kopp has objected on hearsay grounds. i have heard the objection, based on hearsay. do you have a view, as to the need for paragraph 5? >> there is not a here say problem. it is just saying what the witness knows about. >> i will withdraw my objection. chairperson hur: ok. herger of 6, there was an objection based on hearsay. could you address that objection, specifically? >> properly, the tears that objection is only to the statements she is relating that ms. lopez told her. starting on line 10, finishing on line 12, beginning with the word she. actually, the middle sentence is not her. >> i am sorry. i do not know what you mean. chairperson hur: i am sorry. starting with the word "she" on line 10, and ending with "then o" on line 12? >> yes. those of the portions we object to. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. again, cautioning that it has been conceded that it is here say, we could be -- is here say -- hearsay, we likely would not rely on it as sole evidence to establish the fact. is there descent from the commission? -- dissent from

paragraph 14. >> hearsay. chairperson hur: i think the objection should be overruled with the same caution. >> if i might be heard, it does describes her observation on that date. paragraph 14. >> he is keeping it. >> i am sorry. it does describe a personal observation. i do not know how these rulings are going to be reflected. i think we need to consider those statements submitted. chairperson hur: the objection to 14 is overruled. if we admit something, it is admitted. what weight we give the evidence will depend on whether it is hearsay or not. if it is sustained, or if it is overruled, mr. keith, you have one that objection. >> i apologize he had a more subtle question. >> 14 was overruled. 15. >> line 27, the portion of that sentence beginning with the word "see" and ending "talk," there is no foundation and that is speculation, not just on the part of miss williams but on miss lopez. chairperson hur: i will say, and give mr. keith an opportunity, i think that is right that it could not come in to prove t

. >> there is an initial dispute about the general hearsay objection. i wanted to make sure you did not miss that. >> to the extent that the objection is here say and relates to comments that ms. lopez made to ms. madison, consistent with our prior rulings, i would be inclined to admit those statements. the mayor is not introducing them for a hearsay purpose. they are going to show ms. lopez's state of mind. does that mean that if we disagree with your non-hearsay purpose, you do not want us to permit it? we are allowing here say into the record. you do not want it in for perce purposes? -- for here say purposes? -- for hearsay purposes? >> for this time friend, it is relevant for mind set. it is hard to say i would not want any of it admitted. i would offer it, but it is hard to say which of these is covered by other evidence. >> if we find it does not go to a non-hearsay purpose, there are things you would not want to come into the record, which you otherwise want to come into the record? >> i want to be frank about the other evidence the hearsay evid

and i recognize technically that's hearsay. but nevertheless, what can confer with the fact he's getting the falls with the idea he considered outlandish and false that they're being prompted by something. >> we actually have evidence elsewhere in the record that shows an intent on the part of the sheriff to paint this as a political witch-hunt. and so, again, it's connected to these particular calls, it's like trying to get evidence of a conspiracy. you have to infer. you have to infer from the fact that you have thing that's nobody would ever testify to. >> i open it up to my fellow commissioners. i appreciate the argument, mr. keith, but to me i do not see how this is relevant and i see that there is some hearsay but it's so general that i'm not even sure i would give it any way -- but i know there's a lot here. i welcome these from my fellow commissioners. >> when i was going through this, i read this a couple different times and i still don't really see the connection. so i would -- i would vote to exclude it on relevance

we're now to section 2-a there's a similar general hearsay objection. i would overrule that objection for the reasons we previously discussed. except for paragraph 34, lines 23. we it starts with he asked, threw line 25, in law enforcement. >> i'm sorry, commissioner, what were those lines? >> page 13, line 23 through 25. it starts on line 23 with the last word. >> you know, i'm sorry, commissioner. i just noticed in fact we also had a relevance objection to this paragraph 33 and 34 that was not accurately reflected in the document that was prepared so of that an oversight. >> not accurately reflected or you didn't include it? >> no, it's right there on -- i made the objection when i transmitted all of my objections to mr. keaton. so it was -- must have both missed it. >> ok. >> and this relevance objection is 33 and 34. actually, to be specific, it's on page 13, line 2. the sentence beginning with we, all the way to the end of that paragraph. and the entirety of 34. >> do you have a response? >> i think these paragraphs go to miss lopez's state of mind

chairperson hur: 18 was hearsay. relevance, too? >> 17 was hearsay -- all of them. relevance as to 18, 19, and 20. chairperson hur: my inclination with paragraph 17 is to overrule the objection. is there a dissenting view from the commissioners? the objection is overruled. 18, a relevance objection was added. >> this goes to the witnesses' lack of bias in that what she did she did out of concern for ms. lopez and did not talk to the police and then finally did. i think it goes to the credibility of her statement. that is why it is relevant. it is all about bias or the lack thereof which is always relevant. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection t18 through 20. dissenting views? >> says to paragraph 18, i would be inclined to leave everything starting on 19 with "i" through line 24 as being irrelevant. as to it showing the witness does not have baez, i am not sure at this point in the hearing any indication that ms. williams is being attacked for being biased. so until such time as her credibility is being attacked, i would say it is irrelevan

