YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Debra Milke Hearing 13 Dec 13 before Judge Rosa Mroz

Debra Milke Hearing 13 Dec 13 before Judge Rosa Mroz — Transcript

by Crimefile News · 5,561 words · 833 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:13I'm just waiting for other people to sit
0:14down
0:20first. All right. This is CR1
0:251989012631A state versus Deborah Gene
0:27Milky. Please announce your presence.
0:29You're honor Vincent Bourino on behalf
0:31of the state. I have some folks here I'd
0:32like to introduce you to. Would now be
0:35the appropriate time. Go ahead. You of
0:38course remember Detective Miselish. Miss
0:40Danbomb, Kate Dan Bomb, who's recently
0:42admitted to practice law is with our
0:44legal research bureau right now. She's
0:46been assisting me. I asked her to come.
0:49Robert Prather who's with our our
0:52appeals division is here as well. And I
0:55believe Mr. Milky is here as well today.
0:58Okay. I see him again. Go ahead. Yes,
1:02sir. Your your honor Michael Chimmer and
1:04Lori Vel on behalf of Deborah Milky who
1:06is present and out of custody at this
1:07time. Okay. Mr. Davis. Yes. And Larry
1:10Das on behalf of Armando Salati and
1:13Amando is here as is my parallegal
1:16Pierce. Okay. All right. Uh the purpose
1:18of this hearing is to find out if uh Mr.
1:21Salate will be invoking his fifth
1:23amendment privilege. So if Mr. Gibbius
1:26Eas if you and your client could step to
1:28the podium so I can address him.
1:37Hey uh Detective Salate, uh I just need
1:39to find out from you. Uh have you had a
1:42chance to confer with your attorney
1:43about these issues? Yes. All right. And
1:45at this time, do you intend to invoke
1:47your fifth amendment privilege against
1:50self-inccrimination? Uh you do. All
1:52right. And uh you you are aware of both
1:55the US attorney's office letter as well
1:58as the United States Department of
2:01Justice letters. Yes. Okay. All right.
2:03And um one other thing is
2:06um I need to find out from you is that
2:09if if you are ordered to testify, do you
2:11intend on testifying consistently with
2:14your previous testimonies? Absolutely.
2:18All right. Um that's all the questions I
2:20have. So I'm going to ask Mr. Mino, do
2:22you have any questions for Detective
2:23Salate at this time? I I do not. And
2:28I have no questions at this time. Thank
2:30you. Step back.
2:35Okay. Uh just to let you know, I have
2:38reviewed all of the pleadings filed in
2:41this case related to this issue as well
2:44as the supplemental responses from Mr.
2:48Gibbus and also from the Milky Defense
2:51team. Um, and so now I'd like to find
2:55out from Mr. Emordino, do you have uh
2:58anything else you'd like to say on your
3:07side? Your honor, I I know that
3:12um you have indicated to us that you've
3:17you've reviewed all the materials that
3:19we submitted. I'm assuming that
3:21includes, and I believe you told us
3:22this, all the materials related to the
3:25to the cases specifically referenced in
3:29the Ninth Circuit opinion, right? The
3:31the the ones that are attached to your
3:33first memorandum, right? Correct. Yes.
3:36Correct. Um, so I mean I I would have a
3:39great deal to say about those. I I uh I
3:42don't want to overstate my welcome here,
3:44but I mean I I
3:45I feel like I I need to clarify a couple
3:48of things because there's obviously
3:51been lots of motions and memorandum
3:54filed with respect to the allegation
3:58that I'm trying to collaterally attack
4:01the Ninth Circuit's opinion, which I'm
4:04not. But um whether you want me to
4:08explain that now or because I wasn't
4:11clear if you were going to actually make
4:12a decision today. And
4:15um I think I think it's I have some
4:19things that I think are important to say
4:21with respect to the position that
4:23detective Salati finds himself in um
4:27with respect to being asked uh and
4:31advised that he should and will take
4:35invoke the fifth.
