with sex blind admissions. women's numbers gradually were allowed to increase to reach pairity and this was achieved finally in 2007. in 1999 came the agreement ending harvard -- ending radcliffe as a degree granting body and being into being the radcliffe institute as we know it today and in 2007, it's first dean, drew gilpenfast, became president of harvard university. [ applause ] fas, in its under graduate and graduate admissions set a goal of women graduates. it came at a time of commitment not to just women as a category but to women in all their diver diversity. the same years, the african american and latino students grew in pace. it has been argued that while women were empowered by the movement for women's liberation, the men were likely persuaded by the civil rights movement. once you have removed the barriers for african americans how do you justify a quota from women or bar them from a library. the struggle was not easy, and nor was the outcome sure. what raised the opposition was the fight waged a

the question is whether or not the document is admissible without any testimony. again, you may have agreement on that. if you do not, then those documents can be identified and presented to us and we can rule on them whenever you want to put them in. if you alerted us, at the beginning, for those where there is no challenge to the foundation of the document and the only challenge goes to whether or not they are admissible, for whatever reason, there might be an objection. if those are all going to be used in connection with the presentation of a witness, that is one way to do it. the other way is by saying, offering them the case. that is my understanding. chairperson hur: thank you. any other use? >> i did expect -- i know the rules of evidence are being very relaxed, but i did expect the sponsor and witnessed for the exhibits unless there was a stipulation of some sort. when you say transcripts of interviews, what are you referring to? >> miss madison and mr. mertens and ms. williams were all interviewed by police. there are transcripts of those interviews. sim

whether or not the video was to be admissible? >> i am not sure if it was brief but i know it was -- i believe there were. but not by me. number two, with respect to the civil motion, i am unclear as to what you are referring. >> wasn't there a motion brought by somebody, maybe miss lopez, to have her privacy rights protected and not allow the video to be released and not allowed to be made part of the records? >> i think that is correct but that is a different inquiry to its admissibility here. if your question is on the issue of how these issues been decided already such that you do not need to decide them, i would am notthat in the negative. suggesting that but in whatever brief you file i am suggesting that you tell us why we should not follow whatever rulings have been made. why this circumstance is different than was true in the previous hearings where there were attempts made to exclude this video. if it was going to be excluded in the criminal case, which is a much higher standard for amiss and -- admissibility, i would li

is admissible. it's useful to go through the declaration an hear the objections because it is going to make the procedure of taking testimony shorter. so that would be my suggestion. but i understand and appreciate the criticism. >> thank you, mr. keith. >> my concern when you say that you didn't have control over the witness and that she had her own attorney but you were the one that submitted the declaration. so you had to have looked at it. so you could have said to her attorney, these paragraphs are not relevant or they're prejudicial and they don't relate to the issues but i accept the difficult you have under those circumstances. but again, the problem i have with going over paragraph by paragraph is that if -- in order to do that we simply have to repeat the same things that are being said and out into the mass media. the mass media can look at it now. in fact, when this was filed, the next day the chronicle had portions of what was in there -- in their story. fortunately, they didn't go into

there is a code section that makes it admissible. commissioner hayon: -- chairperson hur: my response to that is, to me, it is not the ultimate issue problem. i just do not think she is uniquely qualified to help us determine whether the acts relate to the sheriff's duties, or whether the act constitutes official misconduct, or even domestic violence. maybe i am wrong, but there should be illegal answer to that question. i do not think she is uniquely qualified. i do think she is uniquely qualified on other parts, but not for this. >> i would like to then address those foundational concerns. first of all, miss lemmon is actually here. i am happy to cross-examine her on the basis of her expertise, to talk about the duties of a share of related to domestic violence. she has been working with all aspects of the criminal justice system about domestic violence for 32 years, i think. i do not want to prematurely aged her. she looks quite young, by the way. i think that constant contact as an expert trainer does give her a substantial found

the first real admission came in 1945 granting its first mds in 1949. the medical school was distinctive in one regard. in 1919 it appointed dr. alice hamilton to a professorial position in industrial medicine. she later taught at the school of public health. at the harvard law school petitions by women to enter began as early as 1871 and continued. their numbers included inez mulholland, vasser graduate and suffer gist. in 1915, 15 women petitioned and were denied. in a letter to harvard graduate walter lippmann, then of the new republic, president lowell said, quote, harvard is one of the very few institutions for men alone, and our -- and in our opinion had better remain so. the law school was successful but, quote, the admission of women might affect it injuriously. it should be noted in 1915 women were still a small minority in the legal profession, but the number of female lawyers was growing exponentially. major law schools were opened to women by 1930. the harvard law school admitted its first women in 1950. in 1893 the harvard divinity school d

