Skip to content

April 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jeff Klapakis (Cross Examination), Jack Green, Larry Feldman, and Jesus Salas (Direct Examination), Part 3 of 4

November 6, 2012

Here is Feldman’s description of his relationship with Dr. Katz, and his handling of a 1987 case:

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You typically enter into a


18 contingency fee agreement at the beginning of your


19 relationship with the client, correct?


20 A. At the early stages, yes.


21 Q. And the obvious purpose of that is, before


22 you want to do any work, you want to make sure


23 you’re going to get paid if certain things happen,


24 correct?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. And before I go any further, you talked


27 about people you have represented in your practice.


28 You’ve also represented oil companies in recent 4556


1 years, correct?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. You’ve defended oil companies accused by the


4 State of California of overcharging consumers,


5 correct?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. And you’ve represented them quite


8 successfully, haven’t you?


9 A. Well, that was one I represented, and it was


10 a very successful —


11 Q. It was a long trial, true?


12 A. It was a long trial.


13 Q. Okay.


14 A. First time and only time in my life that I


15 ever did anything like that.


16 Q. Okay. And what year was that?


17 A. Let’s see. I defended them — is this


18 important? I mean, I can’t remember. Let’s see, I


19 have enough trouble remembering who I’m representing


20 today.


21 Let’s see, I represented them, I want to say


22 late — let’s see. Somewhere around late ‘90s,


23 2000. I mean, it could have been — it’s one way or


24 the other. I can’t — I was called in just to try


25 the lawsuit. And the case had been going on for


26 like 20 years, believe it or not, and — and so I


27 just — I can’t give it — if it’s important, I


28 could figure it out, but it’s somewhere then. 4557


1 Q. Somewhere where?


2 A. Somewhere 1999, 2000, 2001. 1998. It —


3 you know, a few years ago this happened.


4 Q. Now, in the 1993 case, you retained Stanley


5 Katz, correct?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. When had you first met Stanley Katz?


8 A. 1987.


9 Q. And that was in relation to a civil lawsuit?


10 A. No. I represented — in fact, my wife


11 really represented — and she wasn’t my wife then.


12 But I got called in to represent the — a former


13 grandson of the President of the United States who


14 was being accused of physical abuse, him and his


15 wife. And I knew nothing about that kind of a


16 field, never done anything like that, but


17 ultimately, I did it.


18 And Stanley Katz, who I never knew of or


19 heard of, was an expert on the case. And if you ask


20 me what — I don’t even remember what he testified


21 to, but he did testify. And it was a case downtown


22 in the criminal courts building.


23 Q. So this was a case where two adults were


24 accused of abusing a child?


25 A. Yeah, by the Department of Children


26 Services.


27 Q. And you and — excuse me. You defended


28 the – 4558


1 A. I defended —


2 Q. — the parents, true?


3 A. The parents, yes.


4 Q. And you did it successfully, correct?


5 A. I did it successfully.


6 Q. Stanley Katz was an expert for you —


7 A. He was.


8 Q. — right? So Stanley Katz knew that in this


9 particular case, adults were falsely charged with


10 sexual assault, correct?


11 A. No. Well, charged by the government, not by


12 the kid. The kids — there was a baby, it was


13 one-year-old. He wasn’t accusing anybody of doing


14 anything. This was the county. The kid was abused,


15 there was no issue, Mr. Mesereau. The child was


16 abused. The question is, did the maid abuse the


17 child or did these parents abuse the child? And in


18 my view and in the Court’s view, the maid did it,


19 and we proved it.


20 Q. But just to get it in the record —


21 A. Yeah.


22 Q. — you, with the assistance of Stanley Katz,


23 defended two adults against false claims of abuse,


24 correct?


25 A. By the government, yes.


26 Q. Okay.


27 A. And I do remember what he sort of testified


28 to, if it’s important to you. 4559


1 Q. When were these false claims by the


2 government initially filed; do you know?


3 A. Yeah. I assume it’s 1987, because that’s


4 when I did it.


5 Q. How long were you involved in that case with


6 Stanley Katz?


7 A. Well, Stanley Katz testified. He was on the


8 stand and got off the stand. But, I mean, the case


9 was ongoing. And I think we tried it — took like


10 five days or so to try it, six days. And that was


11 it.


12 Q. And was that tried in front of a judge or a


13 jury?


14 A. Judge.


15 Q. Was that in the administrative courts or the


16 criminal courts?


17 A. It was in the criminal court building. A


18 regular judge.


19 Q. Was it a criminal case where a jury was


20 waived?


21 A. No, it was a dependency case. They were


22 trying to take the children — the child away from


23 these parents who had adopted this child.


24 Q. And it was just solely a judge who decided


25 the government’s claims of abuse were false against


26 your clients, right?


27 A. That’s correct.

Here’s is Feldman’s testimony about when and how he reported the Arvizo’s claims to the police this current case, his 2 hour meeting with Sneddon prior to the start of his testimony, and his conversation with William Dickerman and Dr. Katz before they testified. It was a violation of Judge Melville’s gag order for Feldman to speak with them before he testified, and the defense would use this as an example of why a mistrial should be declared (they filed this motion later on in the trial):

28 Q. All right. Now, at some point you call 4560


1 Lieutenant Klapakis in this case, correct?


2 A. I called him or he called me.


3 Q. Okay. Do you know about when that was?


4 A. Yeah. About. I mean, it was in — I’m


5 going to say around June of ‘03. I think he must


6 have called me. I don’t think I would have called

7 him. I never heard of him.


8 Q. It was approximately June 13th, 2003,


9 correct?


10 A. I wouldn’t disagree with that. I don’t have


11 an independent recollection of the day, but I


12 wouldn’t disagree about the time frame.


13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just


14 show you a police report?


15 A. If you tell me — unless that day is


16 critical to you, I’ll look at it. I don’t know, is


17 it a police report of what he says about me?


18 Q. Yes.


19 A. I don’t know. It’s up to you. It’s your


20 show. I don’t remember the precise day. I’d accept


21 it’s about that time. If you told me it was the


22 14th, I’d believe you. And if you told me it was


23 the 12th, I’d believe you.


24 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I —


25 A. You got to show me. I know that trick.


26 Show me the document and I’ll tell you if it


27 refreshes my recollection. How do I know unless you


28 show it? 4561


1 It doesn’t refresh my memory.


2 Q. Have you had a chance to look at the report?


3 A. I have.


4 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about the


5 day that you spoke to Lieutenant Klapakis?


6 A. I know I spoke to him. It doesn’t refresh


7 my recollection about the date. But as I said, I


8 can’t argue with that date.


9 Q. Had you spoken with Lieutenant Klapakis


10 before that date, to your knowledge?


11 A. You know, not by name. I mean, I don’t know


12 the person, to my knowledge. But I wouldn’t know


13 him if he’s in this courtroom.


14 Q. Have you met with anyone representing the


15 government to discuss your testimony in this case?


16 A. In a loose way. When you say — I mean, the


17 government interviewed me about my testimony.


18 Q. When did anyone with the government last


19 interview you about your testimony?


20 A. I guess yesterday.


21 Q. And who was in the meeting?


22 A. Mr. Sneddon.


23 Q. Anyone else?


24 A. No.


25 Q. How long was the meeting?


26 A. Besides locking myself up in his office and


27 having to set the alarm because I couldn’t get out


28 because it was after hours. If you don’t count that 4562


1 time, it was probably an hour and a half, maybe two


2 hours, somewhere in that range.


3 Q. Was Mr. Sneddon alone?


4 A. Yeah, I thought I said that.


5 Q. There was no sheriff present?


6 A. No.


7 Q. No other prosecutor present?


8 A. No.


9 Q. Okay. So you and Mr. Sneddon, for an hour


10 and a half yesterday, discussed your testimony,


11 right?


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. Were you shown any documents by Mr. Sneddon


14 to help you prepare for your testimony?


15 A. No.


16 Q. At any time did any representative of the


17 government send you documents to review to prepare


18 you for your testimony?


19 A. They — take out the prepare me for my —


20 they did send me my grand jury transcript.


21 Q. And did you review that?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. Okay. When did you review it?


24 A. Within the last week or ten days. Two


25 weeks. Something like that. I mean, at some point


26 when I got it, I read it.


27 Q. When did you last talk to Stanley Katz?


28 A. He called me when he left here from 4563


1 testifying on the way home.


2 Q. Did you talk to him before that?


3 A. He called me while he was waiting up —


4 well, I don’t know where he was waiting, but he was


5 waiting to testify, and he called me. Or I think he


6 called me. He called me — Dickerman called me and


7 he had a cell phone. They were both in some room


8 together. And I said, “Is Katz with you?” And he


9 said, “Yes.” And he had previously called me, and


10 so I returned his call after I got done talking to


11 Dickerman.


12 Q. Let me just get this straight. You talked


13 to Mr. Katz?


