[00:19:38]
YEAH. THEY WON'T EVEN LET ME EMAIL IT TO THEM. LIKE JUST. ONE THANK YOU.
[00:22:22]
30 SECONDS OF METRO TV. YEAH.[Call to Order]
[00:22:54]
THIS IS THE PRE HEARING CONFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL CHARGES AGAINST[00:22:58]
COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PIACENTINI. PLEASE COME TO ORDER. THE TIME IS CURRENTLY 3:31 P.M. THIS[00:23:02]
MEETING IS, UH, PROCEEDING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO KRS 61 TO 826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE A THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRE HEARING CONFERENCE IS TO DISCUSS PENDING MATTERS FOR THE DECISION BY THE[Agenda]
PRESIDING OFFICER IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF THE HEARING, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26TH, AS WELL AS PROCEDURAL MATTERS RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING, AND OTHER GENERAL MATTERS THAT THE LAWYERS MAY WISH TO RAISE AS SUCH MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT, WHILE WELCOME ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT. TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI AS THE RESPONDENT, UH, COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS RUI OWEN FOWLER, MULVIHILL. I THINK[Roll Call]
COUNCILMAN MCCRANEY MAY BE JOINING ONLINE. UH, COUNCILMAN BATCH ON IS ONLINE. UH AND WE ARE JOINED BY, UH, ATTORNEY KENT WICKER. AND UH, BROOKLYN SMITH, UH, REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT.COUNCIL WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELVES JUST FOR THE RECORD? UH, WE'LL START. UH MR SMITH, START WITH YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR. WINKLER YES, BROOK AND SMITH ON BEHALF OF, UH, COUNCILMAN PENTTI, AND I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE MY CO COUNSEL MIKE SWANS. BURG IS ALSO HERE AT, UH, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI TODAY. THANK YOU, MR WICKER. GOOD AFTERNOON, UM CHAIR WINKLER KENT WICKER FOR THE CHARGING COM COMMITTEE. ALSO WITH ME IS KAYLA CAMPBELL. THANK YOU. UH, ME, CLERK FOR THE RECORD. WE'VE ALSO BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMAN
[1. ID 24-0084 Motions In Limine]
HAWKINS. UH, THE FIRST ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE UP TODAY ARE THE PENDING MOTIONS IN LIMITING IF THAT'S AGREEABLE. UM MR WICKER HAS FILED ONE. MR SMITH. YOU FILED FOUR. SO UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR ARGUMENTS ON THESE. UH, THAT I JUST, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO CONSOLIDATE ARGUMENTS TODAY, UM BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR ANY ARGUMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE ON THESE MOTIONS. UH, I WILL HEAR YOUR ARGUMENTS AND THEN TAKE THOSE MOTIONS UNDER ADVISEMENT. UH, WITH MY PLAN, ISSUING ORDERS NO LATER THAN SATURDAY. WE'LL PROBABLY TRY TO ISSUE THEM ON FRIDAY. BUT JUST[00:25:01]
IN CASE WE RUN INTO THE ISSUE, UH, THERE'LL BE NO LATER THAN SATURDAY. UH, IS WHEN WE WILL HAVE THOSE DONE OK? SO, UM, WE'VE GOT UM. MR SMITH. WE'LL START WITH YOUR MOTIONS AND WE'LL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME AGAIN. I'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS ON, UH, NUMBER TWO AND THREE.BUT UH, YOUR FIRST MOTION LEMONY , THE CHARGING COMMITTEE SHOULD BE HELD TO THE STANDARD OF PROVING MISCONDUCT OR WOLF FROM NEGLECT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. UM, I'LL GIVE YOU JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES. IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT MOTION AND ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF THAT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. WINKLER YES. UH, OUR FIRST MOTION IS THAT THE COUNCIL COURT WHEN EVALUATING THE CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN AGIN SHOULD USE WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO IN SORT OF LEGAL COMMUNITY. THE INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY SCRUTINY STANDARD THAT IS CLEAR IN CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, UH, TO REMOVE COUNCILMAN PAGE FOR ANY CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT AND THE REASON THAT WE ARE, UH, WE ARE URGING THE CHAIR TO, UH, TO ADOPT THAT.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD. UH, IS BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY, UH, THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY HAS SAID THAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS. IT'S NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF WHAT WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE AND WE WILL CONCEDE THAT AS A GENERAL RULE IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STANDARD APPLIES, BUT THAT IS NOT AN INEXORABLE COMMAND. IT IS ONE THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT, UH, THROUGH THE LENS OF THE OF THE DE PROCESS OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND SO YOU HAVE TO DO A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF PROOF IN ANY CASE, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY SAID THERE'S REALLY TWO FACTORS THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT. AND THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, SORT OF WHAT IS AT STAKE.
WHAT ACTUALLY AT RISK IN THE PROCEEDING, AND IT IS SAID THAT YOU KNOW IF IT'S JUST REALLY A MATTER OF MONEY. THEN. THEN THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STANDARD USUALLY IS APPROPRIATE USUALLY IS APPROPRIATE. OK UH BUT WE WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS, THAT IS ACTUALLY THERE'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. THAT IS THAT IS AT STAKE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THEN MERE MONEY. WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE IS WHETHER COUNCILMAN PITI AS THE DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF DISTRICT 19 GETS TO CONTINUE TO SERVE AND REPRESENT THOSE, UH INDIVIDUALS, THE CITIZENS OF DISTRICT 19 OR PUT ANOTHER WAY, WHETHER THE CITIZENS 19 GET TO, UH, ENJOY THE, UH, THE SERVICES OF COUNCIL PIERINI FOR THE JOB THAT THEY DULY ELECTED HIM TO. SO THAT IS WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THIS RISES ABOVE WHAT IS, UM, WHAT IS ORDINARILY THE CASE IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT? SO WE MEET THAT STANDARD BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING OF A OF A ENORMOUS IMPORTANCE FOR IN A IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WHERE THE PEOPLE ULTIMATELY ARE THE JUDGE OF WHO GETS TO REPRESENT THEM. UH, BEFORE LEGISLATIVE BODIES, AND THE SECOND FACTOR REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE TYPE OF, UH OF THE TYPE OF FORUM THAT WE'RE IN AND WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS. YOU HAVE TO SORT OF LOOK AT WHAT'S THE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT OUR SOCIETY THINKS SHOULD HAVE IN THE THAT THE TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE A CORRECT FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS. ABOUT THAT TYPE OF ADJUDICATION AND WHAT WE HAVE SAID HERE IS THIS IS PROBABLY UNLIKE ANY OTHER, UH, TRIBUNAL THAT EXISTS BECAUSE IT IS IN SOME WAYS. THE FUNCTION OF A OF A LEGISLATIVE BODY. THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT ARE , UH ARE LEGISLATORS HERE IS, UH, WE AS WE'VE TALKED IN THE PAST, THERE IS NOT THE NORMAL. UM UH, SORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR IMPARTIALITY. THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE RELAXED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE IN THIS PROCEEDING. AND SO THAT ACTUALLY BECAUSE WE'RE IN A MORE RELAXED OR MORE INFORMAL FORM, WHERE NOT ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS APPLY THAT INCREASES THE RISK. THAT THERE COULD BE ERRONEOUS. FACTUAL UH UH, DECISIONS MADE AND SO THAT ALSO COUNTS COUNSELS IN WAY OF ENSURING THAT A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE WHATEVER DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE COUNSEL COURT IS JUSTIFIED. BASED UPON THE FACTS AND THE LAW, AND I WOULD I WOULD POINT TO ONE OTHER THING TO SORT OF A CORE PART OF OUR ARGUMENT, AND THAT IS COUNCILMAN PAGE AND THAT'S SORT OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN PAGE. UH, HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF, UH, OF HONEST SERVICES FRAUD. HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF PERJURY, AND HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SIX VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS. ALL OF WHICH, BY THE WAY , REQUIRE AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION LEVEL, A CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD OF PROOF TO PROVE ETHICS COMMISSION CHARGES.
AND WHY IS THAT? WELL, IN SOME WAYS, UH, I THINK YOU COULD ANALOGIZE TO WHAT HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF IS ESSENTIALLY A FRAUD. AND IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK IN THE CIVIL COURTS, FRAUD IS ALWAYS FRAUD ALWAYS REQUIRES THE HIGHER, HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF. THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
[00:30:02]
STANDARD OF PROOF. AND SO, FOR THAT REASON, AS WELL, UH, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO APPLY THAT HIGHER STANDARD. UM IN FACT, I WOULD SAY THE FACT THAT THAT THE METRO COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE THAT I IMPOSED THAT HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF ON THE ETHICS COMMISSION. FOR WHAT OUR IDENTICAL SIX IDENTICAL CHARGES IN MY VIEW. SIGNALS THAT THIS BODY HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT A HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF, UH HAS A PLOT OR STANDARD PROOF SHOULD APPLY. SO THAT IS THAT IS OUR, UH, THAT IS OUR ESSENTIAL ARGUMENT THAT WE LAID OUT IN OUR MOTION. UH AND, UM AT THAT POINT AT THIS POINT, I WILL YIELD TO YOU, MR PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. UH, MR WICKER. YES, SIR. THERE IS NO CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD THAT'S REQUIRED HERE. THE DEFAULT RULE IN KENTUCKY AND ELSEWHERE. IS THAT IN A CIVIL CASE OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE, THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. 51. AND THERE'S NOTHING IN KRS 67 143 C THAT SUGGESTS THAT A DIFFERENT STANDARD IS REQUIRED. UM. IT REQUIRES A PROOF OF MISCONDUCT. NOT FRAUD OR PERJURY OR ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR . ALL IT SAYS IS MISCONDUCT. AND IT SAYS NOTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE USUAL STANDARD OF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE.BUT IT MAKE STATUTE IS SILENT, BUT THE RULE IS NOT. AND THAT MAKES THIS AN EASY QUESTION FOR US BECAUSE RULE 16 OF THE METRO COUNCIL REMOVAL RULES. SAY THAT THE COURT, THE COUNCIL COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN KENTUCKY ARE GOVERNED BY KRS 13, B 0.090, AND THAT APPLIES A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD. SO THAT'S WHAT OUR RULES REQUIRE US TO DO. WE HAVE A RULE ON IT. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT RULE. NOW. THE COUNCIL IMPOSED A DIFFERENT RULE. FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF PROCEEDING. FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARINGS THAT OPPOSE IT IMPOSED A DIFFERENT RULE.
