Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Judge Wilken Opens Historic Trial v. FBI: "Ladies and gentlemen, you are now the jury
Judge Wilken's opening statement in the Bari v. FBI trial from April 9. Complete transcript:
VOLUME 1 EXCERPT
PAGES 1 - 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN, JUDGE
JUDI BARI, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. ) NO. C 91-1057 CW
)
THE UNITED STATES OF )
AMERICA, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
____________________________)
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, APRIL 9TH, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFFS: LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
3163 MISSION STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94110
BY: DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
ATTORNEY AT LAW
FOR PLAINTIFFS: LAW OFFICE OF ROBER BLOOM
2326 WEBSTER
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94705
BY: ROBERT BLOOM
ATTORNEY AT LAW
FOR PLAINTIFF: SERRA, LICHTER, DAAR, BUSTAMANTE
& MICHAEL
PIER 5 NORTH
THE EMBARCADERO
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
BY: J. TONY SERRA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
REPORTED BY: NICHOLE M. RODICH, RPR, CSR 11604
2
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
FOR THE FEDERAL
DEFENDANTS: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. BOX 7146
BEN FRANKLIN STATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044
BY: R. JOSEPH SHER
DENNIS BARGHAAN, JR.
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FOR THE OAKLAND
DEFENDANTS: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY,
CITY OF OAKLAND
ONE CITY HALL PLAZA, 6TH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
BY: MARIA BEE
WILLIAM E. SIMMONS
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS
3
1 APRIL 9TH, 2002
2 * * * * *
3
4 THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE NOW THE JURY
5 IN THE CASE, AND I WANT TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO TELL YOU
6 SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR DUTIES AS JURORS AND GIVE YOU SOME
7 INSTRUCTIONS. AT THE END OF TRIAL, I'LL BE GIVING YOU MORE
8 DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS. THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WILL CONTROL YOUR