14 A. Doctor. Doctor.


15 Q. You talked to Dr. Katz after he testified


16 here, right?


17 A. After he testified, he called me on the way


18 back to L.A.


19 Q. You talked to him as he was waiting to


20 testify, correct?


21 A. I talked to him while he was waiting to


22 testify.


23 Q. You talked to Mr. Dickerman as he was


24 waiting to testify, correct?


25 A. I talked to Mr. Dickerman while he was


26 waiting to testify.


27 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Katz before he came here


28 to testify? 4564


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. When was that?


3 A. I can’t tell you the day. I can tell you


4 that he called me and wanted to come to my office


5 and meet with me.


6 Q. Did you —


7 A. I can’t remember when it was. It was


8 sometime during the — this trial. I can’t picture


9 exactly when it was.


10 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Dickerman before he came


11 here to testify?


12 A. No, I don’t think so. You don’t mean ever.


13 You mean — I mean, I talked to Dickerman a lot at


14 one point, and then we really haven’t had contact.


15 And then we had contact that day, the day while he


16 was here, and that’s about it, that I remember. I


17 mean, I can’t swear we didn’t have a minute


18 conversation at some point.


19 Q. So Stanley Katz wanted to come to your


20 office to talk about this case?


21 A. Yes.


22 Q. And approximately when did he make that


23 request?


24 A. Within the last couple of weeks. Maybe a


25 month. It’s between two weeks and a month.


26 Q. To your knowledge, has Stanley Katz ever met


27 with Bill Dickerman, other than the fact they were


28 in the same room waiting to testify and both spoke 4565


1 to you on the phone at essentially the same time?


2 A. Well, Katz came to see me to tell me that


3 he —


4 Q. I’m not asking you what he said. Just —


5 A. No, let me just — let me think to myself.


6 When he came to visit me after the first


7 meeting he had with the family — I think he had two


8 meetings with the family, but I won’t even swear to


9 that. But I think he did. But — and maybe he had


10 more. But in between one of these meetings that he


11 had with the family where he was interviewing, he


12 came to see me, Dr. Katz, and it is possible that


13 Dickerman was in that meeting. It is possible he


14 wasn’t in that meeting. I don’t know. And that


15 would be the only time that I can think of that they


16 possibly could have been together.


17 Q. When did that meeting occur?


18 A. Do you mean the day?


19 Q. Not the specific day. Just roughly.


20 A. That meeting happened — if I knew the day I


21 went to the Department of Children Services, which


22 has got to be — if you tell me that this lieutenant


23 called me on the 13th, I would guess I went to


24 Children Services around the 12th of June. 11th,


25 12th of June. So that would mean that that meeting


26 happened before then, and after, say, June 1st.


27 So, in that time frame.


28 Q. Is it your understanding that other than 4566


1 interviewing members of the Arvizo family, Dr. Katz


2 did not pursue any other independent investigation?


3 A. That’s all — that’s all I know he did.


4 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, are you related to


5 anyone who has referred patients to Dr. Katz?


6 A. Not that I know of.


7 Q. Okay. You don’t know of any —


8 A. That referred patients to Dr. Katz?


9 Q. Anyone who you are related to by marriage


10 that referred patients to Dr. Katz.


11 A. Oh, my wife. I’m married to my wife, and I


12 think she used Dr. Katz. She headed up a law firm


13 that defended children, and represented tens of


14 thousands of children, and I think they, from time


15 to time, might have used Dr. Katz. I don’t know if


16 she did or didn’t. I mean, she certainly —


17 Q. But you think she did?


18 A. Yeah. I mean, I know at times in her life


19 she did. She’s the one that introduced me to Dr.


20 Katz in 1987, so she was a fan of Dr. Katz.


21 Q. And it was your understanding they had some


22 kind of business relationship, but you don’t know


23 what it is, right?


24 A. My wife and Dr. Katz? Well, they didn’t


25 have a business relationship. She would refer


26 clients. She defended people accused of abuse. She


27 represented children against their parents when


28 parents were abusing them. And she headed up a 4567


1 public interest law firm, and she would use Dr.


2 Katz, and —


3 Q. Okay.


4 A. — hopefully it was totally business.


5 (Laughter.)

When questioned about Dr. Katz’s secretly recorded phone call to police, and the fact that he referred to “the lawsuit” on a number of occasions during that call, Feldman testified that he didn’t know anything about it:

6 Q. Did you ever learn that Dr. Katz was


7 secretly recorded by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s


8 Department in a phone conversation?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. How did you learn about that?


11 A. He told me.


12 Q. Did he tell you that on a number of


13 occasions he referred to “the lawsuit” in discussing


14 the Arvizos?


15 MR. SNEDDON: This is hearsay, Your Honor.


16 THE COURT: Overruled.


17 You may answer.


18 THE WITNESS: Did he —


19 THE COURT: Do you want the question read


20 back?


21 THE WITNESS: I just got to ask him, did he


22 tell me what about that?


23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: That in that secretly


24 recorded conversation with a sheriff’s


25 representative, he, on a number of occasions in


26 discussing the Arvizos, referred to “the lawsuit”?


27 A. Did he tell the sheriff that, or did he tell


28 the Arvizos that? 4568


1 Q. The sheriffs that.


2 A. Oh. I don’t know.


3 Q. You don’t know about that?


4 A. I don’t know one way or the other about


5 that.


6 Q. But he told you he was secretly recorded,


7 right?


8 A. He told me that he was secretly recorded by


9 the sheriffs, yes.


10 Q. All right. To your knowledge, have you ever


11 been secretly recorded in this case?


12 A. I hope not.


13 THE COURT: You need to speak closer to the


14 microphone.


15 THE WITNESS: I hope not. I don’t know of


16 any recordings, no.


17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you have any knowledge,


18 other than what Mr. Katz told you, about the


19 sheriffs secretly recording people in phone


20 conversations in this investigation?


21 A. No, I really don’t. I just know he said he


22 was recorded. I know it was secret. He didn’t know


23 about it, so I guess it was a secret from him.

Next, Feldman testified about his representation of Janet Arvizo’s parents, Jay Jackson,  and whether or not  he thought he would represent the Arvizos again in the future. After some discussion with Judge Melville, Mesereau was able to question Feldman about the time period that he represented Janet Arvizo’s parents, and tried to prevent the defense from obtaining access to their bank records in order to see if Jay Jackson was depositing money in her account:

24 Q. How long, in your mind, did you represent


25 the Arvizos?


26 A. Boy, that’s the toughest question you’ve


27 asked. I can tell you I represented them from May


28 to the time I referred it to the police, or referred 4569


1 it to Mr. Sneddon and the police took over. And I


2 had no contact, the best that I can recall, with the


3 Arvizos, and that ultimately culminated in a letter


4 from me to them terminating my relationship with


5 them. I didn’t want any responsibility. I


6 didn’t — and I didn’t talk to them again until


7 after the news hit of the search of Neverland and


8 the pending arrest of Mr. Jackson. And it was


9 sometime after that that I heard from them again.


10 But up — so from my perspective, I


11 terminated our relationship legally, as a lawyer


12 should do, in writing, telling them they could do


13 what they want, “But don’t look to me to represent


14 you.”


15 Q. And if you chose to in the future, Mr.


16 Feldman, nothing would prevent you from representing


17 them again, correct?


18 A. If I wanted to?


19 Q. Yes.


20 A. If I wanted to, nothing.


21 Q. Now, have you represented Mr. Jay Jackson in


22 your legal work?


23 A. Well, only to the extent as I — he has


24 talked to me about issues of you guys trying to get


25 into —


26 Q. Objection.

27 I’m not asking you what he’s talked to you


28 about. I’m just asking, have you represented Jay 4570


1 Jackson as a lawyer?


2 A. Well, when you say “represented,” he has


3 called me in my capacity as a lawyer, and I have


4 given him advice as a lawyer.


5 Q. And approximately when did you give Jay


6 Jackson advice as a lawyer?


7 A. Well, I don’t know. Let’s see. After they


8 got married, which I don’t remember when, but it was


9 after they got married. And it was — you would


10 know better. It was in connection with a search


11 warrant. Or, not a search warrant. A subpoena you


12 served on his military records, and that’s the only


13 time that I think I can remember talking to him.


14 Q. Well, you certainly were advising him as a


15 lawyer as of approximately November 15th, 2004,


16 correct?


17 A. I don’t know the date. I just —


18 Q. Well, your firm, in a legal proceeding in


19 this case, took the position that a fax from Jay


20 Jackson to you dated November 15th, 2004, was


21 confidential, right?


