1
00:00:01,480 --> 00:00:06,360
Speaker 1: Full trial audio, everything hurt in court, no silences to skiptter.

2
00:00:06,400 --> 00:00:08,960
Speaker 2: We have before the Court of Kongwaw presus Lindsay Clansing.

3
00:00:11,439 --> 00:00:11,640
Speaker 1: MS.

4
00:00:11,679 --> 00:00:14,679
Speaker 2: Clancy is present by way of zoom. She is represented

5
00:00:14,679 --> 00:00:18,559
by Attorney Kevin Running Cowaw, represented by Assistant District Attorney

6
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:29,839
Jennifer Spray and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Buckinghe.

7
00:00:26,320 --> 00:00:31,839
Speaker 1: All right, Council doom is Clancy? Can you hear me?

8
00:00:31,879 --> 00:00:32,200
All right?

9
00:00:32,719 --> 00:00:35,359
Speaker 2: Yes, good afternoon, your all right?

10
00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:38,920
Speaker 1: Great? All right. So we've got a number of matters

11
00:00:38,920 --> 00:00:42,320
that are on. So I thought the best way to

12
00:00:42,359 --> 00:00:45,119
deal with this number one, I want to kind of

13
00:00:45,159 --> 00:00:48,359
find out how I know the evaluation was scheduled a

14
00:00:48,399 --> 00:00:51,000
week or two ago. Can see how that went. And

15
00:00:51,039 --> 00:00:53,799
I know there was some discovery motions that were filed

16
00:00:54,439 --> 00:00:57,119
by the defendant. I know there were some Rule seventeen

17
00:00:57,200 --> 00:01:02,119
motions that were filed by the Commonwealth. And then maybe

18
00:01:02,119 --> 00:01:04,319
if we had a couple of minutes, we could talk

19
00:01:04,359 --> 00:01:07,799
about a little bit about the procedures. I know there

20
00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:11,840
was some suggested, uh dear questions. You know it's early,

21
00:01:11,879 --> 00:01:16,319
but it's never too really to start talking about jury selections.

22
00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:21,680
So I guess, first off, any issues arising out of

23
00:01:21,719 --> 00:01:27,760
the comwealths evaluations of Miss Clancy a couple of weeks ago.

24
00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:32,799
Speaker 3: Now you're on a Two of our doctors evaluated miss

25
00:01:32,879 --> 00:01:36,879
Clancy over a three day period. The third doctor that

26
00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:40,400
we have retained is going to do a zoom interview

27
00:01:40,519 --> 00:01:44,959
with Miss Clancy. And we made sure that his doing

28
00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:48,640
that separate interview wouldn't impact the timing of his report

29
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:51,239
and or delay the trial in any way, and he

30
00:01:51,280 --> 00:01:54,319
assured us it wouldn't. So we're getting some dates from

31
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:56,959
him to coordinate with defense conful to get that done.

32
00:01:57,599 --> 00:01:59,799
But I think we're on track in terms of the

33
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,000
evaluations and when we'll have reports.

34
00:02:02,079 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: All right, is ranking any issues that you saw come

35
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:06,640
up during those evaluations?

36
00:02:07,079 --> 00:02:09,360
Speaker 4: They went very smoothly, thank you, all right.

37
00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:13,039
Speaker 1: So that then kind of begs the next question of

38
00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:18,360
the in regards to those reports. Do you have a

39
00:02:18,599 --> 00:02:21,520
time estimate that the two of you have talked the

40
00:02:21,599 --> 00:02:22,680
three of you have talked about.

41
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:25,919
Speaker 3: I believe what we had talked about in court before

42
00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:28,240
was end of my beginning of June.

43
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:34,599
Speaker 1: All right, then, so that first issue seems to be

44
00:02:35,599 --> 00:02:37,800
resolved or on its way to being resolved, or guiding

45
00:02:37,759 --> 00:02:41,960
any evaluations. Now about the discovery motions, the party's ready

46
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:46,599
to argue those, Yes, all right, and so I've got

47
00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:50,520
I think there were two. I don't know if they

48
00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:53,800
were there any more than all right, because I was

49
00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:56,840
coming from out of county. So there the clerk's office

50
00:02:56,919 --> 00:02:59,159
was good enough to forward those two, and I just

51
00:02:59,280 --> 00:03:01,240
wanted to make sure I had though, So I have

52
00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:04,120
the first one we can take up. Maybe it's called

53
00:03:04,120 --> 00:03:11,520
the motion for discovery regarding communications. So mister Rachel'll hear you,

54
00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:12,599
and then I'll hear Come.

55
00:03:12,479 --> 00:03:16,280
Speaker 4: On, ern I'm cognizant of the case that came out

56
00:03:16,439 --> 00:03:19,879
actually came out of this county. I believe it's Comewell

57
00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:24,000
versus caldwellth it was a grave case where the gentleman

58
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,280
was in jail for almost a decade, and there had

59
00:03:27,319 --> 00:03:29,639
been a number of post conviction hearings before the various

60
00:03:29,719 --> 00:03:33,560
judges that denied as far as the defendant's request. But

61
00:03:33,599 --> 00:03:38,000
then ultimately on a roll thirty, it became apparent that

62
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:43,400
there had been exculpatory statements made that were known to

63
00:03:43,479 --> 00:03:47,159
the prosecution. I'm not suggesting for one minute that I

64
00:03:47,199 --> 00:03:49,960
have any information that either one of these prosecutors who

65
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:52,199
I know very well, and I would never suspect would

66
00:03:52,199 --> 00:03:54,759
not do anything other than provide me with what I

67
00:03:54,800 --> 00:03:58,000
should have. But in the Caldwell case, the Supreme Judicial

68
00:03:58,039 --> 00:04:01,840
Court noted that defense Council has an obligation, and this

69
00:04:01,919 --> 00:04:05,039
is before they changed Rule fourteen an updated Rule fourteen.

