Skip to content

April 29th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Rosibel Ferrufino Smith, Craig Bonner, Harry Koons, and Ian Drew, Part 3 of 3

June 15, 2014

Under cross examination, Mesereau questioned Drew about an interview he gave to Lt. Klapakis on August 4th, 2004 outside of his office. Sager attempted to object to her client being asked about what exactly he disclosed to police during this interview under the Journalist Shield Law, but Mesereau objected because Drew knew that whatever he told police would be disseminated through the media, and thus not protected from the Journalist Shield Law. This led to a contentious debate between the two attorneys, and the central issue at hand was Mesereau’s assertion that Sager was trying to preclude any type of cross-examination of Drew’s relationships with Schaffel, Konitzer, and Weisner, which he freely articulated to police during his interview. Drew had a falling out with Schaffel after he was unable to secure a piece of the multi-million dollar contract that Schaffel had entered into with Fox for the rights to air the Take Two documentary:




27 Q. Good morning, Mr. Drew.

28 A. Good morning. How are you? 8262

1 Q. Fine, thank you.

2 You gave an interview to Lieutenant Klapakis

3 and another Santa Barbara sheriff named Robel on

4 August 4th, 2004, correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you know how long that interview was?

7 A. No. I didn’t think it was that long, but it

8 was probably a lot longer than it was.

9 Q. You waived privileges when you gave that

10 interview, correct?

11 MS. SAGER: This is a question that’s a

12 legal question, not a question for this witness as

13 to whether he waived privileges. He did not have

14 counsel. He had not been advised of rights.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You gave that interview

17 freely and voluntarily, correct?

18 MS. SAGER: Same objections, Your Honor. He

19 was being served with a subpoena, had no counsel.

20 THE COURT: Just a moment here.

21 All right. As to the objection that he had

22 no counsel present, that’s overruled.

23 The question pending, which you may answer,

24 is, did you give that interview freely and

25 voluntarily?

26 THE WITNESS: I guess. I didn’t know it was

27 an interview, and I didn’t know that it was being

28 documented in any way. 8263

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were not served with a

2 subpoena for purposes of that interview, were you?

3 A. I don’t know why I was served with a

4 subpoena. I just got it in the mail.

5 Q. You did not attend that interview because

6 you were subpoenaed to do so, right?

7 MR. ZONEN: Objection.

8 THE COURT: Maybe he doesn’t know which

9 interview you’re talking about.

10 THE WITNESS: I didn’t think I was attending

11 any interview.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you interview on

13 August 4th, 2004, with Lieutenant Klapakis and

14 Sergeant Robel of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s

15 Department?

16 A. I had a conversation with them.

17 Q. Where did the conversation take place?

18 A. Outside of my office.

19 Q. And did those two officers meet you outside

20 of your office?

21 A. They did.

22 Q. Did you speak to them?

23 A. I did.

24 Q. You were not subpoenaed to speak to them,

25 were you?

26 A. No.

27 Q. You spoke to them about facts concerning

28 this investigation, true? 8264

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You told them you were a freelance

3 journalist who was currently working for US Weekly

4 Magazine, right?

5 A. That’s not true. I’ve only worked as a

6 staffer at US Weekly.

7 Q. Did you tell them you were a journalist in

8 that interview?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you tell them you were doing some work

11 for US Weekly Magazine?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. After you told them you were a journalist,

14 you continued to interview with them, right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You gave them statements about Marc

17 Schaffel, true?

18 MS. SAGER: Your Honor, to the extent that

19 this is unpublished information that Mr. Drew has

20 gathered in the course of his job as a journalist,

21 I would still assert the shield law, which applies

22 unless he has published information. And the

23 statute and the Constitution specifically say,

24 “disseminated information to the public.” And I’m

25 quoting.

26 So any discussion he may have had with law

27 enforcement officials would not fall within the

28 scope of published information as it’s defined in 8265

1 Article I, Section 2(b).

2 MR. MESEREAU: If I may respond, Your Honor.


4 MR. MESEREAU: He gave a free, voluntary

5 interview with two sheriffs. He knew they were

6 taking notes. He knew they were going to make a

7 report. He knew it was part of this investigation.

8 He knew that the reports were likely to be

9 circulated.

10 They have been circulated. They are not

11 under any particular special form of privilege.

12 They have been produced to the defense. They are

13 available to use at trial. He knew the information

14 he gave could be used in the investigation.

15 THE WITNESS: That’s not true. I didn’t

16 know any of that. I knew some of that.

17 MS. SAGER: Ian.

18 Actually, I was going to object, Your Honor,

19 but I was going to let Mr. Mesereau finish first.


21 MR. MESEREAU: He gave extensive information

22 about Schaffel, Konitzer, his discussions with them,

23 his perceptions of them. And it’s very clear from

24 the interview he knew exactly what he was doing.

25 MS. SAGER: And, Your Honor, I would point

26 out two things. One is Mr. Mesereau, with due

27 respect, has not established any of the things that

28 he just said as to what Mr. Drew knew or didn’t 8266

1 know. He’s merely asserted them.

2 Second, we’re talking about a waiver of a

3 constitutional right, First Amendment right and

4 state constitutional right. And I don’t think Mr.

5 Mesereau has established either that Mr. Drew

6 understood or had any reason to know when he was in

7 that conversation that there was later going to be a

8 position taken that, by talking to the police

9 officers at all, that he was waiving his

10 constitutional rights.

11 THE COURT: Are there any cases on this

12 scenario where a person talks freely to the law

13 enforcement and then claims the shield law in court?

14 MS. SAGER: I don’t know of a case in

15 California, Your Honor, that deals with this

16 particular issue.

17 The Playboy case, which we cited in our

18 papers, does deal with the difference between

19 revealing information publicly and any other

20 information that may be related that’s not revealed

21 publicly, and they draw a very strict line. The

22 language of Article I, 2(b), talks about information

23 that is disseminated to the public. Everything else

24 is defined as unpublished information.