22 A. If Jay Jackson communicates with me, it’s in


23 the attorney-client. That’s what I said. And


24 everything he told me is privileged, just like any


25 other lawyer.


26 Q. Do you know whether or not your law firm has


27 taken a position in this case that a fax from Jay


28 Jackson to you of November 15th, 2004, is 4571


1 confidential and privileged?


2 A. Well, I hope so, since it is.


3 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


4 object.


5 THE COURT: Sustained. You’re not allowed to


6 go into attorney-client privilege without my


7 permission.


8 MR. MESEREAU: I’m not going into it, Your


9 Honor. Just their position.


10 THE COURT: Well, even claiming the privilege


11 is improper, to raise it in front of the jury.


12 We’ve gone over this before.


13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You have represented the


14 parents of Janet Arvizo in this case, correct?


15 A. Her parents.


16 Q. Yes.


17 A. Yes.


18 Q. You represented them in an attempt to


19 prevent us from seeing if she deposited money into


20 her parents’ account, true?


21 A. I prevented you from getting into their —


22 these parents’ bank records.


23 Q. Correct.


24 A. That’s right.


25 Q. And in doing that, sir, you tried to prevent


26 us from seeing, if Janet got checks or David Arvizo


27 got checks, whether they deposited them into her


28 parents’ account? 4572

1 A. No, Mr. Mesereau, I prevented you from


2 dragging in these poor parents, who don’t even speak


3 English, into this melee.


4 Q. Do you know —


5 A. That’s all I tried to do. I don’t know


6 anything about Janet doing anything. I’m only


7 telling you — you asked me what I did. That’s what


8 I tried to do is prevent them from getting dragged


9 in. If you look at your subpoena, it’s pretty


10 broad.


11 Q. Sir, you can’t prevent the parents from


12 being subpoenaed as witnesses in this case, can you?


13 A. No.


14 Q. And you haven’t even tried to do that.


15 A. And I wouldn’t.


16 Q. The only thing you tried to do was stop us


17 from seeing whether Janet put money into her


18 parents’ account?


19 MR. SNEDDON: I object as argumentative.


20 THE WITNESS: That’s not true.


21 THE COURT: Just a minute.


22 There’s a lot of law and motion in this case


23 that took place outside the presence of the jury,


24 and there’s various legal reasons why things were


25 done, and I did them. And it’s improper for you to


26 be attacking a witness on that issue.


27 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. I will — I


28 withdraw the question. 4573


1 May I just ask about the scope of his


2 representation, just when he did it, when he


3 represented the parents? Not scope, Your Honor.


4 The dates of it.


5 THE COURT: I’m not sure if that’s a


6 privileged matter or not. That’s why I’m concerned.


7 MR. MESEREAU: It would have to do with


8 statements he’s made before, Your Honor, about


9 representing the Arvizos. I’m just trying to find


10 out roughly when he represented the parents.


11 THE COURT: No. I don’t see any relevancy.


12 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Your Honor, may I ask


13 if he still does?


14 THE COURT: No. I don’t see any relevance


15 to —


16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.


17 THE COURT: — to people he represents, when


18 he represented them. If I’m missing something, you


19 can approach the bench. I’m, you know, trying to


20 see from this standpoint what the relevancy could


21 be, but I can’t see it.


22 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?


23 THE COURT: (To the jury) Okay. You can


24 talk.


25 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)


26 THE COURT: All right. After reviewing with


27 Mr. Mesereau his reason, I’m going to allow a


28 question that I didn’t a moment ago. 4574


1 You may ask it.


2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, during what


3 approximate period of time did you represent the


4 parents of Janet Arvizo in this case?


5 A. I can’t give you the date. The event was


6 when they were served with a subpoena, their bank


7 got served with a subpoena to get all of their


8 checks and all of their financial records. And


9 whenever you served that subpoena, that is when I


10 represented them.


11 Q. Do you currently, as far as you’re


12 concerned, represent either of the parents of Janet


13 Arvizo?


14 A. I do not represent either of the parents of


15 Janet Arvizo, as far as I’m concerned.


16 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just


17 show you a pleading just so you can identify a time


18 that you were representing the parents?


19 A. Sure. Yeah.


20 MR. MESEREAU: Would that be all right, Your


21 Honor?


22 THE COURT: Yes.


23 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?


24 THE COURT: Yes.


25 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.


26 Q. Mr. Feldman, have you had a chance to review


27 that document?


28 A. Yes. Yes. 4575


1 Q. And does it refresh your recollection about


2 the period of time during which you represented


3 David and Maria Ventura, the parents of Janet?


4 A. Approximately.


5 Q. And approximately what was the period during


6 which you represented and your firm represented


7 David and Maria Ventura?


8 A. Approximately the end of December of 2004 to


9 January 2005. Three, four weeks.


10 Q. That would be till approximately what,


11 January 14th?


12 A. I thought that’s the date of the hearing


13 that we had, yes.


14 Q. Okay. And after that hearing, did your


15 representation cease as far as you’re concerned?


16 A. Yes. It was just for that limited purpose


17 on that subpoena.

Here are more questions from Mesereau about Feldman’s meetings with Sneddon; notice how Feldman stated that he “couldn’t remember” if he had spoken to any sheriffs about the current case!

18 Q. Okay. How many meetings do you think you’ve


19 had with Mr. Sneddon about this criminal case?


20 A. And I’m going to interpret “meetings” face


21 to face. Is that what we’re talking about?


22 Q. Let’s start with that.


23 A. I would say three, four, maybe five at the


24 most, including yesterday.


25 Q. And how many times do you think you’ve


26 spoken on the telephone with Prosecutor Sneddon


27 about this criminal case?


28 A. Well, I don’t know. Maybe — at least two 4576


1 or three times I’ve been scheduled to come, and he’s


2 called me to tell me I’m not coming. So that’s


3 three.


4 We haven’t had a lot of phone calls. I


5 can’t — frankly, I called him when I called him to


6 say, “Here’s the case. Do what you want with it.”


7 And maybe — I don’t know. You know, five, six.


8 Something. Not a lot. I mean, I don’t know,


9 something like that.


10 Q. How many times do you think you met with Mr.


11 Sneddon regarding your representation of Mr.


12 Chandler in 1993?


13 A. I don’t know if I ever met with him in ‘93.


14 With Mr. Sneddon?


15 Q. Yes.


16 A. ‘93 I was on my own, without — I was


17 handling —


18 Q. You certainly spoke to him.


19 A. I was handling the case. I’m sure I spoke


20 with him, but I don’t think I ever met with him.


21 Maybe I did. I could have. I just can’t remember,


22 Mr. Mesereau. It’s so long ago. I mean, that’s 12


23 years ago. I just don’t — I just don’t have an


24 independent memory of whether I did or didn’t.


25 Because the case was also in L.A., and, you know, I


26 was dealing with the L.A. lawyers, criminal lawyers.


27 Q. Would it be accurate to say that you at


28 least talked to Mr. Sneddon a number of times in 4577


1 1993 about your representation of Mr. Chandler?


2 A. You know, not Mr. — “Mr. Chandler” now is


3 little Jordie, who’s now a Mister, or is it his


4 father we’re talking about? When you say “Mr.


5 Chandler,” Jordie? Who are we talking about?


6 Q. Any of them.


7 A. You know, I don’t think — it could have


8 happened. I can’t deny it. I just have no


9 recollection of it one way or the other. I don’t


10 remember having many — any real discussions with


11 Mr. Sneddon on the case.


12 Q. Do you remember meeting with any other


13 prosecutor besides Mr. Sneddon at any time regarding


14 this current case?


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. And who would that be?


17 A. Mr. Zonen.


18 Q. How many times do you think you’ve met with


19 Mr. Zonen about this case?


20 A. A couple maybe. Maybe. I don’t remember.


21 You know, I can remember one. I’ve seen him,


22 though. I mean, this isn’t just the second time


23 I’ve seen him, so it must have been more, but I


24 just — nothing stands out in my mind about meeting


25 with him.


26 Q. Have you had phone conversations with


27 Prosecutor Zonen about this case?


28 A. Yes. 4578


1 Q. Approximately how many do you think?


2 A. A few.


3 Q. Have you had any other meetings with any


4 other prosecutor on this case besides Prosecutor


5 Sneddon and Prosecutor Zonen?


6 A. Some prosecutor that — my records got


7 subpoenaed to the court, and somebody — some


8 prosecutor, said he was a prosecutor, called me


9 about it, whether I had filed the documents or


10 didn’t file the documents. I mean, I can remember


11 that kind of stuff.


12 Q. Have you had any meetings with


13 representatives of the sheriff’s department


14 involving this case?