70
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:08,199
But I still don't think that the updated rule fourteen

71
00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:14,560
trump's if you will, the Calledwell dicta where the court

72
00:04:14,639 --> 00:04:18,639
noted that the defense attorney did not make a specific

73
00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:24,600
request for any and all communication between the prosecution team,

74
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:29,399
if you will, including the prosecutor, the DA police that

75
00:04:29,439 --> 00:04:31,199
we all consider to be part out of the team,

76
00:04:31,639 --> 00:04:34,879
but also victim witness advocates. And in that case, I

77
00:04:34,959 --> 00:04:37,079
think it was a victim witness advocate that had a

78
00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:41,720
memorandum where there was an exculpatory statement made by is

79
00:04:41,759 --> 00:04:45,639
my memory the alleged victim. So the SJAC didn't allow

80
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:48,360
that motion and did grant the person a new trial

81
00:04:48,439 --> 00:04:50,959
based on that. So, based on the Call WORL case,

82
00:04:50,959 --> 00:04:54,040
I'm just asking that the court enter in order for

83
00:04:54,160 --> 00:05:00,120
us to get access to all communications from any of

84
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:06,120
the prosecution team with witnesses, including the physicians that have

85
00:05:06,199 --> 00:05:12,279
been doing the government's evaluation of MSS clancy, and they

86
00:05:12,319 --> 00:05:20,639
would include emails, texts, obviously written materials, notes, memoranda coterminous

87
00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:26,879
with discussions that might refresh someone's recollection. I am cognizant.

88
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:29,240
I filed this motion on a write a case up

89
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:33,040
in a newber report a number of years back, interestingly enough,

90
00:05:33,079 --> 00:05:38,439
where issue of ballistics was in play, and it ultimately

91
00:05:38,519 --> 00:05:42,319
resulted in the production of an email from the prosecutor

92
00:05:42,399 --> 00:05:45,720
to the ballistian saying, please, please please, I have to

93
00:05:45,759 --> 00:05:48,000
have you hook up this bullet or I have no case.

94
00:05:48,439 --> 00:05:52,600
It's needless to say that resulted in defend that able

95
00:05:52,639 --> 00:05:55,959
to raise that issue with the court. So I'm asking

96
00:05:56,040 --> 00:05:58,199
if the court would enter that order. And finally, I'm

97
00:05:58,199 --> 00:06:02,199
asking that if it relates to text messages. And I

98
00:06:02,279 --> 00:06:06,319
hate to even mention the case, but the Karen Read

99
00:06:06,439 --> 00:06:12,920
case where that detective his personal cell phone was utilized,

100
00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:15,120
not his business cell phone. So I would ask that

101
00:06:15,199 --> 00:06:19,720
the court would enter in order that personal or business

102
00:06:20,399 --> 00:06:25,800
related cell phones, computers, tablets would cover under that order.

103
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:32,800
Speaker 3: Kern or I would object to this motion. We are

104
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:36,120
well aware of our obligations to turn over any exculpatory

105
00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:38,040
information and if there was any in this case, I

106
00:06:38,040 --> 00:06:41,040
would certainly turn it over, but I haven't found any,

107
00:06:41,759 --> 00:06:45,959
so I will honor that obligation going forward. Despite the

108
00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:49,279
changes to Rule fourteen, work product is still a thing,

109
00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:53,000
and all of what the sun COMESO has mentioned is

110
00:06:53,079 --> 00:06:57,120
work product unless they're until there is some exculpatory information

111
00:06:57,600 --> 00:06:59,959
or a statement by a witness that we would have

112
00:07:00,079 --> 00:07:05,120
course turnover. As far as personal phones, I don't use

113
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,839
my personal phone for work purposes, so I would object

114
00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:13,959
to anyone having access to my personal phone. But in general,

115
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:16,959
I would just object to this. There's no foundation, no basis,

116
00:07:16,639 --> 00:07:22,279
no information that any explatory information has been withheld. Unlike

117
00:07:22,519 --> 00:07:26,560
cases post conviction, where there is evidence that is brought

118
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:30,120
forth and then motions are allowed for this type of discovery,

119
00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:32,319
but that is not the case here, and it will

120
00:07:32,399 --> 00:07:35,040
not be the case here because we will honor our

121
00:07:35,079 --> 00:07:38,240
obligations under Rule fourteen and our ethical obligations.

122
00:07:38,879 --> 00:07:44,560
Speaker 1: It's great you're looking for evidence kind of beyond Rule

123
00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:46,639
fourteen is kind of a Rule fourteen plus.

