevance. >> i will hear argument on it. >> there is nothing in the mayor's charges regarding any meeting with the deputy sheriffs association. [inaudible] there is nothing at all about the deputy sheriffs association related to the charges of misconduct. >> is this going to a prior statement? >> yes, and to a leadership issues, which are part of the charges and standard of conduct for a chief law enforcement officer.

>> get there quickly. overruled. >> sheriff, when did you meet with the deputy sheriffs association? >> you have to help refresh my memory. parks was after charges were filed against you? >> he would have to help refresh my memory. >> it was after it came to light there was a police investigation that you met with the deputy sheriffs association? >> a different question. overruling. >> i met with the deputy sheriffs association to update them as to what was occurring. >> the first time you met with the deputy sheriffs association, did you tell them you are going to fight the charges? >> of believe i would. >> did you tell them you did not do it? >> i would have to see a record of that. >> did you tell them that you did not do it? >> i may have, yes, but i was going to fight the charges, yes. >> at the time you had that meeting with the deputy sheriffs

association, a union had in fact injured your wife on december 31? >> yes. >> but you told them you did not do it. >> i said i was going to fight the charges, i believe. yes. >> you said you were going to fight the charges. >> yes. >> you do not recall you may have said that you did not do it? >> objection. >> i think the second part is unclear. i will allow it. >> you may answer. >> it would be helpful if i had a transcript. >> sheriff, is it your testimony you do not remember if you said you did not do it? >> yes. >> ok. >> sheriff, you were arrested on january 13, 2012. you came down to county jail in the company and your attorney --

in the company of your attorney, a different mr. waggoner. >> yes. >> uyou met inspectors of the county jail? >> are believed there were four -- i believe there were four. >> do you remember two of them being from the department? >> yes. >> they placed under arrest? >> the survey with an emergency protective order. proteus. >> -- they served you with an emergency protective order. >> yes. >> they explained to you the emergency protective order prohibited you from owning or possessing any firearms? >> yes. >> inspectors spector and

danieli advised you that you had to surrender all of your fire arms? >> yes. >> they advise you that there were two weapons registered to you. >> yes. >> there was a smith and wesson revolvers registered to you, a pistol registered to you. >> yes. >> and beretta pistol registered to you. >> yes. >> did you make any statements to the police inspectors about how many weapons you had? >> yes. >> did you tell the police inspector you only had two weapons? >> that i was not sure about the location of a third. yes. >> ok. let's take this step by step. you told the police use certainly had two of the three weapons. >> yes.

>> did you tell the police you have sold your smith and wesson revolvers to another recruit at the police academy in 1996? >> i was speculating. it had been since the academy that i had unearthed the weapon, and i was flustered. i was trying to recall where the weapon was they were asking me. i was thinking out loud. >> ok. did you know the location -- strike that. at the time you spoke with the inspectors, did you know the location of your credit and pistols? >> i did. >> where were they located? >> downstairs in a storage room. i was having to focus. of what was happening at that very moment. downstairs in our condominium there is a storage area. that is where the 40 caliber and

beretta 9 were located in the cabinet. >> the storage area where they were located in your building, is that a shared storage area? >> it is not. >> is it a separate storage area dedicated to you? >> yes. >> in a storage area, where were the guns? >> in a cabinet. they were stored in a cabinet, a large, paul cabinet -- tall cabinet. >> did it have a lock on it? >> ended. -- it did. the door to the storage area was padlocked and bolt locked. >> where was your smith and wesson revolvers? >> also in the same location, different cabinet. >> within your storage unit but not with the other pistols?

>> that is right. >> in this conversation with the inspectors, is it your testimony you told them you did not know where your smith and wesson gun was or whether you even still own it? >> i believe so. i was fostered because i wanted to beat -- i was clustered -- flustered because i wanted to be specific. at that moment, i wanted to be as precise as i possibly could. the storage room was a mess. >> the inspectors told you they would give you 24 hours to

locate your weapons? >> are recall so. yes. >> the inspectors also asked you for proof of sale of the smith and wesson revolver? >> i believe so. >> you made an agreement with inspector becker and danielli that your attorney would contact them and turn the weapons over to them the next day? >> yes, my attorney stepped in to facilitate the conversation from there on. >> that was the agreement made in that conversation? >> i believe so. >> you were present when that agreement was made? yes. >> at any point in that conversation at county jail with inspector becker and danielli,

was it ever discussed that you would be turning the weapons over to the san francisco sheriff's department instead? >> i left that to my attorney because when i was being processed, my attorney was continuing whatever conversation was being held with the inspectors. >> during the time when you were present for the discussion about what was going to be done with the weapons, was it ever discussed that these weapons would be turned over to the sheriff's department instead of the police department? >> i believe so. but again, i was allowing my attorney to facilitate that exchange. >> sheriff, the question is about the conversation that occurred while you are present. >> i am talking about when i was present. >> when you were present, is your testimony it was discussed the weapons would be turned over to the sheriff's department instead of the police

