Keith Henson Hemet trial transcript, pages 101-150

Go to previous part of transcript
Go to next part of transcript
Back to index

THE COURT: But we don't -- that's his opinion. We don't have Counsel for the defendant here. I mean, you could get Counsel if you want to, and then we might be able to find out. But I don't even think that would be helpful. I think we'd be plowing that ground for a couple of days and not being able to reap anything from that harvest. So I don't think it makes any difference if we have testimony from the attorneys as to what they intended. I think the intent was what the defendant intended in that proceedings, and that is not evident from the record. Okay. Based upon that the Court is going to exclude items 10 and 11 from -

MR. SCHWARZ: You mean 11 and 12, your Honor?

THE COURT: 11 and 12. Did I say 10 and 11?

MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: 11 and 12. Okay. Now, anything else? You're still wondering about Mombo Chicken, I take it; is that correct?

MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: But I'm going to reserve on that. I'm going to read the evidence and see what I'm going to do about that, because I don't know the context in which that's included in the evidence. So as soon as I read it I will give you my decision.

MR. HARR: Your Honor, could I please ask a question regarding the 789 issue?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARR: It's my understanding that you've indicated there won't be any reference to fair game.

THE COURT: That's right.

MR. HARR: But that there was still a pending issue on 789, and if I could please ask what that issue is.

THE COURT: No, I think it's already over, Counsel. The Court is not going to receive any evidence on the fair game doctrine. I think that it -- it so falls within the purview of 352 that nothing else need be considered. I don't think it's a question of 789 anymore. I think it's a question to attack the credibility, and to go down that road I think is going to -- is going to be unhelpful, and injurious, and prejudicial to witnesses that may or may not agree with that doctrine. We have no way of knowing, and I don't want to find out. I don't want to plow that ground. I think your client wants to communicate with you.

MR. HARR: In the context of the fair game doctrine I understand that that -- that's out. And not trying to be impertinent here, but -

THE COURT: Mr. Harr, I don't know you to be an impertinent person, so the Court doesn't take it impertinent. I'll tell you when I think you're being impertinent.

MR. HARR: The -- there are other -- I take it any other aspects of -- well, while they're not actually fair game, they might be the same but related; those would be off as well?

THE COURT: I'm not sure -

MR. HARR: Training, routine lying, acceptable truth, these kind of things. These concepts we believe exist. They're not actually called fair game, but they are other issues we can at least inquire of the witnesses there about, you know, have they engaged in any kind of activity like this. I can't ask them if they know it or anything like that, but can I ask them if they've engaged in anything like that?

THE COURT: A rose by any other name, Counsel, still smells.

MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, Counsel?

MR. SCHWARZ: The last matter that the People would like to respectfully request, since the Court has ruled that fair game and all of its -- in any of its forms is not to be addressed by Counsel or brought up by the People, has the Court -- has the Court reconsidered with respect to, given the fact that I'm sure the Court has now looked at all of the documents and seen that they're replete with references to the Church of Scientology and this is -- Count Three is a hate crime, the simple mention of the fact of their membership I am assuming is okay as long as the People do not engage in any -

THE COURT: Yes, you ask them their belief.

MR. SCHWARZ: Then we open the door.

THE COURT: That's right.

MR. SCHWARZ: I understand, your Honor. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there anything else?

MR. HARR: So the mere mention that they belong to the Church of Scientology would be an acceptable not-opening-the-door type of thing?

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. HARR: But if they go into something beyond that -- thank you.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. SCHWARZ: No, your Honor.

MR. HARR: When are we to be back in court, your Honor?

THE COURT: Okay. Since there's nothing else, and I reserve -- I originally said that I had something to do Thursday morning, but I was incorrect. It was Wednesday. It's Wednesday morning instead. I've called the jury for 9:00 o'clock Thursday morning. Now, let me -- this trial is not going to take very long; am I correct?

MR. SCHWARZ: No, not now that the Court has ruled with respect to fair game. It should be fairly quick, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Then what I want Counsel to do for the Court, please, is to -- I want you both to work on -- start working on jury instructions.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.

THE COURT: And I want those to be submitted - first of all, I want some voir dire questions for the jury.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, that's another matter. I apologize. I've given a copy -- we had, given the fact that speed and convenience of the Court are at issue here, given this is the arraignment calendar court -

THE COURT: I don't mind.

MR. SCHWARZ: Not that you mind -

THE COURT: Let me explain something to you, Counsel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Yes.

THE COURT: This Court is here to conduct as fair a trial as we can. To that extent, to that extent, if it takes you longer than we wanted it to, then we expect it to so be it. I think that to do less would be to deprive the parties, both the People and the defendant, of their right to a fair trial. So don't worry about this Court being an arraignment court. The matter has already been resolved with the use of other judicial assistants.

MR. SCHWARZ: I meant no disrespect to the Court.

THE COURT: I didn't think you meant disrespect.

MR. SCHWARZ: I had approached Counsel about the possibility of using a jury questionnaire. And given the fact that there are volatile feelings with respect to this -- to even the mention of Scientology one way or the other, some people are Tom Cruise crazy and some people are not. And we would ask respectfully, or at least the People would, I don't know, did you give any consideration to that?

MR. HARR: I read it. The longer form that you gave me for the little time that I had to dedicate to it didn't seem like a problem. The shorter one, I wanted to look at that a little more closely. I don't know if they were to be used in conjunction with each other.

MR. SCHWARZ: No -

THE COURT: I don't know what you folks are talking about.

MR. SCHWARZ: I'll explain for the Court. My apologies again. Yesterday I went to Counsel's office and we had discussed the possibility of using a jury questionnaire so that we could print it out and have them, when they go to the juryroom, they can fill it out. And Counsel seemed amenable to that just with respect to the questions. So I was asking Counsel whether or not he is still amenable to that, and if the Court would indulge the parties if we both agreed a jury questionnaire is probably the way to go.

THE COURT: If you'll stipulate I have no problem with that. I want to see the questions.

