# Petition — Cross v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1369%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1983
- **Citation:** 464 U.S. 996

## Text

Office - Supreme Court, U.S,

83 667 FILED

OCT 20 1963

ALEXANDER L. STEVAS,
CLERK

NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1983

SILAS CROSS, Petitioner
vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES J. HERRMANN
Counsel of Record For
Petitioner Silas Cross

HERRMANN, LEVENSON,
MARGULLIS AND RAY
819 South K Street
Tacoma, Washington
98405

(206) 627-8142

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the standard and method
used to deny Petitioner's motions for a
continuance, based on inadequate time to
prepare for trial, are in conflict with
those used by other federal courts of
appeals pursuant to applicable decisions of
this Court.

a. Whether the denial of

Petitioner's motions for

continuance violated his sixth

amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel and fifth

amendment right to due process and

egual protection of the law.

Be Whether Petitioner was denied his

constitutional right to due process and

effective assistance of counsel] by the
denial of his motions for discovery under

the federal rules and the government's

response to his requests made pursuant to

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and

the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities.
Opinions Below.
Jurisdiction.

Constitutional and Statutory
Provisions Involved

Statement

Reasons For Granting the Petition
Conclusion.

Certificate of Service.

Appendix A.
Memorandum

Appendix B.1l.
Order Denying Motion. for Leave
to File Motions

Appendix B.2. es
District Court Judgment

Appendix B.3...
Appeal from the United States
District Court For the Western
District of Washington (Seattle)

Appendix Cc... a

The Jencks Act "18 U. S. C,
Section 3500 (as amended 1975)

iii

54-58

59

60-62

Appendix D.

Federal Rule "criminal Proce-

dure 15 (as amended 1975)

Appendix E.

Federa] Rule “Criminal Proce-
dure 16 (as amended 1966 and 1975)

Appendix F. a ee ee ae a
Motion for Continuance of
Filing of Motion Dates

Appendix G. . . > >. 7. . . >. 7 7 —

United States v. King, 664 F.2d 117]
iirc SOMES. 66 ws 16,17, 18,

United States v. La Monte, 684 F.2d
Dt ees eer « « ¢ « « s

vi

12

2]

24

26

o ae

19

19

32

21

30

19

United States v. Little, 567 F.2d 346

oe -Gare 2 23
United States v. Olivas, 558 F.2d 1366,
Ti0th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S.
866, 98 S.Ct. 203, 54 L.Ed. 2d 142
(1978) ee a ee ro a a 18

United States v. OJson, 697 F.2d 273 (8th
ee lg se + + me 6 ate ae

United Sta.es v. Phillips, 640 F.2d 87
(?th Cir. 198]), cert. denied, 10] S.Ct.
233] —P

2]

United States v. Tierney, 424 F.2d 643
te. PESEEy . nigse ow. .0 «sok, ae Se

United States v. Uptain, 53] F.2d 128]

(5th Cir. 1976) 25
United States v. Veatch, 674 F.2d 1217
(9th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 456 U.S.
946 (1982). me 13

Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93
S.Ct. 2208, 3/ L.Ed. 24 82 (1973). . 32, 33

Weatherford v. Bursey, 424 U.S. 545. . 32

Wolfs v. Britton, 509 F.2d 304 (8th
Cir. 1975). ey ae a ee ee

2i; 22
CONSTITUTIONS, RULES AND STATUTES:

SS ee ee ec
me. Smee. PmenG VE. 2. 2. 6 2 6 3s 6 ie eS
oo, Crim. BP. 18). se ee te ae

Sa OT ae Pee reer ee ee er

vii

18 U.S.C. § 3500.

OTHER AUTHORITY:

Brennan, J., The Criminal Prosecution:
Sporting Event or Quest for Truth, 1963
Di —- Ceieite BEM « 6 6. Vee
district courre for failure to state the

reason(s) for denial of a request for a con-

tinuance,

The court articulated no reason for
its decision to deny att

Petrella's unopposed request for a
two week continuance to permit
adequate time for preparation ....,

Alford v. United States, 709 F.24 418, 423

(5th

Cir. 1983). Linton V. Perini, supra,

Cited with approval.