124
00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:53,120
Speaker 4: Yes. Communications For example, if there would be text messaging

125
00:07:53,959 --> 00:07:58,000
between and I use the example a particular victim, witness

126
00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:02,079
advocate and a doctor or the doctor communicates with someone

127
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:05,399
from the DA staff regarding an issue that arose during

128
00:08:05,399 --> 00:08:09,959
the course of the alleged independent evaluation. Anything like that,

129
00:08:10,079 --> 00:08:12,439
I'm looking for, and that would be as I said,

130
00:08:12,439 --> 00:08:16,639
based on mister Proctor detective form of detective proctor. I

131
00:08:16,680 --> 00:08:21,720
think personal devices would have to be included. And I'm

132
00:08:21,759 --> 00:08:24,800
not trying to be invasive to anybody's privacy by any means,

133
00:08:24,839 --> 00:08:29,399
but that is an issue that was brought for significantly

134
00:08:29,600 --> 00:08:32,159
during that trial. So I do include that request.

135
00:08:32,879 --> 00:08:35,159
Speaker 3: And I think that became an issue when evidence of

136
00:08:35,240 --> 00:08:38,720
such matter became known, and then that opened the door

137
00:08:38,840 --> 00:08:42,320
to that type of discovery, which is not the situation here.

138
00:08:43,879 --> 00:08:46,840
Speaker 1: Right, I'm going to take that under advices. I've got

139
00:08:46,879 --> 00:08:51,960
to go back review Rule fourteen. You know who's part

140
00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:54,600
of the I know the prosecution team, and Rule fourteen

141
00:08:54,600 --> 00:09:01,000
any specifically MENTIONSNAP victim witness advocates. Now, but I also

142
00:09:01,039 --> 00:09:04,799
then have to review the work product kind of statement.

143
00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:06,919
I'm going to take a look at callwell, so I'll

144
00:09:06,919 --> 00:09:13,639
get take that under advisement. Let me see, all right,

145
00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:19,720
the next motion is for discovery regarding government's medical witnesses.

146
00:09:21,879 --> 00:09:24,279
Speaker 4: Could I just apologize you run out the site for

147
00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:28,720
Caldwell Cornwall versus Clifton Caldwell. It's for eighty seven mass

148
00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:32,879
seventy soul.

149
00:09:32,919 --> 00:09:39,440
Speaker 1: Thank you, all right, we'll take a look at that,

150
00:09:39,639 --> 00:09:48,399
especially in light of Caldwell. And then regarding pleading number

151
00:09:48,399 --> 00:09:52,159
seventy four, which is the motion for discovery regarding government's

152
00:09:52,279 --> 00:09:56,080
medical witnesses, so miss regularly on that.

153
00:09:56,480 --> 00:09:58,399
Speaker 4: You run around that motion. I'm asking that the court

154
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:04,759
would entertainer request that we'd be advised of the cases

155
00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:11,159
that the government's chosen doctors have been involved in a

156
00:10:11,159 --> 00:10:15,600
criminal case, certainly not during their entire practice when they

157
00:10:15,679 --> 00:10:19,440
are engaged as an expert, either for the government or

158
00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:24,519
the defense. Requesting information as to the percentage, if you will,

159
00:10:24,639 --> 00:10:27,639
of their practice, that would how much percentage of their

160
00:10:27,679 --> 00:10:31,000
practice would be for prosecution, how much for the defense,

161
00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:33,840
And then obviously the name of the cases or a

162
00:10:33,879 --> 00:10:37,600
docket number in references in the event there was testimony,

163
00:10:37,679 --> 00:10:42,519
not so much a plea. I'm not looking for the

164
00:10:42,559 --> 00:10:46,159
government to provide me with their reports on these cases.

165
00:10:46,159 --> 00:10:48,440
Of looking for the name of the case, the court location,

166
00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:51,639
the docket number, and whether or not they testified for

167
00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:52,519
the government or the.

168
00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:54,480
Speaker 1: Defense.

169
00:10:55,000 --> 00:10:58,799
Speaker 4: I'm also looking for I think there was some other requests.

170
00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:00,159
I don't have the motion in front of me.

171
00:11:00,799 --> 00:11:06,799
Speaker 1: There was the fourth paragraph is directing the physician to

172
00:11:06,879 --> 00:11:11,480
produce and make available to the defense notes, records, memory,

173
00:11:11,480 --> 00:11:14,159
and yes, so I think that was an.

174
00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:17,039
Speaker 4: Addition to repress my memory yourana so obviously, and I

175
00:11:17,039 --> 00:11:18,919
don't know, maybe they're not on because of the fact

176
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:20,639
in this case, as you know, we followed the motion

177
00:11:20,759 --> 00:11:24,799
to have the interviews recorded, which they were recorded, So

178
00:11:25,279 --> 00:11:27,879
I don't know if that obviated the necessity of anybody

179
00:11:27,919 --> 00:11:30,039
taking notes. And a lot of times the doctors will

180
00:11:30,039 --> 00:11:34,399
say that interferes with the relationship between the patient or

181
00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:38,320
the defendant and the doctor who's doing the evaluation. So

182
00:11:40,360 --> 00:11:42,159
those are the requests that I have in that regard.

