ok all... I have listened to it all, I have typed up what I can... LOL It's lots, don't shoot me for typo's and/or grammar! I may have missed a word here and there... I have kids and a hubby coming in and out and 2 wiener dogs that bark every time the wind blows haha
Judge: Court finds, no expectation of privacy, to jail visits or phone calls. Further finds not a requirement to turn over routinely recorded phone calls. Only required when someone finds something that they want to use. Took additional steps to record those other visits… court finds that there was a requirement and finds that they were provided in a timely fashion. No discovery violation. Therefore, the motion to exclude the recordings or evidence of the defendants statements, in the Feb 2019 visits are denied.
2 areas that they want to go into … 1 relates to a visit between CJ and merritt.. Feb 3rd. discussion about a waterfall project and not getting paid, telling her to remember that he and joey were going to split the loss if they weren't going to get paid. (just an excerpt) He does not see the relevance of it unless ms jarvis testifies about it.
Relevance urging her … when she only remembers a little bit about it … he is asking her to remember more… fabricating evidence (?). Telling her what to say when she is asked. But if he's doing that on something that's not relevant…
McGee - we have evidence of the police doing the same thing, we can spend 2 months going down that road if you want to.
Feb 1st Email… … $32,000… they were going to split the lose… how do we know it's the same waterfall? provecho…
Right now, judge doesn't think there is not enough context for case in chief, may become relevant if she is called to testify and it's linked to statements of what was owed and the status of accounts between them. At that point, it would be relevant for potential impeachment,
Next area deals with, on Feb 3/19, talking about the cell phone reception in the clubhouse where they live, how the reception was bad and then they talk about the Feb 4th and Feb 8th… starts talking about the 8th, I called what I did on the 8th, we heard that recording with Dugal, he said he didn't really know, he called his wife, he calls her, what did I do, what day was that, and they get cut off a couple of time, they discuss that. He says we are going to play that excerpt to prove the bad reception, you were at home at the time and you are going to testify about just that, that's very important because the feb 4th call, remember they were telling you that they saw Chase's truck at Bonsall or Joseph's, they said he wasn't home, remember that? you tried to call him 5 times during the evening? you wouldn't be trying to call him if he was home, would you? Rather than a transcript, just a summary… of Mr. M telling Ms. J he was home, she says she knows that's what she's already testified to, to begin with. The defendant says, well you haven't testified yet, you are going to testify, that's not what you said before, Ms. J says she knows what she said before, he says well no, what they are going to say is that you said you wouldn't be home and calling you. Well, I was being jumped upon by 2 detectives, just tell them straight up that I didn't know what the hell was going on and I was… then Jarvis interrupts, they asked me specifically, he wouldn't be calling you if he was at home. You wouldn't call me if you were home, you might call me from the clubhouse. Merritt then continues, yeah, but rare. That's important when you get on the stand cuz you would have been calling me a half dozen times trying to reach me. And then what happened, the way I now visualize that day happening now, that I have stepped back and looked at all the events, is that I went home, probably took the kids over to watch a movie, you got home a little later, I think. Jarvis says on the 4th? M: huh? J: the 4th? M: it was a friday.. it was a thursday, so you would have been at the school so I probably had one of the other kids or I was in the computer room or something. You were trying to reach me, for a time I came back down to the house, laid my phone on the counter. Phone rang, you saw it, obviously I didn't, I never remembered that phone call, ever, I still don't to this day.
So that seems like that's a specific conversation about February 4th and trying to establish she was at home, but didn't have his phone, so didn't have phone calls.