15 A. I’ll answer that in a second. I just want


16 to go back to something that just —


17 Q. Sure.


18 A. There was a real issue in this case before


19 it ever got to trial. I didn’t want to do anything,


20 and there was an issue — so I do think I talked to


21 Mr. Zonen more about, “Why don’t you do the


22 objecting and leave me out of this. My law firm


23 doesn’t want to do this, I don’t want to do this,”


24 and he couldn’t represent the victims, so that’s how


25 I — so before I ever acted, I wanted the D.A. to do


26 all the legal work. Not me.


27 Q. I understand. And that saved you a lot of


28 money, correct? 4579


1 A. Pardon me?


2 Q. That could save you a lot of money in the


3 future?


4 A. It would save me lot of aggravation and


5 energy, I could tell you that. Not “in the future.”


6 Period. I didn’t want to do it. I’m not


7 representing these people, so — but, you know, so I


8 would talk to Mr. Zonen. I want to just amend that,


9 because I would talk to him, and he would say he


10 can’t do that, and I’d wind up either doing it or


11 not doing it. So there were those kind of


12 conversations.


13 Now, back to the sheriffs. Who did I talk


14 to? This lieutenant, I guess, called me. I talked


15 to him. When I went to the grand jury, there was


16 somebody who, you know, brought me up here on the


17 freeway and drove me up here to — or I followed


18 through some parking lot to get to where the secret


19 grand jury was, so somebody talked to me while I was


20 sitting around waiting, those kind of things.


21 But no sheriff has ever interviewed me. No


22 police officer, to my knowledge, has ever come down

23 and interviewed me or anything.


24 Q. How many meetings with any representative of


25 the sheriff’s department do you think you’ve had in


26 this case?


27 A. Meetings other than getting me here,


28 logistics kind of things? 4580


1 Q. Sure.


2 A. None, I don’t think.


3 Q. You’ve never been interviewed by any


4 sheriffs in this case?


5 A. If I was, I don’t remember it.


6 Q. How many phone conversations do you think


7 you’ve had with any sheriff in this case?


8 A. I mean, I don’t know who are the sheriffs


9 and who are the police.


10 Q. How about the name “Klapakis”?


11 A. Well, he — obviously you showed me


12 something that says he called me. But in deference


13 to the lieutenant, I wouldn’t have remembered that.


14 But you did show me that, so he obviously called me.


15 But that’s about it. I don’t —


16 They — the police cut me out of this case


17 the minute I gave it to them. They — in fact,


18 that’s why we severed our relationship. I severed


19 the relationship. I was out of this.

Here are more questions regarding Feldman’s representation of the Arvizos:

20 Q. Do you remember you were interviewed on


21 January 16th, 2004, on the NBC Today Show by Matt


22 Lauer?


23 A. I went on The Today Show and Matt Lauer


24 interviewed me.


25 Q. Do you remember that?


26 A. And if — that’s right before the gag order


27 was issued. I don’t remember the date that the gag


28 order was issued, but it was right about that time. 4581


1 Q. Remember you were asked by Mr. Lauer if you


2 were going to join Mr. Sneddon on the prosecution


3 team, and you said, “I have no comment”?


4 A. I did. I did.


5 Q. Other than your grand jury transcripts, have


6 you reviewed any other documents to prepare for your


7 testimony today?


8 A. No.


9 Q. Now, you have represented Gavin Arvizo in


10 other proceedings in Los Angeles other than what you


11 have identified, correct?


12 A. I have?


13 Q. Yes.


14 A. Gavin Arvizo?


15 Q. Yes.


16 A. What is that? No.


17 Q. Have you ever represented Gavin Arvizo in an


18 attempt to stop his juvenile records from being


19 produced?


20 A. No. I mean, I wrote a letter, I think. No,


21 not on Gavin. Not that I know of. I didn’t even


22 know he had a juvenile record.


23 Q. Well, my question is, have you or your firm


24 ever written to Judge Nash in Los Angeles?


25 A. Oh, that’s a different story. That’s not


26 his juvenile records.


27 Q. Why don’t you explain.


28 A. That’s his Department of Children’s Services 4582


1 records. Yes. I wrote to Judge Nash, who heads up


2 that department, and said that those records should


3 remain confidential, because they are confidential


4 under the law. And that children ought to be able


5 to go to the Department of Children’s Services and


6 tell whatever they want to tell and it ought not be


7 used in any public forum.


8 Q. When did you represent —


9 A. Whenever somebody was trying to get them.


10 Q. And over what period of time was this, do


11 you think?


12 A. How long you were trying to get them?


13 Q. I’m just asking — let me rephrase the


14 question. Over what period of time do you think you


15 represented any of the Arvizo children in that


16 particular area?


17 A. From the moment I found out the — Judge


18 Nash wrote to me and said they were trying to


19 get — I don’t want to get this confused, because


20 also my recollection is they were trying to get


21 Jordie’s records.


22 And I got a letter from Judge Nash. I


23 didn’t solicit it. He wrote to me and wanted to


24 know whether or not on behalf of these children, it


25 was either you — maybe it was the press. I don’t


26 remember who wanted to get these records. Somebody


27 wanted to get these confidential records.


28 And I wrote on behalf of Jordie and I wrote 4583


1 on behalf of Arvizos probably, that we did object.


2 We — that’s what we did. We didn’t have a hearing


3 or anything. But, I mean —


4 Q. You also wrote on behalf of Gavin, Star, and


5 Davellin to prevent release of juvenile court


6 records, true?


7 A. Do you mean criminal records, like juvenile


8 criminal?


9 Q. Juvenile court records. Yes or no, sir?


10 A. Well, I don’t know what you mean by it, so I


11 can’t answer it yes or no. I just told you what I


12 remember. It was the Department of Children’s


13 Services. I don’t even know that Gavin had — I


14 mean, I can’t help you, because —


15 MR. SNEDDON: Unless counsel is going to


16 produce something to show in good faith that he’s


17 asking that question, I object to the question and


18 ask that the question and the answer be stricken.


19 MR. MESEREAU: I have some correspondence


20 that I was going to try to refresh the recollection


21 of the witness, Your Honor.


22 But I can move on, if the Court wants me.


23 THE COURT: The question’s ambiguous, since


24 the juvenile court covers several jurisdictions.


25 MR. SNEDDON: Does that mean my motion is


26 granted, then, Your Honor, to strike?


27 THE COURT: Strike his answer?


28 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir. 4584




2 Go ahead. Next question.


3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, have you


4 represented Gavin, Star and Davellin Arvizo in


5 proceedings in the Juvenile Division of the Superior


6 Court of Los Angeles when representatives of the


7 media tried to obtain any juvenile court records


8 they might have?


9 A. Well, you keep saying — I don’t know that


10 they have any criminal juvenile court. That’s what


11 I think about the juvenile court, as a criminal


12 court for juveniles. I — to my knowledge, I never


13 heard of this, to this second, that there was — I


14 did represent them in the Department — in the


15 dependency court in the County of Los Angeles. And


16 in that, I objected to the media, to you, or anyone


17 else, ever seeing those records. Yes. They’re


18 supposed to be confidential. Now, I don’t know what


19 happened.

20 Q. Now, would it refresh your recollection on


21 this issue if I show you a letter to you from the


22 Superior Court, Juvenile Division, Los Angeles?


23 A. Yes. Judge Nash?


24 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?


25 THE COURT: Yes.


26 THE WITNESS: I don’t know if it will


27 refresh my recollection, but I’ll try.


28 Yeah, but it’s — no, let me see. Let me 4585


1 see.


2 Yeah, yeah. I’m right. It’s just what I


3 told you. Judge Nash is the supervising judge —


4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, let me


5 just — please.


6 A. Oh.


7 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that


8 letter?


9 A. I have. I have. And it’s exactly what I’ve


10 said.


11 Q. Is it a letter to you of February 5th,


12 2004 —


13 A. I didn’t look at the date.


14 Q. — Re In the Matter of Gavin, Star, and


15 Davellin Arvizo,” from Terry Tran, Research


16 Attorney, from the Office of the Presiding Judge —


17 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


18 object to counsel reading this. The question is


19 does it refresh his recollection.


20 THE COURT: Sustained.


21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to


22 review the letter?


23 A. I have.


24 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about


25 whether or not you represented the Arvizo children


26 on that issue?