25 THE COURT: What about — I didn’t read the

26 Playboy case. What was the disclosure in the

27 Playboy case?

28 MS. SAGER: In the Playboy case, there was 8267

1 an interview published with Cheech and Chong that

2 had some information that they had given during the

3 course of an interview with a Playboy —

4 THE COURT: But nobody understood what they

5 said.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MS. SAGER: Everybody bought it for the

8 article, too.

9 (Laughter.)

10 MS. SAGER: The argument was made, in

11 subpoenaing all of the information from Playboy,

12 that they had already revealed, in fact, what was

13 said in the interview because they wrote an article

14 about it.

15 And the Court of Appeal in the Second

16 Appellate District said only what is actually

17 revealed in the article disseminated to the public

18 has been revealed, even though there were

19 discussions with Mr. Cheech and Mr. Chong, even

20 though there was some information published.

21 THE COURT: Are you familiar with that case,

22 Counsel.

23 MR. MESEREAU: I am not, Your Honor. But I

24 would — I haven’t completed my examination of him

25 yet, so I don’t think — I think it’s rather

26 premature to conclude we can’t establish that he

27 didn’t know what he was doing or didn’t know he

28 was – 8268

1 THE COURT: The question, though, is what

2 questions he has to answer right now while you’re

3 trying to complete your examination. That’s the

4 problem. And —

5 MR. MESEREAU: Well, Your Honor, if I can’t

6 cross-examine him on the issues he wants to testify

7 on direct about, then I don’t think he should be

8 allowed to testify as a witness.

9 MS. SAGER: And, Your Honor, I’d only point

10 out that we did not brief the issue of waiver,

11 because it did not come up, but there’s certainly a

12 long line of cases about the waiver of

13 constitutional rights needs to be knowing, not

14 simply a voluntary conversation, but a knowing

15 waiver of your rights.

16 And if Mr. Drew is asked, I expect he could

17 answer the question as to whether he knew and

18 understood that, by any conversation he had with

19 these officers, he was waiving all rights he might

20 have under the California shield law and the

21 Constitution.

22 THE WITNESS: Can I actually say, I was told

23 by the officers and I actually had the understanding

24 that —

25 THE COURT: Just a moment.

26 THE WITNESS: All right.

27 THE COURT: The way we have to do this is we

28 rely on your attorney to help – 8269


2 THE COURT: — what she wants to bring out.

3 You — that’s the — you have a very competent

4 attorney, so I think you should —

5 MS. SAGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

7 MS. SAGER: And I just would add, Your

8 Honor, that I don’t disagree with Mr. Mesereau about

9 whether Mr. Drew should have to testify at all. I

10 do think getting into cross-examination will lead

11 into areas that are covered by the privilege, which

12 is the reason we put that in our brief. It is a

13 problem when you have reporters called as witnesses,

14 because even if one side tries to limit what they’re

15 asking to published information, it is inevitable

16 the cross-examiner will attempt to get into other

17 areas that are not published and that do delve into

18 reporters’ constitutionally protected information.

19 MR. MESEREAU: If I may, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. MESEREAU: There is information in the

22 police reports that suggests that it was the

23 conclusion of the investigating sheriffs that Mr.

24 Drew has been a business associate of Mr. Schaffel.

25 The Court already knows, because it’s in

26 evidence, that he did conduct an interview of Debbie

27 Rowe at Mr. Schaffel’s residence, presumably at the

28 behest of Mr. Schaffel. And there is considerable 8270

1 evidence in the police reports that he has

2 relationships with Konitzer and others.

3 Now, if he’s going to be called to testify

4 to what Mr. Konitzer says to him, it would terribly

5 prejudice our ability to defend if we couldn’t

6 extensively cross-examine on veracity, on bias, on a

7 motive to make a statement for a particular reason,

8 and also his relationship with these people. If we

9 can’t do that, he should be precluded from

10 testifying.

11 MS. SAGER: And the problem again, Your

12 Honor, is journalists have relationships with a

13 number of people. They may be getting information

14 from a lot of different sources. And the fact that

15 they get information from people that they may later

16 want to publish, that’s something that is

17 tremendously protected under the First Amendment.

18 And to allow counsel to cross-examine into

19 what information he may or may not have gotten from

20 people who may have been confidential sources, may

21 have been on-the-record sources but were not ever

22 published, really opens up the privilege widely, and

23 for something that in this case, frankly, is a

24 tangential issue.

25 And there’s some question about whether this

26 particular statement has any relevance here, given

27 that I don’t believe it’s disputed that the family

28 left when they left, why they left. And the 8271

1 circumstances of that, are not within this witness’s

2 personal knowledge.

3 So what his impressions were, what he

4 interpreted the remark to mean is not something that

5 would be admissible. So the remark itself that they

6 left is really not all that important compared to

7 the constitutional issues.

8 THE COURT: Actually, the substance of what

9 he said is important. That’s not a good argument.

10 But —

11 MR. MESEREAU: If the Court will permit,

12 Your Honor, could we have a few minutes to try to

13 research that case? Because I’m not —

14 THE COURT: The Playboy case?


16 THE COURT: Yeah, it wouldn’t hurt for me to

17 look at it.

18 MR. ZONEN: Do we need the actual evidence

19 from that case?

20 THE COURT: Let’s —

21 MS. SAGER: As I said, Your Honor, we did

22 not brief the issue of waiver extensively, so we’re

23 happy to do that for the Court if that’s going to be

24 an issue that’s —

25 THE COURT: That might not be necessary if

26 each of us have a chance to look at the case.

27 Let’s see. The next recess is scheduled

28 for — I don’t want to make the same mistake I made 8272

1 earlier, so why don’t we just take our 11:30 recess,

2 and then everybody who doesn’t have to read cases

3 can eat. Okay? And we’ll come back at the end of

4 our 11:30 recess.