183
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:49,320
So I specifically did not ask for the amount of

184
00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:52,200
money that they have made. And the reason is is

185
00:11:52,240 --> 00:11:54,840
that I personally feel in the cases I've tried I

186
00:11:54,879 --> 00:11:58,159
have I can literally tell you never have I ever

187
00:11:58,600 --> 00:12:02,000
asked a doctor, expert, anyone, how much money did you

188
00:12:02,039 --> 00:12:04,279
make in this case? And I always say, in the

189
00:12:04,320 --> 00:12:06,480
event the government asked the question, I always say, look,

190
00:12:06,480 --> 00:12:08,600
everybody's getting paid to be here. I'm getting paid the

191
00:12:08,639 --> 00:12:11,519
judge is getting paid. Jurors not much, but they're getting paid,

192
00:12:11,960 --> 00:12:15,159
so it doesn't really matter. But the funds that they receive,

193
00:12:15,279 --> 00:12:17,000
I don't really care how much money they made. I

194
00:12:17,000 --> 00:12:20,080
don't think that's going to color someone's testimony at all.

195
00:12:21,360 --> 00:12:21,799
I guess what.

196
00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:28,159
Speaker 1: I'm interested to the argument because it's above and beyond

197
00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:33,000
the CV that's supposed to be my rule has been,

198
00:12:33,919 --> 00:12:35,559
My magic has been turned over, is going to be

199
00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:38,840
turned over. But didn't ask them to go win their

200
00:12:38,919 --> 00:12:42,360
records and go back and dig through all that.

201
00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:44,759
Speaker 4: Well, it's not so much a matter of digging through

202
00:12:44,799 --> 00:12:47,200
all that as much as like when you get when

203
00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:50,919
you get the CV, and the CV says the following

204
00:12:50,960 --> 00:12:53,519
that cases that I testified, and they name the cases,

205
00:12:53,519 --> 00:12:55,519
But you don't have a docket or you don't have

206
00:12:55,519 --> 00:13:00,399
a specific I can't go hunting through the internet find

207
00:13:00,519 --> 00:13:02,960
what case they're talking about. So I look for a

208
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:06,200
docket number or location of whatever court it may be

209
00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:09,840
Tanellos County, California or something like that, in the docket number,

210
00:13:11,159 --> 00:13:14,200
and then I could try to see if there would

211
00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:17,480
be any records of documents indicating that what their testimony was.

212
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:20,879
They don't give you that generally on a CV.

213
00:13:22,399 --> 00:13:22,799
Speaker 1: Come up.

214
00:13:23,519 --> 00:13:26,960
Speaker 3: Rule fourteen only requires the curriculum VIEWTAI as well as

215
00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:31,679
any publications that they've authored. We've turned over the cvs

216
00:13:31,759 --> 00:13:33,960
for the two doctors who have already done the analysis,

217
00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:38,559
and will be turning over the third doctors information tomorrow,

218
00:13:39,320 --> 00:13:41,639
and those contain the publications they have authored. This is

219
00:13:41,679 --> 00:13:47,000
all above and beyond what's required by the rule. There's

220
00:13:47,039 --> 00:13:48,600
nothing in the rule or in the case law that

221
00:13:48,679 --> 00:13:51,960
requires us to go on a search for this information.

222
00:13:52,039 --> 00:13:54,120
If Defense wants to use it in their cross examination,

223
00:13:54,600 --> 00:13:56,879
then they have to go and find it. We're not

224
00:13:56,919 --> 00:14:00,399
required to help them with their cross examination. Nless there's

225
00:14:00,399 --> 00:14:02,960
something exculpatory and we find that, we will of course

226
00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:06,039
turn it over. I don't think Rule fourteen requires me

227
00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:08,639
to do math either, so asking for the overall percentages

228
00:14:08,679 --> 00:14:12,080
of chases, and if anything is allowed, I'd ask for

229
00:14:12,200 --> 00:14:16,240
the same reciprocal discovery from Defense consol on his witnesses.

230
00:14:16,559 --> 00:14:20,240
But in the Carmost position, this is all beyond, well

231
00:14:20,240 --> 00:14:21,519
beyond the scope of Rule fourteen.

232
00:14:21,759 --> 00:14:23,799
Speaker 4: So I can assure you that I know every article

233
00:14:23,799 --> 00:14:25,799
that these guys have written, and I've already gone all

234
00:14:25,799 --> 00:14:28,480
the way back to their high school. I really don't

235
00:14:28,480 --> 00:14:31,360
need the government to help me on cross examination. But

236
00:14:31,399 --> 00:14:34,799
I don't think it's an unreasonable request to say that

237
00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,519
when they put on their resume or their CV, what

238
00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:42,080
cases that they've been involved in, to know whether they're

239
00:14:42,120 --> 00:14:45,799
testifying for the government or the defense and some docket number,

240
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:47,879
it's not requiring a lot of work to find a

241
00:14:47,879 --> 00:14:49,759
doct number or a court.

242
00:14:49,559 --> 00:14:51,440
Speaker 1: That it's in defense.

243
00:14:51,440 --> 00:14:52,759
Speaker 3: CONSOL can do that same work.