4:37So, I I guess you'll give me a little
4:39leeway. If at some point you think
4:42I'm you really don't want to hear
4:44anymore, I'm happy to have you tell me
4:46that and and I'll sit down. Um I
4:51obviously having been in practice for a
4:53long time, I understand what collateral
4:54est. I understand who the Ninth Circuit
4:57is. I mean, I appreciate the fact that
4:59that they
5:00are high up in the latter, needless to
5:03say, in in terms of courts and they, you
5:06know, their rulings are certainly
5:08applicable to to me as well as anybody
5:10else in this office.
5:13Um, the reason that I attached the
5:16information that I did and I've
5:17referenced it, I know on a number of
5:19occasions with respect to those cases in
5:22which Detective Salvadi testified many
5:24years ago and worked on many, many years
5:27ago was
5:29because it seemed important to me for
5:33the
5:33court to understand that what the Ninth
5:36Circuit was saying about
5:39them in our view is not law of the case,
5:43it's dicta. Whatever Detective Assadi
5:46did, whatever the facts were were
5:49established in Maricopa County Superior
5:52Court and and were bound by obviously
5:55the transcripts of those hearings, the
5:57testimony in those hearings, the rulings
5:59by the courts, by the the trial judges
6:02and and by the appellet courts, I think
6:04in at least two different cases. We
6:07appreciate that.
6:10But what has happened is that this
6:12detective has been vilified in in the
6:15media um and by the Ninth Circuit and
6:18and they certainly have a right to
6:20express their opinion. I'm not saying
6:22that they don't. I think it was wrong,
6:24but I mean I understand that they they
6:26have that right and and you may find
6:29their opinions more forceful that maybe
6:32they make more sense to you than mine.
6:35But we have a witness here who he just
6:37told you today that he doesn't intend to
6:40testify any differently than he has
6:42before.
6:45Um, and yet he's he's been faced with
6:50the publicity in the media by people who
6:53apparently didn't want to find the time
6:56to maybe do some investigation of their
6:58own and look at the
7:00facts. Ju just today judge in the
7:03article that appeared in the Republic it
7:06and this really has nothing to do with
7:07Detective Sodati so much but it says
7:09that our office refused to turn over his
7:12personnel
7:13records during the original trial. Well,
7:16that's false. I mean, the record shows
7:18that those records were right here, not
7:20in this courtroom, but in Judge
7:21Hendricks's courtroom. an agreement was
7:23made as to what was being looked for,
7:26but they were
7:28not, we didn't refuse to turn them over.
7:31They were a a Phoenix Police Department
7:33attorney was present, willing to hand
7:35them over under seal. So, my point is
7:39this,
7:41that, for example, the Ninth Circuit has
7:43accused him of committing perjury in the
7:46Rodriguez case, but Judge G ruling
7:49doesn't say that. It doesn't say that.
7:52there's no evidence of it. So, I don't
7:54want to belabor the point, but that's
7:57the reason that I felt it was important
7:59for you to have the the records because
8:03what has happened is that is that this
8:05this man who gave 20 years of his life
8:08serving this community has now been made
8:10out to be the devil on what I believe
8:14is is not in an appro in not an
8:17appropriate fashion, not based upon
8:19evidence, which is the truth.
8:23And and that's the only reason that I
8:25put it forth to put some perspective
8:28here. I think anyone looking at
8:32this, civilians maybe, maybe not
8:35lawyers, would appreciate the fact that
8:37Detective
8:38Sodati would not want to be involved in
8:41this anymore after having experienced
8:43the attacks on his character that have
8:46occurred. He certainly is respon for
8:48whatever he's
8:49done, whatever decisions he made,
8:51whatever testimony he gave, whatever
8:54actions he took as a police officer,
8:56he's stuck with those just like all of
8:57us are. I mean, he has to take
8:59responsibility for that. And then at
9:01some point in time, if he's testifying
9:03that the rules of evidence that you will
9:06uh enforce, we we're we are all
9:07confident. you know, he'll have to
9:09answer whatever the appropriate
9:11questions are, but he shouldn't have to
9:14be placed in a position to want to take
9:16the fifth because he's afraid because of
9:18all the the noise that I think is
9:22misplaced. Um, we we have, as you know,
9:26as all of us in this courtroom know, we
9:29have new trials granted on a fairly
9:32regular basis.