5 (Recess taken.)

6 THE COURT: All right. You wanted time to

7 look at that case?

8 MR. MESEREAU: I did look at it, Your Honor.

9 It deals primarily with civil matters, obviously.

10 And I think —

11 THE BAILIFF: Can you turn your microphone

12 on, please?

13 MR. MESEREAU: Pardon me.

14 I did look at the case, Your Honor, and I

15 believe it clearly deals with civil matters. I

16 think what the Court in our discussion has

17 identified are really three issues to be analyzed.

18 The Court did analyze the first issue, and

19 that had to do with the question of whether this was

20 admissible or not. We did do a little bit of

21 research. I don’t know if the Court will allow me

22 to even address that again, or if you would, I would

23 refer the Court to a local case called Saling, which

24 holds that, “Although it has been held that

25 statements which merely narrate past events are not

26 to be deemed to be made in furtherance of a

27 conspiracy…,” and then it does say that the Court

28 has to do a balancing analysis. The cite is 8273

1 7 Cal.3d at 852.

2 So we would certainly renew our objection to

3 the admission of the statement the witness

4 purportedly wants to testify to.

5 Number two, the question is, does the shield

6 law apply? And if the shield law is deemed by the

7 Court to apply, I believe you still have to then do

8 another balancing test to determine, in a criminal

9 trial, if the defendant, to get a fair trial, has a

10 right to crack what is being shielded.

11 And I would refer the Court to the case of

12 Delaney vs. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785. It’s a

13 1990 case. And you have a holding that, “To

14 overcome a prima facie showing by a newsperson that

15 he is entitled to withhold information under the

16 shield law, a criminal defendant must show a

17 reasonable possibility the information will

18 materially assist his defense. A criminal defendant

19 is not required to show that the information goes to

20 the heart of his case.”

21 Now, I think the prosecutor has basically

22 admitted that he thinks the purported testimony goes

23 to the heart of his conspiracy allegation. He

24 believes it goes to the heart of his conspiracy

25 allegation as it appears in the Indictment and as it

26 appears in the alleged overt acts in the Indictment,

27 according to the prosecutor.

28 The question we have, or the question for 8274

1 the Court is, if he’s allowed to bring in this

2 hearsay statement, or I think the Court considered

3 it an admission as well, what are we allowed to do

4 if we want to cross-examine him?

5 And I think it’s pretty clear that the

6 witness and his attorney are attempting to preclude

7 any type of examination into his relationships with

8 the people he wants to testify about, relationships

9 which he identified and articulated to two police

10 officers. And I renew my claim that we would be

11 severely hamstrung and prejudiced in our ability to

12 examine him for the truth of what he is saying and

13 his motives for saying what he’s saying if we

14 couldn’t go into that.

15 So where we are right now, Your Honor, is, I

16 think there’s an argument that it’s shielded based

17 on the case the Court read, but there is a far

18 stronger argument that the defense must go into that

19 information if the witness is allowed to testify.

20 So perhaps the better solution, weighing all

21 of these issues, is disqualify him from testifying,

22 and then there is no argument that the defendant is

23 being unfairly hamstrung in his ability to confront

24 and cross-examine.

25 And I don’t think — one thing I will say to

26 the Court, in his interview to the police, it

27 appears as if he’s giving all of the information.

28 As I understand, a lot of these cases dealing with 8275

1 the shield law, they have to deal with information

2 gathered by the reporter that the reporter doesn’t

3 want to disclose.

4 Here, you’ve got police interviews where

5 basically the police appear to be saying nothing,

6 giving him no information at all, and he is

7 voluntarily allowing himself to be interviewed, near

8 his place of business, about Schaffel, about

9 Konitzer, et cetera, about the Arvizos.

10 THE COURT: But, see, that’s the material

11 he’s gathered. It’s not — he wasn’t gathering from

12 the police, or if he tried, he apparently failed.

13 He was — he had already gathered his information,

14 and he was telling the police what he’d gathered.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Uh-huh.

16 THE COURT: And —

17 MR. MESEREAU: But it does involve more than

18 that, Your Honor. He admitted to the police working

19 out of Schaffel’s home for weeks, for example.

20 Things like that are part of that interview and are

21 part of the information his lawyer wants to shield.

22 And it would just — it would just eviscerate our

23 ability to probe and test for credibility on

24 cross-examination if we couldn’t go into those

25 relationships and that information.

26 THE COURT: Well, under Delaney, you have to

27 show — the defense has the burden of showing that

28 the information, the unpublished information that he 8276

1 has, would materially assist the defense. And —

2 MR. MESEREAU: As I just said, Your Honor, I

3 believe the holding is just if we show a reasonable

4 possibility it will help us to assist the trier of

5 fact in determining whether this witness should be

6 believed or whether this witness has a motive to lie

7 or a motive to gain financially by appearing in this

8 trial, by saying what he’s saying, given his past

9 associations, his past admissions and statements to

10 various people. If we can’t go into that, we are

11 severely prejudiced.

12 THE COURT: Well, what is the information

13 that you claim that he has that would materially

14 assist the defense? And it says you must make a

15 specific showing that the nondisclosure would create

16 a substantial probability of injury to the

17 defendant’s right to a fair trial. What is that

18 information that you think is that valuable?

19 MR. MESEREAU: His relationships with

20 Konitzer; when he met him; how many times he spoke

21 to him. Did he have any financial connection with

22 Konitzer? To his knowledge, was Konitzer involved

23 with Schaffel when he was involved with Schaffel?

24 What business relationship or financial

25 relationships did he have with these two people?

26 Why was he trying to get information from them?

27 What did he intend to do with the information? When

28 did he last talk to them? Did he, in fact, talk to 8277

1 the police voluntarily and give information to try

2 and be part of this case, because he is a journalist

3 and he can profit that way?