WHICH JUST DEMONSTRATES THAT THE COUNCIL KNOWS HOW TO IMPOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROCEDURES. SO. UH, I'D URGE THE CHAIR TO FOLLOW THE RULE THAT SET OUT IN SIX RULE 16 THAT ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF PROOF FROM KRS 13 B. THANK YOU. SO I STATED THE COURT WILL, UH PROVIDE A FORMAL RULING LATER THIS WEEK. I AM INCLINED, UH, THAT THERE ARE REALLY TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE COURT WILL ANSWER. THE FIRST QUESTION IS COUNCIL P ARGENTI GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND IT IS MY BELIEF THAT RULE 16 SPEAKS TO THAT AND GOVERNS IT AS THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, UH, TO MR SMITH'S POINT THAT THE DECISION TO REMOVE IS ONE THAT REQUIRES A HIGHER STANDARD. THAT IS THE SECOND IF THE COURT ULTIMATELY FINDS THAT COUNCILMAN AGNI IS GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT. THE SECOND QUESTION THAT THE COURT WILL HAVE TO ANSWER IS WHETHER THAT TO A LEVEL OF REMOVAL. UH AND SO I THINK POTENTIALLY THAT'S WHERE THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD, UH, WOULD APPLY, SO THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT I'M LEANING, UM. WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR ANY COMMENTARY ON I MEAN, SO I THIS IS SORT OF A QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION. BUT HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU APPLY A CLEAR AND CONVINCING OR A ONE STANDARD OF PROOF TO THE QUESTION OF MISCONDUCT AND THEN A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF TO REMOVAL? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD WORK, BECAUSE I MEAN, ARE THOSE THOSE ARE I MEAN, I GUESS YOU WOULD ENVISION THAT ONE IS A, UH , YOU COULD AT LEAST ANALOGIZE TO THE FIRST QUESTION BEING A QUESTION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE AND THE SECOND QUESTION BEING A QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT. FOR THAT . SO HOW DO YOU APPLY A STANDARD OF PROOF TO THE TO THE SORT OF PENAL PHASE? IF THAT'S THE FRAMEWORK THAT THE THAT THE COUNCIL COURT WILL OR INTENDS TO FOLLOW. I WOULD ARGUE THAT. YOU NEED TO APPLY A CONSISTENT STANDARD OF PROOF. TO THE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS HERE BECAUSE I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT'S WORKABLE WHERE YOU HAVE ON ONE PHASE, A LOWER STANDARD OF PROOF AND AT A DIFFERENT PHASE, A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF. THANK YOU. AND. IN CHEER WINKLER. I AGREE WITH MR SMITH ON THAT POINT. UM I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN RULE 16 THAT SUGGESTS THAT YOU CAN APPLY A CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD TO ANY
[00:35:07]
PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THESE ARE THE REMOVAL RULES. THESE ARE THE RULES THAT THE COUNCIL UM. UH, PROMULGATED FOR REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT THEY TOLD US ALL WAS THAT WE'RE GONNA DROP THE ADMINISTRATIVE UM . STANDARD OF PROOF. KRS 13 B, SO I THINK WE HAVE TO ADOPT THAT USE IT FOR ALL THE PROCEEDINGS. THANK YOU. MAY MAY. I JUST PROVIDE ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT.I PROMISE. I'LL MAKE IT BRIEF. I DON'T WANT TO ENDLESSLY ARGUE THIS. BUT I DO JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IF, IF A STATUTE OR A RULE PROVIDES A CERTAIN STANDARD. BUT THAT STANDARD IS INSUFFICIENT UNDER THE UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, THEN THEN THE BODY IS OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW WHAT THE RULE PROVIDES, BECAUSE THE RULE ACTUALLY HAS TO GIVE WAY TO THE TO THE CONSTITUTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEMS TWO AND THREE. SO ITEM TWO TESTIMONY OF WHETHER COUNCILMAN PIACENTINI VIOLATED A LEGAL DUTY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS IMPERMISSIBLE OPINION TESTIMONY AND IRRELEVANT SIMILARLY, NUMBER THREE TESTIMONY OF WHAT A WITNESS WOULD HAVE DONE OR WOULD HAVE HAPPENED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A RELEVANT CONJECTURE. UH MY DECISION ON BOTH OF THESE MATTERS IS THAT WE WILL DEAL WITH THEM IF AND WHEN THOSE ISSUES ARISE THROUGH A LINE OF QUESTIONING, UH, IF SOMEONE STATES AN OPINION, UH, YOU MAY OBJECT AND WE WILL MAKE THE DECISION IN THAT POINT AT THAT POINT, AS OPPOSED TO A BLANKET. UH, DECISION TODAY, SO WE WILL NOT RULE ON NEITHER TWO OR THREE. OR THE FINES OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS IRRELEVANT. MR SMITH. CHAIR WINKLER. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE WITH YOUR PERMISSION IS TO HAVE MY COLLEAGUE MIKE SWANBERG ADDRESS THAT, UH, THAT PARTICULAR MOTION, PLEASE. MR SOMBER IF YOU COULD JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD, UM, ALSO, I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THIS AT THE BEGINNING, BUT, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T HAVE A MICROPHONE AT THE PODIUM. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FROM THE PODIUM, YOU ARE WELCOME BY NO MEANS FEEL OBLIGATED TO DO SO. BUT IF YOU ARE MORE COMFORTABLE, UH, THERE THAT IS NOW AN OPTION AS WELL.
SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT MENTIONING IT IN THE BEGINNING, BUT DO NOT FEEL OBLIGATED TO DO THAT. JUST BECAUSE I MENTIONED IT. YES. AND MR SWAN, YOU ARE WELCOME TO SIT THERE. I DID NOT MEAN TO INDICATE THAT YOU DON'T. I CAN'T GET THE BUTTONS TO WORK. MR PRESIDENT. IF I'M GONNA BE PERFECTLY FRANK WITH YOU, SO I'D RATHER GO TO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN HEAR ME. UM AND MR PRESIDENT. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE IF I MAY BE PERFECTLY FRANK, THERE WASN'T ACTUALLY EXPECTING TO TALK TODAY THAT JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. SURE ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS MIKE SWANS ON BEHALF OF LAW FIRM OF SWANS AND SMITH AND I REPRESENT THE RESPONDENT COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PAGE IN THIS MATTER. UM YEAH, I WASN'T ACTUALLY REALLY EXPECTING TO TALK A WHOLE LOT TODAY, AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND WASTE EVERYONE'S UM, TIME FOR LACK OF BETTER ADDITIONAL TERM REHASHING THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN IN THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY. I DO WANT TO, HOWEVER, JUST KIND OF GO AHEAD AND POINT OUT A FEW THINGS ABOUT, UM NUMBER FOUR IN PARTICULAR, AND THAT REALLY GETS DOWN TO THIS IDEA THAT THERE'S A FINDINGS OF FACT AND A CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT WAS PROFFERED AND AFTER A HEARING AND TESTIMONY THAT WAS ULTIMATELY MADE BY THE LOUISVILLE ETHICS COMMISSION, RIGHT, AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD ALREADY IN FRONT OF THIS BODY IS THAT IT WAS A BIPARTISAN, UNANIMOUS, THOUGHTFUL OPINION THAT THIS BODY FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM SHOULD ESSENTIALLY ADOPT. AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING AT THAT POINT IS WELL, IF IN FACT THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE. THEN WHAT, IN FACT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A HEARING THAT IS PRESUMABLY GIVEN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. AND PRESUMABLY ALLOWS HIM TO PUT ON EVIDENCE WHEN IN FACT THE ETHICS COMMISSION THROUGH A HEARING THROUGH WITNESS TESTIMONY HAS ALREADY MADE A DETERMINATION AND IN FACT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY BOUND BY THAT DETERMINATION. IF WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY HOLD A HEARING THAT IS GOING TO BE UNBIASED, AND IT ALLOWS THE PARTY TO PROFFER EVIDENCE TO BE HEARD BY A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO GET TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON THEIR OWN UNDER WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCE OR WHATEVER THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS GOING TO BE. THEN WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF LISTENING TO THAT EVIDENCE WITHOUT TAKING A DOCUMENT THAT WAS RENDERED BY ANOTHER GROUP, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS ACTUALLY ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HERE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY. GIVE THAT TO THEM AND THEN SAY YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS ANYWAY? WHAT'S THE POINT? WHAT'S THE POINT OF GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS, THEN? IN RESPONSE. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PRET A COUPLE OF ARGUMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S A NOTION OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL THAT'S
[00:40:03]
REALLY DISCUSSED IN A RESPONSE AND COLLATERAL. ESTOPPEL ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT IF YOU ADJUDICATE A MATTER IN ONE BODY, AND THE QUESTIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR AND PRESENTED IN A SEPARATE BODY, AND YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY BOUND BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE FIRST YOU CANNOT RELITIGATE. IN THAT SECOND BODY. WHY WELL, THINK ABOUT IT IN SOME CONTEXT, PARTICULARLY IN THE CRIMINAL SENSE. YOU DON'T WANT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO BE UH, HELD A TRIAL IN IN ONE PARTICULAR BODY. A VERDICT WAS RENDERED AND THEN YOU GO TO ANOTHER ONE AND SAY WE WANT YOU TO ESSENTIALLY ADJUDICATE THE SAME THING. THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION ALSO PREVENTS THAT A CIVIL SENSE. WE DON'T WANT YOU TO SAY WELL, ONE GROUP OF BODY FOUND THIS PARTICULAR PERSON LIABLE SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AND FIND A DIFFERENT PERSON LIABLE IN A DIFFERENT CASE. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ESSENTIALLY SAY WELL IF ONE BODY FOUND GUILT IN ONE CASE, YOU DON'T TAKE IT AND THEN RELITIGATE IN THE NEXT CASE. THAT'S HOW COLLATERALS STOPPEL WORKS. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO APPLY IT IN THAT CONTEXT AGAIN, IT GETS BACK TO THE NOTION OF WHY GO THROUGH A HEARING. IF WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO ADOPT WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUND BY ANOTHER BODY. WE'RE GONNA PUT IT IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY, AND WE'RE GONNA TELL THEM THIS WAS WHAT WAS FOUND AFTER A HEARING AND THERE WERE WITNESSES. THEY CAME TO AN INDEPENDENT, BIPARTISAN, THOUGHTFUL OPINION. AND WHAT YOU SHOULD DO ULTIMATELY IS JUST ADOPT IT. SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IF, IN FACT WE BELIEVE IN THE IDEA THAT THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO BE UNBIASED IF THIS PROCESS IS IN FACT GOING TO GIVE COUNCILMAN PIAZZINI THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AT THE OUTSET. THEN WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT WE CANNOT THEN RENDER IN FRONT OF THEM. THE IDEA HERE IS AN ACTUAL OPINION WHERE THEY WENT THROUGH IT AND YOU HAVE TO ADOPT IT. I'M NOT SAYING FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, BY THE WAY THAT WE CAN'T SAY THE FACTS OF A HEARING HAVING OCCURRED OR THAT TESTIMONY WAS, IN FACT, GIVEN THOSE ARE ALL FACTS, THEY'RE OUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. YOU CAN'T HIDE THOSE FACTS. BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IN THIS AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THEN TAKING THAT OPINION AND PRESENTING IT AND COROLLARY, ARGUING. THAT YOU HAVE TO BE BOUND BY IT. OR IF YOU'RE NOT BOUND BY IT, YOU SHOULD REALLY FOLLOW IT. BECAUSE HE DID A LOT OF WORK. THEY QUITE FRANKLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BECAUSE THEY DID THE WORK FOR YOU. SO AGAIN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IF WE REALLY BELIEVE THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO BE UNBIASED IF HE'S GOING TO BE GIVEN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. THE FACT OF HAVING A HEARING THE FACT THAT THE WITNESSES, EVEN THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY, AND OF ITSELF, I WOULDN'T CONCEDE IS NOT IN A IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT THAT IS A PART. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A DECISION MADE, WHICH COULD BE A FACT THAT WE CAN CONCEDE.BUT THEN WE'RE GONNA ALLOW YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT AND THEN GET YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE REASON YOU SHOULD ALSO ADOPT. THEN WHAT'S THE POINT? THANK YOU, MR WICKER. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE CHARGING COMMITTEE PLANS TO INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE OF THE ETHIC OF ETHICS COMMISSION'S OPINION? UH, YES, SIR. AND I DON'T THINK UM THE RESPONDENT. UNDERSTANDS MY ARGUMENT. SO LET ME TRY TO DESCRIBE HOW I THINK THE LAW APPLIES HERE. SO THE ETHICS. COMMISSION MADE A RULING AFTER AN ADVERSARIAL HEARING AT WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAD A CHANCE TO BE HEARD. PRESENT WITNESS GO DO ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD DO IN A HEARING. THE USUAL RULE IN ANY CIVIL CASE, ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CASE IS THAT THOSE FINDINGS. WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO ESTABLISH THE POINT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE LAW REQUIRES HERE BECAUSE WE NEED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. SO THE, UM THE WAY I WOULD PRESENT THAT IS THAT I'LL PRESENT AN INVESTIGATOR. WHO WILL TALK ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS. UM THAT HE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF HIS INVESTIGATION. HE'LL PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT HE THAT HE, UM. RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS INVESTIGATION, AND I ALSO EXPECT TO ASK HIM. WHAT WAS THE ETHICS COMMISSION'S FINDING ON THIS ISSUE? AND HE WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT REQUIRES THE COUNCIL COURT TO ADOPT THE ETHICS COMMISSION'S FINDING. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW IT. I WOULD NOT TELL THEM THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW IT, BUT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HEAR IT. AND THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HEAR IT. YEAH, HE CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE. AND I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE A FULL HEARING. BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WISHES ON THESE ISSUES. BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN MITIGATION. OF THE FINDINGS. I THINK THAT'S HIS RIGHT. BUT WE WERE ALLOWED TO PUT OUR EVIDENCE ON TOO. AND PART OF THAT EVIDENCE IS WHAT HAS BEEN HEARD.
[00:45:02]
FOUND AND ADMISSIBLE UNDER THEIR USUAL RULES. FOR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. JUST LIKE IN ANY OTHER CASE, THERE'S NO SUSPENSION OF THE RULES OR THE LAW HERE. SO WE WOULD PRESENT IT TO THE TO THE COUNCIL COURT IN THAT FASHION. I JUST EXPLAINING WHAT THE RULING WAS. AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA. REST THEN WE PRESENT THE WITNESSES THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN THIS CASE. UM BUT. AND THEN HE CAN CROSS EXAMINE. HE CAN PRESENT WHATEVER HE WOULD LIKE TO DO. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL COURT HAS A SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE IN COURT, INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE. SO, MR WICKER. IF. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE PLANS TO LARGELY RETRY THE CASE. AND I KNOW YOU SORT OF TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT IT MAYBE LIKE TO ASK IT ANOTHER WAY. UM WHY IS THE ETHICS DOCUMENT RELEVANT? WELL, IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE IT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COUNCIL COURT. I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS REALLY WHY DO YOU NEED IT? AND. I THINK THAT ANY JUDGMENT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF, UM . EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE YOUR CASE IS A HARD ONE TO MAKE BEFORE THE CASE STARTS. SO I THINK WE HAVE IMPORTANT, RELEVANT EVIDENCE. SOME OF THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT THROUGH. WITNESSES SOME OF THAT WILL PRESENT TO THE FINDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION. BOTH ARE VALID. UM. WAYS TO PROVE FACTS UNDER KENTUCKY LAW. AND I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO USE THE SAME.UH, TOOLS THAT WE WOULD USE IN, UH, IN ANY OTHER CASE. MR PRESIDENT? YES AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU, TOO. SO YOUR TIMING IS PERFECT. GO AHEAD, MR. UM I CAN I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THE IDEA THAT THE DOCUMENT PROVIDES THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEFORE THIS BODY. MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEFORE THIS BODY ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY. NOT A DOCUMENT GIVEN TO THEM. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE POINT OF BEING A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL COURT IS A QUESTION IS PRESENTED TO YOU. INFORMATION IS GIVEN FOR YOU TO THEN MAKE AN ANSWER THAT YOU DRAW YOURSELF. SO I WOULD ACTUALLY I WOULD I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT THE DOCUMENT ITSELF PROVIDES THE ANSWER BECAUSE AGAIN IF THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY A DOCUMENT, THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANYONE ELSE TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION. GIVE ME ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
YEAH. SO, MR SWANS, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THE ETHICS CODE IS THE ETHICS COMMISSION. CORRECT. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE IS THAT THAT IS THE CASE SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO ANY APPEAL TO A COURT, WHICH COULD ULTIMATELY BE THE ULTIMATE ARBITER. IF I CAN BE FRANK ABOUT THAT, AND THE CHARGING COMMITTEES CHARGES ARE BASICALLY . REMOVAL IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE. ESSENTIALLY. CORRECT NUMBER OF THE COUNTS ARE ARE VERY MUCH THAT YES, AND SO THEN HOW IS THE DECISION OF THE ULTIMATE ARBITER, NOT RELEVANT. IF THAT'S WHAT THE DECISION BEFORE THE COURT IS. SO AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S RELEVANT OK? THE QUESTION. I DON'T THINK I WOULD DISAGREE THAT IT'S RELEVANT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE PREJUDICE TO THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE. IT'S CERTAINLY RELEVANT, RIGHT? ANYONE WHO WHO'S ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT. JUST A NUMBER OF FACTS, MADE A DECISION AT THE DAY AND FOUND A PARTICULAR DETERMINATION. OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BE RELEVANT. BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF A TRIAL, THE QUESTION IS, IS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHED BY THE PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER PARTY, AND IN THIS CASE, THE ARGUMENT IS IT'S PROBATIVE VALUE. IS ACTUALLY GROSSLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE PREJUDICE. IT IS GOING TO HAVE TO RE TO COUNCIL PAGEANT
[00:50:01]
BECAUSE AGAIN IF THERE'S A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE HERE IF IT'S A CLEAN SLATE. INTRODUCING A DOC SAYS IT'S IN FACT, NOT A CLEAN SLATE. IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN DECIDED. THEREFORE YOU SHOULD ALSO DECIDE THIS WAY AND IN MANY CASES IT HAS BEEN ARGUED IN THE RESPONSE TO THE MOTION. YOU'RE ACTUALLY BOUND BY THEIR FINDING. THEN THERE'S IT ACTUALLY RENDERS THAT COMPLETELY, UH NULLIFIED.BUT I GUESS MR SWAN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS ULTIMATELY NOT DID MR PIACENTINI VIOLATE THE ETHICS CODE, BUT WHETHER DOES VIOLATING THE ETHICS CODE. UH CON. IS THAT CONSTRUED AS MISCONDUCT. AND SO THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS, IS IT MISCONDUCT? NOT DID HE VIOLATE THE CODE? THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE VIOLATED THE ETHICS CODE IS ADJUDICATED IN FRONT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE VIOLATED THE STATUTE FOR MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, RIGHT. SO AT THAT POINT WHAT WE'RE SAYING THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPONSE IS THAT IT ACTUALLY GIVES THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION. WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING NOW, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, MR PRESIDENT IS THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY DIFFERENT. FROM WHAT? THE ETHICS CODE. UH, FROM WHAT THE EX COMMISSION ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS BEFORE, IF THAT'S THE CASE. THEN PERHAPS YOU CAN SAY THERE WAS, IN FACT A PROCESS AND THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF EVIDENCE THAT GOES THROUGH THAT. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE QUESTION GETS DECIDED BY YOU. AS THE DETERMINER OF WHETHER THIS IS MISCONDUCT. BUT YOU CAN'T THEN CORRELATE THE TWO TO SUGGEST THAT ONE GIVES EFFECT TO THE OTHER. YOU CAN POINT OUT THE FACT OF A FINDING, BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE THE ARGUMENT WHICH IS IN FACT ALREADY BEEN MADE IN FRONT OF THIS BODY. THAT BECAUSE ONE FOUND ONE FOR MISCONDUCT UNDER THE ETHICS OR FOUND A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE.
THEREFORE, YOU NEED TO FIND MISCONDUCT UNDER THE STATUTE. I DON'T AGREE THAT THAT NECESSARILY IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING HERE, AND THAT'S THAT'S THE DANGER OF INTRODUCING THAT DOCUMENT IS THAT THEN ALLOWS THAT ARGUMENT TO BE MADE. MR WICKER. ANY RESPONSE? I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT. UM CHAIR WINKLER. I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINTS THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE. JUST AN ADDITIONAL POINT IS THAT NOTHING THAT I'VE SUGGESTED. AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT YOU SUGGESTED. UM SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. OR SHIFTS, THE PRESUMPTION THAT OF INNOCENCE THAT APPLIES AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE, HE HAS A RIGHT TO THAT PRESUMPTION. THE BURDEN IS ON THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE QUESTION WILL BE AS HE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT THAT WARRANTS REMOVAL. UM AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYTHING IN IN WHAT I'VE SAID LIMITS HIS ABILITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. IN MITIGATION.