>> where do we draw the line on hearsay evidence that is to be admitted? do we decide on a case by case basis as it comes up? >> any other commissioners have views on that? >> having spent my life as a litigator and familiar with the hearsay rules, i find myself very close to the chairman pose a position. i would be a reluctant to make any decision which relies primarily upon here say and what -- hearsay and would caution the parties, i would try to exclude as much hearsay as possible and realize it will have little or no influence on my decision. i do not think you can do it any other way than on the case by case basis when they have offered by affidavit or offered by live testimony. an objection is made by one side or another that we would rule on it at that point. >> i agree. >> i do, too. it does have to be taken on the case by case basis. we would not otherwise be able to rule in a vacuum or exclude all types of evidence in a vacuum. and i agree with my fellow commissioners that i give probably little weight to something that is presented as hearsay e

i would say much of this is hearsay and there is nonhearsay purpose for it. really addressing the relevance points here. but there's not a problem with an expert relying on here, particularly this kind of hearsay for this kind of expert. >> mr. keith, we don't have to determine whether these past acts were -- whether they had domestic violence connotations. we jvuft to determine whether the incident on new year's eve constituted violence, correct? we don't have to go into the facts being portrayed in paragraphs 6 through 9. >> you do not have to make findings about that. i think with any expert opinion, you want to look at what the expert is relying on. if you doubt that that's true, you might doubt the opinion. if you believe it's true, you might believe the opinion. tomes relevant in that sense, the expert opinion helps us understand how this victim recanted and helps us understand why she was telling the account that she told to miss madison on the first and to miss williams on the fourth about what happened and helps explain why those are more credible th

we could bring in hearsay evidence to undermine that evidence. the better course is if there is a witness who submits a declaration and does not appear for cross for whatever reason, you accept it and give it whatever weight you think it is -- it deserves. chairperson hur: which may not be very much. >> it may not. as i mentioned, we do not know what is happening with ms. lopez. if we cannot work out something where she can testify for molly, we might want to have a declaration. chairperson hur: thank you. any further comments from the commissioners about the procedure, whereby we would examine or have live witness testimony? >> did i a understand you to say it is your intention to submit a declaration on behalf of putting aside those who might come left? everyone else on your list, you intend to submit declarations? >> we would submit a declaration for the mayor, for every current city employee, and every independent witness that is not -- a witness who was not affiliated with the city who would agree to do it. i will -- we will do our best and

that is hearsay and inadmissible. i do not think there is any other evidence that would allow for that to come in. chairperson hur: i would solicit the views of my fellow commissioners on this objection. >> we have allowed the other evidence to come in under the same caveat so we should allow this as well from the sarah sighed. -- sheriff's side. chairperson hur: the objection is overruled. sheriff's declaration. give this a moment here. -- us a moment here. commissioner renne: i take it the subpoena has been issued for ms. haynes? chairperson hur: it sounds like she is saying she is not available until july. we should discuss scheduling as well as soon as we're done with this. we should address when she is going to be able to testify. the objections to the sheriff's declaration. is there anything else to consider? mr. kopp, will you be addressing this? >> perhaps i missed something that i did not see objections to his specific a state -- specific statements. >> the sheriff had filed his declaration late so we filed o

. >> hearsay and gossip and lies. >> for decades it went unsolved, a mystery. then they opened it. a lime green suitcase, and no one was prepared. for what happened afterward. >> my mind was just spinning. >> a detective, a sister, both bent on justice. after almost 30 years, could they get it? the secrets in the suitcase. >> thanks for joining us. i'm ann curry. for police it was that most frustrating of cases. a crime, a suspect, but not enough evidence to prove or solve it. almost three decades passed and heart broken loved ones wondered if justice would ever be done. then they learned the answer was in plain sight all along. it just wasn't what anyone expected. here's keith morrison. >> they kept it in the dark, down the stairs in the basement. among the bolt cutters and the bags of white powder and the guns. the investigative leftovers of a small police department. why they chose a lime green suitcase for it is beyond knowing now. but he'd see it down there every time he filed a piece of evidence, tucked in, all but forgotten behind a door frame like a silent accusation. >> th