27 MR. SNEDDON: Object as vague.


28 THE WITNESS: What’s – 4586


1 THE COURT: Sustained.


2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, does that


3 letter refresh your recollection about whether or


4 not you ever represented Gavin, Star or Davellin


5 Arvizo on the issue of whether or not any juvenile


6 records should be disclosed from the L.A. Superior


7 Court?


8 A. Sir, I am going to tell you that does


9 refresh my recollection, and it says exactly what I


10 just told you. The news media was trying to get


11 their records from dependency court. Judge Nash is


12 the head of the whole juvenile system for Los


13 Angeles at that time. He was the presiding judge.


14 He asked me if I objected, and I did object, and I


15 do object, and I will always object for these child


16 dependency records to ever leave that courthouse,


17 because children are supposed to be able to go there


18 and be protected, not have to worry about the media


19 or you, or anybody else attacking those children.


20 Q. You did represent them on that issue, true?


21 A. That’s true.


22 Q. Thank you.


23 Do you know how long you represented the


24 Arvizo children on that issue?


25 A. Oh, you know, I got a lot of letters on


26 that. It wasn’t just one. So you showed me one.


27 What was the date? You said February ‘05? But if


28 you asked me, I would have said I got one before 4587


1 that, frankly.


2 Q. February 5th, 2004.


3 A. Oh, ‘04. That would be more likely.


4 And over the period of time — I mean, I


5 know Judge Nash, and so over time I think they had


6 written me letters, like I said, on behalf of the


7 Arvizos and on behalf of the Chandlers asking for


8 whether we objected to him releasing it to the


9 media. I think there’s a procedure that they have


10 to do that. But I may be wrong on that. This is


11 not my field.

Here is Feldman’s description of his reporting of his suspicions to the DCFS in February 2003; he had a hard time remembering who he else he collaborated with before reporting his suspicions to the DCFS, and he also became visibly agitated at Mesereau’s request for him to explain to the jury what attorney/client privilege means:

12 Q. You told the jury that at some point you


13 personally contacted the Los Angeles Department of


14 Children & Family Services regarding this particular


15 matter, correct?


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. And you did that with Stanley Katz, correct?


18 A. Yes.


19 Q. To your knowledge, was Mr. Dickerman


20 involved in that approach?


21 A. Did Dickerman go with us, was that the —


22 I don’t know what you mean.


23 Q. We’ll start with that. Did Dickerman go


24 with you?


25 A. No, he did not.


26 Q. Did Dickerman discuss it with you?


27 A. I am sure that — I mean, I didn’t just do


28 this, because when you do this, there could be 4588


1 serious ramifications for the family.


2 Q. I’m just asking you, sir, to answer the


3 question.


4 A. Well, I’m trying to remember.


5 Q. Did Mr. Dickerman participate with you in


6 any event?


7 A. He didn’t go with me, I can tell you that.


8 Whether or not I ever discussed it with him, I


9 thought —


10 Q. Pardon me?


11 A. I mean, that’s hard to remember. I


12 certainly should have. I mean, in the normal


13 course, I should have told him that this was what I


14 was going to do, and this is what I thought might or


15 possibly could happen. I mean, because I had to


16 tell the parents what was happening, or the mother.


17 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the case Janet


18 filed against J.C. Penney?


19 A. Just what I read.


20 Q. Have you ever been in contact with any


21 lawyers for Janet Arvizo who represented her in the


22 J.C. Penney matter?


23 A. Well, when you say “contact,” yeah, I tried


24 to —


25 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me, I’m going to object


26 as immaterial.


27 THE COURT: Just a minute.


28 Sustained. 4589


1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember ever


2 meeting someone named Jamie Masada in your office?


3 A. I remember Mr. Masada coming to my office


4 for the first meeting and me not letting him in my


5 office. That’s —


6 Q. Did he remain in the lobby, to your


7 knowledge?


8 A. He did. I wouldn’t let him in.


9 Q. Was it your understanding that he had


10 transported the Arvizos to your office?


11 A. I don’t know how they got to my office, but


12 he was there with Mr. Dickerman, and I wasn’t


13 letting him in.


14 Q. You weren’t letting him in because it could


15 affect the attorney-client privilege, right?


16 A. That’s right.

17 Q. Explain that, if the members of the jury


18 don’t know, what you meant.


19 A. Sure.


20 Q. Why don’t you explain that.


21 A. Give me break, huh?


22 The privilege is sacrosanct. If you tell me


23 something as a lawyer, I can never tell anybody what


24 you’ve told me. If I have a third party in that


25 room with me, then that privilege, there is no


26 privilege. It no longer remains confidential. So


27 good lawyers will never let somebody other than the


28 client in their office to talk to them because you 4590


1 lose the privilege if they want to tell you


2 something.


3 The exception to that, sort of, is with


4 children, because children have to act through a


5 guardian, so you’d have their parents in with you.


6 But generally that’s what it is.


7 Mr. Masada wanted to, because I think he was


8 a friend of theirs is what I gathered at the time,


9 wanted to be there to give them moral support or


10 whatever, and it wasn’t going to happen on my watch.


11 And I said that he could not come in, and he


12 accepted that, and I guess he sat out there. I


13 can’t frankly — I don’t remember Mr. Masada, other


14 than that.


15 Q. All right. Have you talked to him on the


16 phone at any time?


17 A. Masada?


18 Q. Yes.


19 A. Not that I know of. I don’t think I did.


20 Q. Okay. Was it your understanding he was a


21 friend of the Arvizos when you met him?


22 A. You know, I didn’t know if he was a friend


23 of theirs, or a friend of Dickerman’s, or a friend


24 of both. I frankly didn’t quite get where he fit in


25 all this at that point. I knew he was a friend of


26 Dickerman’s, and I just couldn’t — I didn’t know


27 really.

Here is Feldman’s recollection of his grand jury testimony from March 29th, 2004:

28 Q. Okay. Who contacted you about testifying 4591


1 before the grand jury?


2 A. I guess Mr. Sneddon. Either Mr. Sneddon or


3 Mr. Zonen. One of them.


4 Q. Before you testified to the grand jury, did


5 you discuss your testimony with Prosecutor Sneddon?


6 A. Let’s see. That’s a good question. I mean,


7 I can tell you nobody — I just — not that day,


8 that’s for sure. I mean, I don’t — I don’t really


9 remember that, frankly. I know I didn’t that day.


10 I just sat down in some room, and they called me in


11 and they asked me questions.


12 Q. Did you discuss your testimony that you gave


13 before the grand jury with anyone associated with


14 the prosecution before you gave it?


15 A. I should know that. I don’t remember that.


16 I mean, I don’t remember it, frankly. They may have


17 called me at some time on the phone, but there


18 wasn’t any in-depth conversation about this, that I


19 can remember, in anticipation of my testimony.


20 Q. Did anyone ever tell you what questions they


21 were going to ask you in the grand jury room?


22 A. No.


23 Q. No one ever even came close to the subject?


24 A. The subject came up about the privilege, and


25 I was very concerned about the privilege, and that I


26 remember talking to somebody about.


27 Q. Well, you took the position it was waived in


28 that proceeding, didn’t you? 4592


1 A. I didn’t take the position. The prosecution


2 took the position it was waived. And it was. But I


3 was concerned long before it got waived when I was


4 told that I might go — that they wanted me.


5 I like being a lawyer, Mr. Mesereau. I


6 don’t like being a witness. You might understand


7 that. And I’m much more comfortable where you are


8 than where I am right now.


9 And so when — when it was approached that I


10 was going to become a witness and testify, I was


11 concerned about the privilege, and I wasn’t about to


12 testify unless there was a written waiver by the


13 children and the Arvizo — Miss Arvizo, if they were


14 planning on asking me what she said to me, and where


15 we are, and what I did, and why I did it. And they


16 obtained a written waiver.


17 Q. We can move on from that subject.


18 A. Okay.

Mesereau moved away from the topic of Feldman’s grand jury testimony, and on to the subject of Feldman’s representation of Janet Arvizo against NBC’s attempts to obtain access to her police records, and the JC Penney records:

19 Q. In May of 2004, you represented Janet Arvizo


20 in an attempt to stop NBC from obtaining West Covina


21 Police Department records, correct, of Janet?


22 A. Yes. I sent them a letter, I mean, saying


23 she objected to it.


24 Q. Did you do anything besides send a letter?


25 A. We certainly — to my recollection, we


26 didn’t file anything. I think we sent a letter.


27 They said, “If you object” — they sent a letter. I


28 think the police sent a letter or something, said 4593


1 they were going to release it, if you object or


2 don’t object. So we objected, because she didn’t


3 want her picture — it was about her picture, the


4 mug shot of her picture going on television. She


5 was worried about.


6 And we got assurance that nobody was going


7 to do that, put her picture on television, since


8 she — her privacy was being invaded already. And


9 so we — once we got assurance that wasn’t going to


10 happen, I think that’s what we did. So we objected,


11 and I think the lawyers for the media gave us that


12 assurance that nobody would do that, or something.


