SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 110 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
VS. ) NO. BA456846-01
)
ARMANN KARIM PREMJEE, )
)
DEFENDANT. )
)
___________________________________)

REPORTER'S PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PRELIMINARY HEARING

JULY 26, 2017

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: JACKIE LACEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BY: LANA KIM, DEPUTY
211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, SUITE 200
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: HARLAND W. BRAUN, ESQ.

BRAUN & BRAUN, LLP
10250 CONSTELLATION BLVD.
SUITE 1020
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067

REPORTED BY: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

OFFICIAL REPORTER
 1

1 CASE NO.: BA456846-01

2 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS. ARMANN KARIM

PREMJEE
3

4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017

5 DEPARTMENT 110 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

6 REPORTER: MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR #2812

7 TIME 1:45 P.M.

9 APPEARANCES:

10 DEFENDANT ARMANN KARIM PREMJEE, PRESENT,

11 REPRESENTED BY HARLAND BRAUN, ESQ.; PEOPLE

12 REPRESENTED BY LANA KIM, DEPUTY DISTRICT

13 ATTORNEY, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

14 CALIFORNIA.

15

16 THE COURT: IN MR. PREMJEE'S CASE, THE DEFENDANT IS

17 PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE BY THEIR COUNSEL

18 AND DETECTIVE GAMINO.

19 I HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE

20 CASE. AND, AS AN INTRODUCTION, BASED UPON WHAT COUNSEL

21 HAVE ARGUED AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT MR. BRAUN ARGUED ABOUT

22 THE NATURE OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE BURDEN OF PROOF

23 LIES WITH THE PEOPLE. HOWEVER, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS A

24 MINIMAL BURDEN COMPARED TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL,

25 WHICH REQUIRES THE PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND A

26 REASONABLE DOUBT, THE HIGHEST STANDARD IN OUR JUSTICE

27 SYSTEM, AS IT SHOULD BE.

28 THERE ARE OTHER STANDARDS WITH WHICH WE ARE
 2

1 FAMILIAR, AND THAT INCLUDES A PREPONDERANCE OF THE

2 EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, AND PROBABLE

3 CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARD. THE STANDARD.

4 AS WE KNOW, AT PRELIMINARY HEARING IS REASONABLE

5 SUSPICION, ALSO CHARACTERIZED AS REASONABLE CAUSE OR

6 STRONG SUSPICION. IT IS A LOW STANDARD COMPARATIVELY,

7 BUT IT IS A STANDARD, AND THERE IS A BURDEN UPON THE

8 PEOPLE TO MEET THAT BURDEN. AND IN ORDER TO MEET THAT

9 BURDEN, THE PEOPLE CAN RELY UPON DIRECT EVIDENCE,

10 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH.

11 AS I EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE,

12 INITIALLY I DO NOT FIND THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE ESTABLISHED

13 ELEMENTS OF RAPE BY INTOXICATION OR WHEN THE ALLEGED

14 VICTIM IS INTOXICATED, AND SPECIFICALLY PENETRATION.

15 THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REASONABLE

16 INFERENCE BASED UPON EVIDENCE AND SUPPOSITION, OR SURMISE

17 OR SPECULATION. IN THIS CASE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE

18 ELEMENTS, EVEN FOR PURPOSES OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE, HAVE

19 BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THAT REGARD. THERE JUST ISN'T

20 EVIDENCE, ABSENT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS WHICH MUST BE

21 EXCLUDED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

22 SO BASED UPON THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE,

23 AND SPECIFICALLY THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ROOMMATES IN THE

24 DORM, WHAT THEY HEARD, WHAT THEY SAW, THEY MAY HAVE

25 REACHED CERTAIN OPINIONS BUT THE OPINIONS ARE SIMPLY

26 THAT. I SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT THOSE OPINIONS ABSENT

27 EVIDENCE.
28 SO THIS IS BASED UPON PEOPLE VERSUS SANCHEZ
 3

1 AT 246 CAL APP. 4TH, 167. AND SANCHEZ DISCUSSES OTHER

2 CASES DEALING WITH THE NATURE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO

3 ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE, EITHER DESCRIPTIONS OF THE