the government was allowed to go forward with that on a hearsay statement alone, and as a constitutional issue under idaho versus wright and the court went against us, the risk is that if we get accuserer number eight over terd, the entire case you can't sort out beyond a reasonable doubt whether that affected the jury's deliberations. all the convictions can come back on that ruling alone. >> at any point, did you try to enter into plea negotiations with the prosecution? did you have to have that discussion at all with jerry sandusky? >> well, there's always plea knnegotiations but whether theye real or meaningful, in this case there was never a meaningful plea offered so it's not even worth discussing. >> does jerry sandusky still say that he is innocent? >> well, jerry sandusky understands that the jury's verdict means he's been found guilty. but he will tell you that he didn't do what was alleged and that's why he's going to appeal. >> and in terms of the new allegations being made now by matt sandusky, what do you make of that? >> well, i can't go into all the details for one reason

was bard from telling the jury what paterno said because he died and his statements are now legal hearsay. the day began with a distraught 18-year-old known as vick item number one describing what he said was his first sexual encounter with sandusky. i froze, he said. mind was telling me to move, but i couldn't do it. i couldn't move. he wasn't yet 13 and testified that sandusky's seemingly ino sent touching escalated into sexual contact. >> when you add it together you start to get a whole package and each victim reinforces the other. >> reporter: under persist tint questioning the witness broke down again admitting he didn't tell the truth because he was ashamed. a social worker verified the account saying sandusky admitted to having various forms of physical contact but said there wasn't any sexual intent. like the previous accuser, this second witness acknowledged he has a civil lawyer but denied he once said the case was going to make the case. brian mooar, nbc news, be bellefon bellefonte, pennsylvania. >>> the survivor of the arizona shooting rampage has won a special election to f

objection, hearsay. that's lawyer talk. that's the kind of stuff you have to do. that serial killer killed another woman last night. yeah, it says here he's targeting young, attractive blondes.

they will allow hearsay in. they have trimmed the witness list. the evidence hearing is set to start on june 19th. the commission will be voting by majority and will submit a recommendation to the full board of supervisors. live in san francisco claudine wong ktvu channel 2 news. >>> altered photo of jim capoot may have cost a state worker his job. steve johanson was fired after he forwarded an offensive photo on his e-mail. it was e-mailed to him by a coworker. johanson said he forwarded the e-mail to get advice on how to respond. >>> more than a dozen media groups will ask the judge not to seal records in the george zimmerman case. he is charged with killing 17- year-old trayvon martin. prosecutors and defense want the names of witnesses withheld along with statements zimmerman made to police. >>> former presidential candidate john edwards' is free this morning from his corruption trial after a mistrial was disclaired and he probably will not face trial again on the charges. the justice department hasn't said yet if they want a retrial. a source

they can rely on what is in the record or whether it is hearsay or not. here are events we have said we are not going to consider. the opinion is based upon what she says are prior acts, which color the conclusions she reaches. it may be for the limited purpose you are talking about, and that is credibility of a witness and why things could happen. it is not an important issue. but if we are going to consider it at all for whether or not the acts that took place on december 31 fit the definition of domestic violence as she describes it, i would tend to agree with you that we keep it in, but recognize that we are using it for a very limited purpose. i am not sure it is necessary to go through it, paragraph by paragraph. we can make a judgment about whether we want to pay any attention to 90% of it. >> may i speak? i am not sure if you are thinking or not. that was one of the objections the sheriff raised. i looked carefully at that question. you are absolutely right on pretty much every account. the law is very clear about that. that is pretty much the pip

that's not hearsay.ssion. >> we wondered, what would those girls, named as suspects by centurion in this long-ago murder, have to say about all this? we've heard a lot of stories. what happened that night? you're about to hear their side of the story. >> coming up -- >> why would we have witnesses who say that you said that you got away with the perfect crime? >> you know -- never ever came out of my mouth. never. >> when "whispers in a small town" continues. you eating the? oh, it's their new oatmeal. well what's all that la-de-da? fresh blueberries, walnuts -- in oatmeal? in my day, oatmeal had two ingredients, oat and meal... not all that fancy-pants whatnot. [ female announcer ] introducing new blueberry banana nut oatmeal. i have got to blog about this. [ female announcer ] loaded with fresh blueberries and just 290 calories. the simple joy of another wholesome breakfast from mcdonald's. it's going viral. yeah! ♪ sun, and everyday life. introducing simple, a new range of facial skincare, perfect for