9:34We don't we don't typically bring in the
9:37witnesses who testified before and ask
9:40them, "Do you think you need to take the
9:43fifth amendment?" I mean, we don't do
9:45that. And if we allowed them if we did
9:48that and if we allowed them to do it
9:50just on the chance that some prosecutor
9:54might decide to to file a charge uh when
9:59really when the evidence doesn't support
10:01the char, I'm going to take the fifth
10:03amendment. Well, we can't let that
10:04happen. But our position is that that's
10:08what's happening
10:10here. And I'm disappointed that that it
10:14has come to this. I'm not saying because
10:17of you. I'm just saying because of the
10:19circumstances. I I I think it's wrong. I
10:22I don't think it's fair. And if what we
10:25really want is the truth, if we really
10:27want
10:28to permit a jury to come to a decision
10:31again based upon all the evidence in the
10:33case, then this detective needs to be
10:35able to testify. Um, and as he's told
10:38you, it's going to be consistent with
10:41what he said before. We have no reason
10:43to believe. Uh, there's no evidence that
10:45he intends to change it. And there's no
10:49what we're faced with, your honor, is a
10:52defendant who says, "I spoke to him, but
10:54I didn't say everything he says I
10:57said." Okay. Well, a jury needs to
10:59decide that. That's that's a fact
11:03question for a jury and we need to get
11:06to that point where that happens and um
11:10and
11:12not place this detective in the position
11:15of of taking the fifth amendment and
11:18having to worry about
11:19whether any small minor detailed change
11:23in his
11:24testimony may may uh be
11:29um something at some prosecutor that I
11:31don't know about. They certainly aren't
11:33in this office. They there's no evidence
11:36that they're in the the local US
11:38attorney's office. And now the
11:39Department of Justice themselves have
11:41said we've reviewed the submittal. I
11:45don't know if this is their word. I
11:46don't remember from the Ninth Circuit
11:47the referral and we find we don't find a
11:50basis to prosecute detectives about I
11:54mean the letter says what it says and
11:57and if I'm incorrectly paraphrasing it
11:59then I apologize. The letter says what
12:01it says but
12:05um in
12:09short there is no basis I'm not saying
12:12that there's not a basis for him to be
12:14afraid. I think I've outlined why most
12:16people might be, but what I'm saying is
12:20in terms of the law, there is no basis
12:23for you to permit him to uh to take the
12:27fifth. Hey, just a couple of
12:30clarification questions. I just want to
12:32make sure that um the relevant questions
12:34that will be asked of Detective Salate
12:36in any future type of hearings will be
12:40substantially similar to those already
12:42asked of him at the original trial at
12:45the rule 32 proceeding and also in front
12:48of uh I think it was Judge Broomfield.
12:51Is it substantially similar? Yes, Ron.
12:53Okay. I would not have any
12:55intention you know I mean obviously that
12:59on cross someone might ask a question
13:01that in a different form I so you you
13:05don't anticipate um any great deviations
13:09other than to respond to a cross on what
13:12would be asked of detective salat
13:15correct you to confirm again that um
13:18your office does not intend on
13:21prosecuting him for anything that has
13:24occurred in the past. We do not, your
13:26honor. We we we have no basis in our
13:28opinion to do so. We've been presented
13:30no evidence that would permit us to
13:33under our ethical guidelines.
13:35So, no. All right. Just wanted to
13:37clarify those up. Like to I I have some
13:40questions about the the suppression
13:43hearing. I think council and I both
13:45wanted to talk to you about that as
13:47well. So, thank you. All right. Um Mr.