-24-

1281

fol]

assessing claims of inadequate preparation

In United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d

(Sth Cir. 1976), the court listed the

owing factors as highly rejevant in

time:

[T]he quantum of time available for
preparation, the likelihood of pre-
judice from denial, the accused's
role in shortening the effective
preparation time, the degree of com-
plexity of the case, and the avail-
ability of discovery from the pro-
secution. We have also explicitly
considered the adequacy of the
defense actually provided at trial,
the skill and experience of the
attorney, any pre-appointment or
pre-retention experience of the
attorney with accused or the alleged
crime, and any representation of the
defendant by other attorneys that
accrues to his benefit.

at 1286.

While the court upheld the denial under

facts of this case, it stressed:

[We] must reiterate that a scheduled
trial date should never become such
an overarching end that it results
in the erosion of the defendant's
right to a fair trial. If forcing a
defendant to an early trial date
substantially impairs his ability to
effectively present evidence to
rebut the prosecution's case or to

o25=

establish defenses, then pursuit of
the goal of expeditiousness is far
more detrimental] to our common pur-
poses in the criminal justice system
than the delay of a few days or
weeks that may be sought.

» @t 1291.

United States v, Burton, 584 F.2d 485

(D.C. Cir. 1978) is a leading case in the
District of Colombia Circuit on an analogous

issue. In Burton, supra, the appellant

challenged the denial of his motion for a

continuance to replace one of his two

attorneys. The court stated:
(W]hen the continuance is sought to
retain or replace counsel, the
defendant's Sixth Amendment right to
the assistance of counsel] is

implicated. In such circumstances,
the right to select counsel must be
carefully balanced against the
public's interest in the orderly
administration of justice.

Thus, the trial judge may not insist
On such expeditiousness that counsel
for the defendant lacks reasonable
time to prepare for trial; Stripping
away the opportunity to prepare for
trial is tantamount to denying
altogether the assistance of counsel
for the defense. On the other hand,
the defendant cannot insist on an
unnecessary delay or a delay of

=-26-

unreasonable

D
Oo
x
oO
"UO
oO
’
«ct
oO
~
w

We recognize that the right to
" = | 4 4 .
choice of counsel devolves not only
- } ait - | = }
from the due process clause of the
De i~ —_ - | }
Fifth Amendment but also from the
more stringent and overlapping
+As wo

-
wit eww

ste

UNITED ST MERTC
> -
ite eww «f wer

Mo

P

au

-
-

_

~

COURT
~ wee
“wrt U
, s ty

atm A

_
-

XA

AS 3 PALS
SPs APPEAw
nearer
w oe ewe we

.
Ay ?

Mie

”

w

viction,
°
misapply

Authority in violation

* The Honorable Willi
United States District
District of Montana, si

-38

a”

Tribal] Health

§ 37]

am J. Jameson, Senior
Judge for the

tting by designation.

(Count I); 19 substantive counts of
embezzlement of Tribal Authority funds, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163; and four
counts of misapplication of Indian Self
Determination Act contractual funds, in vio-
lation of 25 U.S.C. § 450(d). We affirm the
judgment of conviction on each count.

Cross is former vice-chairman of
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Tacoma, Wash-
ington. He was indicted with a codefendant,
Robert Satiacum, former tribal chairman, and
Thomas Carpenter, former executive director
of tribal health funds. All were charged
with conspiracy under Count I. Cross was
further named in 36 substantive counts.
Satiacum was charged jointly with Cross in a
numper of counts and i: dividually in several
others. Carpenter had previously pled
guilty to embezzlement of Tribal health
funds and was the Government's principal

witness at trial.

a39-

Trial against Cross began on July

6, 1982, before the court and jury.?

Satiacum, having waived a jury, was to be

14, after a series of disputes between
Satiacum and his counsel, the court per-
mitted Satiacum's attorney to withdraw, and
severed and continued the case as to
Satiacum. The jury trial of Cross then con-
tinued to July 23. After a week's recess,
the trial resumed, and the case went to the
jury on August 2. On August 4 the jury
returned its verdict, finding Cross guilty
of conspiracy and 23 of the 36 substantive
counts, acquitting him on 12 counts, with no

verdict on one count, which

J. Although the offenses were committed,
and the indictment was returned in the
Tacoma (Southern) Division of the District,
the case was transferred sua sponte by the
court to the Seattle (Northern) Division
shortly after indictment, and all proceed-
ings thereafter were held in the Seattle
Division.

-40-

was later dismissed.