with sex blind admissions. women's numbers gradually were allowed to increase to reach parity, and this was achieved finally in 2007. in 1999 came the agreement ending harvard -- ending radcliffe as a degree granting body and bringing into being the radcliffe institute as we know it today. and in 2007 its first dean, drew gilpin faust, became president of harvard university. [ applause ] f.a.s. in its under graduate and graduate admissions set a pattern for increasining proportions of women in the student bodies of professional schools. all of this came at a time of commitment, not just to women as a category, but to women in all their racial, ethnic, religious and sexual diversity. during these very same years the number of african-american and latina schools grew, and these were intertwined in a central way. it has been argued that while women in emboldened by the movement for women's liberation, the men making the decisions were likely persuaded by this power of the civil rights movement's arguments for equi

we are not arguing that these are admissible for the truth of the matter. we do think it is admissible for legitimate and limited purposes, and i would like to argue those. as we outlined in our brief, this conversation with miss williams happened around 1:00 p.m.. ms. lopez related the incident and told ms. williams some of her intentions that she had, coming out of the incident, that she was thinking about reporting it, about going to her document -- to her doctor. it is clear what her plan was. as we laid out in the brief, ms. lopez underwent a big change in her state of mind, from being ready to report this incident in the morning to around noon still wanting to report it but being iffy. and later in the day, is essentially recanting, trying to stop anybody from reporting it. our argument is that on the fourth there were intervening communications with ms. haines and the sheriff which are relevant to our charges. what is relevant is how that may have changed ms. lopez's mind about how she was going to behave. chairperson hur: who is going to create that

and that is admissible evidence because it is a prior inconsistent statement. none of the expert's opinion is being offered as fact evidence. it is offered as an opinion about the situation based on the indicators that the expert consider reliable. this is not being offered for -- as factual evidence. it is being offered as the basis of an opinion and it is the basis of an opinion that is found in our admissible evidence in this proceeding. >> is the march 19 press conference in evidence? ms. kaiser. >> that is a good question. you are talking about 164 and 165? my understanding is that it is not. >> you cross-examined him, did you use it with him? >> i think not. either any there paragraphs where she is lying on admitted evidence. >> the main 164 and 165 or are you speaking about 166 fax >> 166, too. is there a dissenting view. >> paragraph 184. relies on sheriff mirkarimi's decorations. >> good point. that should be in. ok, if that was confusing -- i know that was confusing. i figured when you said 184 and 184 is the last paragraph, that meant that you had co

. >> frankly, i don't even see allegations in here, admissible statements about harassment from the sheriff. are there any statements that -- even hearsay where he says someone told me that the sheriff told me not to come forward or intimidated me or something. where are those allegations? >> the allegations would be they're getting these calls from journalists with these story ideas that they know to be completely false, that the reasonable inference to draw is these story ideas are being planted by the criminal defense. that's the inference to draw. certainly, when the reporter says on the phone, oh, you know, ross said whomever told me this, that is hearsay. but just the fact they're getting the call what's can infer that they're being -- these story ideas are being put out there by the sheriff. i mean there's no other reason for these calls to be coming to these witnesses. >> i do not think that's relevant. but i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. even if there are hearsay -- even if there is something to point me to where it says someone told me that the sheriff -- >> it is

chairperson hur: any dissenting view as to the admissibility of the declaration? like we did last time, i think we should do is not take a vote on every one of these, but at the end, we will take a vote on all the decisions we are making. i would ask ms. eng or mr. emblage to help us keep track of the decisions we have made. >> it seems to me it probably would be better if we did, for example -- i think there is no objection from any members of the commission to the introduction of interim sheriff vicki hennessy. we have an awful lot of these we are going to have tonight. some may get lost. i think if there is not any objection, or if we agree with your ruling, i would prefer that we indicate on the record that there was no objection. chairperson hur: any dissenting view to that? ok. i am happy to do that. is there a motion to admit the declaration and exhibits of sheriff vicki hennessy? all in favor? a post? the motion -- opposed? the motion passes unanimously. next, we should address the declaration of paul henderson. do you have anything to say? >> once again,

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? >> obj

coaxed a guilty plea is the admission -- >> a guilty plea is the admission. >> you have been criticized for not calling eliana lopez. it has been noted in the declaration that you did not complete a full investigation before you brought charges. is there a reason why you were prepared to bring charges when you did? >> overruled. >> i waited for the whole criminal prosecution to complete itself. as i said earlier, out of respect for mr. mirkarimi and the judicial process, i waited for the full conclusion. and then asked to make sure that i had the complete record and reviewed what i could in order to make that determination. >> was there any reason why you did not also conduct your own full investigation? >> i believe the court process established that was sufficient to confirm the ron paul behavior. -- wrongful behavior. >> why didn't you suspend sheriff mirkarimi with pay? >> i believe that that position requires someone who is working, and in order for that person -- the city to pay that person. if that person is not permitted to work, and it as a result of these circumstances, i felt