4 I mean, there are lots of questions that I

5 would want to go into about his relationship —

6 THE COURT: There’s lots of questions, but

7 the — what is the information you would get that

8 would — it’s not the questions that prove the

9 point. It’s the answers.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. Yes. Well —

11 THE COURT: So what are you offering — what

12 are you proffering to me in the way of information

13 he has? Not questions you have.

14 MR. MESEREAU: He’s had a falling-out with

15 Schaffel, who he had a business relationship with.

16 He worked out of his house for three weeks. He saw

17 a contract at Schaffel’s saying Schaffel was going

18 make millions of dollars. He was not allowed to

19 participate in that. He had a falling-out with

20 Konitzer. Is he now trying to basically assist the

21 prosecution in incriminating Konitzer?

22 He has a lot of relationships with these two

23 characters that I would think we have to be able to

24 go into to show his motive to lie.

25 THE COURT: You’re making an offer of proof

26 that those facts are — if he were forced to

27 testify, he would say that he had not been able to

28 enter into multi-million dollar deals with them, et 8278

1 cetera, et cetera?

2 MR. MESEREAU: Well, he may deny it. But if

3 he does, I would explore it further and show he’s

4 not telling the truth.

5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, what I want to know

6 is what you know he has to say, not what you suspect

7 from your questions.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Well, Your Honor, I’ve never

9 interviewed him.

10 THE COURT: You have the police interview.

11 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, I do.

12 THE COURT: That would be of some

13 assistance, I would think.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. He worked

15 out of Schaffel’s residence for approximately three

16 weeks. He learned that Schaffel was trying to enter

17 into a contract with FOX for $7.5 million regarding

18 the Rowe interview. He conducted the Rowe

19 interview. He told the police the Rowe interview

20 was not scripted. He apparently didn’t make any

21 money off of the Rowe interview and apparently

22 wanted to. He had — he met Konitzer, who was also

23 involved in the Rowe interview. He had a

24 relationship with Konitzer. They apparently talked

25 on a number of occasions. He was in Florida with

26 these individuals.

27 THE COURT: I think what we should do is —

28 you know, some of those things may not be subject to 8279

1 the shield law. Some may. The District Attorney

2 has finished his examination. I’ve made the ruling,

3 which I’m not changing, on the state of mind that —

4 so now the question arises under Delaney.

5 So, in order to find out where we really are

6 under Delaney, I think you have to ask the witness

7 some questions, and we have to see which ones he

8 answered and which ones he claims are unpublished

9 and he has a privilege, and I’ll have to look at the

10 case from that standpoint.

11 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

12 MS. SAGER: And the only thing I would like

13 to add, Your Honor, is under the Delaney test, the

14 test that —

15 THE COURT: You need to —

16 MS. SAGER: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I’m not

17 used to using these microphones.

18 Under the Delaney test, it’s not only the

19 threshold test, which is what Mr. Mesereau

20 presented, of whether the information sought is

21 reasonably likely to materially assist the defense.

22 That’s simply the threshold.

23 Assume he gets past that. Then the Court

24 engages in a balancing of all the other factors in

25 Delaney. It’s not simply enough that he meet that

26 one test.

27 THE COURT: That’s right. Then we look to

28 see the balance, I agree. 8280

1 So you may question.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

Once Mesereau was able to resume his cross-examination of Drew, he attempted to ask Drew about when he first met Schaffel, but once again his attorney Sager objected, and it was sustained by Judge Melville, and this led to yet another combative debate between he and Sager. Afterwards, Mesereau attempted to ask Drew a series of questions about where and how he met with Kontizer and Schaffel, but they were all objected by Sager:

3 Q. Mr. Drew, do you know someone named Marc

4 Schaffel?

5 A. I did.

6 Q. You did?

7 A. Uh-huh.

8 Q. When did you first meet Marc Schaffel?

9 MS. SAGER: Your Honor, I’d object to the

10 extent that reveals unpublished information. And

11 also point out, Your Honor, that really has very

12 little relevance to the one statement that Mr. Drew

13 has been asked about by the prosecution that was

14 published. You’re now talking about an entirely

15 different individual, not even the individual that

16 he has spoken to that he talked about in his

17 interview.

18 MR. MESEREAU: With all due respect to

19 counsel, that’s not true, Your Honor. I will link

20 the relationship he has with Schaffel and Konitzer

21 to the impeachment I’m trying to demonstrate. But I

22 could ask the questions on Konitzer, and I’ll see if

23 he’s going to assert the privilege to those. Maybe

24 that would narrow it. Shall I do that, Your Honor?

25 THE COURT: Let me think. He’s already

26 testified that the — that he was working for

27 Konitzer when he did the interview, right?

28 MS. SAGER: Actually, I don’t believe that’s 8281

1 correct. I believe he testified he was working for

2 a magazine and the interview was set up through Mr.

3 Konitzer and Mr. Schaffel, not that he was working

4 for them.

5 And in fact, I think he testified — and

6 counsel will correct me if I’m wrong. I believe he

7 was asked was he paid anything by them, and he said

8 no. Nor was he working for Mr. Jackson at any

9 point.

10 THE COURT: All right. For purposes of where

11 we are in the hearing, I’ll sustain the shield

12 objection on that question.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know someone named

14 Ronald Konitzer?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And how long have you known Ronald Konitzer?

17 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor, to

18 the extent that that’s not been published, the

19 extent of the length of their relationship or

20 knowledge. Simply the fact that he knows him has

21 been published.