MR. SCHWARZ: Oh, of course. Of course, your Honor. Yeah, the People would provide a copy.

THE COURT: I don't want to get into a lengthy -

MR. SCHWARZ: No.

THE COURT: Also, let me remind you, Counsel, so you understand, I'll conduct the voir dire. I will give each of you ten minutes with the jurors. And we will use 24, with them in the front row there as well. You'll be able to conduct voir dire of the first 12, and then the next 12. Okay?

MR. HARR: Your Honor, did you say you were going to conduct the initial questioning?

THE COURT: Yes. And then I'll give you ten minutes each. And we'll go from there. So we should be able to select a jury by Thursday morning.

MR. HARR: Mr. Henson just indicated, and we've discussed this over the course of weeks, that he at this point would be willing to waive a jury trial if the People are willing to do that.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, as the Court's well aware, I actually answer to someone, and some decisions are not mine. I would have to confront my supervisor with that question.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you do that.

MR. SCHWARZ: I will do that. Unfortunately, my boss is in a murder trial in Riverside. And I will try to get in contact with him prior to -- maybe I can inform the clerk as to how we are going to proceed before the jury is called, of course.

THE COURT: Well, you know, I don't want to call a jury if they don't have to come. It's bad enough to get a jury when we've got a trial, let alone we get them down here and cut them loose. They're not going to be very happy.

MR. SCHWARZ: I'm fairly certain, though, that my boss is going to say no, we will want to proceed on a jury trial. And we should probably -

THE COURT: I think, Mr. Harr, you pretty much have your answer. But if it's possible will you get back to us today?

MR. SCHWARZ: Absolutely, yes.

THE COURT: At the very latest tomorrow. I will be here tomorrow afternoon, so you can call the clerk and she'll get to me. Is there anything else we have to take up? Because Counsel, we will start at 9:00 o'clock on Thursday morning, and we will go every day until 4:30. I will not go past 4:30 unless we are in the middle of testimony which is almost concluded, in which case I will inquire of the jury whether they want to stay another few minutes or not. That's the custom that this Court has. And I think that the -- that the jurors work hard enough and we ask enough of them so that they can leave at 4:30. They have kids to pick up and shopping to do, so that's my schedule. And we will take a recess at 10:00 o'clock until 10:15, maybe 10:20, because it's always hard to get people back in here. We'll take one at 3:00 o'clock until 3:15 or closest to that. That's the way we'll run it. Now, I also have to tell you something else. The Court will be dark on Monday. So I want you to keep that in mind.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

THE CLERK: Your Honor, did we address Exhibit 4?

THE COURT: What is Exhibit 4?

MR. HARR: I don't have 3, 4 or 5. I must have missed it somewhere.

THE COURT: Those are the deposition transcripts.

MR. HARR: So those aren't going to be introduced; right?

MR. SCHWARZ: No. Those were -- the purpose of the deposition transcripts was simply for authenticity and possible cross-examination, your Honor, but not to be given to the jury.

THE COURT: Right. They won't be received. All right, Counsel. Thank you very much.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor, for your patience.

THE COURT: Court's adjourned.

(Proceedings adjourned.)

-000 28

HEMET, CALIFORNIA - THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2001

AFTERNOON SESSION

(Jury voir dire conducted on the record, not herein transcribed.)

(The following proceedings were held outside of the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: To those visitors who were earlier excluded from the courtroom, let me extend the Court's apologies. The Court did not realize -- we only had room for 55 people in here. That's why the deputy originally -- the deputy took it on his own to bar you from the court. That is not the intention of this Court. He was in error, and I apologize because it's my court. The only reason we did not have you in here is because of seating as opposed to trying to limit your access to this court. So with that we have an afternoon recess. We are going to begin the trial at 3:00 o'clock. And again, I extend my apologies.

MR. SCHWARZ: 3:15 or 3:00 o'clock?

THE COURT: 3:15, I'm sorry.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: If you want to, you can go out and take a break. You've been here a long time, so you can take a break. Is there anything, Counsel? I don't want to take anything up at 3:15, I want to take it up now before -

MR. SCHWARZ: The only thing that the People would ask is with respect to opening statements, is there a time limit His Honor has for the People, or just -

THE COURT: I mean, it's your case. It's not mine.

MR. SCHWARZ: Some Courts, your Honor, give 15 minutes, some give half an hour. I'm just asking the Court's -

THE COURT: You can just bore the jury to death if you take more than half an hour.

MR. SCHWARZ: I agree, just for example. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You're ready to put on testimony this afternoon?

MR. SCHWARZ: I am ready to put on testimony this afternoon if the Court will allow me to go get my additional exhibits. Thank you. Got 15 minutes. I'd better run.

(Recess taken.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay. Let me start out by -- before we hear from the attorneys let me tell you a couple of things. First of all, have you received notebooks?

