Stay updated with breaking news from Lydia stiglitz. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
role to determine what the defense of the sheriff is, and a proper defense, or which witnesses the sheriff should be able to call. that is not the city attorney s colorado. the sheriff can put on as vigorous a defense as he can against the charges. mayor agnos is a former mayor of san francisco. he surely knows a little bit about the responsibility of the mayor. he spoke on this exact issue. if the city attorney can have witnesses come in who have nothing to offer except some roundabout opinion on the responsibility of the sheriff and other parts of california, and have no knowledge at all mr. henderson has no knowledge as to any of the underlying facts about this case. he can come in. we are suggesting he permit he be permitted to testify by declaration. somehow, even though he spoke to the mayor, that is not relevant? i said i respectfully disagree. does anybody here think we should receive a declaration from mayor agnos? no? not for the purpose not from w ....
to suspend sheriff mirkarimi, and the mayor decided otherwise. i do not see how that is relevant. one of the arguments that has been raised is that this is essentially epochal prosecution. one of the reasons we have identified some any expert witnesses to talk about practice issues and professional standards issues is to defeat that kind of claim, to show that on the merits the conduct can meet that standard. what i am gathering from the relevance is that that is a line the sheriff is going to pursue. we do not think that has ever been an appropriate set of arguments. the mayor is not on trial for his decision to suspend the sheriff. comments or questions from either party? mr. wagner, is that correct, how mr. keith characterized what the former mayor would testify to? i believe i have already stated the testimony would impeach the credibility, vis-a- vis the conversations he had with nearly with mayor lee. what would he say? what is this other reason? excus ....
it is not the city attorney s role to determine what the defense of the sheriff is, and a proper defense, or which witnesses the sheriff should be able to call. that is not the city attorney s colorado. the sheriff can put on as vigorous a defense as he can against the charges. mayor agnos is a former mayor of san francisco. he surely knows a little bit about the responsibility of the mayor. he spoke on this exact issue. if the city attorney can have witnesses come in who have nothing to offer except some roundabout opinion on the responsibility of the sheriff and other parts of california, and have no knowledge at all mr. henderson has no knowledge as to any of the underlying facts about this case. he can come in. we are suggesting he permit he be permitted to testify by declaration. somehow, even though he spoke to the mayor, that is not relevant? i said i respectfully disagree. does anybody here think we should receive a declaration from mayor agnos? no? no ....
would only call her potentially as a rebuttal witness to miss florez or ms. lemon. i see your point with florez. lemon is an expert. why does nyevez rebut lemon? my understanding is that ms. lemon would testify that there must have been some other conduct at issue, or some other instances that would qualify as official misconduct regarding how the sheriff has interacted or interact with other people in his life. she lived with the sheriff for many years and could provide evidence to the contrary. ms. lemmon is not going to be providing testimony about other acts of misconduct. she is going to be providing testimony about the nature of domestic violence, and specifically the facts elicited in this case, and how they do or do not relate to what is known about the most violent. we do think ms. neves should not be a rebuttal to the expert. we would have no objection to her putting in a declaration. that should be part of what ms. lemon of pines about. why would you ....
that is not the city attorney s colorado. the sheriff can put on as vigorous a defense as he can against the charges. mayor agnos is a former mayor of san francisco. he surely knows a little bit about the responsibility of the mayor. he spoke on this exact issue. if the city attorney can have witnesses come in who have nothing to offer except some roundabout opinion on the responsibility of the sheriff and other parts of california, and have no knowledge at all mr. henderson has no knowledge as to any of the underlying facts about this case. he can come in. we are suggesting he permit he be permitted to testify by declaration. somehow, even though he spoke to the mayor, that is not relevant? i said i respectfully disagree. does anybody here think we should receive a declaration from mayor agnos? no? not for the purpose not from what we have heard tonight. why do we need to hear from phil bronstein? he spoke with ivory madison regarding the underlying fac ....