13:53Thank you.
13:57And your honor, excuse me, for the
13:59record and I'm sorry, council, I I
14:01neglected to say, your honor, that I I
14:03appreciate the fact that you have asked
14:05the defense council to respond and by
14:08motion memorandum. Our position is I
14:11just want to formally on the record that
14:12we we believe they don't have standing
14:15with respect to whether this witness
14:17should or shouldn't and can or can't
14:19take the fail. Okay. Thank you.
14:22noted. Go ahead. Very well, your honor.
14:25Um, since these proceedings have started
14:28in this court, we have constantly gone
14:30back to the issue, at least the
14:32prosecution has, that the Ninth Circuit
14:34opinion is somehow wrong and that the
14:36facts that they relied on are wrong and
14:39that they have the right to bring all of
14:40these facts up again uh to clarify what
14:45they say is wrong information.
14:48uh the prosecution has not had the
14:51benefit of going through the habius
14:53proceedings before the ninth circuit and
14:55the district court for we've been
14:58involved in them 10 years. All of these
14:59issues have been raised factually went
15:02over and over again about all of these
15:03cases. We have judicial findings by
15:07eight cases which the ninth circuit
15:08certainly looked at which they made
15:10conclusions on which they made findings
15:12on and which are now I believe the law
15:14of this case. And what I hear the
15:17prosecutor asking this court to do is to
15:20allow them to go back into each one of
15:23those cases and rehash all of the facts
15:26because that's what in effect will
15:27happen if they get in a situation where
15:32we I believe would be allowed to
15:34cross-examine Mr. Salotti on these
15:36particular cases. And I think I could be
15:38in a situation where I could uh look at
15:40Mr. Sal and I can see Mr. Sali in the
15:43case of Rodriguez's example is the case
15:44that he mentioned and I can say isn't it
15:47true that in that case that the uh ninth
15:51circuit found that you had basically
15:56lied to the grand jury and that had to
15:59do with shots being fired and there was
16:02a finding not only by the Ninth Circuit
16:04but they adopted the finding of the
16:05court of appeals who agreed that he had
16:09basically misrepresented that fact to
16:11the grand jury.
16:12Now, is that something we have to rehash
16:15all over again in these proceedings? I
16:17don't think so. I think the case is such
16:19that the United Circuit has already
16:21ruled. Now, if you put Mr. Salotti in
16:24that situation, let's say I ask him that
16:26question about that
16:29cross-examination. If he says yes, uh, I
16:34did
16:35it, that certainly is going to be
16:38incriminating towards him. If you look
16:41at the letter from the uh the justice
16:43department and we've been working with
16:44the justice department too and that
16:46letter is very well crafted and drafted.
16:49They said it is limited to the habius
16:51proceedings and it's limited to the
16:52trial of Deborah Milky. We're not going
16:54to prosecute you for those things. But
16:56they've asked us for all sorts of other
16:58things and it has to do with these other
16:59cases. It has to do with other uh
17:02actions. some of these cases there and I
17:05know the justice department they've
17:06talked to us have taken the position and
17:07ask us who's still alive who's still in
17:10prison because they don't believe in any
17:12of those cases the statute of
17:13limitations has run those issues are not
17:16addressed so there's a threat of that
17:18out there to Mr. Saladi, they could open
17:21up a whole different case or try him for
17:25a whole different civil rights violation
17:27based upon the answers that he gives in
17:29that particular proceeding. For
17:31instance, if he admits it and he says,
17:33"Yes, I did lie. I said only one shot
17:36like in Rodriguez there's there was only
17:38four shots." Or he said, "Yes, it was
17:41that I lied there or I made
17:42misrepresented. I'll be kind. You
17:44misrepresent misrepresented things."
17:47Well, that all of a sudden now has put
17:49him in a situation where he's exposed to
17:51being prosecuted again based upon that
17:54testimony in this particular proceeding.