department? >> the reason why i was not allowed to go home. it was a stay away order. i was thinking out loud about the location of the weapons and that there would be a precise procurement, possession of weapons. that is when the conversation entered in. >> sheriff, i do not understand your answer. i am going to try to ask the question a different way. while you were present, did you raise the prospect of you turning the weapons over to the sheriff's department? >> i did not. >> while that discussion was occurring, hile you were present, did your attorney discuss with the inspectors turning the weapons over to the

sheriff's department? >> i believe he did, yes. >> was that agreement made? that was hell was going to happen, the weapons were going to be turned over to the shift pharma? >> that was my impression, yes. >> when you left the meeting, it was your impression the weapons would be turned over to the sheriff's department and not the police department? >> yes, as instructed by my attorney. >> based on the conversation with your attorney or based on the conversation with the inspectors? >> well, my attorney was present during the conversation. based on the conversation taking place, i a understood the weapons would be turned over to the police department but over the saturday it would be handed

over to the sheriff's department. >> this was a discussion you had with the inspectors? >> no, it is what my attorney had instructed or suggested to me. >> your information about any conversation that may have been had with the inspectors is not first hand? is that correct? >> yes and no. part of it was first and and part of it was not. >> on the specific issue of whether the weapons would be turned over to the sheriff's department rather than the police department, were you present for any such discussion at county jail? >> i believe it was mentioned, yes, my attorney to the inspectors. >> while you were there, was it mentioned, while you are there, by your attorney to the inspectors? >> objection, asked and answered. >> to me it is clear he has said they were there.

he was there, the attorney was there, inspector danielli was there. it was discussed. that is my impression of the testimony. i think you have got that. get to whatever point you are trying to make. >> so sheriff, what did you understand your agreement to be with those police inspectors when you finished the discussion with them? >> regarding the weapons? >> yes.

proxmire understanding -- >> my understanding as it was laid by the inspectors with my attorney present was that the weapons would be located by my attorney. the attorney would acquire the weapons and then facilitate an exchange with a representative in the sheriff's department and then hand them to the san francisco police department. >> part of the agreement was that the attorney would go to your home and retrieve the weapons? >> he or a proxy to do so. correct. >> did it come to your attention on saturday that the police inspectors wanted to get your weapons?

>> no. >> did you make any calls to anyone in the sheriff's department with regard to your weapons on friday or saturday? this is the 13th or 14th. >> i do not recall if i told anybody in the sheriff's department. i do recall asking my attorney if they were successfully acquired. >> did you give your attorney any direction with regards to contacting people in the sheriff's department? >> no, except the fact that my attorney knew already beforehand the contact of retired undersheriff dempsey. he made contact with her, i believe. >> i am going to move to strike everything after the word no. >> read back the question. >> did you give your attorney in any direction with regard to

contacting people in the sheriff's department? >> overruled. open-ended question. >> were you contacted by anyone on saturday, january 14, with regard to the status of your weapons? >> i believe my attorney, yes. >> anyone else? >> i may have been contacted by undersheriff jan dempsey. >> what conversation did you have with undersheriff dempsey on saturday, can we 14? >> i am trying to recall. it might have been that they were in conversation with our attorney.

that is it. with the attorney about the weapons. >> who initiated the call with undersheriff to see? did she call you or did you call her? >> i do not recall. i am sorry. >> did you give her any direction in that call? >> no. >> did she ask for any direction in the call? >> no. >> did she give you any information about what was going to happen as a result of that call? >> no. >> did she give you any information about her intentions of what to do after the call? >> the order in the normal procedures of acquiring weapons.

>> now sheriff, the weapons were not actually transferred to the police department until after a court order was issued. >> i believe so. >> what conversations if any did you have with members of the sheriff's department with regards to your weapons between saturday, january 14, and the issuance of the court ordered later the following week? >> i believe none. >> did you get any information from the sheriff's department about the status of your weapons during that time? >> only that they had received them over the weekend. that is it. i never asked further. >> did you give any direction to the sheriff's department with regard your weapons over that time? >> no.

>> now sheriff, to prosecute crimes, law enforcement depends on witnesses to come forward. correct? >> u.s. -- yes. >> domestic violence is an under-reported crime. >> i believe it is, yes. >> witnesses are needed to prosecute domestic violence crimes. >> overruled. >> yes. >> if witnesses do not come forward, domestic violence victims remain in the shadows. >> yes. >> now sheriff, in open court

when you pled guilty, you may be statement -- you made a statement. >> objection, lack of evidence. >> i think he is establishing it. is that a question? >> yes. >> yes. >> commissioner, the statement is exhibit 36. i believe. i am sorry. is in volume one -- it is in

volume one. >> thank you. >> sheriff, having found exhibit 36 in matt binder? -- have you found exhibit 36 in that binder? >> almost. yes. >> commissioners, i would like to read the statement the share of made as a party admission. then i will proceed in asking questions about it. this is exhibit 36, page four, line 18 through page 5, line

one. it begins with the defendant as the speaker. the words are, thank you, your honor. i want to be back with my family. i want this to end. i would like to offer my sincere apologies to miss 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 m