MR. STEEL: Good afternoon, your Honor. I just want to call the court's attention, the prosecutor for the first witness is going to attempt to introduce, I believe, she's very professional, told me two exhibits. It's Government Exhibit 7R-141, as well as Government Exhibit 7R-148. I will have an objection to both. I just want to give you a heads-up, in case you wanted to discuss it at all. I didn't want to slow down the case.
THE COURT: Well, in the future, let's try to have these things raised the day before. Because in this kind of situation, what I would have done is had the parties address these issues at the beginning of the day. That's just for the next time. But, for now, what are these exhibits and what is the objection?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I can take it from here. We apologize for not raising this until today. The government has been conferring with defense about business records stipulations and the government had thought that we reached an agreement over the weekend. The defense informed us that they would not be stipulating to the admissibility of these particular records. So at issue here for the first witness that the government intends to call, that's one of the security guards at the InterContinental Hotel in 2016. The two exhibits are two separate incident reports. I have paper copies of those exhibits, if your Honor would like to see them. Essentially, the first exhibit is an incident report that the security guard drafted and sent, per hotel policy and practice, approximately three hours after the incident. The report included the guard's, you know, a recounting of his personal observations and interactions with the defendant and Victim 1.
This particular report included photos that were taken of the hotel lobby that showed the broken vase and the damage caused to the lobby. This first report was drafted and sent by the guard before he had reviewed the video surveillance. So the second incident report that the government intends to offer is exactly the same as the first, but includes an addendum that describes the video surveillance that he reviewed after the incident. So this guard will testify that drafting and sending incident reports like these were part of his responsibilities as a security officer at the InterContinental Hotel, and that he drafted and sent incident reports like these in the normal course of his duties. As I mentioned, both incident reports were sent immediately after the incident in question. So the government obtained these incident reports, along with other documents from the parent corporation of the hotel, along with the business records certification, also produced by the parent corporation. And under these circumstances, the government's position is that these incident reports are admissible under the business record exception to hearsay. That's 803(6). And I'm happy to get further into why the government submits that the conditions laid out in 803(6) are met here.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, you're going to have the witness prove it up, right?
MS. SLAVIK: Of course. The witness will lay the foundation for entry of these documents as business records.
THE COURT: Right. You don't have the individual who executed the stipulation, you're not relying on that?
MS. SLAVIK: That's right.
THE COURT: You're relying on what you have from the parent corporation, you have the --
MS. SLAVIK: Who drafted and sent the documents. Exactly.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Steel, what's the nature of the objection?
MR. STEEL: Your Honor, the objection is threefold. First of all, on the Exhibit 7R-148, your Honor, there is an addendum, as the prosecutor just told you, and this is the speculation of the witness. He's watching -- he's a security guard. He comes up to the sixth floor of this hotel. He interacts with Cassie and Mr. Combs, and then he goes back down eventually to his office and he watches the video recording that he had not seen before. Then he details his opinions about that recording, that he does not have personal knowledge of, including that Mr. Combs attempted to take Cassie's phone away. I don't believe that he would know whose phone that is from watching that video. No personal knowledge. In addition to that, your Honor, he has impressions in the body of both of the Exhibits 141 and 148, such as in the second paragraph, that Mr. Combs began to offer me a bribe. That's a quote, your Honor. That is his mental impression. I just don't want the document to go in. I understand he's a witness.
We'll cross-examine him. I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to this document going into evidence. In addition to that, your Honor, he talks about in the third full paragraph that he did not want Mr. Combs to see Cassie. That is when Cassie is outside on the street level waiting on her car. And he talks about what he himself did not want, meaning that Mr. Combs was going to come back down off the sixth floor, which did not happen. And he talks about a coworker, Adey, A-d-e-y, who he went up to Room 602 with Mr. Adey. And that Mr. Combs, he speculates, is about to start yelling. My point is, your Honor, that I believe that all of that is speculation. It should not go in on either document. He also writes in the third paragraph that if Mr. Combs touches Ms. Adey again, the Los Angeles Police Department would escort Mr. Combs from the hotel property. There is no police there. There is no police called. There is no discussion of the police. So I don't believe that under 803(6)(e), that this document is trustworthy. It is not all based on personal knowledge. And under 403, there are parts of it that are prejudicial, and I don't believe that it should come in. Either document.
THE COURT: All right. I think you've got to -- You anticipated my question. So your objection comes under 803(6)(e) and 403, right?
MR. STEEL: Fair.
THE COURT: OK. I understand. So, Ms. Slavik, do you have the paper copies? Could you hand them up?
MS. SLAVIK: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: So we'll pick this up after the lunch break. Anything further, Mr. Steel?
MR. STEEL: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. We are adjourned. We will come back at 1:15.
(Luncheon recess)
AFTERNOON SESSION 1:25 p.m.
(In open court; jury not present)
THE COURT: In terms of the objection raised before our break to 7R --
MR. AGNIFILO: Judge, I apologize. We're just waiting for the defendant. He isn't quite here yet.
THE COURT: Oh. Thank you for giving me the heads up.
MR. AGNIFILO: No, that's all right.
(Pause)
MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Before we bring the jury back, there was an objection raised to two of the government's exhibits. 7R-141 and 7R-148. My understanding is that they're identical except for the added notes on 7R-148. As to 7R-141, subject to the government laying the proper foundation under 803(6), the exhibit is admissible. So we'll see whether the foundation can be laid. As to 7R-148, my understanding is that in addition to the objection on 803 grounds, Mr. Steel, the principal objection is to the added notes under rule 403, and I think that objection is well taken. We're going to have whatever video evidence is presented to the jury presented, and the jury can draw its own inferences and its own conclusions based on the review of the video. The added notes here are the individual's characterization of what he saw, and I think principally, the objection is under rule 403, that his impressions and opinions concerning a video that the jury is going to see is potentially prejudicial and there's very little probative value given that the video will be shown to the jury. So on that basis, 7R-148 will be excluded. All right? Is the government -- well, let's get the jury back and then we can proceed. But any reason we cannot proceed at this time, Ms. Slavik?
MS. SLAVIK: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Agnifilo?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's bring back our jury.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Is the government prepared to call its first witness?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, before the government calls its first witness, the government moves to enter four stipulations agreed to between the parties. That's Government Exhibit 1301, 1302, 1303, and 1304.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Government's Exhibits 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304 received in evidence)
MS. SLAVIK: And with that, the government calls its first witness, Officer Israel Florez.
THE COURT: All right. The witness may approach.
COURT CLERK: Remain standing for a moment. Please raise your right hand. ISRAEL FLOREZ, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE COURT: Ms. Slavik you may proceed.