17:56And this is our suppression hearing. Uh
18:00then if he gets in and starts denying
18:03that he said that that still was only
18:07uh four shots, then you've got a
18:10situation where he's running into the
18:12Ninth Circuit where they said that if he
18:14ever says anything different than these
18:15judgmental findings, he's subject to
18:18perjury. So he's caught twixed and
18:20tween, but either way he answers, he
18:23could be subject to some type of
18:25criminal prosecution for his answer. And
18:28that's true of all of these cases. And
18:31we talk about the eight cases. There's a
18:33whole other series of cases which I
18:35believe that we would have the
18:36opportunity to go into on
18:38cross-examination. That would open him
18:40up to exposure to a whole different
18:42civil rights investigation based upon
18:44those answers at this time. And that's
18:46evidence that they could use against him
18:48at that point in time. So, I believe he
18:51is at peril if he does go through the
18:55suppression hearing and he's subject to
18:57cross-examination. And I believe that I
18:59have the right when I am there to ask
19:02him about his misconduct in those cases.
19:05I believe that is fair
19:08impeachment. And I don't think the
19:10government then the state can come
19:12forward now and say, "Well, this is not
19:14the way it is. That isn't the way it
19:16is." Because we have judicial findings
19:17that say this is the way it is.
19:20I just gave Rodriguez an example. We can
19:22go through each one of those. Now, I
19:24know that u Mr. Imardino has stated
19:28that, you know, well, these facts are
19:29wrong and this is wrong, but he's still
19:32not right in the facts either. If you
19:33really look at the record, I think we
19:35even pointed out in Rodriguez, what he
19:36cited was from a brief of an old case
19:39and didn't see what the ruling was in
19:41the court of appeals. And so, we could
19:43get caught into just a a morass of
19:45things which are basically countered to
19:47what the Ninth Circuit has found. And I
19:49believe we need to stick with what the
19:51Ninth Circuit has said in these
19:53proceedings. But I do believe that Mr.
19:56Salati would be at peril in answering
19:59questions when it comes to
20:00cross-examination regarding all of these
20:02other cases out here. And none of that
20:04is addressed by the Justice Department
20:06or the US Attorney's Office in their
20:08declination of prosecution. You'll
20:10notice in that second paragraph
20:13uh well the prosecutor is very clear to
20:16say we are only limiting it to the
20:18habius proceeding and to the proceeding
20:21in the trial. So anything else is fair
20:25game and I know they're looking at other
20:27information that is fair game. So
20:30certainly I would think if I was in a
20:32position where I was representing Mr.
20:34Ali, I would certainly under these
20:37circumstances advise him to invoke his
20:39privilege against self-inccrimination
20:41because he doesn't know what can come
20:43out of all of
20:44that. Thank you. Before you go, I also
20:48need to confirm with you that um other
20:50than the impeachment material that you
20:52referenced from the Ninth Circuit, um
20:55will you be will the defense be asking
20:58questions that are substantially similar
21:02to what has happened in the past? The
21:04questions would be substantially
21:06similar. I think there would be other
21:08areas of impeachment. There's the
21:09Blinder Reynolds situation which is
21:12something that is still we believe that
21:14we can ask which is a basis for
21:17impeachment and that's certainly a place
21:19where he would have exposure as far as
21:21some type of prosecution goes.
21:25All right there are but basically the
21:27questions would be the same and when Mr.
21:30Bardino says well my questions would
21:32substantially be the same that's not
21:33what I'm getting as we've been going
21:35through these proceedings. He wants to
21:36open up every one of these other cases
21:38and challenge each one of them on a
21:40factual basis. And we're talking about a
21:42suppression hearing that's going to go
21:43on and on and on because he wants to
21:45basically say the Ninth Circuit was
21:46wrong. And it's our position they
21:48weren't wrong. They were right. And that
21:50is the ruling and that is the law of
21:51this case.
