9/12 Day 6 Planned Parenthood Undercover Video Prosecution Summary

After six days of top Planned Parenthood doctors and abortion industry-big wigs making shocking admissions on the witness stand, the California Attorney General’s office has finally rested in their baseless case against CMP investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Today’s questioning of Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Doe 10 and CA DOJ Agent Cardwell yielded big revelations:

  • In the lunch meeting with Daleiden and Merritt, Doe 10 discusses a “less crunchy” technique to get more whole fetal specimens. When asked by Defense what she meant, Doe 10 said she meant switching between electric vacuum vs manual suction syringe to harvest intact fetal tissue.
  • Doe 10 testified yesterday she expected the lunch meeting to be private, yet after prompting by Defense today about communicating her expectation of privacy to parties involved at luncheon, Doe 10 said she never did.
  • Defense counsel showed Doe 10 several clips in which she continued her conversation in front of restaurant wait staff, and then asked Doe 10 if she lowered her voice, changed the subject, or paused. Doe 10 said she did not.
  • Special Agent Cardwell, the lead investigator on the AG’s case, indicated his focus was finding “potential victims” for the AG’s office to include in prosecution as he was tasked, not investigating the elements of the California recording law.
  • Defense attorneys asked Agent Cardwell if he watched all of the CMP undercover videos being used as evidence by the AG’s office to prosecute David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, and he said he didn’t. Defense asked how he could have conducted thorough investigation if he didn’t watch all of the Does’ videos. He responded he was only looking to identify “potential victims” for the AG’s case.
  • The California recording law, PC 632, defines “confidential communication” to exclude “any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.” When questioned if he asked Does 6, 7, 11, 13, 14 if they could be overheard, Agent Cardwell said he never asked the Does that question.
  • When presenting evidence to judge for AG’s arrest warrant against Daleiden and Merritt, the warrant affidavit did not mention Doe’s 5 statement to Agent Cardwell that she could be overheard or the public setting in which Doe 4 was recorded (elevator and hotel lobby) or explain how these circumstances hold up against CA Penal Code 632.
  • Agent Cardwell admitted that in the course of his investigation for the AG’s office he never visited the Westin St. Francis hotel where the 2014 National Abortion Federation annual meeting and the recordings of Does 1 through 8 took place.
  • Agent Cardwell testified that when he took statements from the Does in his investigation for the AG’s office, he did not check their claims of “confidentiality” against the elements of the California recording law.
  • Deputy Attorney General Johnette Jauron, the lead prosecutor on the case, objected that the CA recording law PC 632 has no definition of confidentiality, to audible laughter in the courtroom. In reality, PC 632 defines “confidential communication” in subsection (c).

Proceedings will continue at 9:00 A.M. on Friday, September 13, in Department 10 of the San Francisco Superior Court, 850 Bryant St, San Francisco, CA 94103.