McGee tells the judge, I can inform the court that the interviews that Ms. Jarvis had with LE, that is what she kept telling them, that is a review of the conversation, and the officers kept telling her that can't be right, you're wrong, he wasn't there, she like no, he was there, I saw his phone, she has said that since Feb 2010, and they started trying to trip her up, saying well what about this? and trying to change her testimony and change her statement, they were trying to realistically manufacture evidence that he wasn't home. And she was very clear in Feb 2010, she's been very clear in all emails with other people and very clear with SB, he was home when that phone rang, I saw it ring and I wondered why he wasn't picking it up. So this is not Mr. Merritt trying to convince Ms. Jarvis what to say, this is a rendition of the statements she has said since day 1. Even though LE tried to get her to change her story, I shouldn't say that, SBSD tried to get her to change that story, she has stuck to it, and she (someone says something).. McGee: even under threat of arrest, they were threatening her if you are going with this, then you're an accomplice and we are going to arrest you too, she still held her ground, that's what happened, and that's what the conversation was, it was not Mr. Merritt trying to tell her what to say, it was a reminder of the recorded conversation and the contents of it.
Judge: alright, that may be. I still think that conversation is relevant. If that conversation is played however, for that inference that Mr. Merritt was trying to get her to say certain things, then the defense would be able to put on the earlier statements to show that Ms. J didn't need to be reminded or convinced of anything, that she had said that from day 1 and continued to say that.
Imes/Daugherty? -
talking about dan??? LOL (sorry, I was confused at why he started out with something about Dan... once I got further, I went back and typed it out lol) This court specifically found that evidence of DK's business relations with JM was probative, that the prejudicial effect did not outway the probative value, substantially outway the probative value. The peoples theory of the case is that the defendant was in deep debt with JM and the people have now presented evidence of a statement of JM that you owe me for a project and now the court has some indication that the defendant is trying to make her remember things, in saying you remember this? of course you remember this? Analysis is the same, if they are going to be allowed to say the detectives pressured you, then under 356, we're entitled to say well, didn't he pressure you to talk about this provenco thing. Because the analysis is really the same.
McGee: I think it depends on what she says. If she gets on the stand and says…
Judge: I don't even know that she has foundation to say, other than hearsay, what the Provecho deal was. At most, all she can say is Mr. Merritt told me that X Y and Z, which would be exculpatory to Mr. M, which would be hearsay.
Imes/Daugherty: Well, there has been plenty of that in this case. That's not the focus, the focus is what is the defendant doing, he's trying to alter her rememory (yes this is what I heard LOL) of something. At that should be the focus, it's an attempt to alter the evidence, potential evidence in the case, and that's what 371 is focused on. Trier of fact is free to consider all those other factors but both of these topics should, they should be allowed to consider both of them because it's not really her and what she knows, it's him telling her what she knows. The fact that the detective said you remember this 8:28 phone call but it doesn’t show up on his phone records, ok, they can go into that if she testifies. Whether she testifies or doesn't I don't think it changes the analysis, the analysis is that an individual trying to prevent recordings so LE doesn't know and I'm going to tell a witness what they are going to say.
Judge: with regard to the the Feb 4th and 8th issues, I agree with you, so I would let you put that on.
Imes/Daugherty - I'm trying to understand the courts analysis with regard to the financial transactions of DK being relevant in a 352 analysis, but the defendant's attempting to refreshing someone' recollections with his business dealings with Joseph (in air quotes).
Judge: I've looked at that email, and it's a just kind of like a balance sheet of how much was paid, how much was owed, how much is still owed, how much is still owed..
Imes/Daugherty: the overpaid amount is 15K, plus 8800 for Levine, plus 19,000 for provecho, for a total of 42, 845. Plus the 15K.
Judge: ok
Imes/Daugherty: So Provecho, not to mention that David Sequieda testified about Provecho and said he had to go back and redo it. This is all part and parcel with how he did business with JM and now he's trying to get someone to explain for him what the business (?) That should be the focus, is him trying to influence some saying 'no this is actually what he deal was" and he also admits in the same statement, I don't now if I put it I the excerpt, that he did owe joseph money and he was going to make payments over a period of time.
McGee: I can inform the court that if Ms. Jarvis testifies about Provecho, then it can be used for impeachment, otherwise they want to use it for character evidence.
There is a bit more after this... they were breaking and then going to listen to the actual recordings after lunch, I don't think we will get those though