244
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:56,120
Speaker 1: Well, I know, it's kind of hard for me to

245
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:58,679
make this determination. They'll seeing the cvs, do you know

246
00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:01,600
what I mean? It maybe if I see them, it

247
00:15:01,639 --> 00:15:06,399
may be not a big ask to fill in these gaps,

248
00:15:06,559 --> 00:15:09,960
or it may be a huge thing to ask. I mean,

249
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:12,279
if this is if somebody's been an expert for twenty five

250
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:15,919
years and there's no there's nothing on the CV about

251
00:15:15,919 --> 00:15:19,879
the specific cases that's gonna that's a that's a big

252
00:15:19,919 --> 00:15:22,240
ask for somebody to go back through twenty five years

253
00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:28,080
of your career and reconstruct what cases they were that now.

254
00:15:29,559 --> 00:15:32,799
So that's that's just one comment I had when I

255
00:15:32,799 --> 00:15:37,320
was reading through that. The other thing is, I guess

256
00:15:38,639 --> 00:15:42,639
I'd be interested to hear from both parties. Everybody and

257
00:15:42,720 --> 00:15:47,919
I always ask that question, right, what percentage of the

258
00:15:48,080 --> 00:15:51,480
time that you've testified where you on behalf of the

259
00:15:51,519 --> 00:15:56,759
government or the defense. And that's that's very confident. I mean,

260
00:15:56,799 --> 00:16:04,559
I asked that question many times. And is it I imagine

261
00:16:07,799 --> 00:16:09,720
is it a big ask to kind of ask that

262
00:16:09,840 --> 00:16:13,679
question in advance from both sides everybody would know. I'm

263
00:16:13,720 --> 00:16:18,639
just and if you feel it is a bridge too

264
00:16:18,639 --> 00:16:21,279
far in a sense, let me know. But I'm just

265
00:16:21,360 --> 00:16:24,799
thinking we've all heard that question, you know, and if

266
00:16:24,840 --> 00:16:27,960
everybody knows what the answer is going to be, now

267
00:16:29,960 --> 00:16:32,679
is there a problem? Because then if somebody says it's

268
00:16:32,679 --> 00:16:36,159
ten percent, well then the OtherSide may want to do

269
00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:39,519
their own chasing after it, or not they may be

270
00:16:39,559 --> 00:16:41,000
satisfied with that. I don't know.

271
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:44,000
Speaker 3: I think it's beyond the scope of reporteen and I

272
00:16:44,039 --> 00:16:47,600
think it is a significant ask because we then have

273
00:16:47,679 --> 00:16:49,480
to go to the experts and ask them to review

274
00:16:49,519 --> 00:16:52,279
every case they've ever worked on and determine which side

275
00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:55,159
they were on, and then do the calculations to determine

276
00:16:55,720 --> 00:16:59,679
the percentage. And really it's not the quantity that's important,

277
00:17:00,159 --> 00:17:02,039
the quality of the work. And I think that can

278
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:06,200
be examined in the cross examination without knowing an exact percentage.

279
00:17:06,640 --> 00:17:09,519
Speaker 1: But don't you think someone you're both going to I

280
00:17:09,519 --> 00:17:12,559
shouldn't saist. It would not be a surprise to me

281
00:17:13,400 --> 00:17:18,240
if that question was asked by both sides of anybody

282
00:17:18,319 --> 00:17:19,119
to testify here.

283
00:17:20,680 --> 00:17:24,000
Speaker 3: I think there's two separate issues here. I mean, there

284
00:17:24,039 --> 00:17:26,119
are plenty of questions that might be asked of a witness,

285
00:17:26,119 --> 00:17:28,119
but it doesn't mean the karmalt has an obligation under

286
00:17:28,160 --> 00:17:31,599
Rule fourteen to seek out that information and provide it, right,

287
00:17:31,680 --> 00:17:32,240
And that's.

288
00:17:32,039 --> 00:17:33,839
Speaker 1: So I was just asking. I kind of wanted to

289
00:17:33,880 --> 00:17:36,640
know what the call moust physician was in regards to that.

290
00:17:37,839 --> 00:17:41,680
All right, what I'm going to do is I'm going

291
00:17:41,759 --> 00:17:45,039
to take no action on this at this point, because

292
00:17:45,039 --> 00:17:47,079
what I'd want to do is maybe see the cvs

293
00:17:48,920 --> 00:17:52,279
so I would then know what information both sides because

294
00:17:52,400 --> 00:17:54,079
if I'm going to do one, it certainly would be

295
00:17:54,079 --> 00:17:58,839
reciprocal in regards to these requests. But I'm not saying

296
00:17:58,839 --> 00:18:01,599
I would just kind of need a little bit more

297
00:18:01,599 --> 00:18:07,240
information as to what the cvs have presented.

298
00:18:07,559 --> 00:18:09,720
Speaker 4: So I'll get the cvs from my side and present

299
00:18:09,759 --> 00:18:12,599
them to a dot and chun.

300
00:18:11,799 --> 00:18:13,720
Speaker 1: And call the same all right, and I'll take a

301
00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:15,680
look at them then i'll make a decision on this

302
00:18:16,880 --> 00:18:19,960
regarding that, all right, all right, so I'll take that

303
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:27,440
matter under advisements as well. Now, the next series of

304
00:18:27,640 --> 00:18:31,359
issues I think is in regards to the rule seventeens.

305
00:18:31,680 --> 00:18:34,480
Speaker 3: Yes, and I believe Defense Council is not objecting to those.

306
00:18:35,079 --> 00:18:35,440
Speaker 4: All right.