JURY: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Would you pass out the notebooks, please. We'll be passing out notebooks shortly. They're there for your use or not, as you prefer. You can take notes. Some people like to take notes during the proceedings. And other people just prefer to sit back and listen to the testimony. You are free to do either one. The only thing we do is ask you if you're going to listen, sit back and listen, please don't close your eyes, because that might indicate you're doing something more than listening. During the course of the trial we will take several recesses. We will usually adjourn at 4:30, we'll start in the morning at 9:00. We'll take a recess at 10:30, reconvene at 10:45 and go until noon, and then 1:30 until 3:00, and so forth until the trial is over. Some of you may believe that you have a question that is important for you to know the answer to. And what we'd like you to do is to on a piece of paper in your notebook) you can make a note of that question, and then on a recess give it to the bailiff. The bailiff will give it to the Court, and the Court and Counsel will discuss it. And if it is what we deem to be a relevant question, it will be asked. It may not be asked in the form that you've put it. But if we deem that it's necessary and relevant, it will be asked in one form or another. So that's one of the things we ask you to do. If you can't hear, please raise your right hand and tell us you can't hear. Sometimes people don't speak into the microphone, or they speak softly, or someone has a particularly difficult problem in hearing certain voices. The air conditioning, sometimes I don't hear very well at all. So we are not averse to raising your hand and saying that you can't hear. There's no reason for any of you to, unless you're sick, please don't ask to leave during the session unless there's some special reason. If there is an urgency, of course, we will take a court recess. But try to take care of everything during the recesses. You've all heard about -- on television about reasonable doubt. Sometimes they put it "shadow of a doubt," sometimes they put it "beyond all doubt." The fact is, it is reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt, because it is so important, is defined in a very particular way. And I will read you the legal definition of reasonable doubt. A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. And in the case of a reasonable doubt whether the defendant's guilt is satisfactorily shown, the defendant is entitled to an aquittal. The effect of this presumption is only to place upon the prosecution the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which after an entire comparison and consideration of all of the evidence leaves the mind of the jurors in a condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. The People must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't explain it any more than that. That's the legal definition, and that's the one that you will be given at the close of the proceedings, I'll read it to you again. Okay. As I told you earlier, the attorneys are going to take a very active part of this trial, in this trial. And -- however, what they say is not evidence. The only evidence that you will be given will come from this witness stand or from various documents that you might be given. So please, we ask you to listen to the attorneys, because as I told you, they will provide you with a road map; however, what they have to say is not evidence. With that I'll ask Counsel to give an opening statement.

MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. Hello again. Again, my name is Robert, and I'm with the Deputy District Attorney's Office. In effect, I represent the People of the State of California, and it is my privilege to do so. In this case His Honor mentioned three charges which the defendant, Mr. Henson, is accused of. The first one was essentially making threatening statements causing the other person to be in fear of him. The second charge is an attempt to do that, making threatening statements and maybe not accomplishing them. And the last one is what's charged as, under the Penal Code as 422.6, and essentially what that charge is, is a making -- or preventing someone a constitutional right by either force or threat of force. So in effect what we're dealing with is, in this case, that constitutional right is freedom of religion. And Mr. Henson -

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Counsel, I didn't hear what you said.

MR. SCHWARZ: Freedom of religion, your Honor. And in this particular case Mr. Henson is accused of basically trying to dissuade the victims from being able to practice their religion in the way that they want. Now, as His Honor has indicated, this is opening statements. And he noted to you that what I say or what Mr. Harr says, should he choose to in fact make an opening statement, is not evidence. So your question probably is this: "Then why are you talking to me?" Well, the reason why is, essentially, I'm allowed to give you a road map about what I intend to present. There's only a couple of times that I'm actually able to talk to you directly. Once when I talked to you directly in voir dire, once in opening statement, and once in closing arguments, those are the only times I'm allowed to talk to you like right now, one-on-one. Now, with respect to opening statements, the -- I want you to imagine that this trial, what you're in right now, a trial is a lot like a jigsaw puzzle. Now, you -- I don't know if you've actually used a jigsaw puzzle, but I'm sure all of you have heard one or at least tried to put one together. I can't do it, I get too frustrated. But a trial is much like that. And what happens during the course of a trial is you will get pieces of evidence, and they will be like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. And what you will do is you will get pieces of them, and it's your job to put them together. Now, unfortunately, the pieces don't come neatly labeled. They won't say what the relevance is, what relevance it has, or how important it is, or -- and I can't stop to tell you. And neither can Mr. Harr. All we can do is give them to you and allow you to put them together. Now, unlike a jigsaw puzzle that you would buy from Wal-Mart or something else right off the shelf, not all the pieces will fit together. In fact, you may have pieces missing, or at least you think so. Or you might have pieces left over. And you will think to yourself, "Well, what is this?" Well, that's when your common knowledge, your education, or your experience comes into play. That's why we have juries. So as you put the pieces together just like in a real jigsaw puzzle, let's say it's a mountain, you put it together and there it is. And that is how a trial works essentially. In this particular case you will hear evidence that I will put on. I get to go first. It is my burden. And essentially what will happen is I will call up witnesses and, like a jigsaw puzzle, it may not be in the order that you may think. So there may be a piece here, and you think maybe we should start from the center, or from the outside, and you would hope in some cases, you would like a chronological order about how things go. Much like a movie. You want to know how it starts and at the end. But like a movie they don't actually film in sequence. Sometimes they'll have to film on location, and that's what they have to do. They will film in New Zealand because that's the contract they have, although that came at the end of the movie. That's how it works. Well, sometimes in a trial I am unable to get the witnesses for whatever reason. You may hear one piece, you might have to tuck that away and then save it, and then it will become abundantly clear. So please don't become frustrated if that becomes the case. Now, you're wondering to yourself what -- what is the evidence that I'm going to present? Well, the People are going to present to you the fact that Mr. Henson, who does not live in the valley, comes from Palo Alto, and has a long-standing hatred for the Church of Scientology. Now, we mentioned the Church of Scientology, and that may raise some biases. And that's why we tried to weed them out during voir dire. Now, these -- the -- Mr. Henson comes down, and he has made some threatening statements. And the People will show that he's done this over the internet. And furthermore, he also engages in activity such as stalking and harassing the people, the victims, who happen to be at the Church of Scientology Golden Era. And if you don't know where that is, it's off of Gilman Hot Springs Road, and you will learn that if you don't know. Now, the first person that you will hear from is a person by the name of Frank Petty. And what will he tell you? Essentially what he is going to tell you is one of the things that Mr. Henson did was he was walking along, and he was carrying a sign, but he did that in concert with some other people. And what happened was some of the -- one of the persons that he was with in concert was taking G.P.S. coordinates of the various buildings. Now, that alone isn't much. But in concert with a lot of other information, you will find out that Mr. Henson by his own admissions is actually an explosives expert. We're not -- we're not talking here just run-of-the-mill, average Joe, just like you and me, but has the knowledge and the capability to actually build explosives, and in fact has done so in the past. You will also find out that Mr. Henson has a patent how to launch missiles. You will also find out that Mr. Henson has the ability to -

THE COURT: Wait a minute, Counsel. Approach along with the reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at sidebar.)