21:56All right, Mr. Dibus, you get the last
21:58word because you are Detective Salate's
22:00attorney. I always like the last word,
22:02your honor. My wife often disagrees with
22:04that.
22:12I I think I'm just a
22:15um a a a more simpler thinker than these
22:19two guys.
22:22Uh I've been around a long time and I
22:25have seen a lot of det Well, I I've been
22:28a Phoenix police detective. I've been a
22:31Maricopa County attorney. I have seen
22:34hundreds of police officers testify
22:37about one thing and a defendant or other
22:40witnesses testify in direct opposition
22:44and nobody prosecutes them. I understand
22:46Mr. Inino's
22:49point.
22:52However, that's not what we have here.
22:56What we have here is a detective that
22:59has testified over a period of 20 years
23:03in many, many cases. I've cross-examined
23:06him in cases. I've known him for that
23:08period of time. We have a detective that
23:12today because of the Ninth Circuit's
23:15opinion has
23:18resurrected a multitude of witnesses and
23:22people who are willing to come forward
23:24and say in these other cases that he
23:27lied, that he committed misconduct, that
23:30he did this, he did that, and the other
23:32thing. Any one of those things would
23:35probably not be prosecutable. there
23:38probably wouldn't be a prosecutor that
23:39would give
23:40it a
23:43shake. But what terrifies me and what
23:46terrifies Mr. Salati more than ever is
23:50the most recent letter from the United
23:52States Department of
23:54Justice. And let me let me just point
23:57this out to you. The Maricopa County
23:59Attorney's Office filed a pleading with
24:01you a day or two ago. In that pleading,
24:05they say that they ask the Department of
24:08Justice to review all these cases, all
24:12those eight
24:13C the letter from the United States
24:16Department of
24:18Justice. I responded to and I said to
24:21Mrs. McCabe, I
24:23said, "Is Detective Salati safe in
24:28testifying identically to Hazy?" I mean,
24:31I I basically ask her the same question
24:33you ask everybody or you ask uh
24:35Detective Salati. I asked her that
24:38question and she responded and you have
24:41the email because I attached it. And she
24:45responded, "This declination letter,
24:47which by the way isn't a grant of
24:49immunity, it's a no pros letter, is
24:52limited to these
24:55circumstances." And the these
24:58circumstances that the letter was
25:00limited to was Detective Salati's
25:03testimony in the Milky case in
25:061989. They did not
25:09mention any one of the other cases. They
25:12never mentioned all the stuff that Mr.
25:14Embodino says they were asked to look
25:17into. When I got that
25:21letter, it scared me. And it scared me
25:24because that a letter was written in
25:26such a way and I have talked with these
25:30people here. I've met with him in my
25:32office. It was written in such a way
25:34that it that that what is most obvious
25:38is they left the options of prosecuting
25:41Mr. Salvati on this whole string of
25:44alleged misconduct that the second
25:46highest court in the land has said is
25:49actionable.
25:51They've said it's actionable by their
25:54referral to the Department of
25:58Justice. It scares me and it scares Mr.
26:02Sodati that they may be, you know, that
26:06and that's what the fifth amendment
26:09assertions is. We don't know, but we
26:12have a
26:13reasonable
26:14belief that he could be the subject of
26:17prosecution already.
26:20And if he does what Mr. Embardino wants
26:23him to
26:25do, he will be doing the exact thing
26:29that the second highest court in the
26:31land says is a
26:34crime. They want him to do what the
26:37Ninth Circuit says is a crime. They want
26:40him to do what the Ninth Circuit says
26:43will be another
26:45series of 1983 civil rights violations
26:49for every one of these people that he's
26:51asked
26:53about. He should not be placed in that
26:57situation. He should be allowed to
26:59assert his fifth amendment privilege
27:01because he
27:04has an
27:06almost
27:09unbelievable reasonable apprehension
27:12that he might be
27:13prosecuted. If you have any questions,
27:16I'd be happy to answer them. I do. Um
27:18there's a line of cases that say that
27:20you cannot invoke the fifth amendment
27:22for future perjury. And the situation
27:25that you describe would be um if he
27:29testifies consistently with his prior
27:32testimony, that would be according to
27:34the Ninth Circuit, committing perjury.