4 ACTUAL ACT IN VIEW OF THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES, ANY

5 TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS REGARDING CREDIBILITY, PHYSICAL

6 EVIDENCE WHICH THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY IN THIS

7 CASE.

8 SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I AM NOT OF THE OPINION

9 THAT A PENETRATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. AND FOR THAT

10 REASON, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PEOPLE HAVE MET THEIR

11 BURDEN, HOWEVER MINIMAL IT MAY BE.

12 SECONDARILY, WITH REGARD TO ANY ISSUE AS TO

13 CONSENT, I AM FAMILIAR WITH BOTH THE CAL CRIM AND CALJIC

14 JURY INSTRUCTIONS AS REPRESENTED BY BOTH COUNSEL. I LOOK

15 TO THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, NOT ANY

16 INDIVIDUAL ASPECT OF EVIDENCE. AND AS I EVALUATE THE

17 TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE FROM THE INITIAL ENCOUNTER

18 BETWEEN ARSHIA AND THE DEFENDANT, MR. PREMJEE, I BELIEVE

19 THAT THERE WAS CONSENT AND THERE REMAINED CONSENT

20 THROUGHOUT THE UNFORTUNATE INCIDENTS IN THIS CASE.

21 THERE IS NO INDICATION OF ANY WITHDRAWAL OF

22 CONSENT. THERE IS A VERY STRONG INDICATION THAT THE

23 ALLEGED VICTIM IN THIS CASE WAS THE INITIATOR OF ANY

24 CONDUCT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE ALLEGED VICTIM.

25 AND, YES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY BECAUSE THE

26 ALLEGED VICTIM WAS THE INSTIGATOR OF ANY CONDUCT, BUT IT

27 IS A FACT TO BE EVALUATED, AND THE CONTINUING NATURE OF

28 CONSENT IS EVIDENT TO THIS COURT.
 4

1 ONE CAN SPECULATE. ONE CAN SURMISE, BUT THAT

2 IS NOT THE KIND OF EVIDENCE UPON WHICH I RELY AND WHICH I

3 DO NOT FIND TO BE CONVINCING. I BASE MY DECISION ON THE

4 UNDERLYING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND

5 CREDIBILITY ISSUES.

6 I ALLOWED THE PEOPLE, AS I BELIEVE I HAVE TO,

7 TO ESTABLISH THROUGH PROPOSITION 115 THAT WHICH THEY ARE

8 ENTITLED TO DO, AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESENTATION OF ANY

9 HEARSAY DECLARATIONS OF ARSHIA THROUGH DETECTIVE GAMINO.

10 BUT I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO SEE HER, TO HEAR HER IN

11 COURT, TO EVALUATE DEMEANOR AND TO EVALUATE ANY

12 UNDERLYING BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS.

13 AS A FACT FINDER, IT PUTS THE FACT FINDER IN

14 AN EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT POSITION BECAUSE, UNDER

15 THESE TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING THE VERY UNUSUAL,

16 IN PARTICULAR, AND ONE MIGHT EVEN REGARD PECULIAR ASPECTS

17 OF THE CASE, THE COURT IS AT A TREMENDOUS DISADVANTAGE

18 AND I'M NOT SATISFIED AS TO THE UNDERLYING CREDIBILITY OF

19 ANY STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY ARSHIA. THAT INCLUDES

20 LACK OF MEMORY AND ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE HEARSAY

21 DECLARATIONS.

22 THIS IS A CREDIBILITY DECISION OF THE COURT.

23 I THINK THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE DEEPER AND MORE

24 SENSITIVE INVESTIGATION AS TO THE UNDERLYING

25 CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE WITH A THOROUGH EVALUATION OF

26 UNDERLYING CREDIBILITY ISSUES IN AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH

27 OTHER EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE INVESTIGATION.

28 SO WITH ALL THAT IN MIND, THE DEFENDANT'S
 5

1 MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 1 IS GRANTED. PURSUANT TO THE

2 PROVISIONS OF PENAL CODE SECTION 871, THE COURT FINDS

3 THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE

4 WITHIN NAMED DEFENDANT, ARMANN KARIM PREMJEE, GUILTY OF

5 THE CHARGED OFFENSE IN COUNT 1. I ORDER MR. PREMJEE BE

6 DISCHARGED AND THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM DISMISSED.

7 THERE IS A POSTED BOND. THE PEOPLE CERTAINLY

8 HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE THE CASE, HOWEVER THEY WISH TO. AND

9 WITH THAT IN MIND, THE COURT WOULD HOPE THAT IF AND WHEN

10 THE PEOPLE MAKE A DECISION, THAT COUNSEL CAN NOTIFY MR.

11 BRAUN BECAUSE I WILL ALLOW BOND TO STAND FOR TEN DAYS.

12 THE CLERK: 15 DAYS TO AUGUST 10.

13 THE COURT: BOND IS HELD AND IS TO STAND THROUGH

14 AUGUST 10, 2017. SO THAT IF AND WHEN CHARGES ARE FILED

15 BEFORE THAT DATE, THE DEFENDANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO

16 SURRENDER AND TO ALLOW THE POSTED BOND TO STAND AT LEAST

17 AS OF THAT POINT IN TIME. WHAT ANOTHER JUDGE OR

18 MAGISTRATE MAY DO IS, OF COURSE, OPEN TO THAT JUDGE'S

19 DISCRETION.

