>> 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 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, while 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