22 THE COURT: Well, I think I need you to be

23 more clear in your objection. You’re saying “to the

24 extent that that has not been published.” I mean,

25 you have to make a claim that that’s not been

26 published; that, “Your Honor, that has not been

27 published,” so I know that. I don’t really know

28 that, the way you’re stating it. 8282

1 MS. SAGER: I apologize, Your Honor, and the

2 only reason I’m couching it the way I am is because

3 Mr. Mesereau seems to believe that some things are

4 publications which I don’t agree with and the Court

5 hasn’t ruled on. There is an interview that does

6 not contain the information that Mr. Mesereau is

7 asking about and that’s the publication that we’re

8 looking at. That information is not published, as

9 far as I’m aware.

10 THE COURT: Well, I don’t think you can limit

11 it to that interview. I mean, if he’s published it

12 anywhere, in any magazine, or any news, or T.V.,

13 or — you know, the definition really doesn’t even

14 involve media. If it’s — I guess if it’s

15 dissemination to the public, he could do it

16 personally walking around the mall over there.

17 So we have to — when you claim he’s being

18 asked to reveal something that he hasn’t published,

19 it has to be he hasn’t published it. Not that he

20 didn’t talk about it in the interview with the —

21 which interview are we talking about?

22 MS. SAGER: The Court TV interview, Your

23 Honor.

24 THE COURT: The Court TV interview that he

25 was interviewed on. That is not the only place that

26 he could have published. He may have published it

27 nowhere else, but we need to be clear. We aren’t

28 limiting this to that. 8283

1 MS. SAGER: I understand, Your Honor. And

2 so my objection is that Mr. Mesereau is calling for

3 information which is unpublished within the meaning

4 of the shield law.

5 THE COURT: All right. For purposes of this

6 hearing right now at this point, just to see where

7 we’re going, I will sustain the claim under the

8 shield law.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you first meet

10 Ronald Konitzer?

11 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

12 That’s unpublished information.

13 THE COURT: All right. For purposes of this

14 hearing right now, I’ll sustain that claim under the

15 shield law.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where did you first meet

17 Ronald Konitzer?

18 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: All right. And I’ll make the

20 same ruling for purposes of this hearing.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you first met Ronald

22 Konitzer, who else was present?

23 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection under

25 the shield law.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you first met Ronald

27 Konitzer, in your mind, what was the purpose of the

28 meeting? 8284

1 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

2 Also that Mr. Drew’s state of mind is not at issue

3 here.

4 MR. MESEREAU: I think it is on cross, Your

5 Honor.

6 THE COURT: I’ll sustain it under the shield

7 law.

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many times have you

9 met with Ronald Konitzer?

10 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor, as

11 to unpublished information.

12 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection under

13 the shield law.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you ever discussed

15 Michael Jackson with Ronald Konitzer?

16 MS. SAGER: And I would object to the extent

17 that it seeks information that has not been

18 published.

19 THE COURT: That’s an insufficient objection.

20 I’ll overrule it.

21 MS. SAGER: I understand, and the only

22 reason I’m couching it that way is the question, as

23 phrased, is ambiguous. But I’ll object to the

24 question as calling for information that is not

25 published.

26 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain that

27 under the shield law for this hearing.

Next, Mesereau questioned Drew about his recollection of whether Konitzer said the Arvizos had either “escaped” or “disappeared” from Neverland in February 2003; Drew stated that Konizter really did say that the Arvizos “escaped”, but he couldn’t explain why he told police that Konitzer said they “disappeared”:

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you ever had a 8285

1 discussion with Ronald Konitzer about the

2 possibility of interviewing the Arvizo family?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. When did that discussion take place?

5 A. It took place the week after the Debbie Rowe

6 interview.

7 Q. When was the Debbie Rowe interview?

8 A. I believe, from my recollection, it was

9 March of 2003.

10 Q. Were you at the Debbie Rowe interview?

11 A. Yes, I did the Debbie Rowe interview.

12 Q. Are you the person who asked Debbie Rowe

13 questions in that interview?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You’ve told the police that interview was

16 not scripted, correct?

17 MS. SAGER: Your Honor, and I’d again object

18 that this is not published information.

19 MR. ZONEN: And I would also interject an

20 objection that it exceeds the scope of the direct

21 examination.

22 THE BAILIFF: You guys have to use the

23 microphone.

24 MR. ZONEN: I would object that it exceeds

25 the scope of the direct examination.

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was the Debbie Rowe

28 interview scripted? 8286

1 MS. SAGER: Same —

2 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of

3 the direct examination.

4 MS. SAGER: Also unpublished, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Sustained on both grounds.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was Ronald Konitzer at the

7 Debbie Rowe interview?

8 MS. SAGER: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

9 for unpublished information.

10 THE COURT: Sustained under the shield law.

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you said, in response

12 to the prosecutor’s questions, that Mr. Konitzer

13 referred to the Arvizo family leaving Neverland

14 Ranch, right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And your first response to the prosecutor’s

17 question was that Konitzer told you that they had

18 disappeared from Neverland Ranch, correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. After being further asked questions by the

21 prosecutor, you said that Konitzer had used the word

22 “escape,” right?

23 A. I said I believed he had used the word

24 “escape.” I remembered it.

25 Q. You didn’t use the word “escape” when you

26 first responded to the prosecutor’s question about

27 what Mr. Konitzer had said, right?

28 A. I think I did. I think it was all within 8287

1 the same sentence, from my recollection.

2 Q. You said “disappear,” did you not?

3 A. That was part of it, too.

Mesereau attempted to ask Drew some more detailed questions about his relationship with Konitzer and Schaffel, but gave up once he realized that Sager would object to all of them, and asked Judge Melville to disqualify Drew from being able to testify in front of the jury (remember, thus far all of his testimony was outside the presence of the jury). Sager agreed with Mesereau, which shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering she didn’t want Drew to testify in the first place!

Judge Melville asked Mesereau to present him with any information that would materially assist the defense, and help him decide if Drew should or should not be allowed to testify in front of the jury, and Mesereau stated that he had proof that there was a business relationship between Drew, Schaffel, and Konitzer, and that Drew was materially involved in their efforts to make money off of Jackson’s troubles.