307
00:18:35,480 --> 00:18:41,799
Speaker 1: So it's a request for Mass General records. And then

308
00:18:42,000 --> 00:18:44,680
there was one I just kind of wanted to make

309
00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:45,279
sure I add it.

310
00:18:47,039 --> 00:18:47,160
Speaker 2: Right.

311
00:18:47,200 --> 00:18:50,160
Speaker 3: There's one for employment records for Maths General. There's one

312
00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:53,920
for educational records from Mass General Hospital Institute of Health Professionals,

313
00:18:54,319 --> 00:18:58,200
and then there's one for educational records from Quinnipiac University

314
00:18:58,559 --> 00:19:02,200
and a company that should be a sort of a

315
00:19:02,240 --> 00:19:06,319
certificate for out of state securing of those records.

316
00:19:06,400 --> 00:19:10,799
Speaker 1: So the MGH Institute is an educational just kind of

317
00:19:10,799 --> 00:19:13,079
continuing education in the sense if you're working in Mass

318
00:19:13,160 --> 00:19:15,960
Channel or something like that. All right, So I'm going

319
00:19:16,000 --> 00:19:17,920
to allow those Yeah.

320
00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:20,640
Speaker 4: No objection to that. I know they are. They already

321
00:19:20,680 --> 00:19:23,559
obtained a number of documents and records from her employment

322
00:19:23,559 --> 00:19:26,160
where they were rating peer review ratings and things, and

323
00:19:26,200 --> 00:19:29,799
she always races everything. So I have no, obviously objection

324
00:19:29,880 --> 00:19:30,119
on that.

325
00:19:31,319 --> 00:19:34,559
Speaker 1: Do we need a return date given guides to those.

326
00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:39,039
Speaker 3: Records, and specifically for the out of state records, because

327
00:19:39,039 --> 00:19:43,440
there are bases on those documents. For a return date,

328
00:19:45,759 --> 00:19:47,839
we could do a sixty day date.

329
00:19:48,960 --> 00:19:52,359
Speaker 1: We've got a June date anyway, don't we right already?

330
00:19:52,519 --> 00:20:02,079
Speaker 3: Yes, we have June eight teenth, eighteenth Thursday.

331
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:05,200
Speaker 1: You want to put that at the same date if

332
00:20:05,240 --> 00:20:07,559
there's if there's issues, we might as well deal with them.

333
00:20:07,720 --> 00:20:09,319
They're not and we know we can just kind of

334
00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:14,119
check that box, all right, So we'll allow those with

335
00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:16,680
a return date of June eighteenth.

336
00:20:17,400 --> 00:20:18,200
Speaker 3: A thank you.

337
00:20:19,440 --> 00:20:24,200
Speaker 1: The next issue, there was a request for release of

338
00:20:24,240 --> 00:20:28,799
the journalists early. I allowed that, so I think it's

339
00:20:28,839 --> 00:20:32,880
coming here. So so the parties have those, Okay, thank you.

340
00:20:36,119 --> 00:20:43,920
Then just maybe a little discussion regarding the impediment procedure.

341
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:50,799
I know that there was a file that suggested the

342
00:20:50,920 --> 00:20:54,319
question the air along with a number of questions. We're

343
00:20:54,319 --> 00:20:55,640
not going to go to them. I mean, I think

344
00:20:55,680 --> 00:20:59,240
it's it's early, but like I said before, it's never

345
00:20:59,279 --> 00:21:03,039
two everything. So I think that that's what I'm saying.

346
00:21:03,079 --> 00:21:05,079
I think that's helpful in the calm off the same

347
00:21:05,119 --> 00:21:10,519
thing as we go through it, but generally try cases

348
00:21:10,559 --> 00:21:14,119
with everybody here, so you know, generally, what we'd do

349
00:21:14,240 --> 00:21:18,000
is i'd ask the general questions and a lot of

350
00:21:18,000 --> 00:21:22,160
the questions here I'll ask generally, and then we'll just

351
00:21:22,279 --> 00:21:28,559
do an individual sidebar kind of as we go through it. Uh,

352
00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:32,880
and then as we've done before, i'd ask you exercise

353
00:21:32,920 --> 00:21:35,599
your challenges at that point rather than the gold days

354
00:21:35,720 --> 00:21:40,160
fill the box and then you know, and so uh,

355
00:21:40,279 --> 00:21:45,960
these some questions in regards to the procedures. But so

356
00:21:46,079 --> 00:21:48,079
that's generally the way we do it. If we do

357
00:21:48,160 --> 00:21:49,720
a question here, might hope we'll be to keep it

358
00:21:49,759 --> 00:21:53,319
to one page because I just think that it's easier

359
00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:56,640
for the jurors as well. But we'd still have individual

360
00:21:57,559 --> 00:21:58,000
no matter what.

361
00:21:58,240 --> 00:22:00,920
Speaker 4: So kind of just a question we do the individual

362
00:22:01,000 --> 00:22:03,920
of what idea? What's your practice? I forget many cases

363
00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:05,720
with you, but do you have the juror in the

364
00:22:06,079 --> 00:22:08,799
witness box and console stays at the table or do

365
00:22:08,839 --> 00:22:13,440
you go up to the sidebar? Literally I generally go

366
00:22:13,559 --> 00:22:16,119
over to the sidebar. So my request, if you would

367
00:22:16,119 --> 00:22:20,640
consider it, is that we use the witness box with

368
00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:22,680
the juror for a couple of reasons. I know there

369
00:22:22,680 --> 00:22:25,599
are many judges that do that, and not to mention

370
00:22:25,680 --> 00:22:28,279
the fact that it's a lot easier on the legs

371
00:22:28,279 --> 00:22:30,599
and standing there for hours on end at the sidebar.