THE COURT: Counsel, remind the Court, where is there proof that Mr. Henson knows how to launch missiles?

MR. SCHWARZ: The People never presented that -

MR. HARR: There isn't any.

MR. SCHWARZ: -- before the Court. And it's -- I'm going to present it with testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: From whom?

MR. SCHWARZ: From Mr. Henson's own words, your Honor, from an admission he made to other people. It never came up before your Honor because I never had to tell you my entire case. I'm only dealing with the documents.

THE COURT: Well, if that's -- if that's not part of the -- did you know about this, Counsel?

MR. HARR: I know that there is a patent Mr. Henson -

THE COURT: There is a what?

MR. HARR: There is a patent that Mr. Henson has on delivering a payload to outer space. But he doesn't know anything about launching missiles to my knowledge. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

THE COURT: Where does this information come from?

MR. SCHWARZ: From the patent office, your Honor. I have a certified copy of his patent.

THE COURT: Oh, patent office. And what is the patent for?

MR. SCHWARZ: The patent is for, your Honor, delivering a payload.

MR. HARR: To outer space.

MR. SCHWARZ: Yes. Nevertheless, I will show you the patent if you like. It's a missile being pulled along by an airplane, your Honor. I'm surprised the Court is inquiring at this time. If I don't make my case then I don't make it.

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but I just don't want you to go outside the facts as the Court understands them.

MR. SCHWARZ: I haven't explained the Court all the facts.

THE COURT: All right. Okay.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. Furthermore, the People intend to present evidence by -- you will hear two police officers who in fact interviewed Mr. Henson. And they will give you -- and they will tell you vicariously through - through the officers what Mr. Henson said to them. You will hear terms like, "He's waging psychological warfare on the Scientologists." You will hear that he admits to even owning a cannon. These are the things that the evidence will present. They will paint a picture of a person that has not only ability to make incendiary devices, but in fact has the anamice, the hatred, and the motive to do so. This is the case that the People intend to present. Now, unlike most cases that I've dealt with and my colleagues have dealt with, usually what you'll have is a very contested issue, there will be, "I said, he said, she said," it's black, it's white, there will be a lot of contested testimony. But in this case there won't be a lot of contested testimony, because many of the statements, and you will see some internet postings, they're all authored by Mr. Henson. In effect, he is actually admitting to all of this stuff. So the People's case is basically generated on Mr. Henson's conduct and his own admissions. There are other things that you will hear as well. You will hear other evidence of harassment, such as you will hear evidence of harassment which -- as you may have heard before during jury voir dire. The Scientologists don't all live at Golden Era. Some of them have apartments either in Hemet, and they take buses back and forth to Golden Era. And what Mr. Henson has done, he chases them, gets in front of their face, and does all sorts of things. And I will let them explain that to you. I'm talking about the witnesses, for the record. The most important thing to realize is this: During the course of this trial, whether you like the Scientologists, don't like them, believe in their religion, don't believe in it, doesn't really matter. Whether you're Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, doesn't matter. All that matters is in this country we're allowed the choice to believe whatever we want to believe. And we should have the ability to be able to worship whichever God or no God and do it peacefully. And this is our case. And so I want to make a contract with you at the end of this case. And the contract goes like this. If I prove the elements of the crime, and I show what I said I was going to show, at the end of this case I want you to do your end of the bargain, which is to find Mr. Henson guilty as charged. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Harr?

MR. HARR: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Although I don't have to do anything as an attorney as far as presenting evidence on behalf of Mr. Henson, I do have the opportunity to at least explain what I believe the evidence will show. As the judge will undoubtedly -- well, has indicated to you, the defendant is presumed to be not guilty. And in this case the other opening statement mentioned such terms as stalking and harassment, and that the defendant hates people because of their religion, basically, or wants to impede their ability to practice their religion the way they want to. That's not what this case is about. The one word that Mr. Schwarz didn't mention, or I should say two words, "First Amendment." First Amendment of the United States gives people broad leeway to say things. You may have watched on the news people saying things on -- in picket lines. Mr. Henson is a picketer. Mr. Henson has been a picketer for years. Mr. Henson has been picketing Scientology since probably at least 1998 and perhaps before then. We'll see where the evidence goes with that. But we believe that around -- that we can show that around May of last year he began picketing a little more frequently. He became noticeable. He became obvious. He stood out at Golden Era and was visible to everybody in the world that went by Golden Era. He wasn't hiding. He's right there. I believe the evidence will show that the police actually went out there and observed him picketing. He's standing where he can stand, he's not trespassing. He's saying things that the organization of Scientology perhaps does not want said, but he's saying it lawfully. You might even see some of these internet postings and say, "You know what, I think that's kind of obnoxious. I might not do that myself." But that's not the way the First Amendment reads. We have a right to free speech.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, may we approach? Objection.

THE COURT: No.

MR. HARR: He's standing out there with his picket sign. Mr. Schwarz referred to an incident that I'm sure Mr. Schwarz will present evidence on, is when Mr. Henson happened to be in the same location with another gentleman that had a G.P.S. item, which is a global positioning something or another. But anyhow, you can tell where you are.

THE COURT: Counsel, please limit your opening statement to what you intend to present.

MR. HARR: Let's take the term "stalking." Stalking implies something to a person. A person can also drive a car on a highway behind another vehicle. It doesn't have to be stalking. It may very well not be stalking. A person has a right to be on a main street in a city observing people. If you are a picketer, if you are a free speech proponent, you want to know what the other side does, you observe them.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, objection, this is argument, your Honor.

THE COURT: I think it's getting towards argument.

MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.

MR. HARR: This case is not about Mr. Henson trying to prevent somebody from practicing their religion. I believe that when you look at the postings you will see a couple of things that will stand out that are extremely important in this case. One is, none of these postings are directed to any witness in this case. None of the witnesses' names in this case, I believe, will appear on any of those postings. The postings were made on a news group. The statements weren't made in the presence of any of the witnesses. This is not an open and shut case. This is not a case about stalking or harassment. So with that, and indicating that I really don't have to do anything as far as presenting evidence, it's the burden of the People to do that, I'll leave this case in your good hands. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Have you passed out the notebooks?