9 DELIBERATIONS.
10 YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE ANYTHING THAT I MAY SAY OR DO
11 DURING THE TRIAL AS INDICATING WHAT I THINK OF THE EVIDENCE OR
12 WHAT YOUR VERDICT SHOULD BE. TO HELP YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE,
13 I WILL AGAIN GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS OF THE
14 PARTIES. THIS IS THE SAME SUMMARY I READ EARLIER. IT WAS A
15 WHILE AGO, AND I'LL READ IT AGAIN NOW THAT YOU KNOW YOU'LL BE
16 THE JURY.
17 THIS CASE ARISES FROM A PIPE BOMB EXPLOSION IN A CAR
18 IN OAKLAND ON MAY 24TH, 1990. TWO PEOPLE WERE RIDING IN THE
19 CAR AT THE TIME. THE DRIVER JUDY BARI WAS INJURED SEVERELY,
20 THE PASSENGER DARRYL CHERNEY ONLY SLIGHTLY. AFTER THE
21 EXPLOSION, INVESTIGATORS SAID THEY BELIEVED THE BOMB HAD BEEN
22 IN A POSITION IN THE CAR IN WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE,
23 AND THEREFORE, THEY SUSPECTED THAT THE TWO PEOPLE IN CAR WERE
24 KNOWINGLY TRANSPORTING THE BOMB.
25 LATER THAT DAY, BOTH WERE PLACED IN OAKLAND POLICE
4
1 CUSTODY. STILL LATER, IT WAS DETERMINED THEY WOULD BE BOOKED
2 FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION OF AN EXPLOSIVE
3 DEVICE.
4 OAKLAND POLICE OBTAINED WARRANTS TO SEARCH THE HOMES
5 OF BARI AND CHERNEY IN MENDOCINO AND HUMBOLDT COUNTY. THE
6 WARRANTS WERE EXECUTED BY POLICE AND FBI IN THE EARLY HOURS OF
7 MAY 25TH, 1990. DARRYL CHERNEY WAS JAILED UNTIL HE POSTED
8 100,000 DOLLARS BOND AND BARI REMAINED UNDER GUARD AT THE
9 COUNTY HOSPITAL AFTER EMERGENCY SURGERY.
10 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DELAYED THE FILING OF ANY
11 CHARGES UNTIL THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WAS ANALYZED AT THE FBI
12 LABORATORY IN WASHINGTON DC. THIS PROCESS, AND OTHER STEPS YOU
13 WILL LEARN ABOUT IN THE TRIAL, TOOK SEVERAL WEEKS. ON
14 JULY 17TH, 1990, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ANNOUNCED THAT NO
15 CHARGES WOULD BE FILED AGAINST THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR.
16 THE OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI ANNOUNCED
17 THAT EACH AGENCY WOULD CONTINUE ITS INVESTIGATION OF THE
18 BOMBING. THE FBI'S INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED IN MARCH 1993 WITH
19 NO FEDERAL CHARGES HAVING BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST ANYONE.
20 JUDY BARI AND DARRYL CHERNEY ARE THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE
21 LAWSUIT. CHERNEY IS HERE. MS. BARI PASSED AWAY IN 1997 FROM
22 CAUSES UNRELATED TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE. SHE APPEARS HERE
23 THROUGH HER ESTATE REPRESENTED BY DARLENE COMINGORE THE
24 EXECUTOR.
25 AT THE TIME OF THE BOMB EXPLOSION, BOTH PLAINTIFFS
5
1 WERE ORGANIZERS AND SPOKESPERSONS FOR EARTH FIRST! AN
2 UNSTRUCTURED, VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE WHO URGE AND ENGAGE
3 IN VARIOUS FORMS OF ACTIVISM, INCLUDING VIOLATIONS OF LAW, IN
4 PROTEST AGAINST WHAT THEY REGARD AS ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE
5 PRACTICES OF VARIOUS EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES AND, PARTICULARLY IN
6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE TIMBER INDUSTRY.
7 AT THE TIME THE BOMB WENT OFF, BARI AND CHERNEY WERE
8 WORKING AS ORGANIZERS FOR A THREE-MONTH PROGRAM OF EARTH FIRST!
9 PROTEST DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE CUTTING OF OLD GROWTH
10 REDWOOD TREES IN CALIFORNIA CALLED REDWOOD SUMMER.
11 THE PLAINTIFFS CHARGE THEIR ARREST FOR POSSESSION OF
12 THE BOMB WAS A FALSE ARREST AND THE SEARCHES OF THEIR HOMES
13 WERE UNLAWFUL SEARCHES WHICH VIOLATED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
14 RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THEY ALLEGE THAT THE
15 DEFENDANTS, THE THREE OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS AND TWO OF THE
16 FBI AGENTS DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED THE ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR THE
17 ARREST OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE SEARCHES BY MEANS OF
18 MISREPRESENTATION, FALSE STATEMENTS, AND FABRICATED EVIDENCE.
19 THEY ALLEGE THAT THIS ALONG WITH THE ENSUING
20 INVESTIGATION BY THE AFOREMENTIONED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
21 AND FOUR ADDITIONAL FBI AGENTS WAS DONE WITH THE INTENT THEY
22 AND EARTH FIRST! WOULD BE PUBLICLY DISCREDITED AND DISRUPTED BY
23 CHARGES THAT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WERE TRANSPORTING A
24 DANGEROUS BOMB AS PART OF PLANS FOR AN ACT OF TERRORISM, AND
25 THE FALSE CHARGES WERE MADE WITH THE INTENT TO DISCREDIT
6
1 PLAINTIFFS AND EARTH FIRST! IN VIOLATION OF THEIR FIRST
2 AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
3 PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE FURTHER THE THREE OAKLAND POLICE
4 OFFICERS AND SIX FBI AGENTS ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO BRING
5 ABOUT THEIR ARREST ON FALSE CHARGES SO THAT THE PLAINTIFFS
6 WOULD BE PUBLICLY SMEARED AS TERRORISTS AND TO MAINTAIN THAT
7 DEFAMATORY IMAGE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR FIRST AND
8 FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. YOU WILL RECEIVE FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS
9 CONCERNING THE LAW OF BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND CONSPIRACY AT
10 THE END OF THE CASE.
11 THE DEFENDANTS FROM THE OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE
12 MIKE SIMS, NOW A POLICE CAPTAIN IN TRACY, SERGEANT
13 ROBERT CHENAULT, AND MIKE SITTERUD WHO HAS SINCE RETIRED. AT
14 THE TIME CAPTAIN SIMS WAS LIEUTENANT IN CHARGE OF THE HOMICIDE
15 DIVISION OF THE OPD, THE HOMICIDE SECTION OF THE OPD DETECTIVE
16 DIVISION, CHENAULT AND SITTERUD WERE SERGEANTS ASSIGNED TO
17 HOMICIDE.
18 THE FBI DEFENDANTS ARE SPECIAL AGENT FRANK DOYLE, AND
19 WALTER HEMJE, AND RETIRED AGENTS JOHN REIKES, STOCKTON BUCK,
20 JOHN CONWAY, AND PHILIP SENA. AT THE TIME, THEY WERE MEMBERS
21 OF THE TERRORISM SQUAD IN THE SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE OF THE
22 FBI KNOWN AS SQUAD 13. MR. REIKES WAS THE SQUAD SUPERVISOR.
23 THE DEFENDANTS DENY THAT THEY VIOLATED THE PLAINTIFFS'
24 RIGHTS. THEY DENY THEY FALSIFIED THE GROUNDS FOR PLAINTIFFS'
25 ARREST OR ENGAGED IN ANY CONSPIRACY. THEY MAINTAIN THEIR
7
1 ACTIONS AND DECISIONS AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WERE
2 REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THEY DENY ANY ATTEMPT
3 OR DENY AN INTENT TO DISRUPT LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES BY THE
4 PLAINTIFFS OR EARTH FIRST!.
5 NEITHER THE FBI NOR OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT IS IN
6 TRIAL IN CASE. PLAINTIFFS DO HAVE ONE CLAIM AMONG SEVERAL FOR
7 VIOLATION OF STATE LAW UNDER WHICH, IF YOU FOUND AFTER TRIAL
8 THAT AN OFFICER OR OFFICERS OF THE OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
9 COMMITTED THAT VIOLATION, YOU WOULD ALSO BE FINDING THE CITY OF
10 OAKLAND LIABLE AS HIS OR THEIR EMPLOYER. OTHERWISE, THE TRIAL
11 WILL CONCERN THE POSSIBLE LIABILITY OF THESE OFFICERS AND
12 AGENTS ONLY AS INDIVIDUALS.
13 THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHAT
14 THE FACTS ARE WILL CONSIST OF THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF ANY
15 WITNESS, THE EXHIBITS WHICH ARE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE, AND ANY
16 FACT TO WHICH THE LAWYERS MAY STIPULATE.
17 THE FOLLOWING THINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND YOU MUST NOT
18 CONSIDER THEM AS EVIDENCE IN DECIDING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
19 ONE, STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS. TWO, QUESTIONS
20 AND OBJECTIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS. THREE, ANY TESTIMONY THAT I
21 MAY INSTRUCT YOU TO DISREGARD. AND FOUR, ANYTHING YOU MAY SEE
22 OR HEAR WHEN THE COURT IS NOT IN SESSION, EVEN IF WHAT YOU SEE
23 OR HEAR IS DONE OR SAID BY ONE OF THE PARTIES OR BY ONE OF THE
24 WITNESSES.
25 SOME EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE
8
1 ONLY. IF I INSTRUCT YOU THAT AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED
2 FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE, YOU MUST CONSIDER IT ONLY FOR THAT
3 LIMITED PURPOSE AND FOR NO OTHER.
4 EVIDENCE MAY BE DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT
5 EVIDENCE IS DIRECT PROOF OF A FACT SUCH AS TESTIMONY BY A
6 WITNESS ABOUT WHAT THAT WITNESS PERSONALLY SAW OR HEARD OR DID.
7 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS PROOF OF ONE OR MORE FACTS FROM
8 WHICH YOU COULD FIND ANOTHER FACT. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER BOTH
9 KIND OF EVIDENCE. THE LAW MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
10 WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
11 IT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE HOW MUCH WEIGHT TO GIVE TO ANY
12 EVIDENCE.
13 THERE ARE RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTROL WHAT CAN BE
14 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE. WHEN A LAWYER ASKS A QUESTION OR