Appellant contends first that the
district court erred in denying his motion

for a continuance, based in part on lack of

Between arraignment on May 12,
1982, and June 14, 1982, Cross was repre-
sented by Arthur Emery. On June 14, Charles
J. Herrmann was retained to replace Emery as
counsel. On June 16, Herrmann appeared
before the court and sought to be sub-
stituted as counsel. The court indicated
that it would approve the substitution if a

conflict issue, raised

2. Initially Cross and Satiacum had both
filed motions for a continuance, based in
part on an anticipated conflict with another
case involving Satiacum. At a pretrial
conference “earing on June 1], the court
learned that Saticum's other case was to be
continued, eliminating the anticipated con-
flict. The court noted that if this case
were not tried in July as scheduled, it
could not be reached before October.

-4]-

by the Government, were resolved, provided
the trial could proceed as scheduled in
July. Herrmann assured the court that he
could be prepared for trial as scheduled.*
On the morning of trial Herrmann, how-

moved
for a continuance based on

ever ,/
alleged bad faith of the prosecution with
respect to providing Jencks and Brady

: 4 , :
materials and an alleged unfairness in

3. THE COURT: That's the only problem I
have heard so far. You have assured the
court you would be ready to go even
though it's short notice. That would be
the court's major concern.

MR. HERRMANN: As far as the trial is
concerned, I guess I would be asking for
some time to file motions myself, but as
far as the trial is concerned, I have no
problem with clearing my calendar and
being prepared by the week of the 6th or
the 12th of July, but I would be I'm
Sure asking the court to entertain the
motions that I would see fit to bring.

4. Cross argues that the court's major
consern of expediency of trial made it
impossible for him to receive effective
assistance of counsel where there was a
rapid barrage of exhibits and "some 375"
documents.

~42;

PERSONALLY PUT IN OVER TWO HUNDRED HOURS OF

WORK BETWEEN THE 16TH AND THIS DATE. I HAVE

ALSO HAD OTHER LAWYERS ON MY STAFF WORKING

ON IT, BUT WITH THE SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES OF

DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DROPPED ON US ON FRIDAY,
IT IS JUST ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE
OUR SIDE COMPLETELY PREPARED HERE.

-98-

BUT IT GOES BEYOND THE FACT -=- AND I DO
WANT TO MAKE THIS AT LEAST FOR THE RECORD.
I BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES ARE IN FACT A
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS
TO THE DEFENDANT. I BELIEVE IT'S THE LAST
VESTIGE OF AN ARCHAIC DINOSAUR THAT IS NO
LONGER STOOD FOR IN THE FEDERAL CIVIL
SYSTEM, IN THE STATE CIVIL SYSTEMS AND EVEN
IN THE STATE CRIMINAL SYSTEMS.

I WOULD POINT OUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS
THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY, REGARDLESS OF
HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE TO PREPARE, TO
ACTUALLY MAKE DISCOVERY AND YET THE
GOVERNMENT IS AN ENTIRELY FAVORED PARTY.
THEY HAVE THE
RT 7/6/82 Vol A-l p. 4
RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES,
TO BRING THEM IN IN FRONT OF THE GRAND JURY
WITHOUT THE AID OR ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN
THE ROOM, TO GET ALL OF THE DISCOVERY THEY

WANT, YET WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHT.

-99-

Ca ie San ion

2Asi

Param

NMTITNTIANCE tly
=
tae stV Ate i)

-

AS

s* “_--

ORDER Raa its

oe
st

ra)

S;

7
s’

m

o>

>

Sa inh hel

“
Tas aw al

—

~~

a
“uy

~*

Me

.*
. |

“stn rere
astutan VY

1a
VAw

PrAtIICR.
t
~VUNOLu,

~

RDENTE

aye eh e eh

n>

A

or r
> eae ately

)

stemittsa se ee
y
Ne VAs

cCgjrr
-
ae)

(

CRIMINAL RULES

+.

aw "

nate

Yairi

©)

DOES

om--—

YEAR OF PREPARATION

oa iota ita ho)

POWERS, ITNESSE

RN
~ fa

rT.
o>

FACT M

WANT,

faa
+

DON'T HAVE

WE'RE

; bien Wales he

NWAAL LE

RECORD THAT WE HAVE CO D MR.

a. Moa.

mAs

CARPENTER'S COUNSEL AND T SHE HAS

INFORMED US THAT MR. CARPENTER WILL NOT

-100-

SPEAK TO US.