27:37Um do you know of any case law out there
27:39that would also prevent the invocation
27:43of the fifth amendment for federal
27:45criminal civil rights violations? The
27:47line of cases that I've read are about
27:50future perjury, but says nothing about
27:52future civil rights violations. Yeah.
27:55And so I'm wondering if you have come
27:57across any of those cases. Yeah. The
27:59case you're referring to is the centis.
28:01I think that's it. Isn't that the name
28:03of it? Is um it's it's referenced in
28:06Anyway, I I know that I know the cases.
28:08I read the cases.
28:10Um it's to me even and and we're talk
28:14you you've asked me a question I'm not
28:16answering but I will answer it. But
28:19let's go back to the perjury cases. That
28:21case and the per the line of perjury
28:23cases is all an individual situation
28:26where uh a a witness is going to get on
28:30the stand who wants to commit perjury
28:33basically who says I'm going to commit
28:35perjury so I'm taking the fifth. those
28:38cases are very reasonable in in that
28:41prohibition. That isn't what we have
28:43here. I I don't think I think this is so
28:47distinguishable from those cases simply
28:49because of the Ninth Circuit's opinion
28:51and and the findings of these state
28:54court cases way back over the different
28:56years back into the 70s into the 80s.
28:59Now moving on to your
29:02question. There
29:04are I think four people still serving
29:07life sentences. There is at least one
29:09perhaps two people that have been
29:11executed that were detective Salati
29:15cases. All of which the Ninth Circuit
29:18has addressed. All of which the Ninth
29:20Circuit has point the accusatory figure
29:22at Mr. Salati. Not just because his
29:25testimony was perjury, but because of
29:28other things he did, his interrogation
29:31techniques, his violation of Miranda
29:33warnings, uh interrogating
29:37uh a a man that was I I believe sedated
29:40and almost comeomaos, etc., etc.
29:44So, Detective
29:46Salati's fear of prosecution isn't just
29:51about the Ninth Circuit's allegation
29:53that what he says may be perjury. That
29:56that I I I said in in in my pleading
30:00that bothers me, but but that's not the
30:03that's not the the uh the thing that
30:06frightens me or Mr. Salati the most.
30:08What frightens me the most is these
30:11people are going to go into and I think
30:13have a right I I'm not the judge so I
30:16don't know but if they go into for
30:19instance that
30:21interrogation now if Salati has been
30:23placed in a situation where does if he
30:26admits that he did the conduct that the
30:29Ninth Circuit says is a violation of
30:32that man's constitutional rights.
30:35We don't have to worry anymore about
30:37whether or not there's a statute of
30:39limitations. He's just resurrected it by
30:42by by giving that testimony. If he
30:45testifies in those other cases about
30:48those facts, not not the perjury, about
30:51the things that he did as a detective in
30:54in Miranda warnings, one of the fellows
30:57invokes his right to counsel.
31:00Sodati like by the way many officers in
31:05my day and many officers today uh they
31:08don't necessarily stop there. They're
31:10supposed to but they don't. Well, in the
31:12case that the Ninth Circuit is looking
31:14at, Mr. Salati didn't stop. He admitted
31:17it way back then that he continued to
31:21interrogate the man. Ninth Circuit says
31:23that's a 1983
31:26violation. They're going to ask him
31:28about it. they have a right to ask him
31:30about it. If you pile all of those
31:33violations
31:35together, the
31:37likelihood that the United States
31:40Department of Justice having once got a
31:42referral from the Ninth Circuit to see
31:44if there's a pattern of conduct by him
31:47or the Maricopa County Attorney's Office
31:50or at somebody else in the police
31:52department, the likelihood of them
31:54prosecuting that
31:56case, I think, is
31:58extreme. And Mr. Salati, if anybody ever
32:02had the right to assert fifth amendment
32:06privilege, if anybody had reasonable
32:08grounds for it, I think I've just given
32:11them to you.