372
00:22:30,759 --> 00:22:33,039
But my client, as you know, is in a wheelchair,

373
00:22:33,119 --> 00:22:35,519
so it would be kind of difficult where I always

374
00:22:35,559 --> 00:22:38,799
ask that the client be with me at the side

375
00:22:38,839 --> 00:22:41,599
by when we have that question of the jurors. So

376
00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:43,680
I just asked in this case that you would consider

377
00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:47,960
doing it through the witness box, just because it's going

378
00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:49,079
to be difficult.

379
00:22:48,799 --> 00:22:52,119
Speaker 1: With there, right, And I was thinking of that. One

380
00:22:52,119 --> 00:22:57,400
of the possibilities is to use the uh, what's it

381
00:22:57,440 --> 00:22:59,920
called the whisper, like the headset.

382
00:23:00,079 --> 00:23:02,079
Speaker 4: If that's your order, that's your order.

383
00:23:02,079 --> 00:23:06,000
Speaker 1: But I haven't gotten it. I haven't really, I'm trying

384
00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:08,759
to bounce off the different ideas. That's one thought and

385
00:23:09,400 --> 00:23:12,160
one of the reasons why I'm not necessarily a big

386
00:23:12,200 --> 00:23:16,039
fan of the witness box in a case like this.

387
00:23:16,640 --> 00:23:21,839
There's a lot of really personal questions that are going

388
00:23:21,920 --> 00:23:24,160
to be asked in not just this case, in a

389
00:23:24,160 --> 00:23:26,119
lot of cases, and that's why I generally would do that,

390
00:23:26,519 --> 00:23:26,839
but there.

391
00:23:26,720 --> 00:23:28,839
Speaker 4: Would be there would be nobody else, you know, I

392
00:23:29,039 --> 00:23:33,680
mean insirens, we can't close the court room, so right,

393
00:23:33,799 --> 00:23:37,799
I mean, you look at is you know Colin versus Cohen,

394
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:42,920
which cod one is I'm familiar with.

395
00:23:44,079 --> 00:23:46,559
Speaker 1: So but that's that's one thought we can talk about it.

396
00:23:47,119 --> 00:23:51,960
This is probably a better specific topic when we come

397
00:23:52,000 --> 00:23:54,400
back in June, but I just kind of wanted to

398
00:23:54,440 --> 00:23:56,440
get that out there, to have people thinking about it.

399
00:23:57,839 --> 00:24:01,079
You know, how are we going to do this? I'm

400
00:24:01,119 --> 00:24:03,519
not wed to that. I mean, this is a unique

401
00:24:03,759 --> 00:24:07,200
you know, each case has its unique characteristic so this

402
00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:10,640
may have that scenario where we have to do it

403
00:24:11,400 --> 00:24:15,680
in the jury box. I just haven't really kind of Finally.

404
00:24:15,279 --> 00:24:17,960
Speaker 4: I just know that I've had many, many cases in

405
00:24:18,279 --> 00:24:21,599
various counties where I just will do the individual idea

406
00:24:21,720 --> 00:24:23,799
from the jury box. It works out well. I've never

407
00:24:23,839 --> 00:24:26,480
had any issues that I can recall in those cases.

408
00:24:28,039 --> 00:24:30,440
I know the court's got to balance the concerns. But

409
00:24:30,519 --> 00:24:32,960
I've done that whisper thing in federal court and statecore.

410
00:24:33,000 --> 00:24:36,000
I don't like the whisper thing. I never use it.

411
00:24:36,079 --> 00:24:37,359
I'm almost because I don't like it.

412
00:24:37,920 --> 00:24:41,599
Speaker 1: Five But sometimes it's as bad as it may be,

413
00:24:41,759 --> 00:24:43,160
it's better than the alternative.

414
00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:45,079
Speaker 4: As they say, Well, not from my client's point of

415
00:24:45,119 --> 00:24:47,359
view and my point of view. I understand you're balancing

416
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:49,720
other people's interests.

417
00:24:49,880 --> 00:24:51,039
Speaker 1: Came on these thoughts.

418
00:24:51,160 --> 00:24:54,079
Speaker 3: I prefer to do it out sidebar. I agree with

419
00:24:54,119 --> 00:24:57,559
the court about the personal questions. I think we're more

420
00:24:57,640 --> 00:25:00,440
likely to have juris who are comfortable and honest entering

421
00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:03,799
at sidebar. We also send them out of the room

422
00:25:04,279 --> 00:25:07,759
to do our challenges. So defense could use that opportunity

423
00:25:07,920 --> 00:25:12,240
to speak to the defendant, but I would defer to

424
00:25:12,279 --> 00:25:13,119
the court on it.

425
00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:16,680
Speaker 1: All right, I'm going to think about that and maybe

426
00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:20,839
we come back here in June we have a better

427
00:25:21,079 --> 00:25:24,480
kind of concrete answer. I'll have to kind of decide

428
00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:26,799
how we do it, but I kind of wanted to

429
00:25:26,839 --> 00:25:32,119
just gauge everybody's thoughts and interest in positions, so well.