WE MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO TALK TO MR.
AZURE AND HE AGREED TO MEET WITH US. MY
CLIENT AND I, MR. CROSS, GOT ON AN AIRPLANE,
WENT CLEAR UP TO SITKA, ALASKA. WHEN WE

RT 7/6/82 Vol A-l p. 5

T

ARRIVED THERE, WE WERE THEN INFORMED THAT
MR. AZURE WAS INDEED REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
IN THIS MATTER AND THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO
SPEAK TO US AND WE HAVE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY
TO TALK WITH HIM.

SO THE CONDITIONS, IF THIS WERE
ANALOGOUS TO STATE COURT, HAVE BEEN SET. WE
HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THESE TWO
INDIVIDUALS AND WE HAVE BEEN REFUSED ANY
MEETING OR ANY INTERROGATION OF THEM, PERIOD.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE
GOVERNMENT PROVIDED US WITH SOME OF THE
JENCKS MATERIAL AND SOME OF THE RESPONSE TO
OUR REQUESTS UNDER THE BRADY RULE, AND I DO
NOT THINK THAT THAT RESPONSE HAS BEEN IN
GOOD FAITH. I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, HE HAS

-101-

INFORMED THE COURT THAT HE IS WITHHOLDING
SOME OF THE JENCKS MATERIALS ON SOME OF THE
KEY WITNESSES, INCLUDING MR. CARPENTER.
AFTER SOME 37 HOURS OF OVERTIME OVER THE
FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND, I HAD DROPPED ON ME
AT 6:30 LAST NIGHT AT MY OFFICE ANOTHER
COUPLE HUNDRED -- A HUNDRED OR SO PAGES OF
WHAT IS NOW GOING TO -- THE PETER ASURE
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. THIS HAS BEEN
EXTREMELY PREJUDICIAL TO ME TO HAVE TO FIGHT
THIS KIND OF THING COMING INTO THIS COURT.

I ALSO WOULD POINT OUT -- AND I HAVE
PROVIDED COPIES OF EXHIBITS TO THE COURT --
WHICH IS THE PROSECUTER'S BRADY RESPONSE,
WHICH IS IN ESSENCE A COPY OF THE PLEA
BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT'S
RT 7/6/82 Vol A-l p. 6
MEMORANDUM ON SENTENCING, AND I AM AWARE
THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAS FURTHER EXCULPATORY
INFORMATION THAT HE HAS NOT PROVIDED US, AND
I PROVIDED YOU WITH A COPY OF SEVERAL
AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS THAT WERE GIVEN BY

-102-

MY CLIENT TO THE FBI IN SUPPORT OF HIS
POSITION WHEN THE INVESTIGATION WAS BEING
CARRIED ON; NONE OF THOSE MATERIALS WERE
PROVIDED BACK TO ME, AND WE NO LONGER HAVE
COPIES OF SOME OF IT, IN RESPONSE TO MY
BRADY REQUEST.

I WOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT A MR.
ZDERIC AND A MR. BRAME BOTH TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE GRAND JURY, THEN AND THERE GAVE
INFORMATION AND TESTIMONY TO THE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE THAT IS EXTREMELY
EXCULPATORY IN NATURE. NOW, I AM AWARE OF
THAT TESTIMONY AND I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK
WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS, BUT IT CERTAINLY
SHOWS THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAS NOT PROVIDED
ME WITH THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS
IN HIS POSSESSION.

I WOULD FURTHER POINT OUT THAT IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM ON SENTENCING, WHICH
I PROVIDED TO THE COURT, MR. MUELLER SIGNED
A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS

STRONG EVIDENCE WHICH TENDED TO SHOW THAT

-103-

MR. CARPENTER HAD BEEN MAKING FALSE
STATEMENTS TO THEM DOWN THERE, YET NOTHING
OF THAT KIND IS FORTHCOMING IN THEIR
RESPONSE TO THE BRADY MATERIAL.

THE COURT HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW ME TO CALL MR.
MUELLER AS A WITNESS IN THIS
RT 7/6/82 Vol. A-l p. 7
MATTER. I HAVE REQUESTED UNDER THE ONLY
MEANS AVAILABLE TO ME UNDER THE RULES, UNDER
THE BRADY CASE, FOR ALL EXCULPATORY
INFORMATION, AND YET NOTHING HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO ME WHATSOEVER THAT WOULD SHOW OR
DEMONSTRATE WHAT EVIDENCE HE HAS THAT TENDS
TO SHOW THAT CARPENTER WAS GIVING FALSE
STATEMENTS TO THE AUTHORITIES.