THE DEPUTY: The notebooks have not been passed out as yet, your Honor.

THE COURT: Would you do that now, please. All right.Counsel, call your first witness.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. People would call Frank Petty to the stand.

THE COURT: Would you ask Mr. Petty to come in.

THE DEPUTY: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Petty, step through here right up to the jury box and up to the witness stand, and remain standing while the clerk swears you in.

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly state the testimony you shall give in the matter now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated and state your full name for the record, please.

THE WITNESS: Frank C. Petty, P-e-t-t-y.

THE COURT: All right, Counsel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SCHWARZ:

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Petty.

A: Good afternoon.

Q: Let's start with a little background information. How old are you, sir?

A: I'm 60 years old.

Q: 60 years. And your education, sir?

A: I have a Bachelor's Degree in public service management.

Q: And what is your present occupation, sir?

A: I'm a security probe for Talon. We provide security for executives, personal protection.

Q: Is Talon a licensed agency?

A: Yes, private investigative agency.

Q: And what do you do for Talon exactly?

A: I provide armed protection for V.I.P.'s, celebrities. It could be a violence in the work place, wherever they -- that's needed.

Q: And before working for Talon -- excuse me. How long have you worked for Talon?

A: I've worked for Talon for about five years.

Q: And before Talon?

A: Before Talon I worked for a film company in Hollywood and I headed their security for five years.

Q: Thank you. How long have you been in the security business?

A: After retiring from L.A.P.D. in 1982.

Q: And how long were you with L.A.P.D.?

A: 15 years with L.A.

Q: So you have roughly 20 years, 19 years of experience?

A: Well, I was four years with two other agencies before L.A., so.

Q: Do you have any military experience?

A: Yes, U.S. Army.

Q: Do you know Mr. Henson?

A: Yes, I do. I don't know him personally, but I recognize him.

Q: Could you please point that person out and name an article of clothing that he or she is wearing?

A: Yes. He's seated right here with the flower on the lapel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Can the record reflect that the witness has identified the defendant?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

Q: When did you first see Mr. Henson?

A: It was on the 4th of July, I believe it was, last year.

Q: Okay. And where did you see him?

A: Out at Golden Era, I believe it's called, the Scientology facility out in Running Springs, is it, or Gilman Springs?

Q: Gilman.

A: Gilman Springs.

Q: Now, did you work directly for the Church of Scientology?

A: No. I was hired by Talon and placed there.

Q: Okay. And what was your assignment there at Golden Era Productions?

A: My assignment there was to protect the staff and the property from threats of any type of violence.

Q: And when you got to Golden Era Productions did you -- where did you see the defendant?

A: I first saw the defendant walking along the highway with the picket sign.

Q: Okay. Was he alone?

A: The first time I saw him, yes, he was.

Q: And the second time?

A: Eventually he was joined by two other people, a man and a woman.

Q: Okay. And do you know their names?

A: I believe the gentleman's name was Rice, and the female, I think her name was Rore. I don't recall. Barbara Wore, I think.

Q: Are you familiar with something called a G.P.S.?

A: Yes, uh-huh.

Q: And what is a G.P.S.?

A: It's a global positioning system. It's for determining where you are on the -- on a map or on the globe, your exact position.

Q: Okay. And did you see the defendant with a G.P.S.?

A: I think the other gentleman had the G.P.S. I saw him -

THE COURT: Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: The question was, did you see Mr. Henson with the G.P.S.?

THE WITNESS: Oh, no.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Who had the G.P.S.?

A: To my recollection I believe it was Mr. Rice.

Q: Okay. And you testified earlier that they were together?

A: Yes, uh-huh.

Q: Okay. How far away were you to these group -- to this group?

A: As close as five feet, generally tried to keep a distance of maybe 15, 20 feet.

Q: Okay. And how long were you in contact with the - these individuals?

A: For about seven hours.

Q: Now, were you close enough to hear them speaking?

A: Yes, uh-huh.

Q: Now, with the G.P.S., what were they doing with it?

A: They would look -

THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel. You said "they." Who do you mean, "they"?

MR. SCHWARZ: Mr. Henson -- Mr. Rice and -- Mr. Rice in concert or with Mr. Henson.

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation that they were -

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARR: -- in concert.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.

Q: When you observed Mr. Rice with a G.P.S., was Mr. Henson present at the same time?

A: Yes, he was.

Q: What was Mr. Rice doing with the G.P.S.?

A: He appeared to be taking readings.

Q: Okay. And was -- from what you saw was Mr. Henson participating in this event?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, when you were close enough to them can you tell us what they were talking about?

A: I don't remember specifically -

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, hearsay.

MR. SCHWARZ: Admission by party opponent, your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember the specific words -

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'll overrule the objection. You can answer it.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall the exact words, just that they were conferring -

THE COURT: You've answered the question, sir.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.

Q: Can you tell us the gist of what they were saying?

A: No, I can't.

Q: Okay. Now, did you ever have an occasion to actually speak with Mr. Henson, the defendant?

A: Yes, uh-huh.

Q: And what, if anything, did Mr. Henson say?

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, relevancy, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I believe we discussed his former occupation or current occupation, his background.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): And what was that background?

A: I believe he said it was computer science and guidance systems technology.

Q: Now, when you saw the three individuals walking along, the one with Mr. Rice with the G.P.S., you testified earlier that they were together, was anybody taking down any notes?

A: Yes. There was some notations being taken. I don't recall who -- who was actually doing it. I just -- I was more concerned with -

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Petty, would you speak up, please?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I did not recall exactly who was taking -- just -- they would just confer, and it looked like they were taking readings, and then they would write it down on the pad. I can't remember exactly who was doing what.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. But did it appear that Mr. Henson was participating in this event?

A: Yes.

Q: I'm going to show you a photo -- may I approach Madam Clerk to mark this photo?