20 WITH ALL THAT IN MIND, MS. KIM, DO YOU HAVE

21 ANY COMMENT, OR THOUGHTS, OR EVALUATIONS IN MIND?

22 MS. KIM: NO, YOUR HONOR. ACTUALLY, I APPRECIATE

23 WHAT THE COURT JUST STATED ON THE RECORD. I BELIEVE THAT

24 I'M GOING, OBVIOUSLY, TO GO BACK TO MY OFFICE TO SPEAK TO

25 MY SUPERVISORS TO SEE IF WE WILL REFILE THE CASE. BUT

26 ABSOLUTELY, I WILL CONTACT MR. BRAUN IF WE DO CHOOSE TO

27 DO THAT PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 10 DATE.

28 MR. BRAUN: I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MEET WITH THE
 6

1 SUPERVISORS IF THERE IS ANY ISSUE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT

2 THAT COMES OUT THAT DOES NOT COME OUT AT A PRELIM.

3 THE COURT: I WOULD REQUEST. I CAN'T ORDER YOU,

4 MS. KIM, TO DO ANYTHING, BUT I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU

5 NOTIFY YOUR SUPERVISOR ABOUT MR. BRAUN'S REQUEST. DO YOU

6 KNOW THE NAME OF THE SUPERVISOR?

7 MR. BRAUN: I THINK IT IS JODY LING.

8 MS. KIM: THERE ARE A COUPLE ISSUES, YOUR HONOR.

9 THEY ARE BOTH OUT OF TOWN, AND I BELIEVE MY HEAD DEPUTY

10 WON'T RETURN UNTIL THE WEEK OF THE 7TH BUT I WILL CONTACT

11 THEM. I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO SPEAK TO THEM TODAY ON THE

12 PHONE.

13 THE COURT: THEY MAY WANT TO MEET WITH YOU,

14 ACTUALLY.

15 MS. KIM: YES, BUT I'LL FIND OUT. I'LL SPEAK TO

16 MR. BRAUN, AND WE WILL TRY TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.

17 THE COURT: BECAUSE MS. PEALE, OUTSIDE THE 15-DAY

18 PERIOD, THE BOND MUST BE EXONERATED?

19 THE CLERK: CORRECT.

20 THE COURT: IT MAKES A DIG DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF

21 OBVIOUSLY POSTING ANOTHER BOND. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT

22 THE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO BE IN CONTACT WITH THE

23 SUPERVISORS AND MAKE CONTACT WITH MR. BRAUN, AND AT LEAST

24 ALLOW MR. BRAUN TO KNOW THE NAMES OF ANY OF YOUR

25 SUPERVISORS SO MR. BRAUN CAN TAKE INITIATIVE AND CALL

26 THEM ON HIS OWN. HE IS NOT SHY, AS YOU ARE NOT SHY.

27 MS. KIM: IT IS CHRISTINA BUCKLEY IS MY HEAD

28 DEPUTY. JODY LING IS MY ASSISTANT HEAD DEPUTY. THEY ARE
 7

1 BOTH OUT OF THE OFFICE. I WILL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS, YOUR

2 HONOR, AND I WILL NOT PUNISH THE DEFENDANT BY CHOOSING

3 THE DATE AFTER AUGUST 10. IF WE DO, IN FACT, DECIDE TO

4 FILE IN THIS CASE, I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO

5 MAKE THAT DECISION PRIOR TO THAT DATE.

6 THE COURT: AGAIN, THAT IS UP TO YOU.

7 MS. KIM: YES. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

8 THE COURT: I CAN JUST MAKE THE REQUEST, AND I KNOW

9 OF YOUR PROFESSIONALISM.

10 MS. KIM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

11 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE, MR. BRAUN?

12 MR. BRAUN: NO. THANK YOU.

13 THE COURT: MR. PREMJEE, I WISH YOU GOOD LUCK.

14 THE DEFENDANT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

15 THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER IS OBVIOUSLY OUTSIDE

16 OF MY HANDS. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THANK YOU, DETECTIVE.

17 DETECTIVE GAMINO: THANK YOU, SIR.

18 THE COURT: AS I ALWAYS DO, GIVE ME A MOMENT BEFORE

19 YOU START LEAVING. THERE ARE EDITORIAL COMMENTS ON THE

20 BOTTOM OF EXHIBITS "A" AND "B."

21 "ARSHIA SECRETLY DISPLAYS HER INTENTIONS TO

22 KAAVYA USING HER FINGERS."

23 I DID NOT RELY UPON THOSE --

24 MS. KIM: I BELIEVE YOU, YOUR HONOR.

25 THE COURT: -- AT ALL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT

26 CLEAR SO IF THERE IS ANOTHER EVALUATION AND REVIEW, IT

27 SHOULD BE DELETED.
28 MS. KIM: THANK YOU.
 8

1 MR. BRAUN: THANK YOU.

3 (PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 DEPARTMENT 110 HON. MICHAEL E. PASTOR, JUDGE

4
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,)
5 )
PLAINTIFF, )
6 )
VS. ) NO. BA456846-01
7 )
ARMANN KARIM PREMJEE, )
8 ) REPORTER'S
DEFENDANT. ) CERTIFICATE
9 ______________________________________)

10

11

12 I, MAVIS THEODOROU, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE

13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY

14 OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING

15 PAGES 1-8, COMPRISE A TRUE AND CORRECT PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

16 OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF JULY 26, 2017.

17 DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017.

18

19

20 ____________________________________

21 MAVIS THEODOROU, CSR, OFFICIAL REPORTER

22

23

24

25

26

27
28