1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
LEON DINGLE, JR. and KARINDINGLE,
DEFENDANTS,
))))))))))
12-30098
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSBEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OCTOBER 1, 2014
A P P E A R A N C E S:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. TIMOTHY A. BASSMR. ERIC I. LONGASST. U.S. ATTORNEYS318 SOUTH SIXTHSPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
FOR DEFENDANT LEON DINGLE: MR. EDWARD M. GENSONMS. BLAIR C. DALTONATTORNEYS AT LAW53 W. JACKSONCHICAGO, ILLINOIS
FOR DEFENDANT KARIN DINGLE: MR. RONALD J. CLARKATTORNEY AT LAW820 W. JACKSON BLVD.CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
COURT REPORTER: KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER600 E. MONROESPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS(217)492-4810
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
2
I N D E X
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
E X H I B I T S
GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBITNUMBER IDENTIFIED ADMITTED
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITNUMBER IDENTIFIED ADMITTED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3
P R O C E E D I N G S
* * * * * * * * * * *
THE COURT: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good
afternoon, everyone.
Well, it's a lovely day out there today, but I
hear we've got bad weather on the way. But it is
ever thus, so we're just glad to be here.
All right. This is cause number 12-30098,
entitled United States of America versus Leon
Dingle, Jr., and Karin Dingle. Both of the
defendants are present in open court in their own
proper persons. And Mr. Dingle is represented by
his counsel of record, Mr. Edward Genson. Nice to
see you again, Mr. Genson.
And also by Blaire Dalton, I believe.
Ms. Dalton, so nice to have you.
And Ronald J. Clark is present on behalf of
Mrs. Dingle.
MR. CLARK: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Clark, nice to see you.
MR. CLARK: Thank you.
THE COURT: And of course both the
defendants are present in their own proper persons.
The Government is represented by Assistant
United States Attorney Timothy A. Bass, Mr. Bass.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4
And also by Mr. Eric Long. Mr. Long, nice to
have you with us.
We also have present at the Government's table
from the U.S. Postal Department, Inspector, is it
Basil or Basil?
MR. DEMCZAK: Basil.
THE COURT: Demczak?
MR. DEMCZAK: Demczak.
THE COURT: And also Special Agent from the
IRS, Mr. Landon Smith. Very good.
All right. Then I guess those are all of our
players at the moment.
Now, one little housekeeping thing I want to
clear up before we proceed for the final pre-trial
conference. And that is the question of title. We
have references to Mr. Dingle and to Dr. Dingle.
And I would like to get that clarified off the head
end here.
Now, Mr. Genson, what is the title doctor,
either behind or in front of --
MR. GENSON: He has a doctorate degree,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Beg your pardon?
MR. GENSON: A doctorate degree, Your
Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
5
THE COURT: Of what?
MR. GENSON: Public health, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Public health. And where was
that obtained?
MR. GENSON: Union College.
THE COURT: And that is a Doctor of Public
Health.
MR. GENSON: Ph.D.
THE COURT: It's a Ph.D.
MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
All right. Then in that case we may utilize
that title throughout the course of the case and the
trial if that is your desire.
MR. GENSON: It is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. But I want it to be
clearly understood that the jury is going to be made
aware of what that title is and what it represents,
rather than leave them with the impression that he
is a medical doctor.
MR. GENSON: We understand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, fine. Any problem
with that, gentlemen?
MR. BASS: No, Your Honor. We intended to
do that anyway, so...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
6
THE COURT: Well, we'll get that all
cleared out so we don't have any kind of adversarial
situation. We'll just clarify that at the very head
end.
And let me take care of that. I will handle
that matter with the jury. So I do not expect to
have any other discussion about it. All right?
MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So if you, Mr. Genson, would
prepare me a short biography for Dr. Dingle. It
does not have to be long and elaborate, just a very
short one, so that I will have all of the details
when I begin the jury voir dire.
Okay?
MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good. We'll get that settled
right off the beginning.
Now, to our final pre-trial, let's get the
background. The defendants, Leon Dingle and Karin
Dingle, are charged by superseding indictment with a
number of counts, including conspiracy to defraud
the United States in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code
371, mail fraud in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code
1341, and engaging in monetary transactions in
property derived from specified unlawful activity,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
7
money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code
1957(a).
Now, my understanding is that the defendants
Jacquelyn Kilpatrick and Edmond Clemons are planning
to enter guilty pleas prior to trial, while Mr. and
Mrs. Dingle, Dr. Dingle and his wife, intend to
proceed to trial.
Now, in reviewing the docket I see that
Mr. Clemons has a change of plea hearing set for
tomorrow before Judge Schanzle-Haskins. And
Mr. Wise advised my chambers by telephone that
Ms. Kilpatrick intends to proceed in a similar
manner prior to October the 20th, which is the date
we're set to begin.
Now, as I stated, the jury trial is currently
set to begin on March 20, 2014. And because Judge
Schanzle-Haskins will be outside the district that
week, jury selection will begin before me at
9:00 a.m. on that day in this courtroom.
Today this is a motion hearing and slash final
pre-trial conference. There are a few pending
motions.
When we last met there were issues surrounding
the Government's Santiago proffer and alleged
co-conspirator statements. So today would be a good
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8
time to address any issues regarding admissibility
that remain as to the Santiago proffer.
On August the 25th, 2014, the Government filed
its Santiago proffer wherein it summarizes the
evidence it intends to present, including the
evidence relating to the alleged conspiracy. And
further notes its intent; subject to the Court's
approval, of course; to present a number of alleged
co-conspirator statements of the defendants charged
in this case or statements of third parties alleged
to be part of the conspiracy.
Dr. Dingle's response essentially contends that
the Santiago proffer fails to specifically identify
any co-conspirator statements the Government may
seek to introduce and without that information the
Court cannot make the required findings to determine
the admissibility of the statements.
Now, is that about where we stand at the
moment, Mr. Bass, for the Government?
MR. BASS: That's the state of the record.
I'm not sure what the defense's position is on
continuing in that position and their response. But
you've accurately stated the state of the record
with respect to that proffer.
THE COURT: All right. Then I'll turn to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
9
you, Mr. Genson.
MS. DALTON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ah, thank you, Ms. Dalton.
MS. DALTON: Our filing in response to the
Government's Santiago proffer also went into the
fact that we don't think that the Government has
established by preponderance of the evidence that
specifically Quinn Golden and Roxanne Jackson were
members of the conspiracy and thus their statements
should not be admissible as co-conspirator
statements. In addition to the fact that they
didn't allude to any specific statements so that
Your Honor could make his opinion about whether or
not they've met their burden by a preponderance of
the evidence.
In addition to that, we've been informed that
Ms. Golden will most likely not be testifying on
behalf of the Government.
THE COURT: She will not be?
MS. DALTON: Correct, Your Honor. Other
than that, that's where we rest as far as the
Santiago proffer response is concerned.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS: Your Honor, do you have the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
10
Government's proffer before you?
THE COURT: I do. I have it here. Just a
second.
Got her.
MR. BASS: Your Honor, what the Government
did in its Santiago proffer is, as you mentioned,
laid out -- attempted to lay out a summary of our
evidence in some detail. And then categorized the
type of co-conspirator statements that we intend to
introduce, with the preface that we don't expect
that there will be a significant amount of
co-conspirator statements because that evidence we
expect to come in for other reasons, such as not for
the truth of the matter asserted or as admissions of
the defendants themselves.