430
00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:36,119
Speaker 4: The other alternatives that we could ask quote opposite to

431
00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:39,799
construct a platform that we could put next for the bench.

432
00:25:39,920 --> 00:25:45,119
I suppose that's that's another possibility.

433
00:25:44,039 --> 00:25:49,160
Speaker 1: Uh so we'll we'll keep all possibilities. But I mean

434
00:25:49,240 --> 00:25:55,039
generally we either do it sidebar there maybe with the whisper,

435
00:25:55,759 --> 00:26:03,440
but full weigh those out, all right, and then fine,

436
00:26:03,519 --> 00:26:07,680
so we've got we've got the June eighteenth date, and

437
00:26:07,720 --> 00:26:11,119
then do we need one more date in May? Do

438
00:26:11,160 --> 00:26:15,240
you think to just kind of make sure everything's on

439
00:26:15,440 --> 00:26:19,200
track that makes sense, I don't know. I mean it

440
00:26:19,279 --> 00:26:23,000
sounds like things are going I don't see any big

441
00:26:23,039 --> 00:26:26,079
bumps in the road here, but that's sometimes when sera again,

442
00:26:26,119 --> 00:26:27,000
it's going to be difficult.

443
00:26:27,079 --> 00:26:29,720
Speaker 4: I have two back to back federal trials in May,

444
00:26:29,920 --> 00:26:32,759
and it's probably going to wipe out most of the

445
00:26:32,799 --> 00:26:35,200
month of May. So I just let you know that upfront.

446
00:26:35,240 --> 00:26:39,920
But we could go through some dates if you want.

447
00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:43,519
Why don't you give us a date we can maybe work.

448
00:26:44,119 --> 00:26:46,400
Speaker 1: It's more of it. I hate to use the word status,

449
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:47,880
but that's kind of what it would be, to see

450
00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:50,359
if there's any issues that anybody sees that we need

451
00:26:50,400 --> 00:26:59,119
to address earlier rather than later. When we commit about

452
00:26:59,200 --> 00:27:04,720
May twenty first, it's a Thursday in the morning works,

453
00:27:06,160 --> 00:27:09,240
and if that becomes a problem from me either side,

454
00:27:09,599 --> 00:27:12,480
just let us know we can kind of move that police.

455
00:27:12,640 --> 00:27:17,240
And that's really just to check in in regards to

456
00:27:17,400 --> 00:27:21,079
discovery and witnesses and any other issues that we may have.

457
00:27:22,039 --> 00:27:24,400
But when I say, can I see council tidemark, just briefly,

458
00:27:28,079 --> 00:27:31,000
all right, and then come mout anything further. We need

459
00:27:31,039 --> 00:27:32,799
to address it this time.

460
00:27:34,400 --> 00:27:36,000
Speaker 3: I don't believe so, Honor, I'm mis.

461
00:27:35,880 --> 00:27:38,599
Speaker 1: Strength and anything further. Oh, thank you, all right, So

462
00:27:40,039 --> 00:27:42,839
this case will be over till what was it?

463
00:27:42,920 --> 00:27:46,240
Speaker 2: May first, top of the record, this matter of continue

464
00:27:46,279 --> 00:27:48,880
to make twenty first, twenty twenty six at two pm

465
00:27:48,960 --> 00:27:52,039
for status and we will have Miss Clancy and by zoom.

466
00:27:52,200 --> 00:27:53,279
Speaker 3: Yes and cantilate.

467
00:27:53,400 --> 00:27:53,839
Speaker 2: Good morning.

468
00:27:54,839 --> 00:27:55,240
Speaker 4: Yeah I did.

469
00:27:56,720 --> 00:27:57,119
Speaker 1: I didn't here.

470
00:27:57,200 --> 00:27:59,240
Speaker 4: I have to be in a federal court in the afternoon.

471
00:28:00,079 --> 00:28:02,680
Speaker 1: We're doing in the morning, gay one in morning, keep

472
00:28:02,680 --> 00:28:06,799
doing the wet's see whatever's good for you want to

473
00:28:06,799 --> 00:28:10,559
say nine o'clock, because I don't know what Judge Hogan's

474
00:28:10,599 --> 00:28:13,799
trial schedule, may have to sneak out at first and

475
00:28:13,799 --> 00:28:19,000
then head out to where I'm going. And like I said,

476
00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:21,200
if we don't need that date, parties can just let

477
00:28:21,240 --> 00:28:24,759
us know. And the thought then on that June date

478
00:28:24,839 --> 00:28:28,240
to so everybody transportation and everybody else, the thought would

479
00:28:28,240 --> 00:28:32,160
be to have Ms Clancy here in person on the

480
00:28:32,319 --> 00:28:37,039
June eighteenth date.

481
00:28:37,400 --> 00:28:39,480
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, step of the rock at this matter

482
00:28:39,519 --> 00:28:41,720
has continue to May twenty first, twenty twenty sixth at

483
00:28:41,839 --> 00:28:43,640
ninety a m. And Miss Clancy will appear around.

484
00:28:43,680 --> 00:28:46,400
Speaker 1: So thank you, thank you, all right, thank you everyone,