32:14All right. Thank you.
32:16All right. I will be taking this issue
32:18under advisement and you should be
32:19getting a ruling by next week. So, let's
32:22discuss the other issues that you'd want
32:24to talk about. Mr. in Berino, you were
32:26uh saying that you needed to know
32:28something about the impression hearing.
32:31I Well, I did, your honor. I wanted
32:33first of all to to uh I probably don't
32:36need to remind you, but we had
32:37specifically asked you to to make some
32:40rulings on the the hearing. In other
32:42words, if there was going to be one, as
32:45we've objected to it, if there is, what
32:47are the issues going to be? because our
32:49intention would be depending on what
32:51your ruling was to ask the court to to
32:56stay the
32:58proceedings not go forward with a
33:00suppression hearing so we could I mean
33:03it would obviously depend on what your
33:04ruling was whether we could special
33:06action it or not but we would like to be
33:08able to do that.
33:10Secondly, your honor,
33:12um the u the other thing I wanted and
33:15I'm sorry I didn't bring this up and
33:16that
33:18was and this really may have already
33:20been covered, but obviously if there was
33:24some concern if if part of your ruling
33:27with respect to whether the detective
33:28invokes is the 2010 testimony, the
33:31statute of limitations would have run on
33:33that shortly before her trial began. So
33:36ultimately, if you were going to have a
33:37suppression hearing, we would ask that
33:39it and and that and your ruling was
33:42affirmed if we were able to take it up
33:44be continued until
33:46that fiveyear time period had to run.
33:49But the second part had to do with
33:51council and I talked a moment ago about
33:54asking you if there's going to be a
33:55hearing, u we would both like to
33:59postpone it for a short period of time.
34:02our our obviously depending on the
34:05outcome of your ruling, we might ask you
34:06to postpone it for more than what
34:09they're contemplating, which I think was
34:11about 30 days. That those are the issues
34:15I wanted to address. Okay, Mr. Kim, your
34:19position?
34:21Yes. Depending upon the ruling of the
34:22court, we did discuss a possibility of
34:25uh continuing the time for the
34:27suppression hearing from January 13th or
34:30for 30 days or 45 days, but we feel that
34:33given the holidays and given all of the
34:35things that have to be marshaled for
34:37that hearing and getting ready for that
34:39hearing, additional time would be
34:40necessary for preparation if the hearing
34:43proceeds. Okay, I think that's fair. we
34:46trial dates not for a while and so um
34:51I'm sure that whatever my ruling is
34:53somebody will be appealing and so given
34:56that I will go ahead and vacate the
34:59evidentiary hearing
35:02um that's set for I think the
35:0513th for a week and then after however I
35:10rule I'm sure uh what I'll do is I'll
35:12set a status conference and then you can
35:14tell me how much time you'll need to do
35:17whatever you need to do with the court
35:18of appeals and uh then we can go forward
35:21from there. Um there are several pending
35:24issues. There is a motion to dismiss for
35:26double jeopardy I think. Um that's fully
35:31briefed. There is the motion to preclude
35:34collateral attack and that is also I
35:37believe uh I think that's fully briefed
35:40too but I'm not
35:41positive. There might be a reply due.
35:44No, I think that's fully approved too.
35:46Okay. Um, so you know, depending on how
35:50I go on this issue, they may or may not
35:53be moot and I would need to know from
35:55you whether it is or not. So, um, like I
35:59said, I will be getting I will strive to
36:02get this ruling out by next week so that
36:05you guys can start doing whatever you
36:07need to do with the court of appeals.
36:08All right. Thank you. That's it.
36:15Not not setting anything right now until
36:17I figure out what's going on.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Debra Milke Hearing 13 Dec 13 before Judge Rosa Mroz by Crimefile News, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,561 words across 833 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.