UM THAT THE COUNCIL COURT SHOULD HEAR. MR PRESIDENT. IF I CAN'T I WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT MR WICKER MADE A RESPONSE TO THIS AS WELL. IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS A BIT OF AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION. AND THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IN THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS AND I COULD BE ENTIRELY WRONG ON THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN PREVIOUS ACTIONS. THE USE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION. I CAN USE AN ETHICS COMMISSION ACTION TO THEN BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN A SUBSEQUENT TRIAL BEFORE METRO COUNCIL HAS NOT BEEN DONE. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE FROM MY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT MIGHT BE UNPRECEDENTED, BUT ONLY AND I. THIS IS PROBABLY A COUNTY ATTORNEY QUESTION TOO. AND I. I APOLOGIZE. IT'S ONLY BASED ON OUR LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION IS THAT THIS HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE, EITHER. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TREADING NEW GROUND IN ADDITION TO THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE HERE YEAH. YOU BRING UP A POINT THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AS WELL AND LOOKING AT PAST PRECEDENT, WHICH WILL INFORM ULTIMATELY WHAT THE RULING OF THE COURT IS IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON, UH TO, UH, MR WICKER'S MOTION, WHICH IS BASICALLY THAT THE CHAIR PRECLUDE EITHER PARTY FROM MAKING ARGUMENTS, SPEECHES OR COMPLAINTS THAT REARGUE PRE HEARING ISSUES DECIDED AGAINST IT, UM WILL ISSUE THIS IN WRITING. THAT MOTION IS DENIED. WE'LL DEAL SIMILAR TO, UM ITEMS TWO AND THREE FROM THE RESPONDENT, UH, IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE WILL. YOU CAN OBJECT AND WE WILL DEAL WITH IT AT THE TIME, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY MOTIONS IN IT OR ANY DECISIONS IN ADVANCE OF SOMETHING THAT COULD THEORETICALLY HAPPEN. OK? AGAIN YOU SHOULD EXPECT THESE ARE THESE, UH, ORDERS NO LATER THAN SATURDAY AGAIN. WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO HAVE THEM TO YOU ON
[2. ID 24-0085 Discussion of Other Pre-Hearing Matters]
FRIDAY. THE SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS. UH OR THE SECOND ITEM WE NEED TO DISCUSS TODAY IS THE MOTION DISMISS, UH, YOU KNOW, RECEIVED MR WICKER'S ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A SUMMARY MOTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DECIDED TODAY. UH THE COURT RESPECTFULLY DISAGREES, UH, MOTIONS TO DISMISS WILL BE HEARD BY THE FULL COURT. UH AND WE WILL TAKE THAT UP. ON MONDAY. THE 26TH AT THE BEGINNING OF TRIAL. UH, BEFORE, UH, WE THEN GO INTO OPENING GOVERNMENT. SO WE'LL START MONDAY, UH, WITH A HEARING. THERE IS, UH, AN OPEN QUESTION. WE MAY END UP SCHEDULING A AND IF YOU COULD BE IF YOU HAVE AVAILABILITY, WE'LL REACH OUT. UM BECAUSE THERE'S[00:55:07]
ONE QUESTION RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO MOTIONS TO DISMISS. UH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS DOING SOME RESEARCH FOR ME. UH, CURRENTLY ON THAT, UH SO WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS MAY WANT TO GET TOGETHER IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE PRIOR. IF NOT, WE'LL DO THAT AT FIVE. THEN WE'LL ARGUE THE MOTION OR MOTIONS DEPENDING ON WHAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED WITH, UH, OPENING ARGUMENTS, OK? A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO, UH GO THROUGH. I BELIEVE, UH, BOTH PARTIES HAVE, UH, EXCHANGED , UH, WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS. I KNOW WE RECEIVED AN OBJECTION, UH TO SOME OF THE EXHIBITS FROM THE RESPONDENT AND SOME OF THE WITNESSES FROM, UH THE UM, CHARGING COMMITTEE. IT IS, UH. SO, FOR BOTH OF THOSE SORT OF EITHER PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO RESPOND IN WRITING AS WELL. UH, MR SMITH, DO YOU PLAN ON RESPONDING TO MR WICKER'S CHALLENGE? UH, IN WRITING. I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT TODAY.IF THE IF THE CHAIR WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, OK, MR WICKER, DO YOU PLAN ON RESPONDING TO THE OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE? UH, IN WRITING. IT COULD. UM BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT TODAY HERE AS WELL. SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THOSE IN JUST A SECOND. OK, UM. HAVE YOU CONFERRED ON ANY STIPULATIONS? WE HAVE DISCUSSED STIPULATIONS AND MR SMITH WAS KIND ENOUGH TO DRAFT A SET OF STIPULATIONS. MY TAKE ON THEM AFTER READING THEM WAS THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MATTERS THAT WE MAY STIPULATE TO, THEY'RE ALL PRETTY OBVIOUS AND INCONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES SUCH AS MR GENINI IS A COUNCILMAN. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S. FIVE OR SIX PAGES OF THINGS THAT THAT WE COULD STIPULATE TO, BUT IT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE PROOF. IT WOULDN'T ELIMINATE ANY WITNESSES. IT WOULDN'T ELIMINATE ANY UM AVENUES OF QUESTIONING, SO ALL IT WOULD DO IS TAKE ANOTHER 15 OR SO MINUTES FOR THE CHAIR TO READ ALL THE STIPULATIONS TO THE COUNCIL COURT. SO MY JUDGMENT IS THAT STIPULATIONS WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL. IN THIS CASE, MR SMITH. WELL, MR WICKER IS CORRECT. WE, UM WE PROPOSE. I BELIEVE IT WAS 27 STIPULATIONS. UM AND YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE POINT OF STIPULATIONS IS THAT THEY ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS, SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A STIPULATION TO A HEAVILY DISPUTED FACT THAT IS A FACT THAT PROBABLY WOULD REQUIRE A FAIR AMOUNT OF EFFORT. UH AND EVIDENCE TO RESOLVE. UM I MEAN, WE THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME VALUE IN GOING AHEAD AND, UH AND STIPULATING TO WHAT YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IS LARGELY IN, UH, INDISPUTABLE. UM AND IT MAY WE THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP ADVANCE THE PROCEEDING. SOMEWHAT UM BUT, UH MR WICKER IS HAS STATED HIS HIS PREFERENCE AND I MEAN I, I THINK THE WHOLE THING ABOUT A STIPULATION IT HAS TO BE AN AGREEMENT. I CAN'T FORCE SOMEONE TO A TO A STIPULATION. AND SO IF WE CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THEN WE'LL BE PREPARED TO, UM TO YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE AT THE AT THE HEARING. UM I THERE'S ONE OTHER ISSUE IN TERMS OF STIPULATIONS. WE HAVE HAD A INITIAL DISCUSSION ON, UH, ON STIPULATIONS AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS. UH, WE WERE WE WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION, UH, PROCEEDINGS TO STIPULATE TO A LARGE DEGREE OF DOCUMENTS WE HAD PROPOSED TO STIPULATE IN THIS CASE, BASICALLY FOLLOW THE SAME FRAMEWORK THAT WE USED, UM, IN THAT PROCEEDING. ESSENTIALLY STIPULATE TO EVERYTHING UNLESS THERE'S A GENUINE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY. OUR PROPOSAL WAS GENERALLY THAT, UM YOU KNOW THAT WOULD THAT WOULD PROBABLY APPLY TO ALL BUT A HANDFUL OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE'S DOCUMENTS. UM I THINK THE RESPONSE WE GOT WAS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UM THEY? THEY CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO STIPULATIONS. TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN. UH THEY ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT ONE OF OUR EXHIBITS THAT I DON'T THINK WAS REALLY RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY. SO I WASN'T EXACTLY SURE WHERE TO GO FROM THERE, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE AN INTEREST. UH, IN TRYING TO STIPULATE TO AUTHENTICITY BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD OBVIATE THE NEED FOR WITNESSES. THAT WILL JUST SLOW THIS DOWN, PARTICULARLY WHEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, IN LARGE PART OUR DOCUMENTS THAT WERE EITHER PRESENTED AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION OR A PUBLIC DOCUMENTS THAT YOU KNOW, WE WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE TO JUST CALL SOMEONE AND SAY, YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S A AN AUTHENTIC PUBLIC DOCUMENT THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO MY HOPE SITTING HERE TODAY IS THAT WE CAN, UM, IS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO STIPULATE TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF AT LEAST MOST DOCUMENTS AND I, UH IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THAT
[01:00:05]
FRONT, IF WE COULD GET A CONCRETE PROPOSAL FROM THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. 00. I AGREE WITH THAT? YEAH, I. I EXPECT IT. WE'LL BE ABLE TO AGREE TO AUTHENTICITY OF, UM ALMOST ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND WE'LL WORK. WE'LL WORK TOGETHER OUTSIDE OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE COURT TO PUT THAT TO PLAY. THANK YOU. I THINK , UH, MEMBERS OF THE COURT WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR THAT AS WELL.UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE SEVERAL LATE EVENINGS AND SO ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO, UH, MITIGATE PROCEDURAL FACTORS WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. MR SMITH. YOU FILED A NUMBER OF, UM OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS AND SO WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE ONE BY ONE. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAYBE QUICKLY TRY TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THEM BECAUSE I JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS FROM MR WICKER THAT HOPEFULLY MAYBE WE CAN RESOLVE VERY QUICKLY. MR CHAIRMAN. IF I MIGHT THIS MIGHT HELP ADVANCE THIS AND I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. WHAT? UM QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, BUT I DID GET AN EMAIL FROM MR WICKER. TODAY AFTER WE FILED OUR OBJECTIONS HE PROVIDED, UH OR I THINK IT WAS MAYBE FROM HIS ASSISTANT WHO PROVIDED US WITH SOME, UH, REVISED DOCUMENTS, WHICH I THINK WERE INTENDED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS, SO SOME OF THOSE MAY HAVE BEEN RESOLVED ALREADY BECAUSE THAT WAS LIKE HIS NUMBER ONE WAS THAT JUST A CLERICAL ERROR, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT? RIGHT I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE USUAL COURSE YOU'D MEET AND CONFER ON ON MATTERS SUCH AS THIS. THIS IS AN ACCELERATED TIME. FRAME THAT HASN'T UM, PERMITTED AS MUCH OF THAT AS AS THERE SHOULD. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DEFER THIS TO ALLOW US TO DISCUSS THESE BETWEEN COUNCIL. I THINK ALMOST ALL THE, UM UM, ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED AND IF THERE ARE ANY REMAINING ONES THAT WE TAKE THOSE UP BEFORE THE HEARING BEGINS ON MONDAY. ANY OBJECTION TO THAT, MR SMITH THAT YOU.