SO, BEYOND THE MOTION TO SEVER, I AM
MOVING FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE AT
THIS TIME FOR TWO REASONS: BASICALLY THAT I
HAVE HAD INADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE THE
DEFENSE OF MR. CROSS, AND THAT I ACTUALLY
HAVE THE INABILITY TO PREPARE BECAUSE OF THE

-104-

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THE BAD FAITH
RESPONSE OF THE PROSECUTOR TO MY JENCKS AND
BRADY REQUESTS, AND I DO WANT TO TAKE THE
DEPOSITIONS OF -- AND PART OF MY MOTION IS
TO TAKE THE DEPOSITIONS OF THOMAS CARPENTER
AND PETER AZURE.

THIRD, I HAVE A MOTION IN LIMINE, A COPY
OF WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE
COURT. IN READING THE GRAND JURY TEST
THAT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO ME, IT'S
OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THE PROSECUTOR INTENDS TO
MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE OUT OF THE FACT
THAT AN INVESTIGATOR HIRED BY THE TRIBE, MR.
J. BENEDICT ZDERIC, WAS DISBARRED FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH A COPY OF THE
OPINION DISBARRING MR. ZDERIC , AND A CLOSE
READING OF THAT WILL REVEAL THAT THERE WAS

NO DISHONESTY INVOLVED. IT WAS RATHER GROSS

RT 7/6/82 Vol A-l p. 10

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, DO

-105-

YOU WANT TO RESPND TO SOME OF THESE? I

WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ON -- I WILL
TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT THE COURT IS NOT
GOING TO ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO SEVER ON
THE GROUNDS -- THE FACT THAT WE ARE
PROCEEDING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH JURY AND
NON-JURY. I DO RECOGNIZE THERE MAY BE
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAT ARISE THAN
IN THE ORDINARY CASE. WE ARE ALL ALERTED TO
IT, WE WILL ALL BE SENSITIVE TO IT, AND WE
WILL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. I DO NOT SEE ANY
OF THE PROBLEMS AS INSURMOUNTABLE OR
PROBLEMS THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY JEOPARDIZE
THE FAIRNESS OF EITHER TRIAL OR EITHER
DEFENDANT. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT TRIERS OF FACT HAPPENS IN CRIMINAL

CASES AND WE WILL WORK THE PROBLEMS OUT AS

WE ARRIVE AT THEM.
I GUESS WHAT I'M -- I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR
YOUR RESPONSE ON THE DEPOSITIONS, MR.
MUELLER, AND WHAT I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT
IS THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE IS BRADY
-106-

MATERIAL THAT HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED. AS

FAR AS THE FACT THAT THE BRADY MATERIAL MAY
BE VOLUMINOUS IN NATURE, THE COURT WILL NOT
GRANT A CONTINUANCE ON THOSE GROUNDS. I
WILL, HOWEVER, ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS IN THE
COURSE OF TRIAL, FOR INSTANCE -- I DON'T
KNOW IF ANY OF THE WITNESSES FOR WHOM YOU
FURNISHED THE MATERIALS LAST NIGHT ARE BEING
CALLED TODAY. IF THEY ARE, I AM GOING TO
RT 7/6/82 Vol. A-l p. 33
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS, WHICH I
THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE ADEQUATE TIME.

IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER PROBLEMS. I
WOULD LIKE TO GET THE JURY UP HERE.

MR. HERRMANN: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK
YOU -= EXCUSE ME -- SPECIFICALLY RULED ON MY
MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OR MY MOTION TO
TAKE DEPOSITIONS.

THE COURT: I'M SPECIFICALLY GOING TO
DENY THE MOTIONS, MR. HERRMANN. OKAY. BUT
WITH THE QUALIFICATION THAT IF YOU NEED

ADDITIONAL TIME DURING TRIAL IN ANY

-107-

EMERGENCY SITUATION, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND
WE WILL TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

WHY DON'T WE BRING UP THE JURY. ANY
PROBLEM WITH GETTING STARTED WITH JURY VOIR
DIRE AT THIS TIME?

MR. MUELLER: NO.

MR. HERRMANN: NONE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF
RECESS, COUNSEL, TO GET THEM UP HERE.

(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS HAD.)

THE COURT: CRIMINAL CASE 82-20R, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS ROBERT SATIACUM AND
SILAS A. CROSS.

COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE YOUR APPEARANCED.