So we expect there to be a limited amount of
co-conspirator statements, primarily coming from
Ms. Kilpatrick, who is going to plead guilty and
testify in this trial. And Ms. Jackson, who has
pled guilty and will testify in this trial. And
Ms. Golden, who will not testify. But we've
summarized the evidence in our proffer of what we
expect to present to establish by a preponderance.
Now, it's not a requirement of the law that the
Government essentially provide a transcript of every
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
11
question that it's going to ask that might elicit a
co-conspirator statement. We've tried, in good
faith, to categorize the type of co-conspirator
statements that we expect to elicit.
In addition, we've provided the interview
reports of every -- and Grand Jury transcript of
every witness that could possibly be -- that the
Government could possibly call in this case on our
witness list.
We've also provided e-mails. And those really
will be with respect to all the three -- all
co-conspirator statements. Several of those
co-conspirator statements will come from e-mails
between Ms. Golden and Ms. Kilpatrick or Mr. Dingle.
We have provided those.
So short of a transcript of what we expect
these witnesses to testify, we have provided to the
defense everything that we expect to present by way
of evidence. And I think in that respect we've
complied with what a proffer is required to do.
So as to the sufficiency of the evidence, Your
Honor, the defendants are charged with conspiracy.
If we don't prove the conspiracy, then obviously
we're gonna have a directed verdict. But I would
submit that the evidence that we've summarized in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
12
the proffer, as well as what was supplemented with
respect to Ms. Golden, and what we're gonna address
here today with respect to the motion in limine;
that being that the Government seeks to admit
evidence regarding Mr. Dingle's relationship with
Ms. Golden and the payment of money to a witness
during the time period of this conspiracy. That
other evidence with respect to Ms. Golden, we
believe, establishes her involvement in the charged
conspiracy.
So I think we've established -- I think we've
done what we're required to do with respect to the
submission of a proffer and I would submit that the
evidence we've summarized more than establishes the
basis for the Court to make a preponderance of the
evidence finding.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Bass.
MS. DALTON: Your Honor, if I may respond.
THE COURT: Well of course you may. I've
never said no yet. And I doubt that I will, but
there's always a first time.
MS. DALTON: It will be short.
Just based on the Government's response, we'd
ask the Court to defer ruling on this motion on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
13
Santiago proffer --
THE COURT: To do what?
MS. DALTON: Defer ruling until trial,
until there's an offer of proof with actual
statements presented to the Court.
Yes, the defense has received all the witness
statements and all the e-mails, but the Court
hasn't. And the Court hasn't been able to discern
what statements the Government intends to use to
establish that there was a conspiracy and that this
witness may or may not, in fact, be a
co-conspirator.
So for that reason, we'd ask the Court to defer
ruling until an offer of proof has been made where
the Court can adequately determine whether or not
the Government has established a conspiracy by a
preponderance of the evidence.
MR. BASS: No objection to that, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Beg your pardon?
MR. BASS: No objection to that.
THE COURT: Well, fine, I accept that, but
with a caveat. And that is that we're not going to
try this case twice. And I don't intend to get into
trial and then all of the sudden have a stoppage and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
14
then we have to send the jury out and I'm gonna
start hearing testimony and evidence to see whether
or not we live up to the Government's projection.
Now we're not gonna do that.
But I will certainly defer ruling until
everything comes in and then we'll call it. Because
as the Government's pointed out, if they don't make
it, there's going to be a directed verdict. And
nobody wants that particularly; except perhaps the
defendants. But we're not gonna go that route.
We're gonna do this by the numbers.
So I will defer the ruling until sufficient
evidence comes in to support the Government's
position. And if it doesn't, as Mr. Bass says, it's
all over.
MS. DALTON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Very good.
Now, let's see. All right, we'll defer the
ruling on that.
I think most of the pending motions are now
fully briefed. Dr. Dingle has filed a consolidated
motion in limine pertaining to a number of the
issues and the Government has responded. The
responses include a summary of the anticipated
evidence.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
15
The Dingles have also filed a reply to the
motion. And the motion in limine seeks the
exclusion, the arguments appealing to jurors as tax
payers, which I believe the Government acknowledges
would be inappropriate. And secondly, any evidence
and arguments referencing former Government Rod
Blagojevich. And three, evidence and arguments
regarding allegations of Dr. Dingle's infidelity.
Now, is there anything we need to address other
than what's already in the briefs?
MS. DALTON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, fine. Ms. Dalton.
MS. DALTON: We've already informed the
Government that we intended to orally amend our
motion in limine, our third motion in limine, as it
relates to certain physical relationships that have
been alleged to have occurred between Dr. Dingle and
a number of witnesses.
Within the responses and replies to that motion
there's discussions about Quinn Golden, as well as
somebody, a witness that's been labeled as MA.
We'd like to amend our motion to include a
couple additional witnesses. The Government came
upon some additional statements from some witnesses,
one of which we'll label as GW for the time being.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
16
THE COURT: E as --
MS. DALTON: G as in --
THE COURT: G as in George. And W as in
Washington?
MS. DALTON: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. GW, thank you.
MS. DALTON: To include this GW witness.
The Government, in prepping for trial,
interviewed that witness again. That witness -- we
haven't seen the statement, but I'm going based on
what Mr. Bass has told me. Apparently GW told
agents that she had a romantic relationship with
Dr. Dingle and that at some point during that
romantic relationship she was paid $700.
It would be the defendant's position that that
implies no evidence one way or the other and is
certainly not relevant to this case. One being the
romantic relationship that she alleges to have
occurred. Two; and I believe this is why the
Government would intend to use it; that at some
point Dr. Dingle gave her $700. There's no evidence
or indication that she believed that $700 was in
exchange for anything else or in response to the
work that she was doing on the grants.
THE COURT: What do you mean anything else?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
17
MS. DALTON: She did not -- we haven't seen
the statement, again, so this is all speculation
based on what we've been told by Mr. Bass. But she
didn't make any indication that she thought the $700
was in exchange for anything. Or a loan. I believe
it was just Dr. Dingle giving her $700. Obviously a
small amount of money.
But I believe that's what the Government
intends to introduce through that witness. We would
object and ask that they not be allowed to do so.
The other witness would be -- the Government
has alleged that -- or has claimed that they intend
to introduce evidence through a witness we'll call
E, as in egg, W as in Washington, and Ms. Golden.
This has nothing to do with Dr. Dingle. Has no
relevance to the case.
Other than that, there's an additional issue
that's outside of that particular motion in limine
that also has to do with witness EW that we can
discuss with the Court after we're finishing with
the motion in limine discussion, if the Court
decides that's the best way to proceed. Otherwise,
I can go into it now.
THE COURT: Well, why don't we go into it
right now. Let's just -- as these matters come up,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
18
if we defer them and put something else in between
then, everything is confused. So I think it would
be best if we just, while we're on it and while
you've made the statement, why don't we pursue that.
MS. DALTON: Okay.
This witness, EW, the Government I think will
be filing a motion or requesting that the Court deem
this witness to be a hostile witness in reference to
this one particular question, whether or not this
witness, EW, did or did not have a sexual
relationship with Quinn Golden.
THE COURT: With who?
MS. DALTON: Quinn Golden.
THE COURT: Quinn Golden. All right.
MS. DALTON: Witness EW in proffer answered
every single question posed to him by the Government
other than the question of whether or not he had, in
fact, this sexual relationship with Quinn Golden.
That is, I believe, why the --
THE COURT: Is that Goldwin or Golden?
MS. DALTON: Golden.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. DALTON: I believe the Government wants
to declare EW as a hostile witness so that the
Government can ask him this question in trial and so
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
19
that he, while under oath, he has to testify to it.
We have received an affidavit from EW's
attorneys affirming that their client, EW, when he
takes the stand, if he's called to take the stand,
will testify truthfully and accurately as to that
question if it is possessed to him. If the
Government -- or if the Court does not object to it.
Or if we object and the Court does not sustain that
objection.
So for that reason, EW is not a hostile
witness, should not be declared a hostile witness,
because he will answer truthfully per the affidavit
of his lawyer.
And that ties into this motion in limine in the
sense that we still do not believe that any sort of
indication or testimony regarding any relationship
between Quinn Golden and EW is relevant to this
case. It has nothing to do with Dr. Dingle or what
Dr. Dingle was charged with and should be precluded
from being introduced into evidence.
THE COURT: All right. We're talking about
EW's attorney making an affidavit?
MS. DALTON: Correct. It was --
THE COURT: How can he make an affidavit
that EW is going to testify truthfully?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
20
MS. DALTON: Well, EW has been asked by the
Government to come back in and continue a proffer
and respond to questions regarding his sexual
relationship with Quinn Golden. His attorney has
advised him, EW, that that type of information is
not necessary as it relates to Dr. Dingle's case and
does not need to come in and just answer questions
about his private sexual relationships to the
Government in a proffer.
However, if he is called to the stand and under
oath is asked those same questions, he will answer
truthfully. He will not refuse to answer questions
to that nature.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll see what Mr. Bass
has to say now.
Did you have anything else, Ms. Dalton? I
didn't mean to cut you off.
MS. DALTON: No. We basically can rest on
what we've already asserted within our motion in
limine. As to Governor Blagojevich, we certainly
rest.
As to the allegations of any romantic
relationships between Dr. Dingle and other
witnesses, we've indicated and briefed it in full;
that we do not think it's relevant, we think it's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
21
extremely prejudicial to the case. It has nothing
to do with the serious nature of the allegations
that are alleged against Dr. Dingle, will end up
confusing the jury, and leaving the entire
courtroom; the attorneys, the jury; to focus on the
truth and accuracy of these alleged sexual
relationships and will take aware from the serious
nature of the charges against Dr. Dingle.
That would be about it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. DALTON: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Dalton.
All right, Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS: Your Honor, if I -- if you
recall, at the last hearing we asked, or I asked,
because of the importance of the issues raised in
the defendant's motion in limine, that we be able to
address that directly with Your Honor today. And
that's -- that's what we're doing now.
But I just -- if Your Honor will recall that,
that I know you said that they've been briefed, but
because of the importance of these issues to the
Government, thank you for the opportunity to address
Your Honor directly.
THE COURT: Well, sure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
22
MR. BASS: I think it's important now to go
back and look --
THE COURT: Listen, people, I want it
clearly understood that I would much rather that we
wrangle about these things well in advance of
getting the jury in the box than having these
surprises come up. This is not fun. And we don't
try -- at least I don't try cases by ambush or by
laying in the weeds and then having something come
up that all of the sudden taints the whole problem.
We don't want that.
Now, they're entitled to a fair trial. And
they're gonna get one in this courtroom. And so I
want these things to be brought out and let's get
these out of the way and move on.
So you're not at all inconveniencing me. I
want to make that clear.
Okay, go ahead, Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS: So, Your Honor, I'll try to be
brief, but I may not be -- I'll try to be brief, but
because of the -- because of the importance of these
issues and the evidence, I think it's important for
Your Honor -- for the Government to make sure that
Your Honor is aware of the Government's reason for
the admission of this evidence.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
23
So we go back to the indictment. Your Honor,
this isn't the first case, this isn't the first
corruption or fraud cause that's based on political
influence, access, money, and personal
relationships, including relationships that are
sexual in nature. This certainly isn't the first or
only or will it be the last.
The Government -- the allegations in the
indictment are that the time period, relevant time
period is 2004 to 2010.
During that time period, Rod Blagojevich was
the Governor. In 2005, he announced an initiative
called BASUAH, Brothers and Sisters United Against
HIV/AIDS; a program designed to address the HIV/AIDS
problems within the minority community.
Governor Blagojevich appointed Eric Whitaker as
his Director of Public Health. Dr. Whitaker
appointed Quinn Golden as his Chief of Staff.
Two years later, in 2007, Governor Blagojevich
announced another initiative, the Faith Based
Initiative Emergency -- Faith Based Emergency
Preparedness Initiative post Katrina; an initiative
designed to educate the minority community on
emergency preparedness.
So there were these two initiatives announced
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
24
by Governor Blagojevich during his term, during
Dr. Whitaker's term, and during Ms. Golden's term as
Dr. Whitaker's Chief of Staff. And those
initiatives were implemented through the Department
of Public Health, of which Dr. Whitaker was the
director and Ms. Golden was the Chief of Staff.
Now, with respect to the motion about excluding
the name Blagojevich; the defense is essentially
asking that the Government go through presenting its
evidence in this case as if to pretend that the
Governor who implemented these initiatives that are
the basis of the case didn't exist. Or we just
refer to him as the Governor.
But the allegations in the indictment and the
evidence in this case, Your Honor, will establish
that Dr. Dingle took advantage of and exploited his
personal relationships with various people,
including Governor Blagojevich. And that Dr. Dingle
bragged about his relationship with Governor
Blagojevich. That he attended a fund-raiser and had
some of his -- the grantees that are the witnesses
in this case attend Governor Blagojevich's
fund-raiser and contribute to Governor Blagojevich.
But again -- and Dr. Dingle had access to not
only Governor Blagojevich, but to his Deputy Chief
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25
of Staff who was involved with the Department of
Public Health in implementing these initiatives.
So in short, Your Honor, the evidence relating
to Governor Blagojevich and his administration,
going from Governor Blagojevich himself down to
Dr. Whitaker and then his successor, Damon Arnold,
and Ms. Golden, will be that Dr. Dingle had unique
and non-merit-based relationships with each of these
people who were deciding how state money was being
awarded. That's the basis for at -- for referring
to the Governor, Governor Blagojevich, and officials
within his administration.
Now, we don't intend to dwell on the name
Blagojevich or make any allegation that just because
Dr. Dingle was an associate or had access to
Blagojevich and just because Blagojevich is guilty
of some fraud previously that that makes Dr. Dingle
guilty. We don't intend to assert that or imply
that at all.
But we do intend to present evidence that
Dr. Dingle had this unique relationship, unique
access to and influence with the very officials who
were awarding state money. And it's our view that
that is not only relevant, it's directly relevant to
allegations in the indictment as to whether
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
26
Dr. Dingle, on a non-merit-based basis received
state money which he then diverted to his personal
use and that of his wife.
So I don't think, with respect to the motion to
exclude the name Blagojevich, I don't think that we
need to go to the extreme of excluding any reference
to the very -- to the name of the very
administration that authorized these funds that are
alleged to have been stolen by Dr. Dingle to begin
with. That is unnecessary, Your Honor.
And to the extent there's any risk of unfair
prejudice, Your Honor can simply instruct the jury
with a mere association instruction that says merely
associating with persons engaged in criminal
activity does not make the defendant guilty of a
crime. That's a standard pattern instruction of the
7th Circuit that could address any risk by the
mention of the name Blagojevich.
Now, with respect to the balance of the motion,
Your Honor; the motion to exclude evidence relating
to what has been characterized as Dr. Dingle's
alleged infidelity.
We don't intend to introduce evidence of
infidelity for its own sake. What we do intend to
do is to introduce evidence of Dr. Dingle's personal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
27
relationships with people who were in control of
grant money or who received grant money from
Dr. Dingle. Again, to establish that Dr. Dingle's
relationship and -- relationships with these people
and his receipt of grant money was not arm's length,
was not merit-based, but was based on him taking
advantage of or at least exploiting his personal
relationships, unique personal relationships with
these people.
Beginning with Quinn Golden. She's an alleged
conspirator in this -- in the Government's -- not in
the indictment, but the indictment references that
the defendants conspired with others. Well, one of
those others is Quinn Golden as we allege in our
Santiago profer.
Quinn Golden was Eric Whitaker's Chief of
Staff. He's EW, for clarity's sake for Your Honor.
EW is the Eric Whitaker, the Director of Department
of Public Health. Quinn Golden was his Chief of
Staff.
Again, the Government's evidence will establish
that Dr. Dingle had unique access to both
Dr. Whitaker and Quinn Golden during the time that
Dr. Whitaker and Ms. Golden were awarding state
grants to Dr. Dingle.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
28
In fact, one of the pieces of that we're going
to introduce, Your Honor, is that Dr. Dingle
sponsored and paid for awards. One award, called a
Unity Globe Award, to Dr. Whitaker and Ms. Golden.
And then a second award called a Female Ebony
Strength Award for Ms. Golden. Each of whom
received a plaque at a cost of $745, paid for by
Dr. Dingle during the time that Dr. Whitaker and
Ms. Golden were approving state grants that they
knew were going to Dr. Dingle. Again, evidence of
the relationships with the people awarding state
money.
Now, during that very time period that they
were -- that Ms. Golden was awarding state grants to
Dr. Dingle, or organizations that he was associated
with, one of the types of grants that were involved
here was -- were these grants associated with the
Faith Based Initiative, the emergency preparedness
initiative to educate the minority community.
And MA is one of -- who we referenced in our
response to the motion in limine; MA was a person
hired by Dr. Dingle and paid for by Dr. Dingle to
work on that initiative. She's going to testify
that she essentially was largely responsible for
preparing that initiative. Or at least the initial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
29
stages of it. That she wrote the initiative and
participated closely with Dr. Dingle and Ms. Golden
in implementing it. So she worked closely with the
two of them.
One day she was summoned to Ms. Golden's
office, she will testify. And she walked into
Ms. Golden's office unannounced and there she found
Dr. Dingle and Ms. Golden huddled close together
behind Ms. Golden's desk. And surprising to
Mr. Dingle and Mr. Golden.
And when Ms. Golden turned around to speak with
MA, MA observed; this isn't opinion testimony, this
is what she will testify she observed; Ms. Golden
partially undressed and re-dressing herself from the
waist up. Following which, with Dr. Dingle present,
Ms. Golden said to MA, you're doing such a great
job, we're gonna pay you an additional $10,000. And
we have the checks that show that Dr. Dingle did
just that.
And Ms. Kilpatrick, Dr. Dingle's associate,
whose gonna testify in this case, will testify that
she was told by Dr. Dingle and MA to pay Ms. -- MA
an additional $10,000.
Now, the Government is going to argue that's a
reasonable inference -- that the reasonable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
30
inference to be drawn from that is hush money.
But the evidence relating to Dr. Dingle and
Ms. Golden, what MA saw, is again, Dr. Dingle's
relationship with Ms. Golden, unique relationship,
non-arm's length, non-merit-based, during the time
that Ms. Golden was awarding state grant money that
went to Dr. Dingle's benefit.
Now, that's not infidelity for its own sake.
That's evidence of a personal relationship. And
it's certainly evidence of whether or not Dr. Dingle
and Ms. Golden were in a conspiracy together.
In addition, during that same time period that
Dr. Dingle was receiving money from Ms. Golden,
Ms. Golden directed Roxanne Jackson; who's pled
guilty, along with Ms. Golden, to conspiracy to
commit bribery; Ms. Golden directed Dr. Dingle to
hire Ms. Jackson as part of these grants.
Dr. Dingle did what he was told, he hired
Ms. Jackson. And then he paid her three-quarters of
a million dollars in less than a year in grant
funds, which Ms. Jackson then turned around and
kicked back half of to Ms. Golden. And Ms. Jackson
is going to testify to that.
Again, evidence of the relationship between
Dr. Dingle, Ms. Golden, and Ms. Jackson, all of whom
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
31
are alleged in our proffer as co-conspirators. So
that's the basis, the critical basis, for why we
introduce this evidence of the relationship.
Now, it happens to be that the relationship
apparently was sexual in part. But it's the unique,
non-arm's length basis of that relationship that
goes to the core of the allegations in the
indictment.
With respect to the -- other relationships that
we intend to introduce, Your Honor, that are sexual
or romantic in part.
There's another woman who will testify in this
case, and her name is Gwendolyn Woolridge. She was
the -- she was an employee of the Department of
Public Health who reported to Ms. Golden. She was
one of the employees who was instrumental in writing
up one of the grants that were awarded -- that was
awarded to Dr. Dingle.
During the time that she was writing up that
grant, she was in a dating relationship with
Dr. Dingle. He was taking her out to dinner, he was
taking her to the Yacht Club.
And during that time, Ms. Woolridge will
testify that she was experiencing financial
problems. And she told Dr. Dingle about that and he
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
32
provided her with $700 as a loan, which she never
paid back.
What is the relevance of that testimony? That
Dr. Dingle is in a personal relationship with
someone who is making decisions regarding state
money. A unique, non-merit-based relationship. So
that's Gwendolyn Woolridge.
Another woman who's going to testify is Claudia
Johnson. She is CJ in our motion -- our response to
the motion in limine.
The indictment alleges there were three
grantees who received a total of $11 million in
grant funds during this time period which Dr. Dingle
and Mrs. Dingle are alleged to have converted as
much as $3.7 million or more of.
The indictment alleges that Ms. Golden and
others at the Department of Public Health awarded
$11 million in grant funds to these three grantees;
one of which was an organization called AWARE.
Ms. Johnson ran AWARE, so she was one of the
grantees who received state money.
During the time -- prior to the time that she
applied as a grantee for state money, she began --
she and Dr. Dingle began a romantic, dating
relationship. And that relationship continued
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
33
during the time that Ms. Johnson was applying for
$1.8 million in state funds.
She will testify that Dr. Dingle and her were
in this relationship. That Dr. Dingle made all the
decisions. He told her what to do. He told her
what checks to write. When she received the grant
funds, she immediately turned around and provided
the funds, almost all the funds, to Dr. Dingle;
except for the funds that Dr. Dingle directed
Ms. Johnson to write to Roxanne Jackson.
So again, what's the relevance of Claudia
Johnson's testimony? Not that Dr. Dingle was
unfaithful to Mrs. Dingle, but that he was in a
relationship with someone who was getting state
money and he was exploiting that relationship during
the time of that relationship to cause that person,
Ms. Johnson, to give him more than a million
dollars. And that he directed Ms. Johnson to pay
more than $200,000 of state money to Roxanne
Jackson, half of which went back to Ms. Golden.
Again, relationships between Dr. Dingle and
people who received -- who were in charge of state
money or who received state money.
Lastly, Your Honor, there is a -- I don't know
whether we'll call this witness. She's the least
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
34
important of the witnesses who will testify to this
personal relationship, is a woman by the name of
Shavonda Fields.
She was hired by Dr. Dingle during the time of
these grants to work on the grant work; whether it
would have been the Faith Based Initiative or the
BASUAH initiative involving HIV and AIDS. And then
there's other programs involving breast and cervical
and prostate cancer. Dr. Dingle was in a
relationship with Ms. Fields during the time that he
was paying her with state money.
Again, all that evidence is merely to show that
Dr. Dingle was in a unique, non-merit-based
relationship with people who were in control of
state money that was eventually awarded to him.
That is, in our view, Your Honor, not only
relevant evidence, but it's critical evidence to the
Government's case. Because how do we present
evidence of fraud and corruption by Dr. Dingle and
exclude any evidence relating to the relationships
with the people from whom he got that state money?
It's difficult to conceive of how we would even
present our case were we excluded from doing that.
So for those reasons, Your Honor, it's relevant
evidence. It is not 404(b) evidence. In the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
35
defendant's first motion in limine, they -- he only
argues that the evidence is not relevant. In our
response we laid out, as I just summarized, why it
is relevant, direct -- directly relevant. We're not
seeking to introduce 404(b) evidence.
The Government is completely aware of the state
of the law in the 7th Circuit regarding 404(b).
Like you, Your Honor, I don't want to try this case
again. I've got another case that we're doing that.
I don't want a second one.
So we are not asking you to admit this evidence
based on Rule 404(b), we're only asking you to admit
it under Rule 401. And the basis for excluding that
would be if it's substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice. And I would submit, for
the reasons I've just explained, that evidence, that
relevant evidence, is not substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Again, if there's any risk of that, Your Honor
can instruct the jury in some way that this evidence
is not coming in to show that Dr. Dingle is a bad
person or he's an unfaithful husband, it's admitted
for the purpose of what I just said. And I would
defer to defense on whether they would request a
limiting instruction if Your Honor were to allow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
36
that evidence.
But for those reasons, we'd ask that the motion
in limine with respect to Governor Blagojevich and
the relationships that I just described be denied.
I'm happy to address the other issue that
Ms. Dalton raised regarding Dr. Whitaker, but I
think that's really a separate issue that we can
address separately rather than with the motion in
limine.
THE COURT: I tend to agree with that --
with that statement.
All right. Ms. Dalton, I'll give you one final
bite at the apple here.
MS. DALTON: Thank you, Judge.
Mr. Bass repeated over and over again that the
relevance of introducing this evidence of sexual
relationships and dating relationships were to show
the unique and non-arm's based relationship between
Dr. Dingle and Quinn Golden, Gwen Woolridge, Claudia
Johnson, and Shavonda Fields.
It is absolutely unnecessary for the Government
to introduce evidence of physical, sexual relations
or dating relations in order to show the
relationships period that Dr. Dingle had with all
four of those women.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
37
Starting with Quinn Golden. There's no
question that Dr. Dingle had to have a close
relationship with Quinn Golden. She was in charge
of basically running the Faith Based Initiative
after it had been implemented by Governor
Blagojevich.
And so the grantees who received the grants for
that initiative had to work closely with the
Illinois Department of Public Health, the Chief of
Staff, and other staff members of the Department to
decide what was gonna be done with the grant, decide
what the deliverables are, to decide who was gonna
work on it, to decide which person was gonna do
what.
The fact that he had to speak with her on
numerous occasions, had meetings with her every
week, the Government can introduce that all they
want, there's no objection to that. The -- this
idea that the sexual issue that was allegedly seen
by MA on one occasion in 2007 is necessary and
relevant to establish this unique, non-arm's based
relationship that Dr. Dingle had with Quinn Golden
is ridiculous really.
There are plenty of other ways to show the
relationship that the -- legitimate relationship
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
38
that Dr. Dingle had with Quinn Golden other than to
introduce this very prejudicial statement from MA;
that she ironically didn't tell the Government about
for seven years. Five, six different conversations
she had with agents, it never came up. Only right
before we're set to go to trial, on September 8th, a
week before, does she all of the sudden decide, oh,
yes, I remember now, I saw this thing happen in the
office on one occasion, I had been summoned to the
office by Quinn Golden already. So obviously Quinn
Golden wanted her to come there for something.
Whether it was to tell her that she was gonna get a
bonus for all the hard work she was gonna do, or
something else, had nothing to do with what Marian
Adly, MA, may or may not have seen in that office.
And any testimony to that effect is not
necessary to show a unique, non-arm's based
relationship between Dr. Dingle and Quinn Golden.
There are plenty more legitimate and relevant means
to do that that the defense would have no objection
to.
Going on to --
The Government alluded to this issue between
Quinn Golden and Roxanne Jackson. And that Quinn
Golden had Dr. Dingle hire Roxanne Jackson in order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
39
for her to work on grants; which she did; and that
whatever grant money was paid to Roxanne Jackson,
half of which went back to Quinn Golden. Everybody
knows that. It's been alleged in numerous different
filings. There's been guilty pleas by Roxanne
Jackson to that effect.
However, it is important to note that Roxanne
Jackson and Quinn Golden have stated in their
statements to agents that Dr. Dingle knew nothing of
that agreement that they had together.
Going to Claudia Johnson; this romantic dating
relationship that the Government wants to introduce
to show that Dr. Dingle exploited her relationship
with her so that she would give him grant money.
Dr. Dingle and Claudia Johnson started working
together in 2004. She -- she has claimed that there
was a romantic and dating relationship that was
going on well up into when she started getting
grants through her organization, AWARE, which
started in 2007.
There was no exploitation of any sort of
relationship. Claudia Johnson has given many
statements to the effect that she decided, it was
her decision to start this organization AWARE,
because she wanted to start doing grants as well.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
40
And it was her statements to agents that she
realized after starting AWARE and starting to get
grants, that she did not have the resources or the
capability to follow through with all the
deliverables that were necessary to complete the
grant as it was written. Therefore, she instituted
bringing in Dr. Dingle, who she had already worked
with on many other grants, to help her with it. And
he got paid for it. And there was nothing illegal
about that.
Any sort of information about a dating
relationship between the two is irrelevant and
unnecessary. There are plenty of means to establish
how they introduced -- how they were introduced to
each other, how long they knew each other, how many
grants they worked on together, how much work they
did for the grants, without getting into any sort of
information about whether or not there was a dating
or sexual relationship between the two of them. It
confuses the issues, it's extremely prejudicial, and
it's unnecessary to establish the background between
the two of them.
Same thing with Shavonda Fields. The fact that
she was hired to work on grant work; the
Government's not claiming that Shavonda Fields
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
41
didn't do grant work. She did, in fact, do an
extremely large amount of grant work for Dr. Dingle
and organizations that Dr. Dingle was working with.
And she was paid for the work that she did. She was
paid a reasonable amount.
The fact that there may or may not have been a
dating relationship between her and Dr. Dingle;
again, completely irrelevant. The fact that she was
doing work and was getting paid for it and was
working with Dr. Dingle, all of that is relevant.
All of that, of course, will be introduced at trial,
I'm sure, by the Government. But the fact that
there may or may not have been a dating relationship
is unnecessary for her, just as it is for Claudia
Johnson, just as it is for Gwen Woolridge, just as
it is for Quinn Golden, to establish the background
of how Dr. Dingle knew, how long he knew, and how
often he worked with these women, and what he did as
he was working with them on these grants.
I'm not sure if I got to Gwen Woolridge. I
didn't.
As far as Gwen Woolridge is concerned, the
Government has correctly stated that she was an
employee of the Department of Public Health and that
they want to get into the fact that she went to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
42
dinners with Dr. Dingle and went to Yacht Club, to
his yacht club for lunches with Dr. Dingle. And
that that implies a dating, inappropriate
relationship between Dr. Dingle and Gwen Woolridge
is just not merit-based whatsoever.
Dr. Dingle -- many witnesses will testify on
the Government's behalf; we've seen the statements;
that Dr. Dingle had many of his meetings as far as
discussing grants and keeping up-to-date with other
organizations, keeping up-to-date with other
consultants on what was going on, at his yacht club.
It had nothing to do with any sort of dating
relationship. Implying that it did in order to
tarnish Dr. Dingle's character is unnecessary and
irrelevant.
We'd ask that all testimony regarding any sort
of sexual, physical, dating relationship between
Dr. Dingle and these four women be excluded from
evidence and that the Government be precluded to
only focus on the relevant background of the
relationships; non-sexual, non-physical, non-dating;
between Dr. Dingle and any witness.
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Dalton.
All right. Thank you both. And we have all of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
43
this on the record and Madam Reporter has taken done
all of your oral argument here. That will
supplement your motions and your responses.
Now, most recently on September the 20th,
Dr. Dingle filed a motion to modify conditions of
release seeking to sell some assets.
And the doctor is required to obtain
permission, of course, of the Court before selling
assets of greater value than $500. And he seeks
leave of Court to sell about 2,000 shares of stock
in ComCast, in addition to seeking to sell property
that he owns in Savannah, Georgia.
The motion provides that he seeks permission so
that he may pay legal fees and other expenses
associated with trial. I don't believe any response
has been filed by the Government.
Is that right, Mr. Bass?
MR. BASS: No, Your Honor. I spoke with
Mr. Genson about this before the hearing today and
indicated to him I was gonna advise the Court orally
what our position is. I think we're in agreement
with regard to the disposition of that motion, if I
could be heard at some point.
THE COURT: Why sure. Come right ahead. I
really want to clean everything up here today with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
44
the exception of my written rulings on the motions
that are pending. And I will have those out within
a very short period of time. But I wanted to clean
up everything here today so that we don't have to be
scheduling another session prior to our trial.
That's my intent.
MR. BASS: Fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Genson was going to --
MR. GENSON: We seem to have an agreement,
Your Honor. The agreement is that we can sell the
stock, but we are withdrawing our request with
regard to the house. And that's essentially the
agreement we've reached.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor. That -- the
Government has no objection to selling only those
assets necessary to pay legal fees. That there
should be no dissipation of assets beyond what is
necessary to pay the legal fees.
THE COURT: All right. And I take it
Mr. Genson is saying that the sale of the stock will
be adequate to do that without the necessity of
selling the Savannah, Georgia property?
MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor. At this
point -- at this point in time Mr. Clark is owed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
45
money, we are owed money. There's going to be
substantial expenses regarding an expert witness
that we've retained, in addition to hotels, lodging,
and whatever.
So we're asking relative to those amounts to
sell the stock now. If we need -- if the house
needs to be sold, we'll address it separately, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. That will be fine.
Now, is that agreeable to the Government?
MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Clark, any problem with
that?
MR. CLARK: No, I don't, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well then, it seems
to me that that's a reasonable request. And the
Court does grant permission to sell the ComCast
stock. However, that sought for the permission of
the real estate in Savannah has been withdrawn; is
that right?
MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor, we withdrawn
that request.
THE COURT: Is that your desire,
Dr. Dingle?
Is that your desire, Dr. Dingle?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
46
DR. DINGLE: Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Your
Honor, it is.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. If the
Government sees no problem, I don't either. So it
seems to me that's pretty good.
Now, since the trial will be down here in
Springfield and not in Chicago, it seems like all of
those other experiences probably would be less down
here than they would be up there.
MR. GENSON: I was asking Mr. Bass if he
would allow us to stay at his house, but he --
THE COURT: Well, I know Mr. Bass is very
hospitable, but I don't know if we'd go to that
extent.
I have a couple of spare rooms in my house,
Mr. Genson, but I don't know that that would be
looked upon --
Well, in any event, okay.
Now, let's see, I believe that all of the
motions -- when we met last month all the motions on
behalf of Mrs. Dingle I think were resolved and that
there were none pending at this time.
MR. CLARK: No.
THE COURT: Is that correct?
MR CLARK: That's correct, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
47
THE COURT: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Clark.
MR. BASS: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BASS: I don't know whether you intend
to allow the motion just by way of a docket entry,
but if your docket entry could just reflect that the
motion, Mr. Genson's motion for amendment of bond
conditions is allowed with the sale of stock for the
payment of attorneys' fees. Just so it's clear that
the motion -- we are -- the Government is
agreeing -- has no objection to the motion to the
extent necessary for the payment of legal fees.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. CLARK: Your Honor, of both Mr. and
Mrs. Dingle.
MR. BASS: Yes.
THE COURT: What?
MR. BASS: For both counsel.
THE COURT: Yes, of course.
Very well. I'll make sure that is in the
written order as well.
MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Government's agreement
to that and for legal fees for both Dr. and
Mrs. Dingle.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
48
MR GENSON: I hate to -- I know we've -- I
think legal fees and costs, because of the costs
that are going to be incurred, not just --
THE COURT: Well, let's use the term legal
costs, I think, which is broader and more inclusive
and I think would be less limiting.
MR. BASS: Fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very good. Everybody in
agreement then on that terminology?
MR. BASS: Yes.
THE COURT: Swell. Very good.
All right. Well, I should expect to have a
ruling on all of the outstanding motions by the end
of next week.
Now let's see, it appears that some of the
pre-trial materials have been filed. Mr. --
Dr. Dingle has filed a witness list, proposed voir
dire, and proposed jury instructions. And due to
its format, Dr. Dingle's exhibit list was stricken
on August the 22nd and he was granted leave to
re-file. I don't believe the amended exhibit list
has been filed.
MS. DALTON: No, Your Honor, it hasn't. We
would ask to the end of business day Friday in order
to file.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
49
THE COURT: You've got to get close to the
mike there.
MS. DALTON: There we go.
THE COURT: That's wonderful. Thank you.
MS. DALTON: If we could have to the end of
the business day on Friday to file that exhibit
list. We recently received some new discovery from
the Government and we just want the opportunity to
go through it and make sure there's not any
additional items that we want to include on our
exhibit list before we file it.
THE COURT: All right, that's fine with the
Court. Unless the Government has any --
MR. BASS: No objection.
THE COURT: Very good. Then that leave is
allowed and that is Friday, did you say?
MS. DALTON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Close of business Friday.
Fine, excellent. We'll take care of that with your
amended list, exhibit list.
Now, I don't think that any pre-trial -- yes,
Mr. Genson?
MR. GENSON: There is one additional
request. We're going to be picking the jury on the
morning of the 20th. None of the -- none of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
50
three lawyers here have tried cases -- well, I've
tried cases, many in Springfield, but not for quite
a long time.
And we've talked, and I've told Mr. Bass this,
Mr. Wykoff is present in court, and he has very
kindly volunteered. If he could sit with us during
jury selection, we would appreciate it. I'd like to
make that motion.
THE COURT: Any problem with that,
Mr. Bass?
MR. BASS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't see any either. I'm
well-acquainted with Mr. Wykoff. I note his
presence in the back of the courtroom today. And we
will be delighted to have him at defense table for
the selection of the jury for the voir dire.
MR. GENSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Now, let me think.
I don't think any pre-trial materials have been
filed on behalf of Mrs. Dingle.
Is that correct, Mr. Clark?
MR. CLARK: I do, Your Honor. I don't
anticipate a witness list, but I would ask Your
Honor for about four or five days for any voir dire
that I may have in addition to what Mr. Dingle has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
51
filed. And any instruction. I'd ask for about
five --
COURT REPORTER: Please move to a
microphone.
THE COURT: See, the microphone, these are
voice activated. And everybody in the courtroom can
hear once we get to a mike.
MR. CLARK: Your Honor, I don't anticipate
a witness list, but I would ask Your Honor if I
could have five days or at least to next Monday or
Tuesday to file any voir dire that I might have in
addition to what Mr. Genson has had. And perhaps
one instruction, if I might.
THE COURT: Any problem with that,
Mr. Bass?
MR. BASS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Clark,
that leave is granted.
MR. CLARK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Why don't you -- I'm sure you
do constantly here, as a practical matter, confer --
the two of you confer, along with Ms. Dalton.
Ms. Dalton is going to see to it that we have that
list by the close of business or Friday. Why don't
you confer with her and as much as possible what you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
52
might wish to select could come in close to the same
time or the first of next week.
MR. CLARK: I can. I can do that.
THE COURT: That would be fine.
MR. CLARK: And --
THE COURT: So we don't piecemeal this out
so that we get strung out. And I've always found
that when we do that when we have multiple
defendants, we end up losing something. Something
falls in between the crack if we don't keep on the
same time schedule. That's my problem.
MR. CLARK: Okay, I'll do that. And you're
right, we do confer quite frequently.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CLARK: So we have a good relationship.
And we'll do fine.
THE COURT: All right. We'll all have a
good relationship here. As we're going to live
together for several days.
MR. CLARK: Several weeks.
THE COURT: Several weeks I'm afraid. But
that's the nature of the game that we play, is it
not?
MR. CLARK: And we've all chosen that
route, so we like it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
53
THE COURT: Well, absolutely.
MR. CLARK: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any other line of work is
pretty dull in our estimation, isn't it?
MR. CLARK: I can't think of any other line
of work that I would rather do.
THE COURT: I agree with you. Aces, spades
and trumps.
Okay. Now, the docket shows that the
Government has filed its exhibit list, proposed jury
instructions, statement of the case, and witness
list. Right, Mr. Bass?
MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor. And we filed
an amended witness list and amended exhibit list
today before the hearing. So the statement of the
case, jury instructions, and witness and exhibit
lists are of record.
THE COURT: Okay, fine.
All right, very good. Well, I think that
bringing us up to snuff. And then I will be ruling
on the motions and those rulings will be out to you
just as soon as we get them taken care of.
And we're all looking toward the 20th, 9:00 in
the morning, in this very courtroom. And we'll have
a venire all ready to go in the jury room back here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
54
Now, have we missed anything or is there
anything we need to bring up?
Mr. Bass, you look moved to take the podium.
MR. BASS: Your Honor, just to follow-up on
Ms. -- the issue Ms. Dalton raised.
The Government has two witnesses on its witness
list, one of whom is Dr. Whitaker and the other is
Dr. Damon Arnold. They were both directors of the
Department of Public Health during the time period
in the indictment.
We've advised the defense; and Ms. Dalton
alluded to this; that the Government has entered
into proffer or cooperation agreements with both
Dr. Arnold and Dr. Whitaker in which they have
agreed to provide complete and truthful information
to the Government. We did that some time ago.
Dr. Whitaker, following that execution of that
agreement, met with the Government and then refused
to answer certain questions about his relationship
with Ms. Golden. He then represented to the media
that he was fully cooperating with the Government.
And he has, through his counsel in the last few
months -- through his counsel in the last few months
has refused to meet with the Government pursuant to
that agreement. And just recently, through his
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
55
counsel, advised the Government that he expressly
was refusing to meet with the Government.
And I -- and we just learned today; I wasn't
aware of this before Your Honor took the bench; but
apparently Mr. -- Dr. Whitaker's counsel has
provided an affidavit to counsel for Dr. Dingle, but
not the Government.
So I raise all that just because I know Your
Honor does not like to be taken by surprise.
THE COURT: Hm-mm.
MR. BASS: And similarly with respect to
Dr. Arnold, we entered into an agreement with
Dr. Arnold in which he agreed to provide complete
and truthful information to the Government. And we
have attempted over the last several weeks on
numerous occasions to meet with Dr. Arnold pursuant
to that agreement and to date he has refused.
So I advised Ms. Dalton and Mr. Genson and
Mr. Clark that the Government may be filing a motion
with the Court seeking to treat them as hostile
witnesses under Rule 611 of the Rules of Evidence.
Now, we're not asking for a ruling about that
today. It's just something that we may likely do.
And we'll file that -- if we do file it, we will --
if we do decide to do that, we will file it and then
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
56
prior to their testimony or at the time of their
testimony seek to take that issue up with the Court.
So just so Your Honor is aware, since
Ms. Dalton alluded to it, that there is that one
potential pre-trial motion regarding two witnesses
that we may be filing prior to the testimony of
those witnesses. So it may be something that we
would have to take up outside the presence of the
jury.
THE COURT: Well, thank you, Mr. Bass, for
the heads-up. You're absolutely correct. I know of
no Judge who likes surprises. All kinds of problems
arise, as you well know. We have had them before.
But what I would like to caution everyone here
is that I don't want any problems that arise with
either of these two directors or former directors of
Public Health to cause me any problem with that jury
in the box.
Now, we're going to take care of this matter;
these matters, if it means both of them; we're gonna
take care of that separately. But we're not going
to be doing it to cause any problem with this jury.
So let's try to get this all looked into and
give me a heads-up on all of this. Everybody gets
the heads-up, of course. But it's been my
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
57
experience that usually counsel know about these
things before I do.
MR. BASS: We'll do that, Your Honor. My
thought was that if -- we would file that motion
before the trial begins. And then if we needed to
take that issue up with Your Honor, we could do it
at the end of the day after the jury is excused, or
even if Your Honor wanted to, we could excuse the
jury early one day, one afternoon.
THE COURT: Sure, we'll take care of that.
We'll take care of that.
Very good. And thank you for the heads-up.
And thank you, counsel, for keeping in mind that I
don't want any problem with the jury. Now, we've
got to do everything possible to take care of that.
Nobody wants to try this case twice. I know that.
MR. BASS: Your Honor, two other
housekeeping matters.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. BASS: I haven't spoken with Mr. --
with counsel about this, but trying cases before
Your Honor in this courtroom before, Your Honor is
well aware of the -- of some of the practical
difficulties.