IS THAT AGREEABLE? THAT'S AGREEABLE. I GUESS WE CAN, UH, SPEAK OFFLINE AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THESE. AND IF NOT, THEN WE WOULD PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO BRING, I GUESS. BRING THEM UP AFTER SUMMARY THE SUMMARY MOTIONS ON MONDAY OR CORRECT WE CAN FIND SOME TIME MONDAY TO DO IT. I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, OBSCURING SOME OF THE PHONE NUMBERS ARE PRETTY EASY AND AGREEABLE TO DO RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBATIVE VALUE IN AND THAT'S ONE WHERE MR WICKER, I THINK DID , UH, FORWARD US. UH, SOME EMAILS INDICATED THAT AT LEAST THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT WAS THAT HE WAS AGREEABLE TO REDACT THE PHONE RECORDS TO MAKE SURE THERE WERE NOT DISCLOSING. UH, PRIVATE INFORMATION. WHILE WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THE SOME OF THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL HERE DOES INVOLVE PHONE RECORDS, AND SO THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME DISCLOSURE, BUT PERHAPS ON A LIMITED BASIS, SO THAT WE'RE NOT BROADCASTING PEOPLE'S, UH, PRIVATE NUMBERS TO THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. SO I THINK THEN THE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE US, UH RELATES TO OBJECTIONS ABOUT WITNESSES. UM IT IS. AND IF YOU'RE READY TO ARGUE THOSE WE WILL HEAR THOSE AS WELL. I WILL TELL YOU, UM IT IS THE COURT'S OPINION, UH AND DESIRE TO KEEP TESTIMONY RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, UH AS SUCH, UM YOU KNOW, WE. WE WANT TO VERY MUCH FOCUS ON ON. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEFORE US TODAY, UM AND. REALLY FOCUS OUR QUESTIONING ON NOT ON SORT OF A WIDE SWATH OF IRRELEVANT FACTORS . SO THERE ARE SORT OF A COUPLE OF WITNESSES THAT COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT, UM ARE CONCERNING REALLY ON ON BOTH SIDES. SO ON, UH, THE RESPONDENT SIDE, UM THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, UH, WHO WERE NOT EVEN ON COUNCIL DURING THE TIME THAT THESE ALLEGED ACTIONS OCCURRED. THE INCLINATION IS TO ALLOW QUESTIONING OF THE EXISTING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL INSOFAR AS IT'S RELEVANT TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US. SIMILARLY THE COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM MR FIELD WHO IS QUITE FRANKLY, AN OUTSIDE PARTY. UM. AND REALLY DOESN'T HAVE IN THE COURT'S OPINION, RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ACTUALLY ARE BEFORE THE COURT. UM SO THOSE ARE MY PRELIMINARY OPINIONS. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR ARGUMENTS FROM, UH, BOTH SIDES, MR SMITH. I WILL DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR SWANS BAY. UM. MR PRESIDENT. I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSERTION ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING
[01:05:04]
COMMITTEE WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME DURING THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MADE THE RESPONSE THAT WE WERE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS A MOTION TO STRIKE FILED, AND OBVIOUSLY JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE OBJECT TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE. THE REASON WE WOULDN'T WANT TO OBJECT ON THIS FRONT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS A DOCUMENT FILED TO INITIATE THIS CASE, AND THERE WAS A COMPLAINT SIGNED BY SIX INDIVIDUALS AND THERE IS CLEARLY A PROCESS ENUMERATED IN STATUTE. FOR HOW THAT C THAT COMPLAINT IS GENERATED. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO GET TOGETHER FORM A CHARGING COMMITTEE AND THEN THEY INITIATE A DOCUMENT. WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT . TOWARD THE VERY END. THERE IS AN ASSERTION BY THE SIX MEMBERS, ALL SIX, NOT THREE. NOT FOUR, BUT ALL SIX. THE COUNCILMAN. PIACENTINI IS NOT ONLY GUILTY BUT IN FACT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM METRO COUNCIL. PRESUMABLY THAT CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BASED UPON SOME TYPE OF INVESTIGATION OR SOME TYPE OF DETERMINATION BASED UPON A REVIEW OF FACTS, OR, UM, UH, DOCUMENTS SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT THAT ALLOW THEM TO REACH THAT PARTICULAR CONCLUSION. IN A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASE IN A NORMAL SENSE, A CRIMINAL CASE LET ME START THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE, BUT IT STILL ILLUSTRATES THE POINT. IN A CRIMINAL CASE, A DEFENDANT IS ALLOWED TO CONFRONT THOSE WHO ACCUSE HIM BECAUSE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES. THAT'S THE CASE THAT CLEARLY DOESN'T APPLY HERE IN A CIVIL CASE IF A PLAINTIFF FILES A LAWSUIT THE DEFENDANT GETS TO PROBE PLAINTIFF ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT THAT COULD BE DONE THROUGH A DEPOSITION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT COULD BE AT TRIAL AND IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF FRONTS. THAT WILL EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT YOUR RATIONALE IS BEHIND THE ALLEGATIONS. HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE ALLEGATIONS? AND IN ADDITION TO THAT PROBE, IF THERE ARE, IN FACT, ANY BIASES THAT CREATED YOU TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION, ALL OF THAT IS ENTIRELY FAIR GAME WITHIN A NORMAL CONTEXT OF AN ADVERSARIAL SOMEONE MAKES AN ACCUSATION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON, AND THAT PERSON, THEN HAS TO DEFEND HIMSELF OR HERSELF AGAINST THE AND ACCUSING THEM. WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT THERE WERE SIX INDIVIDUALS THAT FILED A DOCUMENT THAT ACCUSED COUNSEL PITI OF COMMITTING VIOLATIONS THAT WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM METRO COUNCIL. IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT WAS FILED TO SAY, WELL, WE THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME ISSUES HERE, AND WE WANT THIS GROUP TO INVESTIGATE AND RENDER A DECISION. IT WAS A GROUP THAT SAID HE'S GUILTY AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. AND WE BELIEVE THAT ALL SIX ARE ENTIRELY UM APPROPRIATE TO BE ASKED HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION. AND TO PROBE IF THERE ARE, IN FACT ANY RATIONALES OR BIASES THAT MAY INFORM THAT PARTICULAR CONCLUSION SO THAT THE DECIDING BODY THE FINDERS OF FACT, CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSATIONS MADE BY THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE CREDIBLE. AND SO THE BASIS FOR US IS TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE HERE AT THE TIME. THEY ACTUALLY RENDERED IT. THEY RENDERED A DECISION AND PUT IT IN PUBLIC AND STATED AFFIRMATIVELY. HE'S GUILTY AND HE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND WE BELIEVE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROBE HOW THEY GOT TO THAT POINT. MR SWANBERG. WE'RE IN THE REMOVAL RULES OR IN 67 C. UH, DOES IT STATE THE REASONS FOR WHY A CHARGING COMMITTEE CAN BRING CHARGES OR THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY THEY CAN BRING CHARGES? I'M NOT SURE THAT IT NECESSARILY SPELLS OUT WHY, IN THAT CONTEXT, I SUSPECT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY UNDERSTANDING THE STATUTE READS THAT FIVE MEMBERS GET TOGETHER AND THAT THERE'S A DETERMINATION MADE THAT A VIOLATION WAS COMMITTED AND THAT THEY PUT IT TO THE BODY TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE THAT, UM I SUSPECT IF WE WERE GOING TO GET INTO A WHY THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY INEXHAUSTIBLE LIST. UH, IF WE WERE GOING TO REALLY DISTILL IT IN THAT FRONT, BUT AGAIN, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN ADVERSARIAL PROCESS WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS POSITIONED IN METRO COUNCIL IS POTENTIALLY BEING DEPRIVED OF HIM, AND HE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE PEOPLE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CONTEXT, BUT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST QUESTION THE ONES WHO HAVE AFFIRMATIVELY STATED TO HIM. YOU'RE GUILTY AND YOU SHOULD BE REMOVED. WELL, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? E EARLIER, UH, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING, UM THE INCLUSION OF THE ETHICS. UH COMMISSION OPINION AS EVIDENCE. YOU CITED HISTORICAL PRECEDENT THAT IN NONE OF THE PREVIOUS THAT YOU COULD FIND, RIGHT AND AGAIN, WE'RE RESEARCHING THE QUESTION, BUT IN NONE OF THE PREVIOUS CASES THAT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED IN HOW MANY OF THE PREVIOUS REMOVAL HEARINGS WERE CHARGING MEMBERS SUBPOENAED AND CROSS EXAMINED OTHER REASONS FOR BRINGING CHARGES. THE SHORT ANSWER IS I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT ANSWER. I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THAT QUESTION, MR PRESIDENT. WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT QUESTION AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR WICKER. ANY COMMENTS ON MR SWANBERG'S ON ON BOTH? UH MR CHAIR? THANK YOU, UH, FIRST ON THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU CAN CALL MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING RELEVANT.ABOUT WHY THEY BROUGHT CHARGES. THAT THEY DID. IT'S NOT UM. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT IN 67 C
[01:10:06]
OR IN THE COUNCIL RULES ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR KIND OF IN INVESTIGATION OR FINDING OR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE TO DO SO. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE AN INQUIRY ABOUT WHETHER THEY DID SOMETHING OR NOT? IT'S NOT REQUIRED. THE UM COMPLAINT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT. JUST LIKE A COM AN INDICTMENT OR A COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL CASE. IT'S JUST THE DOCUMENT THAT GETS A START. THEN I HAVE THE BURDEN OF PUTTING ON EVIDENCE. AND ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT I PUT ON HE CAN CONFRONT, AND HE CAN CHALLENGE AND CROSS EXAMINE. BUT HE CAN'T BRING IN MEMBERS OF LIKE THE MEMBERS OF A GRAND JURY AND ASKED THEM WHY THEY ISSUED AN INDICTMENT THAT'S NOT PERMITTED.SO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WEIGHT. UM TO THE DOCUMENT. THERE'S NO RELEVANCE TO THE BEHIND THE SCENES KIND OF INQUIRY, AND IT WOULD JUST BE AN ENORMOUS WASTE OF TIME. ON MR FIELDS BEFORE WE LEAVE THAT ISSUE. CAN WE STICK WITH THE TERM? WE'LL REVISIT MR FIELDS IF I CAN'T THE COMPARATIVE SENSE ABOUT A GRAND JURY. A GRAND JURY IS ESSENTIALLY IMPANELED TO DECIDE IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO DO THEN SEND THE MATTER OFF TO A CIRCUIT COURT TO BE ADJUDICATED.