4 Q. Now, how long did your discussion with

5 Konitzer take place on that particular occasion?

6 MS. SAGER: Objection, Your Honor. Calls

7 for unpublished information.

8 THE COURT: All right. Sustained under the

9 shield law.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were other things said by

11 Mr. Konitzer to you on the occasion when you claim

12 he made that statement?

13 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

14 Calls for unpublished information.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How long did that

17 discussion last?

18 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you say something to

21 Mr. Konitzer in that discussion?

22 MS. SAGER: And I’ll object, Your Honor, to

23 the extent that it calls for information that has

24 not been published. It was one word, I believe, Mr.

25 Drew has published, which I’ll let him answer.

26 THE COURT: All right. Answer the one, the

27 word, following your attorney’s instructions.

28 MS. SAGER: If you recall. 8288

1 THE WITNESS: I don’t. I don’t remember.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where did the discussion

3 take place?

4 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

5 Calls for unpublished information.

6 THE COURT: Sustained.

7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who else was there with

8 you and Konitzer?

9 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

10 Also assumes facts not in evidence.

11 THE COURT: Under the shield law objection,

12 I’ll sustain the objection.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was anyone else there with

14 you and Mr. Konitzer?

15 MS. SAGER: Calls for unpublished

16 information, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you arrange for the

19 discussion where you claim Mr. Konitzer made that

20 statement?

21 MS. SAGER: I believe it’s vague, Your

22 Honor, but it’s information that is published, so

23 I’ll let the witness answer, if he recalls.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was trying to get an

25 interview, so I think I — I think I made the phone

26 call, because I’m pretty dogged about that usually.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where were you when you

28 made the phone call? 8289

1 MS. SAGER: Calls for unpublished

2 information, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you call Konitzer’s

5 number?

6 MS. SAGER: Same objection, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I believe at this

9 point it’s pretty clear I wouldn’t be able to

10 cross-examine the witness on any of this; we would

11 be prejudiced. And I believe, under the Delaney

12 case, the witness should be disqualified from

13 testifying. I’m not being allowed to cross-examine

14 on anything regarding the bona fides of what he said

15 and in what context it was said, who was there,

16 where it took place.

17 And again, I would refer the Court to the

18 holding in the Delaney case. All we have to show is

19 a reasonable possibility the information will

20 materially assist the defense. And the material

21 assistance would be in examining the veracity, the

22 motives, the bias of this witness.

23 MS. SAGER: And, Your Honor, I believe under

24 the Foss case, that disqualification of the witness

25 is the appropriate measure to take rather than

26 allowing any counsel to get into information that

27 clearly is protected by the shield law, so that even

28 published information should not be presented if 8290

1 then, to allow cross-examination, would delve into

2 constitutionally protected information.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Drew?

4 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

5 THE COURT: I’m looking at the testimony

6 you’ve already given. What I want to do is read to

7 you what you said about the — just that one

8 sentence is all we’re talking about. I want to read

9 to you that sentence, and I want to ask you a couple

10 of questions about why you said that sentence.


12 THE COURT: But to do that, I want to read it

13 to you, so I’m going to ask you to listen to this:

14 The question by Mr. Zonen was, “What

15 specifically did he say with regard to the

16 disappearance of this family? “Would it be helpful

17 if the witness was given a transcript of the

18 television program? We can do that.”

19 I say something, and then Mr. Zonen says

20 something.

21 And then Mr. Zonen says, “Well,” as a

22 question mark, and you say, “It’s a simple enough

23 question, I think. I was told that they had

24 disappeared, that they couldn’t keep them there

25 anymore.”

26 There’s some objections.

27 And you say, “And I believe the word

28 ‘escaped’ was used. But again, I don’t — I can’t 8291

1 say word for word. But from the best of my

2 recollection, yes, I heard the word ‘escape.’”

3 First of all, what you’ve already answered,

4 does that accurately reflect your recollection of

5 that conversation?

6 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. Yes.

7 THE COURT: What is your — if you can answer

8 this, what is the failure of your recollection about

9 the word “escaped”?

10 THE WITNESS: No, it’s to the best of my

11 recollection. When I was talking to Mr. Konitzer, I

12 was simply trying to get — I was on a deadline

13 trying to get an article done, so I wasn’t paying

14 attention word for word, knowing that in a trial two

15 years later I would have to remember each part of

16 it. I remember the tone of his conversation more

17 than I remember even the exact words.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.

19 Mr. Mesereau, is there anything in the

20 police reports that you have that you would like to

21 represent to me —

22 MR. MESEREAU: First of all, Your Honor, as

23 the Court knows, in many of my prior

24 cross-examinations of witnesses, I have asked them

25 when they — excuse me, if they ever met with any

26 representative of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s

27 Department; who initiated the meeting; what was

28 said; who said what; did the sheriffs say anything 8292

1 to you about the case?

2 And the reasons are obvious. We want to

3 establish if, in fact, the prosecution or its agents

4 have tried to infect any witness with information of

5 a specific nature or give them a perspective on the

6 case or try and indoctrinate them in some way. We

7 also want to establish if the witnesses have said

8 anything to the sheriffs which suggests a desire to

9 be involved in this case or a desire to —

10 THE COURT: I think you didn’t let me finish

11 my question.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Oh. I’m sorry. Pardon me.

13 THE COURT: The question I wanted to ask, is

14 there anything in the police reports that he said in

15 the interview with the sheriff’s department or any

16 law enforcement people that you want to show me or

17 advise me of? You know, as opposed to the questions

18 that you would ask, any information contained

19 therein that you believe is, you know, material that

20 would —

21 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. I mean,

22 first of all —

23 THE COURT: — materially assist your defense

24 if he were to testify to it?