MR. MUELLER: PETER MUELLER FOR THE
UNITED STATES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. WILSON: DAVID WILSON FOR THE UNITED
RT 7/9/82 p. 556
Q YOU WOULD HAVE ONLY PARTICIPATED IN THE

PREPARATION FROM THE MICROFILM FOR THE

PRESENTATION HERE TODAY IN COURT?

A THE SIGNATURE CARD ITSELF IS NOT FROM

-108-

MICROFILM RECORDS. THE SIGNATURE CARD
IS A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE CARD
THAT THE BRANCH HAD ON FILE.

I SEE.

THE REST OF THE RECORDS ARE MICROFILM
COPIES.

MR. HERRMANN: OKAY. I HAVE NO

OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS.

THE COURT: IN THAT CASE, EXHIBIT 9

IN ITS ENTIRETY WILL BE ADMITTED.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)

BY MR. MUELLER:

Q

WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SPECIFIC CONTENTS
OF EXHIBIT 9, MR. WETMORE, CAN YOU
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW EXHIBIT 9 IS
ORGANIZED, THAT IS, EXHIBITS 9A THROUGH
90?

YES. EACH MONTHLY STATEMENT IS SHOWN
AND THEN FOLLOWING THE MONTHLY STATEMENT
THE DEPOSIT SLIPS ARE SHOWN AND THEN THE
CHECKS THAT ARE PAID AGAINST THE

ACCOUNT, COPIES OF THEM FOLLOW THAT. SO

-109-

WE HAVE THE STATEMENTS, THEN THE

DEPOSITS, THEN THE CHECKS.

Q WITH THE PARTICULAR MONTH INVOLVED?

‘ RIGHT, FOR EACH MONTH.

Q AND THEN, FOR EXAMPLE, 9B IS THE
STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 1980, IS
THAT CORRECT?

= 779/62 p. 557

A YES, FOR THE FULL MONTH, MAY OF ‘80.

Q DOES THE STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY
1980 REFLECT ANY CHECKS OR DEPOSITS FOR
THAT MONTH?

A MAY 1980. THE ONLY ACTIVITY IS A
SERVICE CHARGE. THERE ARE NO DEPOSITS
OR CHECKS.

Q AND THEREFORE THERE'S NOTHING THAT
FOLLOWS THAT PAGE, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT'S CORRECT.

Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO JUNE OF 1980, IS
THAT EXHIBIT 9C?

A YES.

Q AND 9C, DOES THAT HAVE INCLUDED IN IT

-110-

THE STATEMENT, AS WELL AS COPIES OF ALL

CHECKS AND DEPOSITS WRITTEN ON THE
ACCOUNT DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE?

YES. THE MONTH OF JUNE HAS THE DEPOSIT
THAT WAS MADE AND THE CHECKS THAT WERE
PAID AGAINST THE ACCOUNT.

AND DOES THAT FOLLOW FOR THE REST OF THE
EXHIBITS, 9D THROUGH 90?

YES, IT DOES.

MR. MUELLER: COULD THE WITNESS BE

SHOWN PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 12, 13, 14, 15

AND 20?

Q

PRIOR TO COMING TO COURT, HAVE YOU HAD
OCCASION TO EXAMINE THESE EXHIBITS?

YES, I HAVE.

CAN YOU IDENTIFY THEM?

THESE EXHIBITS ARE CHECKS THAT HAVE BEEN

POSTED AGAINST

RT 7/9/82 p. 558

Q
A

THE ACCOUNT.
THE SAME ACCOUNT THAT'S INVOLVED?

RIGHT, THE SAME ACCOUNT.