THE COURT: Would you show it to Counsel first.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Q: I'm showing you what's been marked as People's 27 -

MR. HARR: Your Honor, I'd like that not to be published until I've had a chance to possibly do an objection or whatever, if that's going to be shown to the jury.

THE COURT: All right. Approach. Excuse us just a minute. You can talk to each other, but not too loud.

(The following proceedings were held at sidebar.)

MR. HARR: Mr. Henson didn't post that. And I don't know exactly where he's going with that, but if there is going to be some testimony -

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. HARR: Those are the G.P.S. coordinates for that place. And there is no way to tie Mr. Henson to that posting. It has not been authenticated.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, that's the whole purpose of allowing me to do so.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. SCHWARZ: And I have an ability to be able to authenticate it. It's a picture of a posting. It's a picture of the guard shack. He will be able to testify that it is a picture of the guard shack. And I'll ask him what those things are, the target data, Mr. Harr -

MR. HARR: That is not target data. That might be G.P.S. information.

THE COURT: No. I'm not going to let that in. That's -

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, this is -

MR. HARR: There is no foundation that Mr. Henson had anything to do with that.

THE COURT: Excuse me, what is your argument?

MR. HARR: That can't be tied to Mr. Henson. That has not been authenticated as his posting. That's just inflammatory, 352 if there ever was any, your Honor.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, this is part of our case. This is the threat.

THE COURT: Well, Counsel, I don't care if it's part of your case or not. If the Court's not going to admit it, then the Court's not going to admit it.

MR. SCHWARZ: You're not even going to let me try to lay a foundation?

THE COURT: Who took that picture?

MR. SCHWARZ: The picture was found on the internet.

THE COURT: No, who took this picture?

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, as the Court is well aware, I don't have to have the photographer to be able to tell me who took the picture.

THE COURT: How do we know -

MR. SCHWARZ: That is an accurate description, that's all -

MR. HARR: If you want to show a picture of the guard shack, go ahead.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You can show the guard shack. I will not permit you to show that other information. You can do that if you want. I will not permit, that's the ruling, Court's ruling.

MR. HARR: Thank you, your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Mr. Petty, you indicated that you were in -- in personal protection, not including L.A.P.D. which is ostensibly personal protection, also, since 1982; is that correct?

A: Yes, uh-huh.

Q: Now, if you had a client who had a -- someone that disliked them, and they had -

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for conclusion. Is that your objection?

MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I think that -- exception, your Honor.

Q: After you interviewed the defendant or you spoke with the defendant, what happened?

A: We just discussed his background, that type of thing, and then we continued to follow him as he continued his activities.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. I have no further questions for this witness at this time.

THE COURT: Anything?

MR. HARR: No questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Petty. Thank you for your testimony. May this witness be excused?

MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.

MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are excused, sir. You may leave. Call your next witness, please.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, with respect to the next witness, may we approach quickly?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held at sidebar.)

THE COURT: All right, Counsel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, the next witness is going to take awhile. It's going to take a couple of hours or so, and it would just -- it just seems like it would be a good idea, the People would suggest if it's possible to -

THE COURT: No, let's get going. If he's here, let's get going.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, the People would next call Ken Hoden, Kenneth Hoden to the stand.

THE COURT: Is he outside?

MR. SCHWARZ: I believe so, your Honor.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, may the People approach? We have previously marked People's Number 26. It's a map.

THE COURT: Sure. Good afternoon, sir. Would you come forward, please.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Would you face the clerk and raise your right hand.

THE CLERK: You do solemnly state the testimony you shall give in the matter now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated, and state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Ken Hoden, H-o-d-e-n.

THE COURT: Thank you. Counsel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SCHWARZ:

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Hoden.

A: Good afternoon.

Q: Some background information, if you please. How old are you, sir?

A: I'm 54 years old.

Q: And what is your education?

A: Well, I went to school in Pennsylvania, I went to Penn State, and I graduated in 1968.

Q: With a degree in?

A: Electrical engineering.

Q: Where do you live, sir?

A: I live in Hemet.

Q: And how long have you lived in the valley?

A: I've lived in the valley since 1983, except for about a two or three-year period in the mid '80's when I lived in Los Angeles.

Q: Where do you work?

A: I work at Golden Era Productions.

Q: And what is Golden Era Productions?

A: Golden Era Productions is a sound and film studio, and we do all the religious instructional films for the Churches of Scientology and the Dyanetic Centers around the world.

Q: Now, Golden Era Productions, where is that located exactly?

A: Well, it's on Highway 79 -- I'm trying to think of the cross streets. It would be between Sanderson and State Street along Highway 79.

Q: Is that the building, the complex with the big castle?

A: Yeah. We have a sound film studio which is the castle.

Q: How long have you been on staff at Golden Era?

A: Since late 1987.

Q: And what is your occupation there, what's your job?

A: I'm a general manager for Golden Era.

Q: As a general manager what do your duties include?

A: Well, the general operations of the studio, you know, making sure that, you know, we produce all the films on time and just the general actions of getting done what we get done there at the studios.

Q: Is security an area or part of your job?

A: Yeah, that would be an area under me.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHWARZ: Can everyone see this?

MR. HARR: Your Honor, can I please move over here to the right so I can kind of see that exhibit a little better?

THE COURT: You can move over there. You can sit on the bench there if you want to.

MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that the People approached the witness with what's been previously marked as People's Exhibit Number 26.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Mr. Hoden, can you tell me what that is?

A: Well, that's a map of our property.

Q: And can you briefly describe what that map depicts exactly?

A: Well, that's the -- the physical boundaries of our property, and this -- well -

Q: Mr. Hoden, you can get up.