i think it also could be admissible to indicate physical injury and describe it. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on the admissibility of the lopez video. commissioner liu? commissioner liu: i agree we are not bound by the superior court. but i also agree that, in reviewing the video and the case authority cited in the brief, that it does meet the criteria for the perce exception under evidence code 1240. she was cheerful, emotional, and holding in her speech. i do not think it is very different from what was described in the case cited by the mayor's office. >> just from the perspective of a lay person, we would not be here. we would not be going through any of this, if it were not for that video. i think we certainly should take a look at it as a commission. i think it is absolutely relevant and important for us to see it. >> i just want to say that my client continues to assert that that video was a privilege to video, made in the context of an attorney-client relationship. that has been shot down, but, for the record, had my client not [inaudible

>> brown makes clear that this testimony is admissible under the regular evidence code section, section 801, and not just the special section for criminal prosecution. 1107 is a separate evidence code section geared toward criminal prosecutions and says the testimony is admissible for the purpose. we are not in a criminal proceeding. but the brown case, by the supreme court, said we would come to the same conclusion, and do come to the same conclusion, under section 801, the section for regular expert testimony in civil cases and administrative cases, and frankly also in criminal cases. it is just that there is a special duplicative rule in criminal cases, in case the court was about to get the wrong. the legislature is making a strong policy consideration in criminal cases. but the ruling in brown is explicitly, we do not need to resolve a particular conflict 41107, for the very reasons that commissioner hur stated, under 801. i do not think brown is the only reason for which such testimony is admissible, and i am happy to address that if there are sections of the declaration not raise

with the 'aauthorities, to not disclose e video, so the reason why this portion of our raw 6 is admissibles link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c believed he was an attorney, and she believed her communications were confidential. it does not matter whether that view has been upheld in courts. it explains her actions in a way that is consistent with innocence, so that is why the remainder of that paragraph is admissible. >> with regard to miss lopez's belief as to whether attorney- client privilege existed, it is stated elsewhere about this level of detail about the thoughts that pertain to whether there might have been an attorney-client privilege and would be a waste of time and not relevant, where the existence of attorney-client privilege is not an issue. >> any other statements? the objection. >> i would be inclined to, but i think the relevance maybe tangential. i would be inclined to stay there has not been a stipulation, and in line eighth they stipulated that would go out. i would be inclined to overrule the objection. >> i understand the portion of ha

it's admissible in a civil case.collateral he is stop the and it feels right. >> my eyes use today glaze offense. fred, jennifer, stick around because we're going to talk about another case later on. >> thanks. >> a terrorist group reportedly claims responsibility for some deadly attacks in syria. a live report on into straight ahead. plus, word of a major scientific advance that could unlock some of the biggest mysteries of our universe. that is coming up as we approach the bottom of the hour, time now for the top of the news. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] what's the point of an epa estimated 42 miles per gallon if the miles aren't interesting? the lexus ct hybrid. this is the pursuit of perfection. but last year my daughter was checking up on me. i wasn't eating well. she's a dietitian and she suggested i try boost complete nutritional drink to help get the nutrition i was missing. now i drink it every day, and i love the great taste. [ female announcer ] boost has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium a

makes surprising admissions about his life. captioning funded by cbs >>> this is the "cbs morning news" for wednesday, july 18, 2012. >>> and good morning everybody. good to be with you. i'm terrell brown. here we go. mitt romney back on the campaign trail and digging in his heels against democratic calls to release more of his tax returns. even some prominent republicans are urging to him to disclose. romney says he will not give in and stepped up his attacks on president obama's economic leadership. >>> tara mergener is in washington with more. >>> good morning, terrell. that's right. mitt romney insists the obama camp will not be happy no matter how many tax returns they see. he says they are trying to distract voters from the real issue, president obama's record. mitt romney will head from pennsylvania to ohio today for a series of events. >> i need pennsylvania and ohio both. >> romney unveiled a new attack tuesday criticizing a comment president barack obama made at a campaign event in virginia last friday. >> if you've g

they were trying to reduce admissions.he had a social services social worker trying to meet his needs. none of these social workers or caseworker's new the others existed. a huge failure in the system. folks were off and running in separate directions and sometimes in the same direction. a waste of resources in an individual who could not get the care he needed. he just knew he needed health. we have tried to solve that. we're looking at one core patient record. there are a lot of different systems. the one core patient record is the way to bring those together. we have created a dashboard. if i am a provider, the last thing i want to do is wade through a lot of notes. i need a dashboard that tells me the key things i need to know. it bubbles up from the record to give them key indicators. the dash board for a social worker is different from the nurses. it is the ability to be able to flag that another worker has been assigned. we're pulling those folks into virtual teams. we do not all need to work for the same place. we

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? cha