25 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. There is

26 the business relationship between this witness and

27 Schaffel and Konitzer, as I would like to establish,

28 is that he had a relationship with them. He was 8293

1 involved in their efforts to make money off of

2 Michael Jackson. The —

3 THE COURT: That’s — just to be clear now,

4 that’s in the police report?

5 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor. He

6 conducted the Debbie Rowe interview. He was working

7 out of Schaffel’s residence. He was promised he

8 could interview the Arvizo family. He had a

9 financial interest in working with Schaffel and

10 Konitzer. He then was apparently told, “You’re not

11 going to be interviewing the Arvizo family because

12 they left Neverland.”

13 And then the question is, what kind of

14 relationship did he continue to have with them?

15 What money did he expect to make? Who was supposed

16 to pay him for doing all of this? Did he think he

17 was going to be involved in the FOX contract? He

18 did tell the sheriffs that he saw, in fact, a FOX

19 contract at Schaffel’s residence during the

20 approximately three-week period of time that he

21 worked out of Mr. Schaffel’s residence.

22 And the question would be, why did he look

23 at the contract? How did he know it said $7.5

24 million from FOX? What interest did he think he

25 had? Has he had a falling-out with Konitzer? When

26 did he last talk to any of these people?

27 He did not obtain this so-called quote in

28 isolation, and he didn’t obtain it in a casual, 8294

1 unexpected occurrence or meeting. He obtained it,

2 if he did, within the context of an ongoing business

3 relationship with Konitzer and Schaffel, who the

4 prosecution allege are unindicted co-conspirators.

5 And the motives for coming forward and making this

6 allegation on T.V. and in court are fertile ground

7 for cross-examination where the scope of

8 cross-examination is very broad to show any type of

9 financial motive, financial bias, or a bias to say

10 anything that hurts his former co-business partners,

11 which in fact they were. So we would be severely

12 hamstrung if we could not go into these

13 relationships and these motivations.

14 Now, he told the police that when he

15 interviewed Debbie Rowe, he was working out of

16 Schaffel’s residence for approximately three weeks.

17 He said that during that period of time, he saw the

18 FOX contract. He just told the Court that when he

19 got this information from Konitzer, he had a

20 deadline. How did that deadline relate to why he

21 was talking to Konitzer to begin with? What project

22 were they still involved in, if any?

23 And clearly his police interview, which was

24 conducted by him, as I said before, on a voluntary

25 basis, talks about how he met these characters, how

26 he stayed in contact with them, where he called them

27 from, how the interview with the Arvizos he thought

28 he was going to do related to the interview with 8295

1 Debbie Rowe. It’s all part of the same package.

2 And, Your Honor, there are tapes where he

3 and Debbie Rowe complain about Schaffel and

4 Konitzer. There is the issue of his falling-out

5 with them. It’s all interconnected.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to be heard,

7 Mr. Zonen?

Zonen replied that the police transcript should be used by Judge Melville to determine if Drew should be allowed to testify because he (obviously) felt that the transcript could be used to the prosecution’s advantage because it didn’t materially address any of the issues that Mesereau raised in his earlier statement. Mesereau rebutted he had other information that proved his earlier statements, including several pretext phone calls that Drew unknowingly took part in:

8 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, the police report in

9 this matter is four pages of text, and I think it

10 would be appropriate for the Court to review it, and

11 I would invite the Court to review it to make the

12 determination as to whether — would you like me at

13 the podium?

14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 MR. ZONEN: The Court specifically made the

16 inquiry as to whether or not there’s information

17 contained in the police report as might justify

18 extensive cross-examination of this witness with

19 regards to information given by the witness to

20 detectives in the course of that interview.

21 Rather than debate what is and what isn’t,

22 it’s a very brief report. It’s only four pages of

23 large script. And I would ask that the Court read

24 it to make a determination as to whether or not that

25 would assist the Court in its judgment.

26 Once again, the prosecution is offering one

27 sentence in this case. It’s a conversation that

28 took place between this witness and another person, 8296

1 one of the unindicted co-conspirators, to the extent

2 this that person said to this witness, “They’ve

3 left,” and the words of how they left. It’s

4 effectively one or two sentences.

5 I do not believe that that warrants and

6 justifies extensive cross-examination on the

7 relationships and interrelationships between each of

8 the five unindicted co-conspirators and this witness

9 and any of the co-conspirators among themselves at

10 any point in history. I also don’t believe it

11 justifies an examination into his involvement in the

12 interview with Debbie Rowe, which was an entirely

13 separate interview and separate people involved.

14 As to the question of what he can be

15 cross-examined on in the course of the interview

16 with the — the “interview” — the two-sentence

17 conversation with Mr. Konitzer, I think that he can

18 be cross-examined on information that would shed

19 light on what was going on at that time and the

20 accuracy of that statement, and it is a statement

21 that is relatively noncontroversial. It is not the

22 type of thing that a thorough examination of the

23 relationships of these parties would necessarily

24 disprove or as to motivation.

25 And so I believe that until the defense

26 satisfies the burden, which they have, for the

27 purposes of showing that there is information out

28 there, and they’re not simply on a fishing 8297

1 expedition, but that there is concrete information

2 that would somehow show that this statement was

3 never made, or, if it was made, had a different

4 meaning, or in fact was a statement that’s entirely

5 different from what it was as it’s represented by

6 this witness, and I believe that they can do that

7 within the limitations of the Court and within the

8 limitations imposed by the shield law.

9 I have the report to turn over to the Court,

10 if that’s permissible.

11 MR. MESEREAU: If I may, Your Honor, there

12 are other reports as well. There’s a number of

13 pretext phone calls where he discusses the same

14 issues identified in that police interview.

15 I suspect Miss Sager is going to say they’re

16 privileged, but they do relate to the same facts.

17 They give us a good-faith basis, in addition to what

18 I just told the Court, to inquire into his

19 relationship with Konitzer and Schaffel, and what

20 his expectations were, what happened to the money he

21 thought he was going to get, et cetera.

