neighbor was crazy and she was very concerned for eliana. what did miss -- >> did miss peralta haynes tell you anything she suggested to the neighbor? >> she told me one phrase i remember. she said, please respect eliana. >> meaning? do not call the police about the domestic violence incident? >> no, she never qualified that to me. she just said, please respect eliana. >> i am confused. you are saying this -- miss haynes told you she said that to miss madison? >> that is what i recall. >> ended -- did miss haynes express an opinion of what she

thought about miss madison calling the police? >> no, except she thought it looked like she was trying to hurt eliana, she did not know what was going on. >> did miss peralta haynes expressed concern about the impact on you of a police investigation? >> yes. >> what did she say? >> to be aware that this is happening. she did not really have to say anything, just myself i knew it would have impact. >> sheriff, is domestic violence

a laughing matter? >> of course not. >> when people joke about domestic violence, they devalue victims. >> i think so. >> when people joke about domestic violence, they make light of the serious crime. >> objection. >> overruling. >> rephrase, please. >> when people joke about domestic violence, then make light of something that is a serious crime. >> yes. >> you made a joke about domestic violence at your inauguration. >> assumes facts not in evidence. >> i do not joke about domestic violence. >> overruled. >> i did not make a joke about domestic violence. i would not. >> you did not refer in a humorous fashion to the existence of a police

investigation? did he refer in a humorous way in your inauguration speech to the police investigation ongoing about what you did on december 31? >> if i did, it was certainly wrong of me. the answer is, i do not believe i did at all. >> for the commission, i would like to play a video at this point. it is something we're happy to submit and mark. i think our next exhibit would be 84. >> have you informed counsel of what you are planning to show? >> i have not. >> what is it? >> it is a clip from the sheriff's inauguration's. -- inauguration speech. it is admissible as a party admission. he is making a joke about a police investigation. >> you think it is a prior inconsistent statement? >> as well as a party admission. >> any objection?

please. counsel, do you have a transcript of it? >> i do not have a transcript of it. >> it is hard to know whether we should object. >> yeah, if it is a statement from your client, it is likely to come in. if you have an objection, we can disregard it if we legally should. >> if they believe it is incomplete and more needs to be shown, they have an opportunity to. >> you will have an opportunity to redirect. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible] >> re- educate people about what the sheriff's office does. like here today, and was afraid during the election itself that we would garner unwarranted media attention. but i think we took care of that. [laughter] the sheriff's department -- [laughter] the sheriff's department that i

walked into -- >> sheriff, is joking about the domestic violence investigation the right thing for a share to do? >> objection. >> i did not joke about domestic violence. >> the answer is in. >> what was the joke about? >> breaking ice of a stressful situation been narrated by the press region that was being narrated by the press. >> that was a reference to the ongoing interest in what happened between you and your wife on december 31? >> i was referring specifically to the media.

>> it was referring to the media's interest on what happened on december 31 between you and your wife? >> it was referring to the media. >> just the media in general? " just what the club said. it was referring to the media, the press. i was making light of the situation which was stressful and tension-based about there being any interest in the inaugural proceedings. >> union the basis for the media interest in those inaugural proceedings. he knew that the basis for the media interest in this inaugural proceedings was what happened on december 31? >> not necessarily. " you think the media was so interested in the proceedings because of another issue? parts of is being inaugurated as the 35th sheriff of the city and county of san francisco. it was the first time there had been an open election in 32 years. >> when you made a joke, what were you referring to?

>> i am not sure we've gotten a clear answer. overruled. >> i was simply referring to the media interest because there had been a lot of media interest. i was not making light of domestic violence at all. >> were you referring to the media interest in what happened between you and your wife on december 31? >> objection. >> overruled. >> i answered the question. i believe i was referring to the media interest of the inaugural and all of the reasons that may have brought them to the inaugural. >> did those reasons that brought the media to the inaugural and generated media interest in the inaugural include what happened between you and your wife on december 31? >> i cannot speak for the needy. i only spoke to the size of the media. there was a sizable contingent

of media. that was my reference. >> you know there is a sizable contingent of media because of what happened between you and your wife on december 31 and a police investigation. do you not? >> that could very well be. >> that was your assumption when you made the remark? >> it could very well be about the interest in our inaugural. >> i asked about what you thought the interest was when you made the remark. >> sheriff, i think we could move on if we got a clear answer from you on this. >> well, i am speculating. >> what you were thinking when you made the remark. were you referring to the media attention that resulted from the investigation of the incident on december 31? >> yes. >> let's move on.

>> sheriff, is domestic violence in private family matter? >> it is not. >> when law-enforcement treats domestic violence as a private family matter it continues. >> is this a question? >> it is. >> yes. >> when law-enforcement treats domestic violence and the private family matter if escalates? >> objection. >> do you know, sheriff? >> yes. >> would you agree when law enforcement tells the public domestic violence is a private family matter it sends the wrong message to a victim's? >> yes. >> would you agree that when law-enforcement announces a domestic violence is a private family matter it sends the wrong message to perpetrators? >> yes.

>> sure of, you were asked the question after your inauguration by the media about the ongoing investigation of the december 31 incident. were you not? >> i was asked a number of questions. i made a statement, yes. >> the statement he made was in response to a number of questions about the december 31 incident? >> i initiated a press conference with the statement. not in response. >> during that press conference, were you asked about what happened on december 31 between you and your wife? >> i believe so. >> in response to one of those questions, you called domestic violence -- you answered it was a private family matter. >> i believe i did. >> should the share of the

referring to a violent incident that is under investigation between a man and his wife as a private family matter? >> no. >> we just discussed the negative effects of law enforcement calling domestic violence in private family matter. >> yes. >> you called this incident on december 31 the private family matter? >> objection. >> sustained. >> sheriff, you knew when you made those responses to the press what you had done on december 31? >> objection. >> sustained. >> sheriff, when you made that

remark to the media that this was a private family matter, in your mind at that time, you knew that you had injured your wife on december 31. >> yes. >> at that time when you called the incident a private family matter, you knew that what you have done on december 31 was wrong. >> yes.

>> 20 or 30 years ago, law- enforcement used to treat family violence as a private family matter. >> objection. >> sustained. >> sheriff are you aware of the history of law enforcement treatment of domestic violence and the advancements made in recent decades made by law enforcement? >> i am. >> are you in favor of those advancements in law-enforcement treatment of domestic violence that have occurred? >> yes, very much so. >> are you in favor of the policy of prosecuting domestic violence crimes where there is evidence of domestic violence? even if the victim is non- cooperative? >> yes.

>> sheriff, i would like to move forward a few days to a few days before your are rest -- arrest. you are a rest happened on january 13. in the days leading up to january 13, you had a number of calls with linnette peralta haynes? >> yes. >> you had a number of meetings with her in those days? >> i do not recall how many meetings, not many. >> ok. >> ended you have discussions about what kind of message he wanted to be sending to the

media? about what happened on december 31 and what charges might arrive from it? >> i believe that conversation came up. >> you had those conversations with your political advisers? >> volunteers, advisors, people were coming to me making suggestions. >> you had those conversations about immediate strategy with linnette peralta haynes? >> she was making suggestions or texting me suggestions. >> who else was involved in developing a media strategy in response to the potential for criminal charges? >> there was not much of the media strategy, but people who participated were jim stearns, the consultant hired during my campaign for sheriff and my

attorney, bob wagner. >> now sheriff, there is an exhibit, exhibit 81. can you turn to that exhibit? >> yes. >> you gave a one-hour time estimate yesterday. how much more do you think you have? >> commissioners, i apologize. i think i have about 45 minutes longer. >> ok. why don't you proceed? i do not know whether you can, counsel, whether you need to notify your client. it does not look like we will have the mayor and 11 call. >> thank you.

sheriff, are you at exhibit 81? >> yes. >> exhibit 81 is a series of text messages between sheriff mirkarimi and linnette peralta haynes. sheriff, i am going to ask you -- before we go to a particular message, there was a rally in front of city hall by domestic violence advocates in the days before you were arrested. do you recall about rally occurring? >> objection. . sustained. >> i am laying a foundation for a subsequent message, something that is relevant. >> get to the main issue. if there is an objection and we

need to go back, we can. >> sheriff -- i apologize for the pages being unnumbered. there is a text message on january 12 at 4:00 04 p.m. -- 4:04 p.m. that i wanted to ask the sheriff about. is about eight or nine pages in. it is shown on two different pages. the second page shows the full text message.

sheriff, looking at this january 12 4:04 text message, this is a text message you sent to linnette peralta haynes? >> yes. >> you are expressing dismay beverly upton has been part of the rally calling for your resignation. >> yes. >> you mentioned you have always been a fervent supporter of the dv community. >> yes. >> you were concerned about how the domestic violence committee seemed to not be supporting you. >> not communicating with me. >> did you have concerns the were not supporting you? >> yes. >> did you feel betrayed by the domestic violence community?

>> i would not say betrayed, but i would say alarmed. >> did you feel you had been loyal to them in the past? did you feel they were being disloyal by not supporting it? >> no, i was alarmed by the lack of communication. >> you had no concerns about the substantive position they were taking that you should resign? >> i have concerns, yes. >> those concerns stemmed in part from the fact that you had supported their causes in the past and felt betrayed. >> that i had a strong relationship, not with the community, but with the cause. >> there is a line in the text message that says, and i really guilty until proven innocent -- am i really guilty until proven

innocent? do you see that? >> i do. >> you sent that message to linnette peralta haynes on january 12? >> yes, in response to her message. party were concerned you were being treated as guilty until -- >> you were concerned retreated as guilty until proven innocent. >> objection. >> i am not sure i do either. this exhibit stipulated, it is in evidence. i will let him ask it. i would like to get to the point. you may answer the question. >> yes, because this is before i was charged in the process had been folded yet. >> but you knew at the time is a text message unit injured your wife? -- but you at the time you send the text message that you had injured your wife? >> yes. >> you told us last night you committed a crime on december 31. >> objection. >> sustained.

>> your reference here -- you reference here political forces at work. >> yes. >> ok. you felt there were political forces at work to prosecute you. >> objection. >> getting close, mr. keith. what is your point? you may answer. >> i am speculating, yes. >> >> now, sheriff, can you turn to a text message further in, still on january 12. it is about six pages in.

it is shown on two pages. the second page shows the full message. >> can you give us the date and time? . january 12. it is immediately above the text message sent ouat 10:05 p.m. >> yes. >> this is a text message you sent to linnette peralta haynes? >> yes. >> in this text message, you say this is a political witch hunt.

what did you mean when you said a loud drumbeat needs to vibe? >> overruled. >> that our messaging needs to get out. concerns exchanged between miss haynes and myself was that we had been quiet. >> in the message that was sent out, this was all political. >> it appeared, yes. >> i am asking you, what message did you intend to send out on january 12? what message did you say you wanted to send out on january 12? >> in response, what i said. the vibe that needs to vibe that this is a witch hunt. >> you wanted this to be the media strategy. >> objection. >> i think it has been answered.

sustained. >> ok. >> sheriff, he knew at the time is as message that he had injured your wife on december 31. >> objection. >> i think it is foundational. overruled. >> yes. >> you knew you had committed a crime? >> yes. >> whose political witch hunt was it? >> objection. >> who was behind it? >> could you withdraw the question and submit another one? >> i can offer another question. sheriff, the drum beat that

needed to vibe that this was a political witch hunt, was the drum beat of who was behind the political witch hunt that you wanted to send out? >> i am going to overrule it. >> potential opponents from the previous campaign, which i was aware of, that this was an opportunity to make whatever capital hay out of what was occurring. >> your opponents in the sheriff's race, neither of them was in the district attorney's office, right? >> no. >> i am sorry. the question was confusing. both of your opponents in the

sheriff's race were in law enforcement, correct question are >> there were three opponents. two active opponents were in law enforcement, correct. >> or any of your opponents in the sheriff's race in the d.a.'s office? >> objection. . sustained. >> was part of the message you wanted to send out that the district attorney was on a political witch hunt to get you? >> objection. >> i am happy to address the relevance. this has not been asked and answered. the objection goes to relations -- the relevance goes to the relation with another law enforcement agency accusing another law enforcement agency of political action with the share of committing a crime. >> can you read back the question, please? >> part of the message you

wanted to send out was [inaudible] political witch hunt to get you. >> i will overrule the objection. >> the question again, please. >> madam court reporter, could 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