-lll-

ca) fi N {J
ep) m m%
- 2 ~ ~Ar 3) oO
fx, tA - Ww) = A iJ fx,
w (xs am] Ww) «ct = ° Oo {J
MG ba { {J «
VU «c E4 > = 7 N iu] A (1) ian oO f)
a | a ~- ~wr A - m eo peo
fx, Ay mm «c w”) {2} ™N ~ = > «c N fa f4
oO {1} {x} {x} ors w > fx)
= (xs m £4 E4 ~ ™N > =) ti) ta
w) ta fxs _ «x Ns ba a {x} = a m%
{} oO «c © a N ~ bs =x3 «x 4 « Ta) ~ ba ba . © ~ > «ct w) > {1 «ct peo a
oJ ™N Ar N {J {1 2) a -
a. 2. ~— A hI “ ~ an en S eo “
“o & ' e . m £4 ** co 60g {x oe © ' 7
x3 be i m% m% Oo f4 m™ mm «c yw % > 1
Ea tJ oO * ©) ba {] +. {) * fs) fE4
© . fl 4 a 4 {] = = t4 — {J 4 > — A mm {J
fi “” {2 “”) 3 Oo m% m™ A 4 — om = m% m™% = J ba => w”)
Ww) J m ©) {J 4 ca «x {«) - —? {J «ct 2 a i) Aa oO oO
oO «c «t 4 >) ae | © > = {xs oO a | O © => eo) . x
4 fe t+ = mm © =: {x = fr, © > ~—r © = ~ a E4
f4 (2 roa) > ra | m be ™N +a | rm Oo *
~% {1} {0 . oO {x} w . b+ {1} . {] oO . N f4 Aa {x}
fa « 3 «ct = m Z M9) m% A x3 > A m%
~m te [4 {x} z= t4 3 =. ae > Zs t+ = a ©} - i
ct $3 m = ~ ~ — «ct os a = = os
© ha ~ {x} {J rm 4 «c « 4
a ‘o) o- bs
bs b4 i @ oO «ct Pi
> > Cc 4 323 3x3
o

deft CROSS, for
iss of summons for
deft to appear
5-12-82, 9AM, JLW:
ISS 5-10-82

May

May 7 5. PRAECIPE deft SATIACUM, for
iss of summons for
deft to appear
5-12-82, 9AM, JLW:
ISS 5-10-82

May 7 6. LETTER to deft SATIACUM,
setting
arraignment for
9-12-82, 9AM, JLW

-127-

12 May

12 May

12 May

May 13

May 13

May 26

7. ENT(JLW)

8 APPEARANCE
BOND

9 APPEARANCE
BOND

10 RETURN

1] RETURN

12 MOTION
& AFFT.

ARRAIGNMENT (SATIACUM
& CROSS): AUSA
Mueller, deft cnsl
Immelt (SATIACUM) and
Emory (CROSS). Deft's
pres pursuant to
summons w/cnsl. Deft's
advised of rights &
Charges. Both deft's
enter PLEA of NOT
UILTY to charges.
Court accepts & enters
pleas. PTM: 5-26-82;
STD: 7-21-82; TRIAL:
7-6-82, 9:30 AM, BUR.
Deft's released on PR

bonds.

deft SATIACUM; deft
req'd to sign-in in
Tacoma (PR)

deft CROSS; deft req'd
to sign-in in Tacoma

( )

Marshal's, of summons
to deft SATIACUM, exc
5-10-82

Marshal's, of summons
to deft CROSS, exc
5-10-82

deft. SATIACUM for
continuance of trial
and pretrial mtns.

-128-

May 26 13 NOTICE of deft. SATIACUM mtn.
(#12) set for 6/4/82
9:30 BUR

May 26 14 MOTION of deft. CROSS for
continuance of trial &
filing mtns. dates

May 26 15 NOTICE of deft. CROSS mtn.
(#14) noted for 6/4/82
9:30 BUR
Page 2
May 26 16 MOTION deft. CROSS for
severence
May 26 17 MEMORANDUM Deft. CROSS in
Support of
severance
May 26 18 NOTICE of Mtn. for Severance
(#16) for 6/4/82 9:30
BUR

May 28 19 PRAECIPE for iss of 30 subp to
testify:ISs

June 3 20 RESPONSE govt's, to defts' mtns
for continuance of
trial & pretrial mtns

dates
June 3 21 OPPOSITION govt's, to deft
CROSS' mtn for
severance
June 15 22 ORDER(BJUR) DENYING deft

CROSS' mtn for
severance cc: cns]

-129-

June 15 23 APPLICATION
& ORDER (PKS)
for writ of H/C ad
testificandum ISS
6-15-82

June 16 LODGED deft SATIACUM'S waiver of
jury trial

June 2] 24 RETURN subp to testify iss to
Northwest Airlines exe
6-16-82

June 22 25 WAIVER deft CROSS, of use of

stmnts made by witness
Fourstars to cnsl]

**June 16 26 STIPULATION between deft CROSS
& atty Emery for
Substituting atty
Charles Herrmann
for Emery

**June 16 LODGED Order
Substituting attys for
deft CROSS

June 23 27 RETURN subp to testify iss to
Caesar's Palace exc
6-21-82

June 24 28 PRAECIPE for iss of 30 subp to
testify: ISS

June 25 29 RESPONSE govt's, to deft CROSS'
waiver concerning
conflict of interest