13 That’s what the concern was.


14 Q. When you filed your claim against Los


15 Angeles County —


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. — on behalf of Janet Arvizo, Star Arvizo,


18 Gavin Arvizo, and Davellin Arvizo, where did you


19 file it?


20 A. The County of Los Angeles.


21 Q. Did you have any further correspondence with


22 them after you filed it?


23 A. With the county?


24 Q. Yes.


25 A. Yeah. I think so. We wanted them to


26 investigate and they weren’t investigating how this


27 thing got leaked, and — so I had several letters


28 back and forth with Mr. Saunders, and then when we 4594


1 filed the claim, some claims adjuster for the county


2 I think sent a letter.


3 Q. Now, Mr. Feldman, you previously told the


4 jury that you don’t have knowledge of the J.C.


5 Penney case, correct?


6 A. No, I didn’t say that. How could I not? It


7 was all over the news. I mean, I hear it every day.


8 I mean, I don’t have any — I mean, I didn’t say


9 that.


10 Q. Well, Mr. Feldman, in June of 2004, you


11 tried to stop the release of records involving the


12 J.C. Penney case on behalf of the Arvizos, correct?

13 A. We wanted the records for Janet. Mr. — the


14 lawyer that represented him — them took the


15 position we couldn’t have them unless we gave them


16 to Janet’s husband. And since Janet’s husband was


17 having a love affair with the media at that time,


18 and he was on television every day, we weren’t going


19 to let those records go out to him because we


20 thought he would use them against her. And so we


21 were trying to get the records, and we never got


22 them.


23 Q. But you tried to stop the City of West


24 Covina from releasing arrest records of Janet in


25 that case?


26 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as asked


27 and answered.


28 THE WITNESS: It was the picture. It was 4595


1 the picture.


2 THE COURT: Objection sustained.


3 MR. MESEREAU: Let me just take a second,


4 Your Honor, just to look at my notes.



Finally, Feldman was questioned about negative statements that Larry King stated that he made about Janet Arvizo. Feldman testified that he never met them! However, it will be proven later on in this trial that Feldman did indeed make those negative comments about the Arvizos to Larry King. Mesereau’s cross-examination ended after this excerpt:

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, do you


7 remember telling two individuals, Michael Viner and


8 Larry King, that Janet is making up these


9 allegations?


10 A. Absolutely not. Are you kidding?


11 Q. Do you remember meeting with those two


12 individuals at The Grill in Beverly Hills?


13 A. No. Never met with them.


14 Q. Do you know who Michael Viner is?


15 A. I couldn’t pick him out. I know who he is.


16 I think the answer is I wouldn’t know him if he was


17 sitting in the jury box. But I know who he is by


18 name. He’s — he’s a publisher or something, or a


19 writer, or — I don’t know. Viner Books, right?


20 Something like that.


21 I certainly know who Larry King is.


22 Q. You did have a meeting with him and Larry


23 King, right?


24 A. I have never had a meeting with Michael


25 Viner in my life.


26 Q. So approximately nine months ago, you didn’t


27 meet with Mr. King and Mr. Viner, correct?


28 A. I absolutely have never had a meeting with 4596


1 Michael Viner in my life.


2 Q. Okay. And did you ever tell Larry King that


3 these allegations against Mr. Jackson are false?


4 A. Absolutely not.


5 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions.


6 THE WITNESS: I don’t even know.




8 THE WITNESS: The proverbial answer.

Here is a video of Larry King on his show speaking about what he was told by Larry Feldman, beginning at the 30 second mark:

Sneddon’s redirect examination focused on getting Feldman to clarify why he chose to oppose a subpoena of the grandparents of the Arvizos. He stated that it was because he thought that it was unfair that they were being dragged into this mess:

7 Q. You indicated to the Court and to the ladies


8 and gentlemen of the jury that at some point you did


9 represent, to oppose a subpoena duces tecum the


10 parents of the Arvizos, correct?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. And what exactly was the objection that you


13 had to that?


14 A. It was invading their privacy, two


15 grandparents of this little boy, who all of a sudden


16 the defense wants to get all of their financial


17 records, every check they’ve ever written, every


18 bank account they’ve ever done business in.


19 Q. Was there —


20 A. I thought it was overly broad and unfair to


21 these grandparents, since I’m one myself, to get


22 dragged into this thing.


23 Q. Did the scope of the records that were


24 requested go far beyond the time frame of the events


25 involved in this case?


26 A. I thought it was the most overbroad,


27 overreaching thing, and we objected and brought it


28 to the Court, to Judge Melville’s attention. And 4598


1 frankly, I don’t recall what the Judge ruled, but


2 that’s what we did.

Next, Sneddon questioned Feldman about his meetings with prosecutors after the settlement with the Chandlers in 1994. Judge Melville tried to add some levity to the courtroom with his witty humor:

3 Q. Okay. I want to go back to the Jordan


4 Chandler versus Michael Jackson lawsuit, if we can


5 for a moment.


6 A. Sure.


7 Q. I want to go to that point in time where the


8 case has been settled, it’s been resolved, okay?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. Do you recall having a meeting after the


11 case had been resolved and settled in favor of your


12 client, with members or representatives of the Los


13 Angeles District Attorney’s Office and the Santa


14 Barbara District Attorney’s Office in your office?


15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; beyond


16 the scope.


17 THE COURT: Well, it’s leading. I’ll sustain


18 the objection.


19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Do you recall whether or


20 not you ever had a meeting with representatives of


21 the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and the


22 Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office in your


23 office after the case had been resolved in favor of


24 your client?


25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and


26 beyond the scope; no foundation.


27 THE COURT: It’s the same question. Maybe we


28 just ought to call it refreshing his memory. 4599


1 MR. SNEDDON: I said “whether or not,” Your


2 Honor. That doesn’t make it leading.


3 THE COURT: All right. I was trying to be


4 humorous.


5 MR. SNEDDON: Oh, I guess I lost my humor


6 this morning. You were trying to read my mind once


7 before.


8 THE COURT: Let’s take a break.


9 (Recess taken.)


10 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I think I can rephrase


11 the question so we can move on. If that’s okay with


12 the Court.


13 THE COURT: Yes.


14 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Feldman, I’d like to


15 direct your attention to that point in time after


16 you had resolved the case of Chandler versus


17 Jackson, okay?


18 A. Yes.


19 Q. Do you recall at any point having a


20 discussion with representatives of any District


21 Attorney’s Office with regard to your client, Jordan


22 Chandler, appearing before a grand jury?


23 A. Vaguely, yes. Vaguely, yes.


24 Q. Do you recall — do you recall the substance


25 of that conversation?


26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;


27 foundation; relevance; and beyond the scope.


28 THE WITNESS: This is – 4600


1 THE COURT: You may answer “yes” or “no.”


2 THE WITNESS: I mean, I can’t —

3 THE COURT: “Yes” or “no.”


4 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: You have to lean into the


5 microphone.


6 A. Oh.


7 THE COURT: Do you want the question?


8 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, and no, Your Honor.


9 I mean, I remember the substance.


10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. To your knowledge,


11 after the case of Chandler versus Jackson was


12 resolved, did your client, Jordan Chandler, ever


13 appear before a grand jury?


14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; beyond


15 the scope.


16 THE COURT: Overruled.


17 You may answer.


18 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, he never


19 appeared before a grand jury.

Feldman was next asked by Sneddon to elaborate about his meeting with Larry King and Mr. Viner (King’s producer), which Feldman denied ever having (although he did suddenly remember meeting with King):

20 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, you were asked by —


21 just before Mr. Mesereau finished his examination,


22 about a purported conversation between you and Mr.


23 King and Mr. Viner, or Veener?


24 A. Viner.


25 Q. Viner?


26 A. Viner is what he said.


27 Q. Yes. And do you recall any such meeting?


28 A. I never met with Mr. Viner. I did once meet 4601


1 with Mr. King. I do remember meeting with Mr. King,


2 but I can tell you there wasn’t a meeting with


3 Viner.


4 Q. Were there other people present?


5 A. Well, we were in the delicatessen in Beverly


6 Hills, so there were a lot of other people around.


7 Q. Where — were you having breakfast, lunch,


8 dinner? You were in a deli, I assume you were


9 eating.


10 A. I was having breakfast with his — with a


11 producer from their show, who —


12 Q. Whose show?


13 A. Larry King’s show, and he was sitting at a


14 table, like over here, with —


15 Q. Indicating to your right?


16 A. Right. With six of his pals that he had


17 breakfast with.


18 Q. And were you with somebody else?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. Who were you with?


21 A. I was with his producer.


22 Q. Who is?


23 A. Whose name was, or is, Nancy Baker, I think


24 her name was.