22 I think the Court would have to look at

23 those as well. There aren’t that many of them and

24 I have them with me. I also have transcripts of

25 those pretext phone calls.

26 THE COURT: And do both of you agree and

27 stipulate that I can review those reports in

28 conjunction with reaching a decision on this? 8298

1 MR. ZONEN: Yes.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: All right. Would you provide

4 those to me?


6 MS. SAGER: Your Honor, we have not been

7 provided with those reports, and for purposes of

8 arguing this motion, it would greatly assist me, if

9 the Court is going to consider them, if we also were

10 allowed to review them.

11 THE COURT: Certainly.

12 MR. ZONEN: I will do so.

13 THE COURT: You can step down. There’s no

14 sense in sitting there while we’re trying to figure

15 this out.

16 MR. ZONEN: How clean are your copies?

17 MR. MESEREAU: They’re pretty clean.

18 MR. ZONEN: Do you just have yellow

19 highlights?

20 MR. MESEREAU: Yeah, but also — there are

21 transcripts as well.

22 MR. ZONEN: You don’t have material written

23 into them?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Not really, no.

25 MR. ZONEN: Okay.

26 MR. MESEREAU: It may take a moment. I’m

27 just trying to staple these reports together, Your

28 Honor. 8299

After taking a recess, Judge Melville ruled that the probative value of Drew’s statement was questionable, it didn’t prove Jackson’s state of mind or his involvement, and thus he would not allow the prosecution to use it to further their conspiracy theory, and he also would not allow the defense to cross examine that statement.

1 THE COURT: All right.

2 I think what I’d like to do, Lieutenant,

3 would it work all right, when I take these back to

4 read, if I declare a recess? And then you can — so

5 these folks don’t have to sit in here? Is that all

6 right? And then we can bring them back in. It

7 looks like I’m going to be a few minutes reading.

8 LIEUTENANT McKINNY: That’s fine, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: That would give them five

10 minutes’ notice to bring them back into the

11 courtroom, or let them, excuse me, back in the

12 courtroom.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I might add that

14 this witness’s name comes up in other reports

15 dealing with interviews with other individuals and

16 investigations into other individuals. Information

17 regarding this witness was seized at Schaffel’s

18 house, for example.

19 So I don’t want to suggest that the scope of

20 examination or the good-faith basis for questions

21 about his relationship with these people are purely

22 based on what I’m giving you. There’s other stuff,

23 too.

24 THE COURT: Okay.

25 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?

26 THE COURT: Yes.

27 All right. Then we’ll take this recess.

28 (Recess taken.) 8300

1 THE COURT: Counsel, would you like to

2 retrieve the police reports?

3 THE BAILIFF: I can get them.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: All right. The Court is going to

6 make the following order: That the Court finds that

7 the probative value of the statement offered by Mr.

8 Drew is questionable; that if the statement was

9 introduced into evidence, the statement might lend

10 itself to proving somewhat the conspiracy, but the

11 only value I see of the statement — the only

12 evidentiary value of the statement would be to prove

13 Konitzer’s state of mind, which is not Mr. Jackson’s

14 state of mind, and may very well not be appropriate

15 to admit under any circumstances. Because even

16 though it’s a co-conspirator’s state of mind, it

17 would be unlikely helpful in proving Mr. Jackson’s

18 involvement. It wouldn’t prove his involvement.

19 In addition to that, there is some real

20 vagueness in the statement as recalled by the

21 witness, since he does not recall exactly what was

22 said, but more the sense of what was said, and isn’t

23 sure where the word “escaped” fit in.

24 Considering these items, in balancing under

25 Delaney, the Court does not believe that the shield

26 law is overcome in this case. The shield law then

27 remains in effect.

28 That effectively bars the defense from 8301

1 cross-examination on the statement which I’ve

2 already determined to have some questionable value.

3 Therefore, the Court finds the only appropriate

4 remedy is to deny the People’s request to admit the

5 statement.

6 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, we have no further

7 witnesses for the day.

8 THE COURT: What I would like to do is excuse

9 the jury. There’s two ways to do that. Probably

10 the cruelest way would be to —

11 MR. ZONEN: Send the bailiff in there?

12 THE COURT: — file them in here and then

13 tell them. In fact, I don’t think I could face

14 them.

15 (Laughter.)

16 THE COURT: No, I better face them, though.

17 Let’s bring them in.

18 MS. SAGER: Your Honor, is Mr. Drew excused?

19 THE COURT: I’ll be a man about this.

20 Yes. You’re excused.

21 MS. SAGER: Thank you.

22 THE COURT: It’s my custom to not be on the

23 bench when the jury comes in, so I think I’ll leave.

When the jury returned, Judge Melville apologized to them for keeping them at the courthouse all day (he didn’t know how long the hearing would last), and stated that the next two days would be full of witnesses:

25 (The following proceedings were held in

26 open court in the presence and hearing of the

27 jury:)

28 8302

1 THE COURT: Good afternoon.

2 THE JURY: (In unison) Good afternoon.

3 THE COURT: (To counsel) You tell them.

4 (Laughter.)

5 THE COURT: Because of rulings that I’ve made

6 today, we have no further witnesses.

7 I am advised by the District Attorney that

8 they have two days left in their case, Monday and

9 Tuesday, and they will be full days, without delays.

10 So I apologize for keeping you here all day

11 today like this. I didn’t anticipate, of course,

12 the length of time that was going to be involved,

13 and I tried very hard not to do that to you.

14 I know how crummy it is to sit back there

15 and not have anything to do and not know what’s

16 going on, and it’s just one of my things I just

17 don’t do. And we have gone through a lot of days

18 without doing that to you, so I’ll try to get

19 through a lot more before it happens again.

20 So I’ll see you next week.

21 Court’s in recess.

22 (The proceedings adjourned at 1:25 p.m.)

To be continued:





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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: