>> sustained. >> sheriff, i'll simply read this passage and you can tell me whether it's true or not. >> objection. lack of foundation. >> sustained, council, you haven't established what it is. there's no foundation. >> can we establish -- can you establish what the document is? we haven't seen it. witness hasn't seen it. i mean, we have no idea what you're reading from. >> i'm not offering this into evidence. i just want the witness' telling me whether this is true or not. i'm not offering the document. >> that's fine but i think it's more fair for you to show it to the witness and frankly i'd like see it, too, if you're going to be reading it. >> i do have a copy for the witness. >> ok.

>> do you have a copy for counsel as well? >> no. but i'm happy to show it to counsel. >> sheriff. i'm going to make a box around what i'm going to read, so that you can follow it. so sheriff again, i wanted to read this to you and you can tell me whether it's accurate. they made a couple calls to

find an attorney. and he said lopezed that idea of having their friend, linnette peralta haynes, a domestic violence advocate with the our family coalition reach out to madison about why she had gone to police and what could be done that the point. i had no idea what they were going to talkability, mirkarimi claims. >> what's the question? >> the question is, is that an accurate account of what occurred in the conversation between you and your wife after you learned about this incident ? about the police investigation. >> which senator >> well, let's take it step-by-step. >> ok. >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry to interrupt you. do you have a copy you can put on the -- >> i do not. i'm sorry.

i just have to copy for the witness. >> that's fine. sorry to interrupt you. go ahead. >> ok. so sheriff after you got this call from your wife, did you make a plan about what to do next, about meeting your wife? >> my wife asked if we can meet, and i said, yes. so to the extent of a plan, yes. >> and did you meet with your wife shortly after this call? >> i think it was within the next 20-25 minutes, she had walked to city hall, and i met her outside. >> ok. and when you met your wife outside of the grove side, did you have a conversation there? >> we did. >> ok. how long were you on the glove side of city hall speaking with your wife? >> well, it was one block up. i saw her coming down. she seemed concerned. i could feel that. especially from the earlier conversation that we had just had on the phone. so i met her about a block on

grove. i would say about 20 minutes. 20-25 minutes. >> and did anybody join the conversation between you and your wife in those 20-25 minutes? >> no. >> ok. just you and your wife? >> yes. >> so going back to that path. they made a couple calls to find an attorney. is that accurate? did you and your wife make a couple of calls to find an attorney at that time? >> no. that was not accurate. it was much later. >> ok. when did you make a couple calls to find an attorney? >> probably had to be after 6:00 -- 5:00-5:30 or 6:00. >> was it before or after the sflenches >> it was a conversation in the first conversation of the date. linnette peralta haynes was a recommendation as i was on my way to the lafco event with an

attorney but i was already terribly late for that event. >> ok. and then the next part of this passage after the part that says they made a couple calls to find an attorney. the next part is, and he said lopezed that idea of having their friend, linnette peralta haynes a domestical violence advocate with the our family coalition to reach out the madison about why she had gone to police and what could be done at that point. is that accurate? >> not entirely, no. it's not. >> how is it inaccurate? >> that i only had learned later in the day when my wife, eliana had informed me of her conversations between she and linnette, and their contact then with the next door neighbor.

>> and did your wife have the idea of having linnette peralta haynes contact ivory madison? >> i am not sure about that. ifs that the case, that is something that my wife had simply exchanged with ms. haynes, but i don't know. >> so did you have any part in the decision to call ivory madison? >> not at all. >> ok. so to the sternt that this story characterizes you as having participated in that decision to call linnette peralta haynes, you disagree with that? >> i do. in fact as the guardian can probably tell you i later made a call when this hit the web,

and i had articulated my concern about some of the accuracy on this. but it remained. >> were there other aspects of the article that you expressed concerns about with regard to accuracy? >> i just want to know were there other inaccuracies? >> i believe this is the part that stuck out most to me, but there might have been, yes. >> so sheriff, tell me more about the 20-minute conversation that you had with your wife when you were outside city hall. what was discussed in that conversation? >> well, i was listening mostly. my wife had preceded to tell me about what was happening with the neighbor. she informed me about the existence of this video. i did not know about it.

and then she told me that she felt betrayed by the neighbors, because they went forward to call authorities. i could see my wife was scared. concerned. and angry. of what the neighbor was doing. i was informed that my wife had this relationship with the neighbor as if the neighbor was her attorney. i did not know that. in the respect that ms. madison had been either contracted or that there was an arrangement for her to act as an attorney with my wife. and my wife was suggesting to me that you know, she was asking me, because she was not

familiar with the system of what can we do about this? and i was just trying to absorb it all, process what was happening. but i was very clear with my wife that -- and i remember the quote that i said to her. i said this bell. you can't unring this bell. and we must follow through with this process. >> there was a call you have later with miss hayes. what was discussed? >> this was the first direct contact i had with her. it was also hurt informing me of what she knew about -- it was

also her informing me of what she knew about what occurred with my wife eliana and the next door neighbor. it was not a long conversation. i was listening. i was learning of all this for the first time. 1st about my wife and then miss peralta haynes. >> let me step back about -- let me step back for a moment. dishy inform you of the conversation with ivory madison? >> she did. >> was that in the first call? >> it was in the evening. could you be more specific? >> was it in the first call you had with her that she informed me she had had a conversation with ivory madison? >> i do not remember if it was the first or second but i could refresh my memory. is that ok?

counselor, maybe you can help me as to which time we are talking about. i see 5:20 p.m., there is a five-second call. the first phone call i had with miss haynes was at 5:24 p.m. are we in agreement? >> i want to let you testified to your recollection. parts i want to be accurate. -- >> i want to be accurate. >> i do think it is important accurate. i see a call at 5:12 p.m. from ross mirkarimi to linnette haynes.

is that the call the question is about? is there when you are referring to in your questioning? >> if i recall what exactly was, the question was, what time did the sheriffs have a call with miss peralta haynes where he found out she had a conversation with miss madison. i was trying to pin down when the call was regarding this specific conversation miss peralta hayes had with miss madison. >> i believe this was the first time of learning between contact between my wife, miss haynes, and miss madison. >> was in the first call we have

reflected in exhibit 83? >> at 5:12 p.m., maybe. there was not a lot of time to go into details. i will say maybe. >> ok. was it in the first or second -- was in a call if you had with her before you got to the lafco that you found out she had a conversation with miss madison? >> i remember i was walking feverishly to the lafco meeting. i was getting calls that i was late. i did have a phone call with miss peralta haynes while i was on the way. >> was it in one of the conversations before you got

there that she told you about the conversation she had with ivory madison? >> maybe. there was only really one phone call i had with her where we connected. there had been attempts. only one atomic out there. >> was there some point in the late afternoon or evening of january 24 that you learned from peralta haynes she had a conversation with ivory madison earlier that afternoon? >> yes. >> what did she tell you about the content of the conversation with miss madison? >> it was very brief. she said that miss madison was apparently trying to -- she was not listening to eliana. eliana was very concerned, scared, and bought the neighbor was crazy. >> this was miss peralta haynes?

she informed you? >> she characterized the 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.