IF A FELONY IS, IN FACT CONVICTED AT LEAST THAT'S HOW IT OPERATES IN KENTUCKY. THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO OBVIOUSLY PUT ON PROOF DURING A GRAND JURY, AND THEY'RE CERTAINLY MORE THAN CAPABLE OF BEING CALLED TO SERVE AS WITNESSES AT THE TRIAL. THE DIFFERENCE HERE, OF COURSE, IS NOT A GRAND JURY, WHICH IS IN ITS INDEPENDENT BODY, AND IT'S OUT THERE, THE GRAND JURY SAYS.
WELL, THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE IN THIS CASE. THE GRAND JURY FOR A LACK OF COMPARATIVE TERM, ACTUALLY SAYS HE'S GUILTY OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE. AND HE SHOULD BE REMOVED. THEY PRESCRIBE THE PENALTY. ON TOP OF THAT. THE GRAND JURY DOESN'T DO THAT. ALL THEY SAY IS WELL. WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH HERE TO MOVE FORWARD. IT'S MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT A CRIME OCCURRED. HAD THE COMPLAINT ACTUALLY SAID, HEY, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT AN EVENT OCCURRED THAT WARRANTS AN INVESTIGATION IN A TRIAL BY THIS BODY, THEN I SUSPECT THAT ARGUMENT ACTUALLY WOULD PROBABLY CARRY THE DAY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. BUT HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BODY THAT ACTUALLY CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED THAT HE WAS GUILTY AND THAT HE SHOULD BE REMOVED TO THE PRESCRIBED THE GUILT AND THE PENALTY. ON TOP OF THAT. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. BUT MR IT STRIKES ME IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT WOULD BE OK IF THEY SAID WE THINK THERE'S A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE HERE THAT MERITS A FURTHER LOOK AND THEN THERE'D BE NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN, UM EXAMINING THEM OR CROSS EXAMINING THEM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE BASIS OF YOUR ASSERTION IS MORE A QUESTION. REALLY? OF AN APPEAL, WHICH IS WHETHER SHOULD THE CHARGING COMMITTEE BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL COURT, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE AND THEIR WISDOM REVISED 67 C TO MAKE THEM MEMBERS OF THE COURT. UH, AS RECENTLY AS LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE, UM SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YEAH. I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE MAKING BOTH ARGUMENTS. WELL WITH ALL THE RESPECT, MR PRESIDENT. I'M ACTUALLY NOT ATTEMPTING TO RELITIGATE THE MATTER THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY BY THE CHAIR. UM WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE RULING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUBJECT DEPENDING ON HOW THIS PLAYS OUT AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD THAT THAT'S IN FACT NOT WHAT I'M ARGUING. WHEN I'M ARGUING HERE IS THAT YOU HAVE A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT SIGNED A DOCUMENT AND CONCLUSIVELY SAID AT THE END OF THAT DOCUMENT, HE'S GUILTY. AND HE SHOULD BE KICKED OFF OF METRO COUNCIL. WE BELIEVE THAT COUNCILMAN ARGENTI HAS THE RIGHT TO THEN ASK THOSE INDIVIDUALS. WELL, HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION? NOT HOW DID YOU COME UP THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT EVIDENCED AND THAT YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO THE MATTER FURTHER AND HAVE IT BE HEARD BY ANOTHER BODY, BUT IN FACT YOU ARE GUILTY. AND IF THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE, WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THEY DON'T HAVE A ROLE AT THIS POINT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. BUT IF THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN A ROLE AND SAID, WE'RE GOING TO BE THE PLAINTIFFS AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY YOU'RE GUILTY. AND YOU SHOULD BE KICKED OFF AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION? WHAT DID YOU DO? AND SO ISN'T THEN BY PROXY. MR WICKER, SERVING AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. THE ENTIRETY OF HIS CASE FUNDAMENTALLY ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. HOW DID YOU REACH THIS OPINION? THAT PRESUMABLY IS THE CASE THAT MR WICKER WILL BE PRESENTING WE GET TO ALSO PROBE THE CASE AND PUT UP DEFENSE. AND SO IF WE CAN'T IF WE CAN'T ACTUALLY ASK THEM AS PART OF THE CASE THEY PUT ON AND RESPOND TO IT. THEN WE HAVE TO JUST ASSUME THAT THAT PART OF THE CASE IS STIPULATED TO IN OTHER WORDS, IF HE'S GONNA PUT ON HIS CASE, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIGHT AGAINST THE CASE AND TO ACTUALLY PROBE AGAINST THE CASE, INCLUDING ALL THE WITNESSES THAT HE PUTS ON. BUT WE'RE SAYING IN THIS CONTEXT IS WELL, THEY'RE SIMPLY JUST
[01:15:02]
THEIR THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY ARTICULATED WHAT THE CASE IS IN SOME WAY. BUT THEY'VE ACTUALLY COME OUT TO A CONCLUSION. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO ASK THEM HOW THEY GOT TO THE CONCLUSION.BUT THAT CASE WILL BE PRESENTED. AND WILL BE HEARD AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A DEFENSE IN THAT CASE.
SURE, AND WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PART OF THE CASE BECAUSE THEY'VE TAKEN A POSITION THAT THEY HAVE THEY HAVE EVIDENCE OR THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED AT INFORMATION SUCH THAT THEY HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION, AND THEREFORE WE ARE ASKING FOR A SERIES OF RELIEF.
IE. YOU KICK HIM OFF THE COUNCIL. SO I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I WILL TRY TO SYNONYMIZE. I'M NOT SURE I'M A GREAT WHO WOULD DO IT THIS WAY WITH MY LIMITED LEGAL KNOWLEDGE, BUT IT IT STRIKES ME THAT IT WOULD BE SO NONYMOUS FOR ME TO GO TO COURT AND THEN SAY, WELL, I WANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PROSECUTOR WHO'S BRINGING A CASE AGAINST ME . UM I SHOULD BE ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT PROSECUTOR HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THEIR CONCLUSION TO BRING CHARGES. IN THAT COMPARATIVE SENSE. THAT'S ACTUALLY ME SUGGESTING THAT MR WICKER WOULD ACTUALLY BE A WITNESS, WHICH WE'RE ABSOLUTELY NOT DOING, UM, BECAUSE HE'S SIMPLY THE ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THAT PARTY AND PROSECUTOR CENTER , THE ADVOCATE OF THE STATE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THE STATE WHO BRING CHARGES. THEY'RE ALL FAIR GAME WHEN IT COMES TO A TRIAL AS TO HOW THEY ULTIMATELY GOT TO THE CONCLUSION OF HOW DID YOU DECIDE THAT? THAT CHARGE WAS TO BE BROUGHT? WHAT EVIDENCE DID YOU HAVE AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT A CHARGE SHOULD BE BROUGHT SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER IT'S A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WHETHER IT'S A VICTIM SLASH SURVIVOR, UM, WHETHER IT'S A I AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO CORROBORATED INFORMATION. ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE FAIR GAME BECAUSE THEY PARTICIPATE IN A SYSTEM THAT LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A CHARGE NEEDED TO BE MADE AGAIN. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS A GRAND JURY THAT MADE AN INDEPENDENT. WELL, WE JUST THINK IT IS. WE'RE JUST GOING TO PUNT IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THEY'VE ACTUALLY RENDERED IT AN OPINION ON THIS AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION. WHY CAN WE NOT? PROBE THAT IS MY QUESTION, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY OUR POSITION. AND EQUALLY APPLIES TO THE. NEW MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE AS MUCH AS THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE LONGER THAN THAT. THANK YOU, MR WICKER. ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH. JUST A COUPLE OTHER POINTS. UM THE ANALOGY IS TO AN INDICTMENT THAT'S HANDED UP BY A GRAND JURY. AND THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION BASED ON WHATEVER INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO THEM. BUT THE DEFENDANT CAN'T CALL THEM TO THE STAND AND ASK THEM WHY THEY RENDERED THEIR DECISION THE WAY THEY DID. THAT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE. HE'S ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE THE INFORMATION THAT'S PRESENTED AGAINST HIM IN COURT. AND THAT EITHER MEETS THE STANDARD OR IT DOESN'T BUT HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT THE INITIATING DOCUMENT. AND THEN THE REALLY PRACTICAL PROBLEM. IS THAT MUCH OF THE DECISION THAT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE MADE ABOUT CHARGES AND ABOUT HOW TO DRAFT THE COMPLAINING DOCUMENT WAS BASED ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL. SO YOU KNOW? WE WOULD HAVE SIX WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEIR LAWYERS TOLD HIM. WE DON'T DO THAT. THAT'S PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE. SO, UH, IT'S AN ENORMOUS UM DEVIATION FROM PROPER PROCEDURE AND AN ENORMOUS WASTE OF TIME. MR HUNT. I'M SORRY. IT'S OK. IN THAT CONTEXT, WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT PLANNING TO ASK ANYBODY. WHAT THEIR ATTORNEYS TOLD THEM AT THE TABLE WERE SUGGESTING IS THAT THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSION. THEY MAY HAVE, IN FACT, RECEIVED ADVICE, AND I SUSPECT THEY DID. AND I ACTUALLY DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE WHAT THE ADVICE WAS. WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW. BUT PRESUMABLY, THEY CAME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSION BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES TO A DOCUMENT SAYING HE'S GUILTY AND HE SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY. AND WE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT DID YOU DO NOT? WHAT DID SOMEONE TELL YOU? UNLESS, OF COURSE, THAT'S ACTUALLY ALL IT IS. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID AT THE END OF THE DAY? WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU HAVE? HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND IF THE ANSWER REALLY IS WELL , MY LAWYER TOLD ME THIS WHICH AGAIN? I'M NOT SUGGESTING AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW. THAT. IN FAIRNESS THAT ACTUALLY CREATES A PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF WELL. DID YOU ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING INDEPENDENTLY OR NOT? AND DOESN'T THE BODY DESERVE TO KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE? THANK YOU. WE'LL TAKE THESE ARGUMENTS UNDER ADVISEMENT. MR WICKER. YOU HAD COMMENTS ABOUT MR FIELD. YES, SIR. MR FIELDS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. MY BURDEN HERE IS TO PRESENT COMPELLING ENOUGH EVIDENCE SO THAT THE COUNSEL COURT BELIEVES THAT MISCONDUCT WAS OCCUR OCCURRED AND THAT THE MISCONDUCT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY REMOVAL. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S PERSUASIVE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS JUST A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF SOME COUNCIL RULE THAT DIDN'T AFFECT ANYBODY. I THINK I HAVE TO SHOW THAT WHAT HE DID WAS IMPORTANT. AND BAD AND THAT IT ACTUALLY HURT PEOPLE. SO, MR FIELDS. GIVES THAT TESTIMONY. HE
[01:20:04]