25 Q. Is that the only time you ever recall being


26 in any kind of close proximity with Mr. Viner?


27 A. Well, I’m not even sure he was one of these


28 guys. I didn’t have any discussion with any of 4602


1 those guys about anything, I can tell you. They


2 were trying to get me to come on their show. That’s


3 all we ever possibly talked about, is — I knew Mr.


4 King. I’ve run into him since this, I mean, at


5 different events.


6 Q. By “Mr. King,” you’re talking about Larry


7 King?


8 A. Right.


9 Q. The guy’s on —


10 A. We say hello to each other. We see each


11 other. Talk to each other. Never having talked


12 about this case, and they did want me to come on


13 their program. I mean, I do remember them talking


14 to me about that.


15 But I can tell you that I didn’t tell them,


16 and I didn’t tell anybody else, anything about what


17 anybody tells me, because it is absolutely


18 privileged, and it would be absolutely improper.


19 And if anybody says that, that person is lying.


20 Can’t make it clearer than that.

Sneddon then pivoted back to the subject of the 1993 lawsuit; notice how Feldman emphasizes the fact that the Chandler’s were not precluded from speaking with the police after the settlement, and that is clearly obvious from both June Chandler and Blanca Francia’s testimonies later on in this trial:

21 Q. Let me just ask you a couple other


22 questions, or at least one other question about the


23 Chandler versus Jackson lawsuit.


24 You indicated in response to one of Mr.


25 Mesereau’s questions that the defendant in that


26 case, which would have been Mr. Jackson, were the


27 ones who wanted the parents to share in the


28 financial or monetary settlement of the case? 4603


1 A. That’s right.


2 Q. Now, that seems counterintuitive. Can you


3 explain to us why that happened?


4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;


5 foundation; move to strike.


6 THE COURT: Overruled.


7 THE WITNESS: The reason it happened was


8 because Mr. Jackson’s legal team wanted


9 confidentiality. They didn’t want anybody ever


10 talking about this. And they were concerned if, in


11 fact, the parents weren’t getting money —


12 MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object, this is


13 nonresponsive. And move to strike.


14 THE WITNESS: They said this, Your Honor.


15 MR. MESEREAU: And calls for speculation and


16 it’s hearsay.


17 THE COURT: No, the question was, “Can you


18 explain why that happened,” and that’s what he’s


19 explaining. So —


20 THE WITNESS: They told us that they wanted


21 the parents to get the money so that the parents


22 would be bound by the settlement agreement, so that


23 the parents couldn’t talk, that the parents couldn’t


24 write a book, the parents couldn’t go — I mean, we


25 weren’t precluded from talking to the police. We


26 were just — they weren’t able to write a book.


27 They weren’t able to go on television. They weren’t


28 able to do anything. And they wanted the parents 4604


1 bound.


2 And it’s because of that that I brought in a


3 retired Court of Appeal Judge to become the new


4 guardian ad litems, because I didn’t want the


5 parents taking anything away from the child.

Feldman was next questioned about his opinion, based on his conversations with Gavin, if he felt that Gavin had any intentions of filing a sexual abuse lawsuit against Jackson, but Mesereau’s objection was sustained by Judge Melville, so Sneddon had to move on:

6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Now, at the


7 time that you were introduced to the Arvizo family,


8 did you or were you aware of the fact that Gavin


9 Arvizo had had cancer?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. And were you given information about the


12 severity of the cancer that he had?


13 A. Yes. Very severe. Life-threatening.


14 Q. And did the advice that you gave to the


15 Arvizo family during the time that you did represent


16 them involve considerations about Gavin’s health?


17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and


18 beyond the scope; and foundation.


19 THE COURT: Sustained.


20 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, could I —


21 THE COURT: It’s beyond the scope.


22 MR. SNEDDON: Beyond the scope?


23 Q. Mr. Feldman, based upon — well, let me go


24 back and lay one foundational thing. Did you,


25 during the course — and I don’t obviously want you

26 to disclose anything that was said, but as a


27 foundational matter, during the course of the time


28 that you did represent the Arvizo family, and Gavin 4605


1 Arvizo in particular, did you have discussions with


2 Gavin?


3 A. Yes.


4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection as beyond the


5 scope.


6 MR. SNEDDON: Well, I —


7 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is, “Yes.”


8 Next question.


9 MR. SNEDDON: All right.


10 Q. Based upon your conversations with Gavin and


11 those of the family, and your experience in civil


12 suits as a trial lawyer, as an experienced


13 litigator, are you able to tell the ladies and


14 gentlemen of the jury whether, in your opinion,


15 Gavin Arvizo has any interest in pursuing a suit


16 against Michael Jackson over these molestation


17 charges?


18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for


19 speculation; beyond the scope; foundation.


20 THE COURT: Sustained.


21 MR. SNEDDON: Is that a foundational thing,


22 Your Honor, or just in total?


23 THE COURT: All of them. No, that’s not a


24 proper question.


25 MR. SNEDDON: All right.

As further proof that Feldman is just another sleazy civil lawyer, and that his motives are purely financial even when representing an alleged victim of child abuse, Feldman states in this excerpt that he thinks it’s foolish to try to obtain a criminal prosecution before suing in civil court because he “wants to be in control of what happens”, and then he gave the excuse that he wouldn’t want to put a cancer victim through the stress of going through a criminal trial, only to have to go through a civil trial again, but then he stated that he felt the same way about Jordan Chandler in 1993 (who did NOT have cancer)

To top it all off, he ended his testimony by stating that he wouldn’t ever purse a criminal prosecution ahead of a sexual abuse lawsuit!

26 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you a question as to —


27 when he was asking you about criminal cases versus


28 civil cases, and why in your opinion it would be 4606


1 foolish to go criminal first before you would go


2 civil. Do you recall that?


3 A. He was saying it’s easier to go criminal


4 than go civil. That’s what he was —


5 Q. And you said it was foolish?


6 A. Oh, I said it’s foolish?


7 Q. Yeah, not him.


8 A. Oh, I said it’s foolish. Yeah, well, if I


9 said it or not, I think it is foolish.


10 Q. All right. Explain why.


11 A. Well, part of it is what he just said. As a


12 lawyer, I want to control what happens. I want to


13 protect this child. The only person that was ever


14 going to be my client, even though they all signed a


15 retainer, was this child, and — Gavin, and I wanted


16 to do what’s best for Gavin.


17 The District Attorney represents the People.


18 They have to prove it by beyond a reasonable doubt.


19 As Mr. Mesereau says, in a civil case, you only have


20 to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, more


21 likely than not.


22 And so I would never, if it was — if I was


23 going to do a civil case, ever want the District


24 Attorney, the police, any criminal case, involved


25 with a civil case.


26 In a civil case — in a criminal case


27 defendants have Fifth Amendment rights, and they


28 don’t have to testify. In a civil case, things are 4607

1 different, and I would never want to do what Mr.


2 Mesereau said. It is almost inhumane, when you have


3 a cancer victim, to have him go through a criminal


4 trial, and then maybe he gets convicted, and then


5 all of a sudden, now he’s going to do it again and


6 spend these — these years of his life. I wouldn’t


7 do it. I wouldn’t be a part of doing it. And I


8 don’t know many lawyers in this — who practice good


9 law would ever suggest that the District Attorney


10 start and handle the case.


11 I didn’t do it in ‘93. I wouldn’t have done


12 it in 2003. And I won’t ever do it.


13 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. No further


14 questions.

Mesereau’s short and brief recross-examination began with questions about the full extent of Gavin’s recovery from cancer. Not only was Gavin in remission, but he was playing football!





18 Q. Mr. Feldman, do you know that Gavin is not


19 only in remission, he’s playing football?


20 A. I know he’s in remission. But I know that


21 stress can impact cancer. And —


22 Q. But you knew he was in remission a long time


23 ago?


24 A. I know — I didn’t know where he was. He’s


25 better today than he was when I first met Gavin.


26 Gavin’s done wonderful physically over the last —


27 how long has this been? Almost two years now. He’s


28 doing much better. If you saw him then compared to 4608


1 seeing him now.

Mesereau’s recross-examination ended after he got Feldman to reiterate the fact that a civil lawyer can almost automatically when a civil lawsuit that is filed parallel to a criminal case in which there is a criminal conviction, and this was to impress upon the jury the fact that the Feldman was using Sneddon’s criminal case to try to save him money in legal costs by having the taxpayers pay for a criminal investigation, hoping to get a conviction so he could get a multi-million dollar settlement:

2 Q. Have you ever been a criminal prosecutor


3 yourself?


4 A. A criminal prosecutor?


5 Q. Yes.


6 A. No.


7 Q. Are you aware that criminal prosecutors


8 often look to see if civil lawyers are trying to use


9 the criminal process to win their cases for them?