June 28 30 MOTION deft CROSS, for leave
allowing cnsl to file
mtns

-130-

June

June

Page

June

June

June

June

June

June

June

June

28

28

28

Ww

28

28

28

28

28

28

28

26

31 AFFIDAVIT

eft CROSS, in Support
of mtn #30

LODGED Order for leave allowing
Cnsl]l to file mtns

ct

32 NOTICE

CROSS, of mtn #30

33 MOTION deft CROSS, for
discovery of Jencks
materials & to produce
documents, stmnts &
individuals at trial

34 MOTION deft CROSS, for order
llowing cnsl for deft
S to voir dire
pective jurors
35 MEMORANDUM deft CROSS, in
Support of mtn #34
LODGED Order granting mtn to voir
dire jurors

36 MOTION deft CROSS, to shorten
time for hrg deft
CROSS' mtns #33 & 34

LODGED Order shortening time for
hrg mtns #33 & 34

37 NOTICE deft CROSS, of mtns
#33 & 34 for 6-30-82

38 MOTION deft CROSS, for change
of venue

39 MEMORANDUM deft CROSS, in
Support of mtn #38

-13l-

LODGED Orde

40 MOTION

LODGED Orde
hrg mtn #38

r

ORDER (BUR)

OPPOSITI

47 PROPOSED

ON

for change of venue

CROSS, to shorten
for hrg mtn #38

shortening time for

Ss

tify iss to
exc 6-23-82

govt's, of intent to
use admission or
confession for deft
ATIACUM

govt's, of intent to
use admission or
confession for deft
CROSS

DENYING mtn for
leave to file mtns

govt's, to deft
CROSS' mtn for
Change of venue

JURY INSTRUC-

TION
48 PROPOSED
QUESTIONS

49 REQUESTE
INSTRUCTIO

D
NS

deft CROSS

for prospective jurors
for deft CROSS

govt's

-132-

July 1
Page 4
July 2

July 2

July 2

July 6

July 6

July 6

50

31

52

-

55

56

BRIEF

gove's, for trial

ENT(BJR) CONFERENCE: AUSA
’

ORDER (BJR)

ORDER(BJR)

m

PRAECIP

PRAECIPE

ENT (BUR)

Mueller, def cnsl
Immelt, Emery &
Herrmann, CR Roth,
defts CROSS & SATIACUM '
prnst on bond. Court
finds no conflict &
will allow att

Herrmann to

participate in case as
ens] for deft CROSS.
Cnsl for govt approves
jury waiver as to deft
SATIACUM.

substituting attys
for deft CROSS;
Charles J. Herrmann
for Arthur J. Emery,

7

Jr. ce: ens]

waiving jury trial
for deft SATIACUM
ce: cnsl

for iss of 12 subp to
testify & 12 subp DT:
ISS 7-6-82

for iss of 15 subp to
testify: ISS 7-6-82

1ST DAY OF JURY TRIAL
FOR CROSS & COURT
TRIAL FOR DEFT
SATIACUM: AUSA Mueller
& Wilson, def cnsl
Immelt & Herrmann, CR
Roth, defts prsnt on

-133-

bond. Deft CROSS’
renewed mtn to sever
DENIED. Deft CROSS'
mtn in limine to stand
submitted. Deft CROSS'
oral mtn to continue
trial DENIED. Deft
CROSS' renewed mtn for
change of venue
DENIED. Jurors sworn &
impanelled. Witnesses
testify. Trial cont'd
7-7-82, 1:30AM.

July 6 57 EXHIBITS t CROSS, in support
f oral mtn for
ontinuance of trial

July 6 58 MOTION deft CROSS, in limine

Ww

July 7 59 RESPONSE govt's, to deft CROS
mtn in limine

July 7 60 RESPONSE govt's, to deft CROSS'
claim of w/holding
exculpatory material

July 7 61 PRAECIPE for iss of 10 subp
DT:ISS 7-7-82

July 7 62 PRAECIPE for iss of 10 subp to
testify: ISS 7-7-82
July 6 63 ADDITIONAL
VOIR DIRE

July 6 64 PEREMPTORY all cns]l
CHALLENGES

[End of first four pages of eleven page
Docket]

-134-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1369%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.