15 OFFERS AN EXHIBIT INTO EVIDENCE AND A LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE
16 THINKS THAT IT IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, THAT
17 LAWYER MAY OBJECT. IF I OVERRULE THE OBJECTION, THE QUESTION
18 MAY BE ANSWERED OR THE EXHIBIT RECEIVED. IF I SUSTAIN THE
19 OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CANNOT BE ANSWERED AND THE EXHIBIT
20 CANNOT BE RECEIVED.
21 WHENEVER I SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION TO A QUESTION, YOU
22 MUST IGNORE THE QUESTION AND MUST NOT GUESS WHAT THE ANSWER
23 MIGHT HAVE BEEN. SOMETIMES I MAY ORDER EVIDENCE BE STRICKEN
24 FROM THE RECORD AND THAT YOU DISREGARD OR IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.
25 THAT MEANS THAT WHEN ARE YOU DECIDING THE CASE, YOU MUST NOT
9
1 CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE THAT I TOLD YOU TO DISREGARD.
2 IN DECIDING THE FACTS IN THE CASE, YOU MAY HAVE TO
3 DECIDE WHICH TESTIMONY TO BELIEVE AND WHICH TESTIMONY NOT TO
4 BELIEVE. YOU MAY BELIEVE EVERYTHING A WITNESS SAID OR PART OF
5 IT OR NONE OF IT. IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS,
6 YOU MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ONE, THE OPPORTUNITY AND ABILITY OF
7 THE WITNESS TO SEE OR HEAR OR KNOW THE THINGS TESTIFIED TO.
8 TWO, THE WITNESS'S MEMORY. THREE, THE WITNESS'S MANNER WHILE
9 TESTIFYING. FOUR, THE WITNESS'S INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
10 CASE AND ANY BIAS OR PREJUDICE. FIVE, WHETHER OTHER EVIDENCE
11 CONTRADICTED THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY. SIX, THE REASONABLENESS
12 OF THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.
13 AND SEVEN, ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT BEAR ON BELIEVABILITY. THE
14 WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO EFFECT DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEPEND
15 ON THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY.
16 I WILL NOW SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT CONDUCT AS JURORS.
17 FIRST, YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYONE INCLUDING
18 YOUR FELLOW JURORS, MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY, PEOPLE INVOLVED IN
19 THE TRIAL, OR ANYONE ELSE, NOR ARE YOU TO ALLOW TO PERMIT
20 OTHERS TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH YOU. IF ANYONE APPROACHES YOU
21 AND TRIES TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW
22 ABOUT IT IMMEDIATELY.
23 SECOND, DO NOT READ ANY NEWS STORIES OR ARTICLES OR
24 LISTEN TO ANY RADIO OR TELEVISION REPORTS ABOUT THE CASE OR
25 ABOUT ANYONE WHO HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIRD, DO NOT DO
10
1 ANY RESEARCH SUCH AS CONSULTING DICTIONARIES, SEARCHING THE
2 INTERNET OR USING OTHER REFERENCE MATERIALS. DO NOT MAKE ANY
3 INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE CASE ON YOUR OWN.
4 FOURTH, IF YOU NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME, SIMPLY
5 GIVE A SIGNED NOTED TO MS. SHEILA CAHILL THE COURTROOM DEPUTY
6 TO GIVE TO ME. FIFTH, DO NOT MAKE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT THE
7 VERDICT UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE GONE TO THE JURY ROOM TO DECIDE
8 THE CASE AND YOU AND YOUR FELLOW JURORS HAVE DISCUSSED THE
9 EVIDENCE, KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL THEN.
10 AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE YOUR
11 DECISION BASED UPON WHAT YOU RECALL OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU WILL
12 NOT HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL. I URGE YOU TO PAY CLOSE
13 ATTENTION TO THE TESTIMONY AS IT IS GIVEN. IF YOU WISH, YOU
14 MAY TAKE NOTES TO HELP YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY.
15 THIS AFTERNOON WE WILL BE HEARING OPENING STATEMENTS.
16 WE WILL NOT START HEARING FROM WITNESSES UNTIL TOMORROW
17 MORNING. BEFORE THAT TIME, MS. CAHILL WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A
18 PAD AND A PENCIL IN CASE YOU DO WANT TO TAKE NOTES.
19 THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE END OF THE CASE WILL BE GIVEN
20 TO YOU IN WRITING SO YOU WON'T NEED NOTES ON THESE
21 INSTRUCTIONS. IF YOU DO TAKE NOTES, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF
22 UNTIL YOU AND YOUR FELLOW JURORS DECIDE THE CASE. DO NOT LET
23 NOTE TAKING DISTRACT YOU SO YOU DO NOT HEAR ANSWERS BY THE
24 WITNESSES.
25 WHEN YOU LEAVE IN THE AFTERNOON, YOUR NOTES WILL BE
11
1 LEFT IN JURY ROOM, WHICH YOU'LL BE SHOWN LATER ON. WHETHER OR
2 NOT YOU TAKE NOTES, YOU SHOULD RELY ON YOUR OWN MEMORY OF WHAT
3 WAS SAID. NOTES ARE ONLY TO ASSIST YOUR MEMORY. YOU SHOULD
4 NOT BE OVERLY INFLUENCED BY THE NOTES.
5 THE NEXT PHASE OF THE TRIAL WILL NOW BEGIN. FIRST,
6 EACH SIDE MAKES AN OPENING STATEMENT. OPENING STATEMENTS ARE
7 NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS SIMPLY AN OUTLINE TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND
8 WHAT THAT PARTIES EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. A PARTY IS
9 NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT.
10 DUE TO OUR SCHEDULE TODAY, THE PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE
11 TIME TO MAKE -- PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TIME TO MAKE HIS
12 OPENING STATEMENT BEFORE WE BREAK AT 1:30. I WOULD LIKE TO
13 HAVE THE DEFENDANTS' OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY SO YOU WOULD HEAR
14 THEM ALL AT ONCE, BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. I DON'T WANT TO
15 KEEP YOU BEYOND THE TIME I HAVE SAID I WOULD. AND I DON'T WANT
16 TO WASTE AN HOUR AND A HALF OF YOUR TIME BY WAITING UNTIL
17 TOMORROW TO DO THAT.
18 I WANT TO CAUTION YOU STRONGLY NOT TO ATTACH ANY
19 WEIGHT TO THE FACT YOU'LL BE HEARING THE PLAINTIFFS' OPENING
20 STATEMENT FIRST AND NOT TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND IN ANY WAY ABOUT
21 ANYTHING UNTIL THE END OF THE CASE, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ABOUT ANY
22 PRELIMINARY MATTERS, UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD THE OPENING STATEMENTS
23 TOMORROW MORNING OF MR. SHER FOR THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND
24 MS. BEE FOR THE OAKLAND DEFENDANTS. THE REASON FOR THE BREAK
25 IS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE AND TIMING AND SHOULD NOT BE -- NO
12
1 INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM IT.
2 THEN TOMORROW AFTER WE HEAR THE REMAINING OPENING
3 STATEMENTS, THE PLAINTIFF WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE AND COUNSEL FOR
4 THE DEFENDANT MAY CROSS-EXAMINE. THEN THE DEFENDANTS MAY
5 PRESENT EVIDENCE AND COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF MAY
6 CROSS-EXAMINE.
7 IN SOME INSTANCES, WE MAY HAVE WITNESSES CALLED BY THE
8 PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE ACTUALLY WITNESSES THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE
9 CALLED AS WELL. IN THAT CASE, THE DEFENDANT MAY QUESTION THEM
10 AS THEIR WITNESSES WHILE THEY'RE ON THE STAND TO AVOID THEM
11 HAVING TO COME BACK TWICE. I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF THAT HAPPENS.
12 AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED, I WILL
13 INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE CASE, AND THE
14 ATTORNEYS WILL MAKE THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS. AFTER THAT, YOU
15 WILL GO TO THE JURY ROOM TO DELIBERATE ON YOUR VERDICT.
16
17 * * * * *
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, NICHOLE M. RODICH, REPORTER FOR THE UNITED STATES
COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS IN C 91-1057 CW, BARI VS USA, WERE
REPORTED BY ME, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER, AND WERE
THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY DIRECTION INTO TYPEWRITING;
THAT THE FOREGOING IS A FULL, COMPLETE AND TRUE RECORD OF SAID
PROCEEDINGS AS BOUND BY ME AT THE TIME OF FILING.
THE VALIDITY OF THE REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION OF SAID
TRANSCRIPT MAY BE VOID UPON DISASSEMBLY AND/OR REMOVAL
FROM THE COURT FILE.
___________________________________
NICHOLE M. RODICH, RPR, CSR 11604
TUESDAY, MAY 7TH, 2002
For more information:
http://indybay.org/features/judibari
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$220.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network