REPRESENTS, UH, AN APPLICANT FOR A FOR THE GRANT, WHO DIDN'T RECEIVE IT BECAUSE IT WENT TO SOMEBODY WHO GAVE AN UN AN IMPROPER, UH, THING OF VALUE. TO THE RESPONDENT. SO I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUT ON THE MATERIALITY OF THE MISCONDUCT SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN DECIDE WHETHER IT'S IT JUSTIFIES REMOVAL. MR SMITH OR MR SWANSON. I DON'T KNOW IF EITHER WHO WANTS TO RESPOND TO THAT? WELL, I. I WOULD AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT , UH, MR FIELDS DOES NOT HAVE REALLY ANYTHING OF RELEVANCE TO ADD TO THIS PROCESS. HE DOESN'T HE WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE GRANT. HE WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH WITH, UH, THE JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE AT THE CEO COUNCIL. UM, I, I THINK THIS TELLS US INTO WHAT WOULD LIKELY BE A WASTE OF TIME AND JUST TO RESPOND TO MR WICKER'S POINT THAT YOU KNOW. WE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE ETHICS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS THAT MR FIELDS DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT WASN'T TRYING TO OVERTURN ANYTHING WASN'T ASKING TO GET, UH, A GRANT FUNDING AND NOW WE'RE STARTING TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAT NO. IN FACT, HE DOES HAVE MORE OF A DOG IN THE FIGHT. UM I. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THIS ADVANCES THIS HEARING. UH, TO, UM. TO GET TO THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE THROUGH HIS TESTIMONY. YEAH, MR WICKER. I'M INCLINED TO AGREE. I THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT MR FIELDS DID NOT RECEIVE THE GRANT , I THINK CAN BE MADE FOR THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF OTHER GRANT APPLICANTS WHO WERE ULTIMATELY NOT FUNDED. UM AND I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS 100 MILLION. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY WHAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF APPLICANTS WERE, BUT IT IS AT LEAST MY INCLINATION THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT POINT INDEPENDENT OF MR FIELDS JUST GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE APPLICANTS AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE NATURE OF ANYTHING THAT WE DO HERE ON COUNCIL. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WE ARE ALWAYS DEALING WITH FINITE RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ASK, UH THAN WE HAVE RESOURCES. UH AND SO EVERY DECISION THAT WE MAKE IN SOME WAY THERE IS A COUNTER PARTY THAT IS PARTICULARLY WHEN IT RELATES TO FUNDING. THERE IS A COUNTER PARTY. THAT IS NOT, UM THAT YOU WOULD ARGUE IS HARMED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING THEIR FULL ASK. SO IF YOU SAY THAT I CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT, THEN WHY CAN'T I PRESENT THE EVIDENCE? I I'M NOT INTENDING TO BRING ON 30 APPLICANTS. I'M INTENDING TO PUT ON ONE WHO CAN TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW ABOUT HIS APPLICATION? WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? AND THE EFFECT ON HIM. UM. FROM NOT RECEIVING IT. HE CAN HE CAN CROSS EXAMINE. ON ANY ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED IT OR ANY BIAS THAT HE HAS. BUT IF IT'S PERMISSIBLE TO PROVE THAT THE MISCONDUCT WAS IMPORTANT. AND I THINK IT IS. THEN IT WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT PRESENTING MR FIELDS IS A VERY EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THAT. YEAH, I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT I STARTED WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WITNESSES, WHICH IS IT IS MY GOAL TO ENSURE THAT THE TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION THAT IS BEFORE US AND NOT TO QUESTIONS OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE ARE TO CONSIDER, AND THAT'S WHY I'M LEANING AGAINST ALLOWING THE TESTIMONY OF MR FIELDS, MR. SMITH DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTARY? JUST ONE FINAL POINT. MR. CHAIRMAN I MEAN , IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT, UH, THAT THERE'S THIS RENEWED INTEREST, UH, TO HAVE MR FIELDS TESTIFY. UM IN THIS PROCEEDING, WE ARE. OF COURSE, THIS IS, OF COURSE, OUTSIDE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS COUNCIL COURT, BUT WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE APPEALING THE ETHICS COMMISSION'S DECISION. IN THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT IN THAT PROCEEDING, WE OUT OF CAUTION NAMED MR FIELDS AS A AS A PARTY SINCE HE WAS SINCE HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW AND HE OPTED NOT TO BE A PART OF THAT PROCEEDING. BUT SO THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHAT INCONSISTENT WITH THE POSITION THAT IS BEING TAKEN HERE TODAY. WELL, IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT AT ALL. AS A TECHNICAL MATTER. HE DIDN'T NEED TO BE IN A IN A PARTY TO AN APPEAL. HE DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL. IF THE DECISION HAD GONE THE OTHER WAY. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE.MY ONLY POINT AND I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER IT AND I KNOW YOU WILL CONSIDER IT. IS THAT I HAVE A BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE MISCONDUCT WAS IMPORTANT. AND I NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND MR FIELDS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO PRESENT THAT KIND OF TESTIMONY AND PREPARE THE COUNCIL COURT FOR THAT ARGUMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE. THANK YOU. WE WILL CERTAINLY TAKE THOSE ARGUMENTS. UM, UNDER ADVISEMENT AGAIN. IT IS. MY LEANING CURRENTLY THAT YOU'LL BE
[01:25:04]
ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THE TEST BY MR FIELDS AND TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH KEEPING MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTIONS BEFORE US, UH HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THE RELEVANCY, BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY CONSIDER YOUR ARGUMENTS. WE'LL GO BACK AND REFLECT ON BOTH. WHAT UH, WAS SHARED BY THE RESPONDENT RELATED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, UH, TO YOU RELATED TO MR FIELDS, UH AND WE WILL ISSUE AN ORDER ACCORDINGLY. WHILE THE REMOVAL RULES DON'T SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE OPENING STATEMENTS, UH, I ASSUME WE WILL HAVE OPENING STATEMENTS. MR SMITH, HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATED HOW LONG YOU MIGHT NEED. I'D LIKE TO PUT SOME LIMIT ON THEM. AND I'D LIKE TO GET AN IDEA IF YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT LIKE 30 MINUTES. MR PRESIDENT. I CANNOT IMAGINE IT WOULD BE ANYTHING MORE THAN 30 MINUTES. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE AS API, DON'T, UH, WE, UH I'M TRYING TO ENVISION A SCENARIO WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE GONE OR IT MIGHT HAVE DONE AN OPENING STATEMENT OR WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT IT'S LONGER THAN 30 MINUTES. AND I CAN'T THINK OF ONE THAT AT SOME POINT YOU DON'T CUT OFF AND SAY THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. OK, MR WICKER. 30 MINUTES IS FINE. OK SO, UH, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT. WE WILL LIMIT OPENING STATEMENTS TO 30 MINUTES. UH, ARE THERE ANY TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL MATTERS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT COME TO MIND. I HAVE A LIST. OK IF WE IF WE COULD, UM, WHAT'S YOUR MR SMITH? I ASSUME YOU ALSO HAVE A LIST, AND, UH, WE DO. IT'S NOT EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF MR WICKER JUST BECAUSE HE LET IN FIRST AND WHAT'S YOUR EXPECTATION ON THE LENGTH OF THE SESSIONS? I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY GO 5 TO 9 MONDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY. UM WE WILL OUT OF RESPECT FOR PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM. GRAB A BITE TO EAT. WE'LL PROBABLY GO LIKE 55 MINUTES. TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. 55 MINUTES, TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. YOU KNOW WE'LL HAVE SOME NATURAL BREAKS ON MONDAY BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE HEARING. UM UH, TO DISMISS WE'LL DO THAT. WILL DELIBERATE WILL COME BACK. UM, BUT CALL IT 5 TO 9 THURSDAY. WE HAVE COUNCIL. UM AND SO WE WON'T HAVE ANY HEARING THAT DAY. UH, WE WILL LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE FOR NEXT WEEK. WE MAY MEET FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS ON FRIDAY. UM BUT PRESUMABLY IT'LL GO INTO NEXT WEEK INTO THE WEEK FOLLOWING, DEPENDING ON, UM . THE FLOW OF THE TESTIMONY. AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION. UM YOU KNOW WHEN WE GAVE WHEN WE GAVE YOU THE CONFLICTS. UM, THAT NEXT WEEK IS A CONFLICT FOR ME. AND SO WE MAY HAVE TO SAY, I MEAN IT. IS NOT IDEAL FOR US TO THEN MISS A WEEK . UH, BUT WE HAVE THE LIST OF EVERYBODY'S CONFLICTS AND WE WILL. IF WE GO INTO WEEK TWO, WE WILL WORK WITH YOUR OFFICES AND WITH WE START TO RUN INTO OTHER ISSUES WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL. SO WE'RE AWARE OF THE CHALLENGES. THANK YOU. UM AND LET ME JUST SAY IT'S A SOFT NINE. RIGHT I MEAN, IF WE'RE WRAPPING UP A WITNESS AT 850, WE PROBABLY WON'T START A NEW LINE OF WITNESSES AT 855. LIKEWISE IF WE'RE REACHING A CONCLUSION, AND IT'S GONNA RUN TO 910 OR 915 WILL PROBABLY REASONABLY SEE THAT OUT. SO USE 5 TO 9 AS A ROUGH GUIDELINE. AND IF I COULD JUST COMMENT ON THAT REAL QUICK, MR CHAIRMAN, UH, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, UH, YOU KNOW, COUNCILMAN P ARGENTI IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. UH WE CERTAINLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN A DESIRE TO TRY TO BRING THIS TO A CONCLUSION AND NOT TO PROLONG THIS. UH AND HAVE THIS HANGING OVER HIS HEAD, UH, ANY LONGER THAN IT HAS TO, AND SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE AND EXPECT THAT THE WE THAT WE CAN DO. EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS, UH KEEPS MOVING FORWARD WHILE ENSURING THAT THE PARTIES HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO PRESENT THEIR CASES. I AGREE.THANK YOU. IS IT? UM YOUR EXPECTATION TO ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL COURT TO WITNESSES. IT IS. UM, THAT MAY PROLONG MY VIEW OF HOW LONG THE PROCEEDINGS WILL TAKE OK? DO YOU INTEND TO PROPOSE ANY LIMITS ON QUESTIONS? UH, WE'LL SEE. UM, WE HAVE, UM SUBMITTED REQUESTS FOR WITNESS SUBPOENAS. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN HELD PENDING THIS DISCUSSION, BUT THERE BE ISSUED AS SOON AS I MAKE A DECISION ON TODAY'S MATTER. UM, WE'LL PROBABLY GO AHEAD AND ISSUE THE ONES THAT WEREN'T SUBJECT TO DISCUSSIONS TODAY. UM IN FACT, MADAM CLERK IF YOU CAN AFFIX MY
[01:30:01]
SIGNATURE TO ALL BUT THE, UM THE ONES THAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY. SO, MR FIELDS, UM AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE THOSE WILL GO OUT TOMORROW. UM. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE I. I ASSUME THAT THERE'LL BE SEPARATION OF WITNESSES. ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE COURT OR RESPONDENTS HERE, WE WOULD ACTUALLY OBJECT TO THAT. THIS IS A I MEAN THIS.THIS IS A PUBLIC TRIAL. THERE ARE ACTUALLY PEOPLE WHO ARE WITNESSES WHO ARE WHO ARE SITTING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND UH AND SO THAT CREATES A AN IMBALANCE OF DISADVANTAGE WHERE SOME WITNESSES GET TO BY THEIR NATURE, SIT THROUGH AND HEAR ALL THE TESTIMONY WHILE EVERYONE ELSE DOESN'T MEANWHILE, THIS CASE IS GOING TO BE BROADCAST LIVE OVER TELEVISION. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW YOU ENFORCE A SEPARATION OF WITNESSES WHEN THIS IS, UH, ACCESSIBLE ON EVERYONE'S LAPTOP. IPAD UH AND, UH, TV. SO I MEAN, I OUR OUR POSITION WOULD BE IS THERE SHOULD BE NO SEPARATION OF WITNESSES. ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS ARE PUBLIC FORUM, AND THEY'RE ALL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. BUT IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CASES, WITNESSES ARE SEPARATED AND FOR THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT TELEVISE THEIR TRIALS. THEY INSTRUCT THE WITNESSES NOT TO WATCH THE BROADCAST, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO HERE. YEAH, IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT IN PAST CASES, WITNESSES HAVE BEEN SEPARATED. UH AND SO WE INTEND TO FOLLOW THAT SAME PRECEDENT.