>> again, we have the standing hearsay objection. as to the sentence number two online to beginning with the words from her description. that's speculation. jerry: -- >> mr. keith? >> ms. madison is stating her interpretation of what ms. madison said. sometimes we have a conversation and we get an impression. she's repeating her impression. obviously, she wasn't there. but she is certainly able to get her interpretation of what somebody else said and the gist of what was being conveyed. i mean that was -- that's standard conversation and communication. >> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? >> no. >> mr. kopp? >> yes. then online seven to line eight, the sentence beginning with i and finishing with the word am more prejudicial than probative, irrelevant. >> well, i actually don't have a problem with striking the last block of the sentence. three minutes over? the micro phone. the part whether and i still am. that's not relevant. but what i do believe is relevant, i is it explains wh

ross mirkarimi has gotten some news from the judge who said his neighbor's statement is hearsay and will not be put in evidence. this videotape shows elaine, his wife, crying as she shows off a bruise on her arm. >>> there are -- there were unexpected delays at the trial of will lynch, the man who is accused of beating up the priest who he says molested him 30 years ago. robert honda was at the courthouse. >> reporter: will lynch came to the courthouse expecting to hear more testimony from father jerold lindner. he faces charges for molestation. lynch for years has claimed that he and his younger brother were raped and sexually assaulted by lindner during a camping trip in 1985. lynch is being accused of perjury when he said he never molested the boys and lindner has gotten a hour to address that. it turns out a -- a lawyer to address that. it turns out a witness confronted the priest as he was being brought to the room. >> the only direct quote i could give you is, deb said look me in the eye and she was able to look at him as an adult. >> reporter: lynch's mother hugged him outside of

o board and the problem of -- avoiding the problem of hearsay. if we only have one witness, we will not be able to have a witness who satisfies the evidence code. and who meets the high standard of presentation that he would like to see. that is part of the reason why we have been a very thorough. we think we are trying to give you a thorough, solid, sound a record on which to base your decision. that has been the impetus for creating these lists. it is not an attempt to snow you. chairperson hur: we appreciate that. we would not suggest that you are trying to drown us in paper or anything like this, but this procedure does contemplate a hearing taking place as soon as five days after the official charges. one of the reasons why -- the elected official is suspended without pay during the time that the ethics commission and the board adjudicate the matter. i find it -- to me, i find it hard to believe that we need to have witnesses talk about every single element of how the sheriff can or cannot do his work, when this is something we should be abl

o board and the problem of -- avoiding the problem of hearsay. if we only have one witness, we will not be able to have a witness who satisfies the evidence code. and who meets the high standard of presentation that he would like to see. that is part of the reason why we have been a very thorough.

but he was blocked from saying what paterno told him, because it would be hearsay. paterno died in january. mcqueary said he never told police, because he had discussed the matter with university vice president gary schultz, who was responsible for the campus police. earlier, the jury heard a halting and hesitant 18-year-old, known in court documents as victim one. he told of meeting sandusky through his second mile charity, and described, sobbing, how sandusky went from kissing him on the forehead to oral sex when he was 12 years old. i didn't know what to do, he said, i just kind of blacked out and didn't want it to happen. when he finally sought help, he said a school guidance counselor was skeptical, telling him, sandusky wouldn't do something like that. they didn't believe me. once it became known that he was one of sandusky's accusers, victim one was bullied out of his high school midway through his senior year, and moved to a new school where he graduated last week. today as the defense pressed him on inconsistencies in his grand jury testimony. the witness s

the panel says it's hearsay. >>> they still have to rule if the video will be part.vidence or not. >>> today is dump the pump day. several bay area agencies including valley transit are taking part this year. >> if you have a multicar household and leave one car at home, you could save $10,000 for your family. >> b.a.r.t. is -- b.a.r.t. b.a.r.t. is looking for people wearing these -- >> okay. >>> sal, did you -- >> i think the battery -- >> i think you can hear me. >> good morning, everybody. let's take a look at the commute now. no major problems on the span of the bay bridge. this is 880 northbound. that pacific is still busy. san jose -- that traffic is still busy. still slow on northbound 101 as you approach 880. >>> there fortunate there was a lot of og out there it today we'll carry that into friday or saturday still countryge -- still sunday and into monday. >>> an that's our report for this yoo. we'll see you the next time the news breaks -- we will see you the next time news breaks. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] go from being on the road to being on vacation. hil