For example, I don't like standing between the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
58
jury and the witness. And so in the past, Your
Honor has allowed the Government -- or allowed
counsel to use one of the lapel microphones and to
stand back to counsel table.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. BASS: I just wanted to raise that
issue with Your Honor --
THE COURT: This is the way we've done it
and we've had to do it because of the configuration
of the high tech stuff that's in here. If it
weren't for that, we would have no difficulty. But
these are not the way I started -- that Mr. Genson
and I started to practice and try cases together.
We didn't have all this.
But we have now. And it speeds things up and
it assists the jury immeasurably to have all of this
on the screen in front of them. The same thing that
you have in front of you on the monitors and I have
up here and the witness has on the witness stand.
And so we have to because of the configuration.
Now, we even have -- this witness box is on
casters and we can actually pull it out further when
we need to do so. And the podium here is on casters
and it can be turned and will be turned to the jury
for addressing the jury both in openings and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
59
closings. But we have to fiddle with things around
a little. Madam Clerk knows everything about all
this stuff. And she will get all that set up.
Yes, Mr. Genson?
MR. GENSON: I have difficulty in standing.
And the Clerk was very nicely furnished me with a
chair that I can place behind the podium.
THE COURT: Surely.
MR. GENSON: Perhaps if I do have a lapel
mike I could do some of my examination from here?
Because standing is not --
THE COURT: We'll work -- we'll definitely
work with you on that so we don't have any -- any
more inconvenience than is absolutely necessary or
disruption of the flow of the trial. I have to keep
both of those things in mind and in balance.
Now, we have these microphones and they're on
the tables. And when you're at the table, please
use the microphones, because they -- they're sound
activated, they pick up everything. And this is
important too for Madam Reporter and Madam Clerk.
Everything we need to have right into the mikes.
Okay?
MR. BASS: The second administrative
matter, housekeeping matter which Your Honor alluded
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
60
to.
Judge, much of the evidence in this case is
document based.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BASS: And as Your Honor knows, unlike
your former courtroom, which has the big screen, we
don't have one of those here. And I just wanted to
advise Your Honor that I anticipate that our -- the
assistant for Mr. Long and myself will be
communicating with Madam Clerk and the court staff
about bringing in a large screen and the placement
of where we would place that; what's best in the
courtroom, what's best viewable for the jury.
But we'll obviously confer with Madam Clerk and
court staff as to how we could do that. But I just
wanted to let Your Honor know that I -- we don't
think that it will be best to present all of this
document evidence based solely on the TV. That we
may need a larger screen to do that.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BASS: And all of the evidence that we
will present, or most of it, will be through the
computer, which we, of course, will make available,
our assistant, to defense counsel for their use of
any exhibits as well.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
61
THE COURT: Very good.
All right. Well, you -- first of all, you're
gonna have to figure out what piece of equipment you
intend to bring in. Because the monitor down here
is only a what, a three-by-four, whatever it is, for
the jury.
Now, it seems to normally be adequate for the
jury, the place where it is right now at the end of
the jury box and it's just a turned a little bit.
And everybody seems to be able to see it; all of the
regular members of the jury plus the two alternates
up here. They seem to be able to -- in our trials.
And then of course we all have the monitors in
front of us.
Now, if you have a bigger piece of equipment, I
don't know where you're going to put it other than
at the same place down here at the end.
Now, the only disadvantage to our system here
is that we don't have a viewer for visitors who are
in the spectator section of the courtroom. Now,
that's the only thing that we don't have.
Now, if you can rig up your monitor down at the
end of the jury box just like this one is here, we
could move that one over to this far corner facing
the spectator section.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
62
Would that be feasible, Madam Clerk?
THE CLERK: Your Honor, I will check with
our IT staff.
THE COURT: Good. That's the safe answer.
And a great one. Get Dustin down here and I bet you
we can rig this up so that it's going to fly.
MR. BASS: However, Your Honor, our
thought -- the piece of equipment we're talking
about is just a screen, a portable screen, larger
screen. It's --
THE COURT: How big?
MR. BASS: Five-by-five, six foot by six
foot, something like that. Like a portable screen
that you pull up.
THE COURT: Oh, it's on a tripod?
MR. BASS: On a tripod, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Then where's the
projector go?
MR. BASS: The projector is -- the Court
has -- it would be the Court system once we plug in.
THE COURT: That we have --
MR. BASS: The computer will plug in. How
we project that, we'll have to talk with staff
about.
THE COURT: All right. I'll let you work
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
63
that out, but I think we can work it out.
MR. BASS: Your Honor, the last thing I
wanted to mention is I know that both the Government
and the defense have filed witness lists.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BASS: And Your Honor -- rather than
Your Honor reading those names to the jurors, it
might be more efficient to -- for the parties to
submit just one list of witnesses with no -- no
format, just a listing of all potential witnesses so
that the Court could hand those out during venire,
if that's acceptable.
THE COURT: You're suggesting printed, in
hard copy form?
MR. BASS: Yes. We'll provide 40 or 50,
whatever the number of venire would be.
THE COURT: Any problem with that, counsel
for the defense?
MR. GENSON: I have no problem, Your Honor.
MR. CLARK: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very good. Then that sounds
very good. Are you going to list them
alphabetically?
MR. BASS: We can, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know that I want to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
64
call attention to witnesses for the Government
versus witnesses for the defense.
MR. BASS: No, this would just be a
scrambled list of witnesses.
THE COURT: All right, that's fine. As
long as it is not --
MR. BASS: With no labels.
THE COURT: Good, good. We'll have no
trouble, that will be fine.
And I would suggest that we have those passed
out en masse, so that everybody has got them in
advance of calling -- being called to the box.
MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BASS: We'll do that and submit that to
the Clerk before the 20th.
THE COURT: That will be swell.
Any problem with that, counsel?
MR. GENSON: No problem, Your Honor.
MR. CLARK: No.
THE COURT: What else do we have for the
good of the order basis?
MR. BASS: That's all we have.
MR. GENSON: Nothing on behalf of
Mr. Dingle, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
65
MR. CLARK: Nothing on behalf of
Mrs. Dingle, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Fine. Thank you very much,
counsel. All right.
Well, I will have the rulings on the pending
motions then very shortly. Then we ought to be able
to take right off on the 20th. Okay.
MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Now, if you run
into any problems, any difficulties, any
insurmountable problems that affect the timing of
the trial and the progress of the trial, please let
me know in advance. We're a telephone call away.
So if anything comes up that's gonna cause us a
glitch, because we've got a lot of people involved
here, got a lot of witnesses, we've got a lot of
jurors, we've got a lot of folk. So I don't want
any last-minute surprises.
And if anything reeks to me that it's a
surprise that could be avoided, will not go good.
So let's don't fiddle around. We are on track, we
want to go through, we want to get the case taken
care. Okay?
Good. Any final questions, problems?
MR. BASS: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
66
THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, thank you,
very, very much. And you'll hear from us. Thank
you much.
We'll stand in recess.
(Court was recess in this case.)
I, KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR, Official Court
Reporter, certify that the foregoing is a correct
transcript from the record of proceedings in the
above-entitled matter.
This transcripts contains the
digital signature of:
Kathy J. Sullivan, CSR, RPR, CRR
License #084-002768
Top Related