THAT'S ON MY LIST. I BELIEVE I ONLY HAD TWO ISSUES. UH THE FIRST WAS, I BELIEVE IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER. THERE WAS AN INSTRUCTION FOR THE UH, JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A JURY INSTRUCTIONS. UM IS. I MEAN, DO WE HAVE AN IDEA ON WHERE THAT STANDS? AND IS THERE AN IDEA ON WHEN THOSE JURIES PROPOSE II? I ASSUME THEY WOULD BE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE PARTIES WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND TO COMMENT OR OR OBJECT IF NECESSARY. AND, UM WHAT? WHEN MIGHT WE EXPECT THAT TO, UH, TO HAPPEN? SARAH MARTIN WITH THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. UM WE CAN COME UP WITH A DEADLINE THE CHAIR CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IS WHEN THOSE CAN BE SHARED WITH THE PARTIES, BUT WE CAN, UH, PREPARE THE PROPOSING THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS. PRIOR TO THE CASES. YES. WE'LL HAVE THEM NEXT WEEK. OK UH AND THEN JUST ONE FINAL MATTER. AND THIS IS JUST A MORE A MATTER OF I. I GUESS MAYBE EVEN UH, SORT OF COURTROOM DECORUM AND THE CHAIR'S PREFERENCE, BUT, UH, HOW DOES THE CHAIR WANT US TO, UH, ASSERT , UH, EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IN A COURT OF LAW, YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT HAVING THE OBJECTIONS HEARD IN FRONT OF THE JURY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL. DO WE WANT THE CHAIR IS THE ONE MAKING THE DECISIONS? UH, NOT THE FULL COUNSEL COURT.
AT LEAST I WOULD THE RULES SAY ON EVIDENTIARY MATTER. SO DO YOU WANT US TO MAKE THOSE OBJECTIONS FROM OUR SEAT AND ARGUE HERE OR DO YOU WANT US TO COME AND ARGUE WITH, UH IN IN FRONT OF YOU, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION. YEAH, ACTUALLY, THE NEXT ITEM ON MY LIST HERE, SO A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK, UM, WE WILL APPROACH UP HERE. IF WE CAN SPEAK IN CONFIDENCE. IF NOT, WE MAY JUST RECESS OUT OF THE ROOM AND ARGUE THE MOTION THAT THE OBJECTION. OUT OF THE SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR TO WHAT YOU EXPECT. WHEN YOU SAY, MISTER CHAIRMAN, CAN WE APPROACH TO DISCUSS AN OBJECTION ? AND THEN WE WOULD APPROACH AND YOU'D HEAR IT THERE. OK I GUESS. WILL THE WILL THE COURT REPORTER BE ABLE TO HEAR THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE MADE AS PART OF THAT PROCESS? I JUST I THINK THAT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OBJECTION MADE, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE THAT THE TRANSCRIPTS REFLECT THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE AND THE COURTS THE CHAIR'S DECISION AND RATIONALE THAT ARE, SO WE HAVE A PROPER RECORD. WE'LL WORK ON IT. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE ISSUES I HAVE, MR CHAIRMAN.
UM HAVE BOTH PARTIES SPOKEN WITH THE CLERK ABOUT ANY TECHNICAL NEEDS FOR THE HEARING. WE HAVE AS HAVE WE OK? I THINK ONE OF THE LAST PIECES THAT I HAD TO DISCUSS TODAY IS, UM, HOW YOU PLAN TO PUBLISH EXHIBITS TO MEMBERS. UM I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. UM MEMBERS WILL NOT RECEIVE COPIES OF EXHIBITS WE WILL GET AT THE END OF THE HEARING. WE WILL HAVE ONE DEFINITIVE RECORD THAT WE WILL BRING IN DELIBERATION. WE WILL NOT PASS OUT 25 COPIES TO EVERY MEMBER THROUGHOUT FOR EVERY EXHIBIT, SO WE'LL HAVE ONE DEFINITIVE COPY THAT, UH, THE CLERK WILL BE THE CUSTODIAN OF UM, BUT IN TERMS OF PRESENTING YOUR, UH, DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE THROUGHOUT, UH, THE CASE UM HAVE YOU FIGURED OUT HOW YOU PLAN TO DO THAT AND ARE COMFORTABLE. I WOULD EXPECT TO USE THE SCREEN PUT EVERYTHING ON THE SCREEN. AND ACTUALLY, I'M I'M, UH I
[01:35:01]
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP, MR. CHAIR UH, SO THE ONE OF THE SORT OF, UH PRACTICAL, UH, ISSUES FOR WHEN YOU'RE THE RESPONDENT IS THAT THE YOU KNOW, THE PROSECUTOR OR THE PLAINTIFF PUTS THE CASE ON FIRST, SO THEY GET TO CONTROL HOW THE EVIDENCE, UH IS COMES INTO, UH, THE PROOF COMES INTO EVIDENCE, AND WE'RE IN A LARGELY REACTIVE MODE AT THAT POINT, SO WHAT I'VE DONE AND AGAIN I'M HAPPY TO STATE THIS, UH, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARINGS THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE'RE DOING. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S UNORTHODOX, BUT I LIKE TO AT LEAST HAVE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE WAY WE DO IT. WHAT I PLAN ON DOING IS I WILL HAVE A BINDER. UH, THAT OF EXHIBITS THAT WE HAVE PRE MARKED AND PRE NUMBERED. UM THEY MAY NOT COME IN IN THAT ORDER, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHEN I MIGHT HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, USE ONE OF MY DOCUMENTS TO CROSS EXAMINE ONE OF MR WICKER'S WITNESSES, BUT THEY WILL BE PREMARKED PRE IDENTIFIED. I WILL HAVE A BINDER FOR THE WITNESS WITH THE SAME TABS AND THE SAME EXHIBITS. UH, AND THEN I WILL HAVE SEPARATE COPIES OF AND WE WILL PUBLISH THAT, UH, THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT THROUGH THE COMPUTER ONCE WE'VE AUTHENTICATED, UH SO THAT THEY CAN SEE IT UP THERE AND THEN I WOULD HAVE HARD COPIES. I THINK I BELIEVE UNDERSTOOD FROM HIS HARD WORD THAT I WOULD HAVE ONE COPY FOR THE CLERK. AND THEN MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE CHAIR WANTED TO HAVE A SEPARATE HARD COPY AS WELL AND WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO DO THAT. BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANNA I JUST WANNA LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IT. IF WE'RE INTRODUCING IF OUR FIRST UH, EXHIBIT IS EXHIBIT 22, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT IS NOT TO CAUSE CONFUSION, BUT IT'S ALSO IT'S REALLY IN ORDER SO THAT WE CAN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT HAVING TO FUMBLE THROUGH A BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS AND FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE IS EXHIBIT ONE FOR US OR EXHIBIT FIVE. FOR US, THAT'S THAT'S THE LOGIC BEHIND IT. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING YOU AT LEAST HAVE SOME OF THESE THAT YOU'LL HAVE IN POWERPOINT SLIDES THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING. I THINK IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE CASE, YOU MAY DECIDE NOT TO SHOW EVERY SLIDE THAT YOU'VE CREATED. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE SCRUBBED OUT BEFORE THEY'RE GIVEN. IF THERE ARE SLIDES THAT YOU DID NOT PRESENT THAT THOSE DON'T SOMEHOW MAKE IT INTO THE RECORD OF WHAT'S ULTIMATELY, UH, SENT BACK FOR DELIBERATIONS, SO WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT. AND I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE TWO BINDERS ONE FOR ME TO ASK QUESTIONS AND ONE FOR THE WITNESS TO REFER TO, BUT WE ARE NOT PROVIDING THAT BINDER TO THE COURTS. UH, WHEN MAY NOT NEED ALL OF THOSE EXHIBITS OR OR OR SOME OF THEM. I MEAN WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL BE ADMISSIBLE OR NOT . WE'LL HAVE TO DE DETERMINE AT A LATER DATE. BUT YES, THAT'S OUR THAT'S OUR, UM, APPROACH. OK, MR WICKER WORK FOR YOU AS WELL. UH, YES, SIR. THIS IS A ISSUE THAT COMES UP IN EVERY CASE, SO I THINK WE'RE BOTH ACCUSTOMED TO WORKING THROUGH THIS ISSUE. OK, NEW ISSUE FOR ME, UM. MR WICKER. MR SMITH AT THIS TIME, DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, FOR THE COURT OR THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR SMITH? NO, MR CHAIR, MR WICKER. I DO NOT THANK YOU. UH, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL MATTERS THAT EITHER OF YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS NO, MR CHAIR. NO, SIR.THANK YOU BOTH. WE'LL BE BACK HERE AT THE FULL COUNCIL COURT AT 5 P.M. ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY
[Adjournment]
26TH WITHOUT OBJECTION. WE STAND ADJOURNED.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.