A: Okay. Well, it's just a position. Sanderson goes this way, and this is, like, the mountains. And State Street is -- goes down over here, and then the junior college is over in this area here. And the property is bisected or cut in half by Highway 79. So it comes from this way and then goes over across the State Street Bridge and goes down State Street. And the property is basically broken up into three general areas. The far easterly side, there's a public, nine-hole golf course in this particular area. And then the central portion is where all the studio grounds are. And then this section here is a vacant land area. And the little blue boxes that are on here, these are actually buildings that are on the property. And there's about 43 buildings on the property. This one here looks like a castle when you drive along the highway. That's actually a film studio. In other words, inside it's all open, like it's a very, very large, open, about four stories high, and that's where they shoot the films in there, where they shoot the films. And then this is a large dining hall that we have. This is a chapel, different office buildings. Over here these are all different music studios that we have on the grounds. And then this is the main administrative building, and that's where my office is. That's generally what the property is. And as I said, the mountains are here, so it's generally like that.

Q: Thank you. You can have a seat. Since the property is bisected by Highway 79 as you've previously testified, how do you get from the -- what would be the south portion of your property to the north portion of your property?

A: Well, the way we do that is through two pedestrian tunnels. We have one located about right here, and one located right there. And years ago people used to have to run across the highway. It was a little bit dangerous. So we put these two tunnels in. That way you can just walk through the tunnel. It's a big, wide, pedestrian tunnel. So that way if you're eating on the south side and you go back to work, you just go through the tunnel and go back and forth.

Q: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hoden. Do you know Keith Henson?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And do you see him in the courtroom today?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Could you please point that person out and name an article of clothing that he or she is wearing?

A: Yes. It's that gentleman there, and I think he has a blue coat on.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. May the record reflect that the witness identified the defendant?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Given the relevant time period that we're talking about in this case, starting in May, 2000, when was the first time you laid eyes on Mr. Henson?

A: It was in late May or early June of 2000.

Q: And under what circumstances did you see him?

A: I saw him walking along the highway.

Q: Okay.

A: He was carrying a sign.

Q: And what knowledge did you have about Keith Henson at that time?

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Did you have any previous knowledge about Mr. Henson?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And did you -- and what was the nature of your knowledge?

A: Well, I had received -

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation as to what -- and relevancy.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. I'll rephrase.

Q: Mr. Hoden, you indicated that you have some knowledge about Mr. Henson; where did that knowledge come from?

A: Well, I received a number of postings -

THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, where did the knowledge come from?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, okay. From our church in Los Angeles, our headquarters.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. And what information was presented to you by the church?

A: I had a number of postings and I had other information.

Q: For the jury's benefit, what do you mean by "posting"?

A: I'm sorry. Written materials that were put on the internet, and then they were just printed off. In other words, different types of -- I'm not a computer expert, but just certain things where you can send e-mail to one another, different people send it, and there's little news boards where you can put postings, or where you can write and other people can look at it and add various things to it. And a number of these things were on there, and they're there for the whole world to see. In other words, anybody who logs in, I guess, can take a look at these things. And those were printed off and sent to me, a number of those regarding Mr. Henson. There was other material, other documents sent to me regarding Mr. Henson.

Q: Now, can you be more specific? What other materials did you receive?

A: Well, I received a book that was about -- not about Mr. Henson, but talked about some of Mr. Henson's exploits.

Q: Can you tell me the name of that book?

A: If I can remember the name of it. It was the Mumbo -- Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition, something like that.

Q: The Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition?

A: That's correct.

Q: So have you seen this book before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Okay. And we'll get to the book later.

A: Okay.

Q: What other information did you receive?

A: I received some court documents at one time, just different things about Mr. Henson.

Q: Okay. And the documents that you received, generally what were they about?

A: Well, they were about -

MR. HARR: Objection -

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. HARR: Calls for a conclusion, and relevancy.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): We'll go back to the book then. In this book what did you read about -- in it exactly?

A: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question.

Q: I'll repeat it. In the book, in this Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition, is Mr. Henson in the book?

A: Well, his name is mentioned in this book quite a bit, actually.

Q: Okay. And in what context is Mr. Henson spoken about or written about?

A: Well, in two aspects. One, the book goes into the fact that he is a bomb expert as -- has extensive history in being able to set off bombs, that he would go out into the desert and set off a bomb. Some of these were very, very large bombs, one that gave the impression that -- when it went off it looked like an atomic bomb. In other words, it talks about his ability to, one, be a bomb expert, and actually going out and setting off bombs, making bombs, building them.

Q: Okay. And did this give you cause for concern?

A: Sure. Yes, it did.

Q: Okay. Now, you had a number of, you indicated, some internet postings that were given to you; can you tell us what other observations you had with respect to Mr. Henson?

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, as far as time, date, place, too broad.

MR. SCHWARZ: I thought we were talking about May of 2000.

THE COURT: Then that's when we're talking about, Counsel, apparently.

MR. HARR: All right. Thank you.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): For the record, in the relevant period between May of 2000 and September of 2000 what did you observe with respect to Mr. Henson?

A: Well, I saw a number of things. One, when he showed up at the church in late May or early June and he was there for about three months, and he would show up day after day after day for close to 40 days or more. It just went day after day. And what he would do is he would go along the highway, and as I explained, we have the two pedestrian tunnels. And what he would do is he would run along to the top of the tunnel, and as the staff, the church staff would finish a meal, or were going from one building to another, he would stand over the top of the tunnel and he would jeer or cackle at the staff in there. And then what he would do is he would go home that night, or wherever he went to, and then he would go and post all the things that he did during the day on the internet so that everybody in the world could read them. And what he would do is when the -- all our staff, we have about 750 staff, and they all live in Hemet and San Jacinto. Only about ten or 12 people actually live at the property. So when they would come in the morning in their cars or their buses, or they would pull in, he would be there in the morning standing in front of the gate, running around the buses, you know, yelling at the staff in the buses, glaring at the women that were driving in their cars. He would then after awhile -- because I was getting concerned in light of the fact that I had earlier postings at that time that not only is contained in that book, but also other postings about him setting off other huge bombs, one of which he set off a bomb that -

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor. May I approach the bench?

THE COURT: What is your objection?

MR. HARR: Of the postings that have been authenticated I believe that's not among them.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHWARZ: It goes to his state of mind, your Honor, about how he felt.

THE COURT: Counsel, I made my ruling. Please don't argue. Go ahead. Ask your next question.

Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): What other -- what other things did you observe, sir?

A: Okay. Well, I had the staff walking through the tunnels -

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Hoden, what did you observe?

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. I saw that my staff were going through the tunnels, and they were being heckled, you know. He's called them cockroaches, just disgusting things, basically. I don't know if he was just trying to incite a disturbance or whatnot. But what he would do is, as they would walk through he would go, "You, you," just constant, every day, running to the gate. And then what I did to try to handle the situation -

THE COURT: Excuse me, that's what he did? Is that what he did?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he did that.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. You've answered the question, sir.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And then my concern was -

THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, there is no question pending. Wait for Mr. Schwarz.

MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.

Q: Can you continue with your observations, sir.

A: Yes. Every day he was there it got a little bit more and a little bit more. Then what he would do is he would come there in the morning and at the end of the day when the staff would go home, and he would follow the buses in his car. And he would pull up behind the car, he'd pull up beside the car, swing around -

Q: The jury can't see what you are gesturing.

A: I'm sorry. He would pull around the car, go to the side of the car, go ahead of the car, zoom ahead to get to where their apartments were -

MR. HARR: I object, when he said "their apartments" that implies that he wasn't on the bus.

THE COURT: Do you know of your own knowledge what he did?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I've seen him -

THE COURT: Were you there, sir?

THE WITNESS: Yes. On two occasions I saw, I can -

THE COURT: Tell us about those occasions.

THE WITNESS: One, he was following the bus. Number two, I saw him at apartments where our staff live in Hemet. I saw him there one time at 6:30 in the morning where our staff would go out to work and all of a sudden he'd be standing there, or he'd be in his car taking pictures of each -- of the people as they walked out. Or he would have a little pad, and he would look at the people and look at their license plate and write it down. Then he would get in his car and follow the buses. After this happened a couple days, what I used to have to do is I used to go to the apartment buildings in the morning, and if he was there I had to reroute the buses a whole different way.

MR. HARR: Your Honor, I believe we are now beyond observation. I believe he's answered the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Ask your next question.

MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. We'll get to that.

Q: Did you -- now, did Mr. Henson, the defendant, always have a sign when he was doing this activity?

A: No. Not all the time.

Q: So when he was taking pictures, how about when - oh, I'll back up for foundational purposes. Now, you indicated that there were some apartments?

A: Yes.

Q: Not all the staff live at Golden Era?

A: No. Only about maybe ten or 12 staff live at Golden Era, and those are the type people that would fix a broken pipe or if something broke down. Everybody else lives in Hemet or San Jacinto that works there, at the church.

Q: Okay. So when you're talking about the buses, what's the function of the buses, sir?

A: Well, one, we provide transportation back and forth for the church staff. Some have cars, as I said, and maybe a third or so, and then the rest just use the buses. Or sometimes what they do is if they happen to have a car they'll leave it at the apartment and just use -- in other words, it's transportation that we provide for the staff that work at the church.

Q: Okay. And you were talking about taking pictures; where did that occur?

A: That occurred, we have some apartments over in Buena Vista, Buena Vista Apartments, which are just about a block from here, actually.

Q: Okay. this behavior, what if anything did you tell your staff about the information that you received?

A: Yes, I did.

MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is the objection? State your grounds.

MR. HARR: Overbroad. I mean, certain people are alleged to be -

THE COURT: Excuse me. What is your objection?

MR. HARR: No foundation. Beyond the -- and relevancy.

THE COURT: I'm not asking for speaking objections, Counsel. Please just tell me the grounds.

MR. HARR: Relevancy.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. HARR: Relevancy.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, may I be heard on that?

THE COURT: No. Let's go, Counsel.

MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I'm at a -

THE COURT: Counsel, please continue.

MR. SCHWARZ: I -- well -- may I approach your clerk, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, it's now about 25 after, and there are a couple of things I want to talk to you about. Mr. Hoden, can you be here tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I can.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. We'll excuse you for the evening. See you tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. You're ordered back at that time.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Let me say something to you folks in the jury. I don't want anybody on the jury to think that this Court has a view on any issue other than what the Court believes is relevant evidence in this case. So no matter what I do, I'm not -- I have no opinion one way or the other except as to the legal aspect of this case. You will be the triers of fact, and just because the Court may ask a question or may limit questioning doesn't mean that the Court agrees or disagrees with anything. It is merely doing its job. Do you all understand that? Okay. We'll adjourn now for the evening. Drive carefully. Is there any reason anybody can't be here at 9:00 o'clock tomorrow? Okay. Any reason Counsel can't be here at 8:45?

MR. SCHWARZ: No, your Honor.

MR. HARR: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm ordering Counsel back at 8:45, the defendant back at 9:00 o'clock, and we'll see you folks at 9:00 o'clock in the morning. Have a pleasant evening. Leave that right there. The deputy fortunately carries a big gun so nobody will take any of those notes. They're perfectly safe.

(The jury exited the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Counsel, let me explain something to both of you so you understand. The Court's responsibility is to conduct what it believes to be a fair hearing. A fair hearing does not mean that we go over the same subject matter time after time after time. And if either of counsel is unhappy with the ruling of the Court, that is truly unfortunate. But that's the way it's going to be. And we're going to move this trial, and we are going to get it through. I'm sorry if you feel, if either of you feel one way or another. I want you to understand that's not an apology, as we said in China. So we'll see you -- is there any reason why you can't be here at 8:45, Counsel?

MR. HARR: No.

THE COURT: Let's get here -- if we have something in the morning, you want to see me early, please let the clerk know at 8:45 and I will come out so we can resolve any issues and not delay the jury. Okay? Have a pleasant evening.

THE CLERK: Your Honor, one of the jurors gave this to the deputy.

THE COURT: Oh. You want to read it?

MR. SCHWARZ: Please.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. HARR: Thank you.

THE COURT: You might want to incorporate that in some of your questions.

MR. HARR: Thank you, your Honor.


Go to next part of transcript
Go to previous part of transcript
Back to index