10 A. Say that one more time.


11 Q. Are you aware that prosecutors often, when


12 approached by civil lawyers, are wary to see if


13 civil lawyers are trying to use them to win their


14 cases for them in the criminal courts?


15 A. I wouldn’t have any idea what they do.


16 Q. You’re not changing what you told the jury


17 earlier, that if you have a judgment of a criminal


18 conviction, you can go into civil court and use it


19 to establish liability just with the document?


20 A. I’m not changing what I said. If you had a


21 criminal — we’re talking about — no, I wouldn’t


22 change that.


23 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

Sneddon had “one last question” for Feldman; he asked Feldman to explain to the jury the difference between compensatory and punitive damages:





27 Q. The deadly “one more question.”


28 A. Yeah, I’ve heard it. 4609


1 Q. You know, it’s an occupational hazard.


2 A. Yes, I know.


3 Q. Let’s just get back to this thing that Mr.


4 Mesereau was just talking about, the impact of a


5 criminal conviction.


6 For you, as a trial lawyer, could you


7 explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what


8 the difference is between compensatory damages and


9 punitive damages?


10 A. Yeah. In compensatory, you’re trying to


11 make a person whole. The jury assesses what is the


12 losses. In the grownup, you know, it would be loss


13 of income, medical bills, home care, things of that


14 nature. And pain and suffering or emotional


15 distress. That’s what we call compensatory, and


16 what the law says about that is the purpose is to


17 make somebody whole.


18 Punitive damages are something that is on

19 top of that. It is to punish someone who needs to


20 be punished for bad behavior. In certain places in


21 the law — not in all cases. Most cases you can’t


22 get them, but in certain places under the law,


23 sexual molestation would be one. Assault and


24 battery would be another. Fraud, where somebody is


25 guilty of what we call malice, or fraud, or


26 oppression, is another. And in those, the law says


27 you got a higher standard of care, still not as high


28 as a criminal case, but you have to prove malice. 4610


1 And in order to prove malice, you have to prove


2 fault. And it’s a different fault than the fault


3 that’s in a criminal — because I don’t know what


4 exactly you have to prove in a criminal case, so I


5 don’t want to get too far ahead of myself here.


6 But it doesn’t just follow that you wouldn’t


7 have to go back to starting to prove things all over


8 again if you were to be in a civil case. And you


9 can’t tell. You know, a lot of criminal cases wind


10 up hung juries. I mean, it’s just not the way most


11 civil lawyers do things, and —


12 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you. No further


13 questions.


14 THE WITNESS: (To Mr. Mesereau) Well, there


15 goes that last question, huh? If you’d raise your


16 hand, I’d stop.

Mesereau also had “one last question”:





20 Q. Mr. Feldman, if you’re going in front of a


21 civil jury, and you’re trying to prove that the


22 civil defendant acted with malice —


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. — don’t you think it might affect that jury


25 if the civil defendant is a convicted felon?


26 A. I think it helps. Yeah. Sure.


27 Q. Of course it helps, doesn’t it?


28 A. Of course it helps. But that’s — you know, 4611


1 you got to balance this about a kid who’s got cancer


2 and who’s sick and —


3 Q. That’s not what we’re talking about, Mr.


4 Feldman. I asked you, if you go into civil court


5 and are trying to prove malice to get punitive


6 damages, and the defendant is a convicted felon, you


7 have a much easier road, don’t you?


8 A. I — yes.


9 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.


10 MR. SNEDDON: I keep my word.


11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may


12 step down.


13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.


14 THE COURT: Call your next witness.


15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: People call Jesus Salas.

Summary of Larry Feldman’s Testimony

1. Feldman represented the Chandler family in 1993, and successfully settled a child molestation lawsuit against Jackson in January 1994. He also briefly represented the Arvizos during the summer of 2003, and it was his idea to refer them to Dr. Stan Katz, who Gavin and Star gave their first disclosure of alleged sexual abuse by Jackson to.

2. Feldman had a professional and personal relationship with attorney William Dickerman, the attorney who referred the Arvizos to him after representing them in their attempts to regain possession of their furniture, which had been put in storage after they moved out of their apartment. In fact, Feldmand and Dickerman had a referral agreement that guaranteed Dickerman a percentage of any settlement that Feldman received on behalf of the Arvizos.

3. Feldman testified that Jackson’s 1994 settlement with the Chandlers contained a “confession of judgment”, which is tantamount to a guilty (AKA liable) verdict in a civil trial (thus insinuating that Jackson would have been found liable for Jordan Chandler’s claims had the case gone to trial). However, under cross examination, Mesereau was able to get Feldman to clarify that the confession of judgment had nothing to do with Jackson’s guilt or innocence, but rather it was included in order to allow the Chandlers to obtain possession of Jackson’s personal assets if he failed to make the annual payments of the $15.3 million dollar settlement.

4. After a few visits with the Arvizos, Feldman decided to refer them to Dr. Katz in May 2003. He testified that he would “take action” and do this because of what he had been told by the Arvizos (unfortunately, he wasn’t allowed to disclose what he had been told due to Mesereau’s objection). After the Arvizos met with Dr. Katz, Feldman and Dr. Katz reported their suspicions to the DCFS.

5. Feldman stated that he told Sneddon that he would not file a civil lawsuit on behalf of the Arvizos, but would instead allow the police to conduct and complete a criminal investigation first. However, Dr. Stan Katz testified earlier in this trial that he believed that Feldman would file a lawsuit.

6. Feldman threatened legal action against the DCFS in early 2004 because they allowed a summary of their interview with the Arvizos to leak shortly after Jackson’s arrest in November 2003. He took a cheap shot at Jackson by stating that he “had to” take action so that the DCFS wouldn’t repeat their actions with “the next kid” (which implies that Jackson was a serial pedophile). He also and fought to prevent the defense from obtaining the bank records of Janet’s parents, and fought to prevent NBC from obtaining access to Janet’s police records.

7. Under cross examination, Mesereau questioned Feldman about admissions he made to the grand jury in 2004 about having to pay a substaintal amount of expenses in the 1993 civil case; this subject was broached in order to show that Feldman had a financial incentive to have the DA prosecute Jackson first and gain an conviction, which would make it exponentially easier to subsequently obtain a civil judgment. Feldman made a statement to the media and said he hoped the Arvizos didn’t sue until after the criminal case was done.

8. Feldman was also forced to admit that the confession of judgment included in the Chandler settlement was only included to ensure that the Chandlers were paid without the need to file a second breach of contract lawsuit in the event that Jackson failed to make payments, and it had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.

9. When asked about the referral agreement between himself and William Dickerman, Feldman TWICE stated that he was “sure” that Dickerman wanted money!

10. Mesereau questioned Feldman about his involvement in the 1993 case. When Feldman mentioned how Jackson’s defense team wanted Jordan Chandler’s parents to get a portion of the settlement, it’s because they wanted to be sure that they wouldn’t be tempted to write a book or sell interviews to the tabloids, so by making them bound by the confidentiality agreement, they were also barred from speaking to the media (but not law enforcement!)

11. Feldman spoke with both William Dickerman and Dr. Katz before they testified. It was a violation of Judge Melville’s gag order for Feldman to speak with them before he testified, and the defense would use this as an example of why a mistrial should be declared (they filed this motion later on in the trial).

12. Feldman denied that he was seeking a lawsuit on behalf of the Arvizos against Jackson, in spite of what Dr. Katz’s earlier testimony.

13. Feldman denied making derogatory remarks about Janet Arvizo to Larry king, but King was unable to tell his version of events because Judge Melville considered his testimony as hearsay.

14. Feldman stated that he thought it was foolish to try to obtain a criminal prosecution before suing in civil court because he “wants to be in control of what happens”, and then he gave the excuse that he wouldn’t want to put a cancer victim through the stress of going through a criminal trial, only to have to go through a civil trial again, but then he stated that he felt the same way about Jordan Chandler in 1993 (who did NOT have cancer)! To top it all off, he ended his testimony by stating that he wouldn’t ever purse a criminal prosecution ahead of a sexual abuse lawsuit!

15. Overall, I believe that there shouldn’t be any doubts about what Feldman’s true intentions and motivations were when he decided to represent the Arvizos and refer them to Dr. Katz!

To be continued:


4 Comments leave one →
  1. Jan permalink
    July 14, 2013 5:13 am

    charles thomson on king jordon show:

  2. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 8, 2012 2:24 am

    Feldman should be disbarred.

  3. Mado permalink
    November 6, 2012 2:26 pm

    I appreciate very much everything you post. Love lives forever.

  4. Mado permalink
    November 6, 2012 2:25 pm

    Thank you 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: