30 April 2001
Source: Digital file from the Court Reporters Office, Southern District of New York; (212) 805-0300.

This is the transcript of Day 36 of the trial, April 30, 2001.

See other transcripts: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ubl-dt.htm


   2   ------------------------------x


   4              v.                           S(7) 98 Cr. 1023

   5   USAMA BIN LADEN, et al.,

   6                  Defendants.

   7   ------------------------------x

                                               New York, N.Y.
   9                                           April 30, 2001
                                               9:20 a.m.


  12   Before:

  13                       HON. LEONARD B. SAND,

  14                                           District Judge













   1                            APPEARANCES

            United States Attorney for the
   3        Southern District of New York
   4        KENNETH KARAS
            PAUL BUTLER
   5        Assistant United States Attorneys

            Attorneys for defendant Mohamed Sadeek Odeh
  11        Attorneys for defendant Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali

  13        Attorneys for defendant Khalfan Khamis Mohamed

  16        Attorneys for defendant Wadih El Hage











   1            (Trial resumed)

   2            THE COURT:  I received a joint request to adjourn

   3   without date the motion we had scheduled for 4:30 concerning a

   4   motion to quash the subpoena to the Defense Department.  So

   5   that is adjourned.  I hope that shortly after lunch we will

   6   get what I hope will be the penultimate draft of the charge

   7   and verdict form.

   8            I have considered the request made to strike overt

   9   act E and have reviewed the material in the record, in the

  10   government's letter of April 28, and I conclude that the

  11   government has made an adequate showing.  So that overt act E

  12   is not stricken.

  13            The first order of business when the jury comes in

  14   will relate to the striking of the testimony of Special Agent

  15   Yacone, and the government has submitted a letter dated April

  16   30, which unfortunately was not submitted to me until a few

  17   moments ago, in which the government asks that not all of the

  18   agent's testimony be stricken and expresses concern that the

  19   jury may draw significant adverse inferences from the fact

  20   that the court strikes the testimony.  What I am not entirely

  21   clear on is how one tells the jury what is and is not

  22   stricken.

  23            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, my suggestion would be

  24   that what is stricken could be described as everything is

  25   struck but the fact that, for example, the US was there on a


   1   UN mandate and that there were 18 fatalities.  Everything else

   2   is stricken.  This way you don't remind them what they are not

   3   supposed to consider.

   4            MR. BAUGH:  I am sorry, your Honor.  The interpreters

   5   are not picking up.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  The microphone is unplugged.

   7            THE COURT:  What is the significance of 18 casualties

   8   if they cannot be attributed to defendants?

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  First, your Honor, part we were

  10   going to figure out how we were going to prove up those

  11   casualties and when they occurred.  It is our view that the

  12   statements made in the Harun computer report indicating that

  13   Al Qaeda feels responsible doesn't negate ultimate

  14   responsibility for those casualties.

  15            THE COURT:  But when you say 18 casualties, that's a

  16   flag, a trigger that you are not talking about casualties in

  17   general, you are talking about a specific incident in

  18   Mogadishu which everybody is familiar with.

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  We could strike the 18, your Honor,

  20   and just establish that there were casualties.  Otherwise it

  21   seems that we are going down the road of again proving the

  22   casualties through the Department of Defense witness.

  23            (Pause)

  24            THE COURT:  I propose the following, which I think

  25   meets at least some of the government's concerns.  I think


   1   beating one's breast as to why it was stricken or whose fault

   2   it is is counterproductive.  We have stricken other things

   3   before, and I think it is self-defeating.  I suggest the

   4   following:  The testimony you heard last Monday from Special

   5   Agent Yacone as to a battle in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993,

   6   and casualties received during that battle is stricken, and

   7   you are instructed to disregard it.  The government does not

   8   contend that the evidence before you proves that any member of

   9   Al Qaeda or of the conspiracy charged in the indictment were

  10   involved in the events related in the testimony of Special

  11   Agent Yacone with respect to October 3, 1993.  The government

  12   does not contend that any defendant now on trial participated

  13   in the actions described by Special Agent Yacone as to the

  14   battle on that date.  Accordingly, that testimony is stricken.

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, with all due respect,

  16   that is precisely what I am afraid of.  Number one, you are

  17   basically charging the jury that Al Qaeda had nothing to do

  18   with that.  What we want to argue to the jury -- we are now no

  19   longer proving something that is referred to in the documents

  20   in Harun's computer and Bin Laden's statements and Abu Hafs's

  21   statements, we are now charging the jury that those statements

  22   are wrong.

  23            THE COURT:  No, no.  If this isn't clear, we are

  24   charging that the October 3 battle is not linked up to that.

  25            MR. FITZGERALD:  And that is precisely our concern,


   1   Judge.

   2            THE COURT:  That's your concern but that's the case,

   3   isn't it?

   4            MR. FITZGERALD:  I don't believe so, Judge.  In terms

   5   of being responsible, Al Qaeda took responsibility for the

   6   attacks on the Americans in Somalia three different ways.  Bin

   7   Laden took responsibility, the military command took

   8   responsibility, and Harun in the computer took responsibility.

   9   The problem is, they never said which date.  The event it most

  10   fits with is October 3.  There are only a few other events,

  11   many of which involve land mines or the mortar attack.  We

  12   didn't agree with striking it, but if you strike it and say it

  13   had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, you are basically saying that

  14   the Bin Laden statement and the Abu Hafs statement and the

  15   Harun statement is wrong.  We are charging the jury that

  16   basically the testimony is irrelevant and in fact the

  17   conspiracy didn't have anything to do with October 3.  It is

  18   one thing not to say -- we are basically telling the jury that

  19   Harun is lying and Bin Laden and Abu Hafs is not telling the

  20   truth and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it.  I think that is

  21   not consistent with what the facts are and I think that would

  22   be heavily prejudicial to the government.

  23            THE COURT:  Give me another moment.

  24            MR. SCHMIDT:  May I be briefly heard on that issue?

  25            THE COURT:  After I come up with some other language.


   1            (Pause)

   2            THE COURT:  Shorter may be better.  I propose the

   3   following:  The testimony you heard last Monday from Special

   4   Agent Yacone as to the battle which took place in Mogadishu on

   5   October 3, 1993, is stricken because of the absence of any

   6   evidence that any defendant or persons affiliated with any

   7   defendant was a participant in this particular event.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, again it is charging the

   9   jury as if we put something improperly before the jury.

  10            THE COURT:  Every time something is stricken it is

  11   because the court has reached the conclusion that something

  12   put before the jury should not have been.

  13            MR. FITZGERALD:  The problem is, if we didn't put

  14   forth any proof that there were deaths in Somalia, there would

  15   be nothing to refer to the events discussed by others.  We are

  16   telling the jury everything that is not, when in fact Al Qaeda

  17   took credit for the attacks three different ways.

  18            THE COURT:  Which is why I am limiting it to these

  19   defendants, which is not Al Qaeda, it is these defendants -- I

  20   do say or persons affiliated with any defendant, but that was

  21   a participant in this particular event.  I have tried to

  22   narrow it.

  23            You will have an opportunity, I hope in a short

  24   period of time, to make the argument.  But I don't think it is

  25   appropriate to do anything more than make the ruling, and, as


   1   I said, I think to do more than that is counterproductive.

   2            I will read it again and you let me know if there is

   3   any particular change you want to make:  The testimony you

   4   heard last Monday from Special Agent Yacone as to the battle

   5   which took place in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993, is stricken,

   6   because of the absence of any evidence that any defendant or

   7   person affiliated with any defendant was a participant in this

   8   particular event.

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, could we just say it is

  10   stricken then?  In all fairness, we have testimony that Harun

  11   and Saleh were in a building when the helicopter incident

  12   happened.

  13            THE COURT:  I am not striking all the testimony.  I

  14   am striking a portion of the testimony of one witness.

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  In all fairness, that instruction to

  16   a juror sounds like October 3, 1993, has nothing to do with Al

  17   Qaeda whatsoever.  First of all, it is saying as a matter of

  18   fact Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks in Somalia,

  19   is the way I hear a juror hearing that.

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  May I be heard, your Honor?

  21            THE COURT:  Yes, in a moment.

  22            Yes.

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  The testimony of the agent --

  24            THE COURT:  Before you do that, do you have any

  25   objection to the language I have proposed?


   1            MR. SCHMIDT:  Before I make any further objection, we

   2   wanted, all counsel wanted to discuss this matter to try to

   3   see if we have a uniform position.  But my concern initially

   4   to it, your Honor, is that there was testimony of an October 6

   5   event as well that is not linked and also should be stricken

   6   and also should be part of your Honor's instruction to the

   7   jury.

   8            As to the entire issue concerning Somalia and

   9   material that the government turned over to us today, I think

  10   all counsel wanted to convene.

  11            THE COURT:  Let's leave this then and I will give

  12   counsel an opportunity to confer.  Let's move on to some other

  13   matters.

  14            MR. RUHNKE:  We are just trying to figure out how the

  15   government intends to proceed today.  We received their

  16   letter.

  17            THE COURT:  That's where I want to go.  Assuming that

  18   I will give this instruction, or this direction or similar to

  19   the jury, I received a letter from Mr. Schmidt indicating that

  20   there were some additional documents that he wished to offer

  21   in evidence and some stipulations.  Are you calling the

  22   handwriting expert?

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  That is an issue that I wanted to raise

  24   with your Honor and the government.  We seem to have not

  25   resolved that.  The handwriting expert would be testifying as


   1   to the handwriting comparison between the documents, the

   2   notebooks that I would be offering in evidence and notebooks

   3   previously offered in evidence and identified as Mr. El Hage's

   4   circumstantially, and then offer that exhibit into evidence.

   5   The notebooks contain much of the similar information found in

   6   other notebooks seized from Mr. El Hage's home and from Mercy.

   7   Your Honor's previous rulings as to authenticity seem to

   8   indicate that unless there is a specific person testifying as

   9   to that particular item, that with an objection by the

  10   government you would bar its admission.

  11            THE COURT:  The mere fact that a document is written

  12   by a defendant does not make it admissible.

  13            MR. SCHMIDT:  That is correct, but the fact that it

  14   is written by the defendant, has numerous entries that are

  15   related to other things that are already in evidence, that it

  16   has been testified to by other witnesses, authenticated

  17   sufficiently to allow the jury to make a determination whether

  18   that document is a phony or is real, that is my understanding

  19   as to the authenticity law as it stands now, that it is a

  20   broad law to give the jury a wide scope to make their own

  21   determinations.  I am just talking specifically as to those

  22   books.  If the government is going to object and your Honor is

  23   going to sustain that objection, there is no reason for me to

  24   place the expert on the stand and go through the testimony as

  25   to comparing those documents with other documents.


   1            THE COURT:  How many documents are there?

   2            MR. SCHMIDT:  These are three yellow-bound spiral

   3   notebooks.

   4            THE COURT:  Have you discussed this with the

   5   government at all?

   6            MR. SCHMIDT:  I have given it to them, I have

   7   mentioned that I am going to call an expert, I have given them

   8   a stipulation.

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  If the expert will testify that the

  10   handwriting is Mr. El Hage or appears to be, we will not

  11   object to authentication and we can give it to the jury for

  12   what it is worth.

  13            THE COURT:  Are you representing that is what the

  14   expert will testify?

  15            MR. SCHMIDT:  He will testify that he has compared it

  16   to other documents offered in evidence and say that the

  17   handwriting is basically the same.

  18            THE COURT:  Is that sufficient?

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, Judge.

  20            THE COURT:  So I take it you will not call the

  21   handwriting expert.

  22            MR. FITZGERALD:  I do want the live testimony.  I

  23   want to ask questions.  If he testifies as to what Mr. Schmidt

  24   says, I will not at that point oppose an authentication

  25   testimony.


   1            THE COURT:  Is Mr. El Hage going to testify?

   2            MR. SCHMIDT:  He has no present intention of

   3   testifying.  There are other issues that I wanted to address

   4   now.

   5            THE COURT:  I am sorry.  No present intention?  What

   6   does that mean?

   7            MR. SCHMIDT:  That means --

   8            THE COURT:  You mean five minutes from now he may

   9   decide that he wants to testify?

  10            MR. SCHMIDT:  We haven't completed our case.

  11            THE COURT:  As I understand your case, there is no

  12   reason why it can't be completed.  You can't protract this for

  13   the simple sake of protracting a decision your client has to

  14   make.  We made it clear Thursday in your client's presence

  15   that this was something which has to be resolved.  We are now

  16   on El Hage's case.  There has already been an objection on

  17   behalf of Odeh that you are injecting matters with respect to

  18   El Hage in their case that prejudice them.  For what reason

  19   would you not be resting this morning?  You have some

  20   documents and you have a handwriting expert.  Then what else?

  21            MR. SCHMIDT:  Once I am done, your Honor, if Mr. El

  22   Hage remains in the position that he has informed me that he

  23   does not wish to testify, then we will rest.  All I am saying

  24   is that at the point where Mr. El Hage's irrevocable decision

  25   is made not to testify is where we rest, and not before.


   1            THE COURT:  All right, all right.  Assuming that El

   2   Hage rests, then we will call on the other defendants.

   3   Anything else?

   4            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, there are other issues that

   5   we need to address concerning some evidence.  I will address

   6   some of them and then Mr. Dratel will address some of the

   7   other ones.  There is testimony in the grand jury --

   8            THE COURT:  Let's not do that.  Let's break now so

   9   that we resolve the matter of the Yacone testimony and so we

  10   do not keep the jury waiting.

  11            MR. RUHNKE:  Your Honor, before we do that, the issue

  12   with respect to the Yacone testimony may depend on how we

  13   proceed today.  We had a letter this morning outlining four or

  14   five or six different ways on how the government might

  15   proceed.  I think it is fair to ask what does the government

  16   plan to do once the defense case ends, assuming it ends this

  17   morning, which I am assuming it will.

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  This letter was written early this

  19   morning.  Nothing has changed.  It is what it is.  I will wait

  20   to hear from you and we will respond.

  21            THE COURT:  Five minutes, gentlemen.  You have five

  22   minutes.  You may repair to wherever you want to repair but I

  23   think this is festering more than is appropriate.  Five minute

  24   recess.

  25            (Recess)


   1            THE COURT:  Who speaks for the defendants?

   2            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, I am speaking on behalf of

   3   the defendant Mohamed Odeh.  We object to the instruction as

   4   proposed.  Our position is that if the testimony was properly

   5   stricken the testimony should be stricken and no party is

   6   entitled to an explanation as to why evidence is stricken.

   7            THE COURT:  So you would be content with my simply

   8   saying to the jury that testimony is stricken.

   9            MR. RICCO:  On behalf of the defendant Mohamed Odeh,

  10   yes, your Honor, and part of that decision is based upon the

  11   fact that there is absolutely no unanimity from the defense as

  12   to what the court should do, and the simplest way to resolve

  13   it without duetting involved, in the interests of satisfying

  14   all the parties, including the government and the various

  15   defendants, is to simply strike it.  Your Honor, I am only

  16   speaking on behalf of Mr. Odeh, your Honor.

  17            THE COURT:  I understand, but while there is great

  18   persuasiveness to the position that you take, and I take it

  19   the government would prefer also, there are lots of arguments

  20   that we have yet to address with respect to what the

  21   government may or may not be able to argue in its summation

  22   based on other evidence and other statements, and all we are

  23   really doing now is telling the jury that certain testimony is

  24   stricken.  Anybody object to that?

  25            So what I would say, the testimony you heard last


   1   Monday from Special Agent Yacone as to the battles which took

   2   place in Mogadishu on October 3 and October 6, 1993, is

   3   stricken and you are to disregard it.  End of story.  Let's

   4   bring in the jury.

   5            MR. RUHNKE:  One additional matter, your Honor.

   6   Would you please have your clerk collect the notes and

   7   photograph of Agent Yacone that was provided to the jurors so

   8   that they don't have photograph and notes of the testimony.

   9            THE COURT:  We are not going to collect them.  I will

  10   say, and if you have taken notes you should strike this

  11   testimony.

  12            MR. RUHNKE:  Thank you, your Honor.

  13            THE COURT:  Mr. Schmidt, you should understand that

  14   after you have introduced your documents and after you have

  15   had your handwriting expert, I will ask you in open court

  16   whether there is anything further on behalf of El Hage and you

  17   will then have to respond to that.  Do you understand that?

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  I understand.  That is why I am raising

  19   this now.  There are certain issues involving some evidence

  20   and some stipulations that we need to resolve now before we

  21   bring the jury in so I can do that.

  22            THE COURT:  Before we bring the jury in?

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  Before we bring the jury in.

  24            THE COURT:  I thought the next order of business was

  25   your handwriting expert.


   1            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes, but --

   2            THE COURT:  Then we will recess after that.

   3            MR. SCHMIDT:  Thank you.

   4            THE COURT:  Procrastination can't be the order of the

   5   day.

   6            I have a lot of notes from the jurors.  I have

   7   requests with respect to notification of an employer that they

   8   will be sitting on Fridays.  A question whether they will be

   9   sitting May 25, Memorial Day weekend.  Somebody has a medical

  10   appointment on May 11, an appointment the juror has had for

  11   three months.  Or should I try to reschedule it.  I think we

  12   will encourage rescheduling.

  13            (Jury present)

  14            THE COURT:  Good morning, good morning.

  15            JURORS:  Good morning, your Honor.

  16            THE COURT:  I have a note somewhere that somebody had

  17   a problem on May 2.  Is that still a problem for anybody?  May

  18   2?  I think that was something long since resolved.

  19            Ladies and gentlemen, the testimony you heard last

  20   Monday from Special Agent Yacone as to battles which took

  21   place in Mogadishu on October 3 and October 6, 1993, is

  22   stricken, and you are instructed to disregard it.  Please, if

  23   you have been taking notes, please indicate in your notes that

  24   that testimony has been stricken.

  25            Mr. Schmidt, the defendant El Hage may call its next


   1   witness.

   2            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, we call Paul Osborn to the

   3   stand.

   4    PAUL A. OSBORN,

   5        called as a witness by the defense,

   6        having been duly sworn, testified as follows:


   8   BY MR. SCHMIDT:

   9   Q.  Mr. Osborn, could you move the microphone in front of you

  10   and lift it up so you don't have to bend so much.

  11            Mr. Osborn, can you tell us how you are employed.

  12   A.  I am self-employed.

  13   Q.  As what?

  14   A.  I am a forensic document examiner, more commonly termed a

  15   handwriting and typewriting identification expert.

  16   Q.  Could you tell us what that entails.

  17   A.  It entails the investigation and identification of most

  18   questioned document problems.  This includes the

  19   identification of signatures, handwriting, hand printing, the

  20   age of documents, restorations of obliterations, decipherment

  21   of the erasures, and other such questions.

  22   Q.  Decipherment, D-E-C-I-P-H-E-R-M-E-N-T?

  23   A.  Correct.

  24   Q.  What type of training and background do you have for that?

  25   A.  I received most of my training from Albert Diaz, who was


   1   my father, and through studies of books by both him and Albert

   2   S. Osborn, who was my grandfather in a pioneering field.

   3   Besides the four years of training that I received from Albert

   4   Diaz, I also underwent four years of study, taking written and

   5   oral tests sponsored by the American Society of Questioned

   6   Document Examiners.  This period of training was a requirement

   7   before being allowed to become a regular member in that

   8   society.  I have continued my training throughout the years

   9   for more than 40 years now by annual society conventions in

  10   various parts of the country of not only the American Society

  11   of Questioned Document Examiners but also the American Academy

  12   of Forensic Sciences.  I am a regular active member in the

  13   American Society of Questioned Document Examiners.  I was a

  14   past president from 1990 to 1992.  And I am a fellow in the

  15   American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

  16            In 1978, a certification board was set up by various

  17   groups throughout the country called the American Board of

  18   Forensic Document Examiners Incorporated.  It was actually set

  19   up for courts and for attorneys as guidelines for whom to turn

  20   to in our field of identification.  I became a member of that

  21   certification board, which requires renewal certification

  22   every five years, and have been certified since its inception

  23   in 1978.

  24   Q.  Have you been qualified to testify in courts in this state

  25   and in federal courts in other states?


   1   A.  Yes, sir.

   2   Q.  Can you tell us some of the courts that you have been

   3   qualified as an expert.

   4   A.  I have been qualified on more than 450 occasions, mostly

   5   in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and

   6   Connecticut.  I have been qualified in 18 other states as well

   7   as in Canada, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and one time in

   8   the Panama Canal zone.  I have been qualified in U.S.

   9   Attorney's -- U.S. Southern District Court on at least 10 or

  10   15 occasions over the years.

  11   Q.  Have you done work for both plaintiffs and defendants in

  12   civil cases and for law enforcement and for defendants in

  13   criminal cases?

  14   A.  Yes.  For a long time I did this work for the state police

  15   of New Jersey, and as a result appeared frequently for

  16   prosecutors' offices in New Jersey.  For the past 30 years I

  17   have been doing work for different district attorneys' offices

  18   and U.S. Attorney's Offices in the State of New York.  Most of

  19   the work that I have done has been for the prosecution, but I

  20   do work for defendants on occasion when my services are

  21   requested, and whoever comes to my office first gets my

  22   services.

  23   Q.  Were you retained by the defendant Wadih El Hage to --

  24   A.  Excuse me.

  25   Q.  Were you retained by the defendant Wadih El Hage through


   1   my office to review certain notepads and to give your

   2   professional opinion?

   3   A.  I was retained through you to conduct certain examinations

   4   of documents relative to this matter.

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, at this time I offer

   6   Mr. Osborn as an expert in forensic document examination.

   7            MR. FITZGERALD:  No objection.

   8            THE COURT:  Very well.

   9            (Continued on next page)


















   1   BY MR. SCHMIDT:

   2   Q.  Mr. Osborn, I'm going to bring up to you three notepads

   3   marked V 1, V 2, V 3, copies of those notepads, and a copy of

   4   a document marked V 5 that are photographic representations of

   5   the same notepads.

   6            MR. SCHMIDT:  If I may, your Honor?

   7            THE COURT:  Yes.

   8   BY MR. SCHMIDT:

   9   Q.  Mr. Osborn, I have given you both original documents,

  10   copies of documents, and a document that has additional

  11   markings on it.  Do you recognize those documents?

  12   A.  Yes, sir.  I recognize the photocopies.

  13   Q.  Do you recognize what the photo -- withdrawn.

  14            Where do you recognize the photocopies.

  15   A.  They were submitted to me by your office on April 10th,

  16   this year.

  17   Q.  And did you examine those photocopies and the photocopies

  18   of other documents?

  19   A.  Yes, sir.

  20   Q.  I'm going to show you what has been marked as Government

  21   Exhibit 636D, which is an original, not a copy, of another

  22   notepad.

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  If I may, your Honor.

  24   Q.  Did you receive other copies of notepads as well as the

  25   ones marked V 1, V 2 and V 3 for comparison purposes?


   1   A.  I'm sorry, you have lost me.

   2   Q.  Other than the documents marked V 1, V 2 and V 3, that's

   3   the orange notepads?

   4   A.  Yes, sir.

   5   Q.  Did you receive copies of other pads to compare the

   6   handwriting between those and the other set?

   7   A.  Actually, I received a total of 146 reproductions of

   8   sheets from notepads.  They were not marked other than given

   9   to me as bearing known exemplars of the individual.

  10   Q.  Looking at the blue pad in front of you -- the blue one,

  11   the small blue one in front of you, Mr. Osborn?

  12   A.  This book?

  13   Q.  Yes.  Looking at that one, if you could just open it up

  14   and take a look at some of the pages.

  15   A.  I have.

  16   Q.  Are those similar to the ones that you reviewed as for

  17   comparison purposes of the copies that have been marked V 1, 2

  18   and 3?

  19   A.  If the copies that I received included the pages in this,

  20   then, yes, I did examine this.

  21   Q.  Can you tell us what was the manner of your examination of

  22   the documents that were sent to you?

  23   A.  The purpose of my examination of these documents was to

  24   determine whether or not reproductions, 31 reproductions of

  25   pages from a notepad could be identified as having been done


   1   by the writer of the entries in all of the other notepads,

   2   copies of which had been received.

   3   Q.  Were you able to do that?

   4   A.  Yes, sir.

   5   Q.  How were you able to do that?

   6   A.  I first examined and compared with one another all of the

   7   entries in the known pages of notepad writings, the purpose

   8   being to determine whether or not they demonstrated various

   9   handwriting identities that were distinctive and were

  10   repetitious.

  11            An identification of handwriting is brought about by

  12   a combination of general and individual developed habits of a

  13   particular writer, and before going through each one of the

  14   questioned items I had to first determine what that person's

  15   writing habits were and what the normal slight variations of

  16   writing habits were by that person.

  17            No one writes exactly the same way each time like a

  18   rubber stamp impression.  Everybody has some normal variation

  19   and, of course, some people have a little bit more variation

  20   than others.

  21            In this particular case, it was determined that the

  22   writer had average to below average writing ability; that the

  23   general and individual character formations in many instances

  24   were quite distinctive and they were repetitious.

  25            I then examined and compared these known writing


   1   identities in all of the notepads, or copies of notepads, with

   2   the reproductions of pages from a questioned notepad, being 31

   3   pages in total.  I purposefully searched for any identities

   4   that were consistent with the known writings and searched for

   5   any identities in the questioned pages that were unexplainably

   6   different from the developed habits seen throughout the known

   7   writings.

   8            It was my conclusion, my qualified conclusion,

   9   following these examinations that the preponderance of writing

  10   in the 31 questioned sheets was done by the same individual as

  11   the writer of all of the other known specimens that were

  12   submitted to me.

  13            There were certain exceptions.  In one instance, the

  14   seventh reproduction marked Q7, I felt that the evidence

  15   clearly demonstrated that eight lines of entries, handwritten

  16   entries, were done by a different individual.

  17   Q.  Could you just --

  18   A.  There were three other pages which are numbered pages 17,

  19   18 and 20 which I felt the evidence did not allow any

  20   identification.

  21            I have indicated on each one of the pages that were

  22   attached to my brief report initials that are NI, which stand

  23   for "no identification," initials HPG, which stands for

  24   "highly probable as genuine," and initials PG, which stands

  25   for "probably genuine."


   1            The reason for these qualifications is twofold.

   2   Number one, I never examine the original documents, but

   3   copies, and it is important to examine original documents

   4   whenever possible.  Secondly, some of these pages have only a

   5   few lines of writing on them, limiting the amount of

   6   comparison with a known material to make an identification.

   7   So that in some instances where there was a great deal of

   8   writing, the problem of identification was relatively easy,

   9   and in others it was more difficult, and in some I felt no

  10   identification should be made.

  11            All of my conclusions are qualified because of the

  12   fact that I did not examine the original documents, but did

  13   examine what I consider good reproductions.

  14   Q.  Is it, then -- did you reach a conclusion as to the --

  15   withdrawn.

  16            Did you reach a conclusion as to the identity of the

  17   exhibits that have been marked as V 1, 2 and 3 compared to the

  18   other documents that were submitted to you with the exception

  19   of the few pages that you indicated?

  20   A.  Actually, there were more than two pages, but, yes.

  21   Q.  I said a few, the few that you mentioned.

  22   A.  Few, yes.

  23   Q.  What was that conclusion?

  24   A.  That they were done by the same individual.  It is highly

  25   probable or probable that they were done by the same


   1   individual.

   2   Q.  Just so we can show the jury an example of a few of the

   3   pages, if we can show on the screen --

   4            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, at this time I move V 1, V

   5   2 and V 3 into evidence.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  No objection.

   7            THE COURT:  Received.

   8            (Defendant El Hage Exhibits V1, V2 and V3 received in

   9   evidence)

  10            MR. SCHMIDT:  If we can show, for example, V 1-3 on

  11   the screen, please, and publish those to the jury.  The third

  12   page of that document, please.

  13            Make that a little darker.  Thank you.

  14            Now, can we just show on V 2, can we show page V

  15   2-17 -- excuse me, V 2-16 and 17, for example.  Can we show

  16   the next page.  Now we show V 20 and V 22.

  17            Can we go to V 3 now, and please show V 3-12, V 3-17.

  18            And I have no further questions for this witness.

  19            THE COURT:  Mr. Fitzpatrick.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, Judge.

  21            THE COURT:  Mr. Fitzgerald.

  22            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, I had a few questions of the

  23   witness.

  24            THE COURT:  Yes.



   1   BY MR. RICCO:

   2   Q.  Good morning, sir.

   3   A.  Good morning.

   4   Q.  You've been examining documents for over 40 years?

   5   A.  Yes, sir.

   6   Q.  During that time period you have examined documents at the

   7   request of law enforcement; isn't that correct?

   8   A.  Yes, sir.

   9   Q.  And I think that you've told us that you have been

  10   qualified as an expert in many courts, including this

  11   courthouse?

  12   A.  Yes, sir.

  13   Q.  I think that you told us that the field of forensic

  14   handwriting includes handwriting identification, right?

  15   A.  Yes.

  16   Q.  It also includes the age of documents?

  17   A.  When possible, yes.

  18   Q.  Can you explain to the jury what does that mean,

  19   determining the age of a document?

  20   A.  Well, frequently it is important to determine whether or

  21   not a document, let's say dated in 1980, was actually written,

  22   prepared in 1980 or whether it was prepared two years ago, and

  23   there are different types of evidence that can demonstrate

  24   whether or not a document is of its age or it was made up at

  25   some later time.


   1   Q.  How were you able to determine that, just generally?

   2   A.  Oh, there's a variety of things to look for.  Number one,

   3   in any handwriting or handprinting itself that might be on

   4   these documents, there may be character formations that a

   5   person used 20 years ago but doesn't use today.  The writing

   6   may demonstrate that the person doesn't have the physical

   7   ability to write as well today as he did 20 years ago.

   8            The paper is also important because many papers

   9   contain watermarks.  Many watermarks contain codes in the

  10   watermarks demonstrating the year that the paper was

  11   manufactured.  Now, when you get a, let's say a last will and

  12   testament that's dated in 1980 but the water mark shows that

  13   the paper was made in 1985, then there's something wrong with

  14   that.

  15   Q.  Okay.

  16   A.  Sometimes things can be differentiated and some ink

  17   chemists, which I am not, can determine the age of particular

  18   inks, especially inks that have certain ingredients in them

  19   where it is known what ingredients they are and when they were

  20   added to these inks.

  21   Q.  Now, I don't mean to cut you off, but I think what you are

  22   telling us is that scientists, like yourself, have various

  23   means of being able to determine the age of a document?

  24   A.  Sometimes.  Sometimes there's no evidence whatsoever to

  25   prove it.


   1   Q.  Okay.  But certainly the ability is there to try?

   2   A.  Yes, sir.

   3   Q.  Now, in your 40 years of experience, have you ever had the

   4   occasion to deal with the FBI?

   5   A.  Yes.

   6   Q.  And can you tell the jury whether or not the FBI has a

   7   handwriting identification unit?

   8   A.  Yes, they do.

   9   Q.  In fact, the FBI has one of the most state-of-the-art

  10   handwriting laboratories in the world; isn't that correct?

  11   A.  Well, it's certainly a very complete laboratory.  I do

  12   believe that they have -- well, the last time I heard, they

  13   had 21 different forensic document examiners as well as

  14   another fairly large group of experts who worked solely with

  15   the identification of checks, check forgeries.

  16   Q.  Okay.

  17            THE COURT:  Anything further, Mr. Ricco?

  18            MR. RICCO:  Yes, your Honor.  Yes.

  19            THE COURT:  You may proceed.

  20   BY MR. RICCO:

  21   Q.  With respect to handwriting identification, I think that

  22   what you told us is that what you look for is something called

  23   writing habits that the person whose writing that would use

  24   and that helps you detect the identity of the person's

  25   writing?


   1            THE COURT:  I'll see counsel and the reporter in the

   2   robing room.

   3            (Continued on next page)
























   1            (In the robing room)

   2            MR. RICCO:  Judge, I have two questions and I'll sit

   3   down.

   4            THE COURT:  What is your question?

   5            MR. RICCO:  I'm just going to ask him whether or not

   6   documents are capable of being -- if he has a number of

   7   documents, does that help him with his identification.  He

   8   probably will say "yes" and that will be it.

   9            (Continued on next page)


















   1            (In open court)

   2            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, I just have one or two more

   3   questions.

   4            THE COURT:  Yes.

   5   BY MR. RICCO:

   6   Q.  Oftentimes a document, a book, will have entries from

   7   multiple individuals; isn't that correct?

   8   A.  What's your question?

   9   Q.  I'm sorry.  Oftentimes when you are examining a document,

  10   it will have entries from multiple individuals; isn't that

  11   correct?

  12   A.  From multiple?

  13   Q.  Writers.

  14            THE COURT:  More than one person will --

  15   A.  In this instance, yes.

  16   Q.  And a part of your job will be to decipher whether or not

  17   the document has been written by one person or has entries

  18   from many different people; isn't that correct?

  19   A.  In this problem, yes.

  20   Q.  And that's part of the science that you are engaged in as

  21   a handwriting expert; isn't that correct?

  22   A.  Yes, sir.

  23   Q.  Now, my final question is this:  Is handwriting analysis

  24   and identification, is it something that's limited to the

  25   Western world, or are there handwriting experts who identify,


   1   for example, Arabic handwriting or handwriting in other

   2   languages?

   3   A.  There are.

   4            MR. RICCO:  I have no further questions.  Thank you

   5   very much, your Honor.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you, Judge.

   7            THE COURT:  Mr. Fitzgerald.



  10   Q.  Good morning, Mr. Osborn.

  11   A.  Good morning, sir.

  12   Q.  First of all, is it fair to say that you have analyzed

  13   other documents than the ones you have testified about here

  14   this morning?

  15   A.  That's correct.

  16   Q.  With regard to this case?

  17   A.  Yes.

  18   Q.  And with regard to the known exemplar or known examples of

  19   Mr. El Hage's writing, is that the blue book in front of you

  20   to your left that you worked from copies of?

  21   A.  I don't know because I was given no originals.  I was only

  22   given photocopies, and if the photocopies include these pages,

  23   yes, then --

  24   Q.  Just looking at that book, does that appear to be the

  25   original for the copy?


   1   A.  It seems to be similar, yes.

   2   Q.  And is there an exhibit sticker on that book?  Is there a

   3   yellow sticker on that book?

   4   A.  It's in a glassine case which reads 636D.

   5   Q.  Okay.  636D.  Thank you.

   6            Now, one of the things you mentioned you compare is

   7   you look for identities between known writing and questioned

   8   writing, correct?

   9   A.  Correct.

  10   Q.  So that if a person writes the word the same way, and if

  11   the word is written the same way in the two different

  12   documents, that makes it appear that the same person wrote

  13   both, correct?

  14   A.  Well, that's one of the things that's done, yes.

  15   Q.  And sometimes you can compare two words and you can

  16   determine from that that it looks like the same person did not

  17   write both because the words are written differently, correct?

  18   A.  If there are unexplainable differences present between two

  19   writings, then no identification should be made.

  20   Q.  Okay.  Let me just do a simple example.  I'm going to hand

  21   you a blank pad we've marked as Government Exhibit 445.  A

  22   blank yellow pad.  I'm just going to ask you to write three

  23   things in your own handwriting on that pad.

  24            The first thing is the word "pass," P-A-S-S, and if I

  25   could write it in script, lower case, no capital letters.


   1   A.  You want me to write the word "pass" in script, lower case

   2   letters, three times?

   3   Q.  No, once.

   4   A.  Once.

   5   Q.  Yes.

   6   A.  My own natural writing?

   7   Q.  Yes.

   8   A.  Of course, you realize I'm a little nervous up here and it

   9   may not be too natural.

  10   Q.  Do your best.

  11   A.  Yes, sir.

  12   Q.  And if you could skip a line and write the word "business"

  13   in script, lower case, in your own handwriting.  And then if

  14   you could skip a line and draw what is called an ampersand,

  15   A-M-P-E-R-S-A-N-D, which is a shorthand for the word "and,"

  16   just write an ampersand.

  17            We'll call that Government Exhibit 445.  If I could

  18   take that back from you for a moment.

  19            You wrote the word "ampersand."  If you could just

  20   draw an ampersand.

  21   A.  Oh, you mean you want me to make an ampersand.  I wrote

  22   out the word "ampersand."

  23   Q.  Okay.  Now if I could take that back for a moment.  I'm

  24   going to ask Mr. Francisco to place this on the Elmo, and from

  25   Government Exhibit 636D I would like to place first a


   1   particular page next to it for comparison purposes.

   2            If we could focus on the word "pass," which on 636D,

   3   which is the small notebook to the right, the second line

   4   down, where it appears to say "let him pass by."  If you could

   5   compare the word how "pass" is written on the second line --

   6   in fact, if we could move it right over next to the word

   7   "pass" with your handwriting, and tell us by examining the way

   8   the word pass is written if you can tell by that that --

   9   they're obviously two different authors, but how you come to

  10   that conclusion.

  11   A.  I don't understand your question.

  12   Q.  The word -- where you wrote "pass"?

  13   A.  Yes.

  14   Q.  The way you wrote "pass," how does it compare with the

  15   word "pass" written on the second line on the right?

  16   A.  The word "pass"?

  17   Q.  Yes.

  18   A.  It's quite different.

  19   Q.  Okay, and can you -- what is the most notable difference?

  20   A.  What?

  21   Q.  What is the most notable difference in the way the word

  22   "pass" is written on the right versus on the left?

  23   A.  Formations of the characters.

  24   Q.  Now if we could turn to the last page -- Mr. Francisco

  25   knows the page -- and we look at the word "business" and then


   1   ampersand.  I believe the word "business" is crossed out, but

   2   visible.

   3            If you look on the right side, third line from the

   4   bottom, the third line containing writing, do you see the word

   5   "business" in that crossed out line?

   6   A.  It's very blurry, but I see it.

   7   Q.  And how does that compare with the way you write the word

   8   "business"?

   9   A.  It's quite different.

  10   Q.  Okay.  And if you look at the first -- underneath the word

  11   71202219, the second line, at the end of the sentence there

  12   appears to be an ampersand, do you see that?

  13   A.  No, it's -- yes, I see it.

  14   Q.  And how does that ampersand compare with the ampersand you

  15   wrote?

  16   A.  It's quite different.

  17   Q.  And the one on the right was given to you as the known

  18   quantity of Mr. El Hage's writing, that's 636D?

  19   A.  I believe so.  A reproduction of it was.

  20   Q.  Okay.  Now let me approach you with what has been marked

  21   as Government Exhibit 611.  I'll approach you with 611 and

  22   611C, and I'll ask you if 611C appears to be a photocopy

  23   before testing of what is Government Exhibit 611.

  24   A.  It appears to be at a quick glance, yes.

  25            MR. FITZGERALD:  And now, your Honor, I would offer


   1   611C just as photocopy of 611 before testing?

   2            THE COURT:  Yes, received.

   3            (Government Exhibit 611C received in evidence)


   5   Q.  Now if I could take 611C and with the notebook, and I

   6   would like to display on the screen a comparison of the entry

   7   of the word "pass," P-A-S-S, from the blue notebook,

   8   Government Exhibit 636D, with a comparison of the word "pass"

   9   in 611C.  And we'll focus on the word "pass" the third line

  10   above the word "sincerely" on the bottom.  We're going to

  11   magnify both, and I ask you to compare the word "pass" on the

  12   item on the left and the item on the right and whether or not

  13   they compare.

  14   A.  They're very similar at a quick glance.

  15   Q.  I sorry?

  16   A.  At a quick glance, looking at them, they're very similar,

  17   those two particular words.

  18   Q.  Okay.  Would they appear to be written by the same author?

  19   A.  I wouldn't say.

  20   Q.  But they appear to be very similar?

  21   A.  Yes.

  22   Q.  Now if we could also display -- let me approach you with

  23   Government Exhibit 437 -- 437A, pardon me, and we'll display

  24   on the screen on the left 437A and on the right we'll go to

  25   that other page of Government Exhibit 636D and we'll focus on


   1   the word -- first focus on the word "business" -- I'm sorry,

   2   the ampersand, and on the left focus on the ampersand.  And

   3   how do they compare, sir?

   4   A.  They're basically quite similar.

   5   Q.  Now, sir, you have in front of you Government Exhibit --

   6   Defense Exhibit V 1, V 2 and V 3, correct, the exhibits that

   7   were received this morning?

   8   A.  Yes, sir.

   9   Q.  And those are the ones that, with exceptions you have

  10   noted, you determined to be written by the same author as the

  11   other El Hage notebook, correct?

  12   A.  Yes, sir.

  13   Q.  I would like to direct your attention to particular pages

  14   if you have in front of you page V 3-13, the 13th page of

  15   Exhibit V 3.

  16            Is that a page that you determined to be highly

  17   probably written by El Hage?

  18   A.  The one that I have marked Q13, yes.  I'm looking at the

  19   wrong page.

  20   Q.  Why don't you take your time and make sure we're looking

  21   at the right page.

  22   A.  You said it was marked Q13?

  23   Q.  No, I'm sorry, V 3.  The 13th page of V 3.  I don't think

  24   there's a Q noted on it.  It's one of the documents you put in

  25   this morning, was received this morning.


   1            Let me take a look at what you have.

   2   A.  I don't know which page it is.

   3   Q.  And hopefully the page I'm showing you corresponds to the

   4   page on the screen to your left.

   5   A.  Yes, it does.

   6   Q.  Is that one of the pages that you identified as being

   7   highly probably written by Wadih El Hage?

   8   A.  No.

   9   Q.  No.  Okay.

  10   A.  This was given to me as an exemplar, as a known specimen

  11   of one individual.

  12   Q.  Okay.  So, for your purposes of your analysis, you assumed

  13   that this page was written by Wadih El Hage?

  14   A.  Well, it was given to me as a known specimen.  I did not

  15   take for granted that every single entry on every page of 146

  16   pages was necessarily done by one individual, but that the

  17   preponderance of these pages contained the writing of the

  18   known writing of one person, and I used those specimens for

  19   comparison with the 31 pages that I previously referred to.

  20   Q.  Okay.  So at the bottom of that page, those entries,

  21   there's -- you see an "Albert," you will see something with a

  22   T-A-F-A and then something that says Ihab, I-H-A-B, Ali?

  23   A.  Yes, I see it.

  24   Q.  Those were what you understood to be Wadih El Hage's

  25   handwriting, correct?


   1   A.  Those were given to me as specimens, yes.

   2   Q.  And now I'll have one last question.  If you could look at

   3   the page you marked Q14?

   4   A.  Yes, sir.

   5   Q.  Is that a page that you determined to be highly probably

   6   written by Wadih El Hage?

   7   A.  Yes, sir.

   8   Q.  I ask you to look in the middle of the page.  There's an

   9   entry S-I-T-A-H.  Do you see that in the left?

  10   A.  Yes, I do.

  11   Q.  What do you see to the right of that?

  12   A.  I see figures.

  13   Q.  I ask you to compare those figures with Government Exhibit

  14   598 and see whether the numbers match up.  Just read out loud

  15   the numbers next to "Sitah."

  16   A.  Yes, sir.

  17   Q.  Could you just read them into the record, what the numbers

  18   are in the book?

  19   A.  They are the same numbers.

  20   Q.  873682505331?

  21   A.  Yes, sir.

  22            MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you.  Nothing further.

  23            THE COURT:  Anything further of this witness?

  24            MR. SCHMIDT:  No, your Honor.

  25            THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Osborn.  You may step


   1   down.

   2            THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

   3            (Witness excused)

   4            THE COURT:  Mr. Schmidt?

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  We need to deal with some issues, your

   6   Honor.

   7            THE COURT:  We'll take our midmorning recess at this

   8   point.

   9            (Jury not present)

  10            THE COURT:  Mr. Schmidt.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, there are two items or set

  12   of items that I wish to offer into evidence and, obviously,

  13   based on your Honor's prior rulings concerning authenticity, I

  14   wanted to raise before I offer them and state the basis of it.

  15            One is a set of documents that are the non-plain

  16   paper fax and two that may be plain paper faxes or copies

  17   thereof of documents relating to ZTS and Cycim dealings in

  18   1995 and I believe 1996.  Each one of these documents have a

  19   header from a fax machine that authenticates the date and time

  20   of the transmission of those documents.

  21            THE COURT:  What is the subject matter of the

  22   documents?

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  These are the business dealings

  24   concerning the tractors for Sudan that Mr. El Hage was

  25   negotiating in 1995 and 1996, and because of the facsimile


   1   notations on top, it is my belief that notwithstanding your

   2   Honor's order, that these documents are sufficiently

   3   authenticated to go to the jury in addition to all the other

   4   documents that came in related to the subject and other

   5   writings related to them.

   6            Before I obviously offered them, I wanted your

   7   Honor's approval because I did not want to offer them based on

   8   your Honor's last week ruling.

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, I'm objecting to the

  10   authentication since no one is authenticating them, and the

  11   reason I told Mr. Schmidt I'm objecting to that is that these

  12   materials were obtained last fall when there was a discovery

  13   order to turn over reverse discovery and we got not a single

  14   page and then we received documents maybe three weeks ago from

  15   the defense, and not knowing that they were not going to call

  16   a witness to authenticate them, we were left with a stack of

  17   documents we didn't know where it came from or what, if

  18   anything, to follow up on.

  19            THE COURT:  Are these documents being offered for the

  20   sole point of showing that Mr. El Hage was engaged, to the

  21   extent indicated by the documents, in commercial business

  22   affairs?

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  Well, I think there are a sufficient

  24   number of documents that relate to that.  The importance of

  25   these show the time frame of the communications, that is, 1995


   1   and 1996.  So, therefore, Mr. El Hage's contacts with people

   2   related to Bin Laden in 1995 and 1996 can be shown to be

   3   related also to the ongoing business activities.

   4            In the Grand Jury the government had questioned him a

   5   number of times about the dates and times of his contacts.  We

   6   are just trying to set forth --

   7            THE COURT:  They are being offered -- and please

   8   let's be very specific here because I don't want to be faced

   9   with a circumstance on which documents are received on one

  10   theory or for one purpose and then discover during closing

  11   argument some other argument is being made.

  12            Are these documents being offered for the sole

  13   purpose of showing that on the dates indicated Mr. El Hage was

  14   involved in commercial transactions reflected in the

  15   documents?

  16            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes, on behalf of Bin Laden's

  17   businesses.

  18            THE COURT:  These were faxed by -- is this a private

  19   fax or is this taken from a commercial fax?

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  The headings from these faxes indicate

  21   ZTS Trading's telephone number on the top.  They indicate also

  22   Mr. El Hage's telephone number.  It obviously says "from" and

  23   the phone number is Mr. El Hage's phone number that's in

  24   evidence.  So these are all documents that either went one

  25   direction or the other that were obtained through -- these are


   1   not all documents from ZTS.  These are also documents the

   2   government gave in discovery as well but are not putting

   3   through their discovery.

   4            THE COURT:  Is that the totality of what you wish to

   5   introduce?

   6            MR. SCHMIDT:  On those ones, yes.

   7            THE COURT:  Let me hear what else you want to

   8   introduce.

   9            MR. SCHMIDT:  The other, your Honor, is that upon

  10   further review of the Grand Jury testimony, the government

  11   questioned Mr. El Hage in the Grand Jury in September 1997

  12   concerning approximately $7,000 given by Bin Laden to him

  13   related to a project that Mr. El Hage described as an Al Eid

  14   Feast in Mombasa, and the government spent approximately four

  15   pages questioning him about that as if it was a ruse and not a

  16   reality, receiving that money --

  17            THE COURT:  Is that one of the perjury counts in the

  18   indictment?

  19            MR. SCHMIDT:  I do not --

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  No.

  21            MR. SCHMIDT:  -- believe it's a perjury count, but

  22   obviously the government is relying on the totality of the

  23   Grand Jury testimony to show that Mr. El Hage lied in general.

  24   That's the reason why your Honor has let in so much Grand Jury

  25   testimony in the first place.


   1            I wanted to offer a few photographs of indeed the

   2   slaughtering of the goats.  The photograph reflects a date of

   3   April 28, 1996.

   4            THE COURT:  What is it you are offering now?

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  Photographs.

   6            THE COURT:  You are offering photographs of goats?

   7            MR. SCHMIDT:  It's basically the slaughter that leads

   8   up to the feast of the Al Eid that the government questioned

   9   Mr. El Hage in the Grand Jury.  If your Honor recalls,

  10   during --

  11            THE COURT:  May I see photographs, please?

  12            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes.

  13            As your Honor recalls, during some of our discussions

  14   about whether the government contests that he's doing NGO

  15   activity or business activities, they said that he didn't, and

  16   it seemed to be part of your ruling to limit the amount of

  17   documents that came in.  In the Grand Jury the government made

  18   it very clear that they did dispute that he was doing some of

  19   this activity, and this reflects directly on that activity.

  20            What I will also note, your Honor, are the dates of

  21   those photographs, that obviously it's clear from the record

  22   that Mr. El Hage has been in the United States since September

  23   1997, that he testified in the Grand Jury about this activity

  24   the following day arriving in the United States.

  25            THE COURT:  Now, I want to be very clear here because


   1   I want to make a ruling and then I want to resolve these

   2   matters.  You have one set of documents designed to show that

   3   between 1995 and 1996, Mr. El Hage was engaged in a commercial

   4   transaction involving tractors.  Now you are offering these

   5   photographs.  Is that what is being offered?

   6            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes.

   7            THE COURT:  And these photographs are to show that

   8   animals were slaughtered behind a slate which says "Help

   9   Africa" and has a date 28-4-96, and that's being offered to

  10   show that Help Africa did engage in slaughtering of goats?

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Engaged in the project as testified to

  12   by Mr. El Hage.

  13            THE COURT:  But what this photograph shows is that

  14   goats were being slaughtered in front of a blackboard which

  15   says "Help Africa" and has a date.

  16            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes.

  17            THE COURT:  Okay.

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  And the evidence that it corroborates

  19   his testimony in the Grand Jury.

  20            THE COURT:  What else is it that you wish?

  21            MR. SCHMIDT:  Now Mr. Dratel is going to deal with

  22   the other issues.  I understand your Honor's rulings before.

  23   We're going to prepare a document with the exhibits that we

  24   would have offered but did not offer because of your Honor's

  25   ruling on authenticity, and we'll have that in short order.


   1            Thank you.

   2            THE COURT:  Mr. Dratel.

   3            MR. DRATEL:  Yes, your Honor, this is about

   4   stipulations.  There are two stipulations about which we're at

   5   odds with the government.  One is a question of matters that

   6   the government wishes to add to the stipulation.  In other

   7   words, they would condition their stipulation on certain

   8   information being -- it's about the cross-examination of

   9   Mr. Al-Fadhl and his denial of certain -- that he made certain

  10   statements to U.S. officials during his debriefings.

  11            THE COURT:  Yes.

  12            MR. DRATEL:  There are four in a stipulation that are

  13   in the statements that we would call the persons who debriefed

  14   him to establish those prior inconsistent statements, that he

  15   in fact did say something and he denied saying it.

  16            THE COURT:  Yes.

  17            MR. DRATEL:  The government wants to put in --

  18   there's one in particular that we are in disagreement on.  The

  19   government wants to put in other information that Mr. Al-Fadhl

  20   provided in the course of his debriefings that we believe is

  21   not a prior consistent statement that can be admissible for

  22   two reasons, one of which is it's not -- the testimony of an

  23   agent in that regard would be with respect to, did

  24   Mr. Al-Fadhl say X, and that would be it.  It's not a question

  25   of rehabilitation through some other statement, and Rule 801


   1   on prior consistent statements requires that the defendant

   2   have an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant -- I mean,

   3   the witness.  In this case, the statements that the government

   4   wants to put in were never the subject of either his direct or

   5   his cross-examination.  So we don't have that opportunity to

   6   cross-examine.  It doesn't fall under the rule for prior

   7   consistent statements.

   8            In addition, it's also at a time that we believe that

   9   he already had a motive to fabricate or exaggerate at that

  10   time.  So it wouldn't fall under 801.

  11            THE COURT:  So what you want to do is you want to

  12   introduce a stipulation that Al-Fadhl said X and the

  13   government is saying it will not stipulate to that unless it

  14   can also show that Al-Fadhl also said Y and Z.

  15            MR. DRATEL:  Correct.

  16            THE COURT:  Is that it?

  17            Okay.  All right.  I'm trying to get the totality of

  18   issues.

  19            MR. DRATEL:  Sure.  And by the way, also, just on

  20   that stipulation, one of the reasons that it is a stipulation

  21   is because of some CIPA issues.

  22            THE COURT:  Okay.

  23            MR. DRATEL:  And with respect to the other one is the

  24   Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, electronic surveillance

  25   conducted against Mr. El Hage August and September of 1998.


   1            THE COURT:  Yes.  This is a separate issue.

   2            MR. DRATEL:  This is a separate stipulation.  If your

   3   Honor wants me to read your Honor the stuff on the Al-Fadhl --

   4            THE COURT:  Just tell me what the issue is.

   5            MR. DRATEL:  The issue on the FISA stip is that we

   6   wanted a stipulation as to just the date parameters and the

   7   phone numbers and places that were the subject of the

   8   electronic surveillance in August and September of 1998

   9   following the bombing, about a month between the time of the

  10   bombing, essentially, and Mr. El Hage's arrest on September

  11   16.

  12            The government disputes the relevance of that.  The

  13   relevance is that -- and these are the tapes that have been

  14   destroyed so they're not available in terms of producing

  15   them -- is that there's no contact between Mr. El Hage and

  16   anyone in the conspiracy or anyone remotely related to the

  17   conspiracy and there is no discussion of anything

  18   incriminating in that conversation with respect to anything

  19   else.

  20            So our argument would just be that these wiretaps

  21   existed during that time period as further sort of coverage of

  22   Mr. El Hage's activity during that period.

  23            THE COURT:  Is that it?

  24            MR. DRATEL:  That's it.  Those are the issues.

  25            THE COURT:  There are the four issues.  The first


   1   issue is a set of documents which El Hage wishes to offer as

   2   evidence that in 1995 and 1996 he was engaged in business

   3   dealings with respect to tractors, and the government's

   4   objection is authenticity?

   5            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, we're not waiving the

   6   authenticity because it was a discovery violation.  Basically,

   7   your Honor, we kept pounding the table to say can we have

   8   discovery, we didn't get it, and then finally we get this

   9   dumped on us.

  10            THE COURT:  That's the only objection?

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  12            THE COURT:  If we adjourn the case for three months,

  13   three weeks, whatever it is, since these were sent by fax,

  14   some authentication would be available, right?

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, sir.  My argument would be they

  16   waived --

  17            THE COURT:  But the only reason why they are being

  18   offered, and the jury will be told that the only reason they

  19   are being offered, is as evidence that in 1995 and 1996 Mr. El

  20   Hage was engaged in business dealings with respect to

  21   tractors.

  22            I'll allow that.

  23            With respect to the photographs of Help Africa, first

  24   of all, there are two, four, seven photographs, and I take it

  25   one would be sufficient.


   1            MR. SCHMIDT:  Probably two, your Honor.  Two

   2   different kinds of things.

   3            THE COURT:  And they are to show that Help Africa in

   4   fact was engaged in the slaughtering of goats on those dates?

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  Not the slaughtering goats.  It was

   6   engaged in the festival of that particular date.

   7            THE COURT:  Maybe some Arab interpreter could come

   8   forward, please, and translate for me what is on the sign.

   9            The photograph shows what the photograph shows,

  10   right?

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, it would -- I understand

  12   it's not a direct statement of the festival.  We join that

  13   with Mr. El Hage's Grand Jury testimony and other documents

  14   that have been submitted.

  15            THE COURT:  Could you, sir, please read out loud for

  16   me what is written on this blackboard in Arabic?

  17            THE INTERPRETER:  "Help Africa, the Al Eid," which is

  18   the feast, "Al Eid sacrifices.  Kenya, Mombasa."

  19            MR. SCHMIDT:  I adopt the translation, your Honor, as

  20   part of the record.

  21            THE COURT:  All right.

  22            THE INTERPRETER:  Same thing on this one.

  23            THE COURT:  And these are going to be offered with no

  24   witness on the stand, and just being offered?

  25            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes.


   1            THE COURT:  Okay.

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, may I see the

   3   photographs?

   4            THE COURT:  Surely.

   5            May I see the stipulation that El Hage proposes?

   6            MR. DRATEL:  Yes, your Honor.  The particular parts

   7   in bold are the parts -- I think it's specifically number C --

   8            D?  D.  D, your Honor, is the one that we're in

   9   dispute over, in the bold.

  10            THE COURT:  The bold is what the government proposes

  11   be included?

  12            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.  Under D, the first sentence,

  13   that there were reports for September 24th that Mr. --

  14            THE COURT:  But what about A?  A, I have the first

  15   couple of sentences.

  16            MR. FITZGERALD:  I think we agreed on A in the bold.

  17            MR. DRATEL:  A we have agreed on.

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  The only dispute is in D.

  19            THE COURT:  Only dispute is in D.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  It breaks down to two sections, one

  21   being the first sentence, and in that regard I would note that

  22   E sets forth that Mr. Al-Fadhl was interviewed 23 times from

  23   September 6 and October 21.  Not including the first line of D

  24   makes it appear that the first time that Mr. Al-Fadhl talked

  25   about Wadih was October 21, and then to the extent that they


   1   point out inaccuracies in the description, it appears to

   2   lead -- could lead the jury to believe that Al-Fadhl did not

   3   describe the correct Wadih.

   4            Taking the first sentence, which describes him as a

   5   Lebanese with United States citizenship who worked at Taba

   6   Investment is fair, and then the latter part where he says the

   7   Wadih he knew traveled to the U.S. and Russia on unknown

   8   business fairly balances the statement that he was uncertain

   9   if Wadih served in Afghanistan.  And I think that it's in the

  10   interest of completeness, if were going to get a prior

  11   statement in, we should put a fair summary of it in.

  12            THE COURT:  I would allow it on the theory of

  13   completeness, and it seems to me the question comes down to

  14   whether it's one stipulation or two.

  15            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, if I may, the specific ones

  16   that are -- particularly the "Wadih traveled to the United

  17   States and Russia on unknown Bin Laden business," he never

  18   testified to that.

  19            THE COURT:  You're talking about D?

  20            MR. DRATEL:  Yes, that's not an identification, your

  21   Honor, that's a fact that he testified to that we had no

  22   opportunity to cross-examine Al-Fadhl on.  And I don't think

  23   there's any basis for that to come in.

  24            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, it's the same report.

  25            THE COURT:  I have ruled that for purposes of


   1   completion, if the latter part of D comes in, the government

   2   may introduce the first sentence of D.

   3            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, I'm sorry, your Honor,

   4   because we're not talking about the first sentence of D now.

   5            THE COURT:  I thought we were.

   6            MR. DRATEL:  We're talking about the last sentence of

   7   D right now.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  The first sentence was the fact that

   9   he mentioned him in September 24 and the last sentence was the

  10   one that he traveled to the U.S. and Russia, which

  11   counterbalances the fact that he did not know if he was in

  12   Afghanistan.

  13            THE COURT:  Yes.

  14            MR. DRATEL:  But your Honor --

  15            THE COURT:  That's my ruling.  That's my ruling.

  16            MR. DRATEL:  Well, what if we withdrew the

  17   Afghanistan part, would you withdraw the rest of that

  18   sentence?

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  I think that's misleading.

  20            MR. DRATEL:  Then, your Honor, then there's no basis

  21   for putting in travel to U.S. and Russia.  If we withdrew the

  22   part about he served in Afghanistan, Mr. Fitzgerald said the

  23   first part of that sentence was to rebut the second part of

  24   the sentence.

  25            THE COURT:  But the whole purpose is to make an


   1   argument that Mr. Al-Fadhl was confused as to his

   2   identification of El Hage or he had somebody else in mind or

   3   he didn't have sufficient opportunity.

   4            MR. DRATEL:  But, your Honor, if I may make the

   5   record, your Honor.  We're talking here about travel to the

   6   United States and Russia.  It has nothing to do with

   7   identification.  It's a description of conduct.  He never

   8   testified to that, so you can't put that in through a hearsay

   9   statement that's not in response to an inconsistent statement,

  10   number one, and number two is that that is not an

  11   identification of Mr. El Hage.  That is a description of

  12   conduct.  That has nothing to do with Wadih.

  13            THE COURT:  What purpose is going to be made of this

  14   in closing statement?

  15            MR. DRATEL:  In closing --

  16            THE COURT:  Why is this being offered for any purpose

  17   other than to say that Al-Fadhl's identification of El Hage is

  18   subject to question?

  19            MR. DRATEL:  But, your Honor, that does not -- I just

  20   wanted to -- that doesn't go to that.

  21            THE COURT:  You have your exception and my ruling is

  22   that if you wish to introduce the material not in bold face in

  23   the proposed stipulation, which we'll mark as Court Exhibit

  24   Roman I of today's date, I will, for purposes of completion,

  25   permit the government to introduce the fact that the


   1   statements appearing in bold type in D were also included in

   2   Mr. Al-Fadhl's report.

   3            That leaves the FISA, and the issue is the dates and

   4   telephone numbers.

   5            MR. FITZGERALD:  May I be heard just on the goats

   6   issue, which I never got to address?

   7            THE COURT:  Yes.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  I object to the goat pictures.

   9   First of all, if they are so critical, they don't prove who

  10   paid for the feast and prove the truth of his testimony, and

  11   if they were so critical, why didn't they comply with the

  12   discovery obligations?  Why are we finding out as the case

  13   closes?

  14            THE COURT:  They are going to be introduced.  There's

  15   going to be no witness, and if any argument is made based on

  16   those photographs which are not supported by those

  17   photographs, I will cut it off.

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  I have no intention other than doing

  19   that, but I want to respond to the government's constant claim

  20   about violation of the discovery.

  21            THE COURT:  No.  You may do that, but not now.  You

  22   may do that, but not now.  That has not been the basis of my

  23   ruling.  If you listen to my rulings, you will see that I'm

  24   not basing my rulings on the failure of the defendants to

  25   engage in appropriate reciprocal discovery.


   1            Now, with respect to the FISA, you want a stipulation

   2   which says what?  Is there a written stipulation?

   3            MR. DRATEL:  Yes, your Honor.

   4            THE COURT:  May I see it, please?

   5            (Pause)

   6            THE COURT:  Do you have a copy?

   7            MR. FITZGERALD:  I do have a copy, not the language

   8   of the stipulation.  I can tell you what the issue is.

   9            MR. DRATEL:  Here it is, your Honor.

  10            THE COURT:  Yes, what is the issue?

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, first of all, the data

  12   was lost due to an electronic glitch, but as we set forth in

  13   the pretrial motions, that was not an exculpatory wiretap.

  14   There were conversations on that wiretap, first, where Mr. El

  15   Hage, in response to the bombing, made a comment when he heard

  16   that his wife recognized someone from the embassy being killed

  17   who no more worked for her.  The son ran home excited, saying

  18   we saw on T.V. that Abu Abdallah was going to talk about doing

  19   something a few months ago.  They talked on the phone about

  20   making up codes so that people couldn't figure out what would

  21   be said.  They talked on the phone about evading surveillance.

  22            Now, because the wiretap was a new technology and the

  23   data was erased, we're not offering it.  What is the probative

  24   value of telling the jury that there is a wiretap that they

  25   hear nothing about?  I don't see what the probative value is


   1   and it's outweighed by the unfair prejudice.  The tapes are

   2   lost.  We're not using the inculpatory portion, but what is

   3   the relevance of saying there was a wiretap?

   4            THE COURT:  And the response to that is what?

   5            MR. DRATEL:  There's no contact with anybody related

   6   to this case.  All the conversations he's talking about are

   7   Mr. El Hage and his wife.  They're not inculpatory, your

   8   Honor.  He's taking out of context of a wide range of

   9   month-long conversations.

  10            THE COURT:  Are they exculpatory?

  11            MR. DRATEL:  We don't know because we never got the

  12   tapes.  What we got were summaries, so we don't know.  This is

  13   like, you know, we find out that the tapes in this case -- the

  14   tapes that are put in are missing, too.  We're at a distinct

  15   disadvantage.

  16            THE COURT:  The bottom line is you want to prove that

  17   there were recorded conversations between certain dates, the

  18   contents of which are not known to either party.

  19            MR. DRATEL:  The government knows because they made

  20   summaries, and one would -- and the agent listened.  One would

  21   assume that if the agent listened and he heard something that

  22   they could use against Mr. El Hage, that the agent would have

  23   written it down.

  24            THE COURT:  Yes.

  25            MR. DRATEL:  But we can't make the same assumption if


   1   it's exculpatory, that the agent would have written it down.

   2            THE COURT:  And you can call the agent to testify

   3   about his notes, about his summary, yes?

   4            MR. DRATEL:  We can call an agent as to what, he took

   5   notes?

   6            THE COURT:  You say there is some relevance to this,

   7   so let's try and find out what the underlying relevance is and

   8   then we can address the method by which it will be introduced.

   9   I understand what you are saying is --

  10            MR. DRATEL:  It's really a contact issue.  There is

  11   no contact with anyone related to the conspiracy in the case,

  12   no communications.

  13            THE COURT:  You want a stipulation that the

  14   government has -- that there is no evidence that electronic

  15   surveillance discloses during the period from X to Y any

  16   communication between El Hage and somebody else?

  17            MR. DRATEL:  Excuse me, your Honor?

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, there are two problems

  19   with that.  One is Mr. El Hage was wary of electronic

  20   surveillance.  Mrs. El Hage wrote in August '97 she assumed

  21   the phones were tapped.  They said it on that phone call.  So

  22   what would be obvious, any contact they would have would not

  23   be on that telephone.  And to say that electronic

  24   surveillance -- there is no proof in the record of any

  25   contact, we're not going to argue there is any contact.  They


   1   can argue an absence of proof, but to prove up there's a

   2   wiretap and not put the agents on to say what they heard I

   3   think is a serious --

   4            THE COURT:  Suppose, could you agree that during the

   5   period X to Y, there is no evidence by telephone conversations

   6   from those particular numbers, from El Hage to any alleged

   7   coconspirator?

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  But, your Honor, then we would want

   9   to put in, to balance it, that he acted as if he understood he

  10   was being listened to and watched.

  11            THE COURT:  You have that.  You have that in a

  12   recorded conversation between El Hage and April Ray in which

  13   she talks in code and they discuss the fact that they are

  14   subject to --

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  And they have before the jury that

  16   there is no evidence of any contact after the bombing with

  17   coconspirators.  They have that.  There's none in the record.

  18   They can argue it.  But if we're going to single out and say

  19   there's none, we should also bring out the fair point that

  20   they were wary of surveillance.

  21            THE COURT:  You can do that, but that's already in

  22   evidence.

  23            Mr. Dratel, a stipulation that between those

  24   particular dates, there is no evidence of communications on

  25   those identified telephone numbers between El Hage and any


   1   alleged coconspirators?

   2            MR. DRATEL:  One second.

   3            (Pause)

   4            MR. DRATEL:  If it would indicate that there was in

   5   fact electronic surveillance on the numbers, you are -- I

   6   think what your Honor said earlier, that there was electronic

   7   surveillance on those numbers, no evidence of communication.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  Why doesn't he put in the phone

   9   bills and just say, look at the phone bills, there's no calls

  10   to Afghanistan or anywhere else.  If he wants to put in

  11   there's no electronic surveillance, we should be fair and say

  12   that they said on the phone they're worried about

  13   surveillance.

  14            THE COURT:  Why don't you submit phone bills?

  15            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, it also has incomings as

  16   well.

  17            THE COURT:  Excuse me?

  18            MR. DRATEL:  Incoming would not be covered by

  19   telephone bills, but it would be covered by the wiretap.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  Judge, I admit we never thought of

  21   or never will argue that there was an incoming call from Usama

  22   Bin Laden to Wadih El Hage following the bombing and that the

  23   jury missed it because of the incoming calls.

  24            THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain the government's

  25   objection to this last item for a variety of reasons, one of


   1   which is the probative value is minimal and there were other

   2   means available to defendant El Hage, who has had vast

   3   resources in the preparation of this case and ample time to

   4   deal with the matter.

   5            So where we are, then, right, is you are going to

   6   introduce a set of documents, and they are going to be

   7   introduced for the purpose of showing that during 1995 and

   8   1996, El Hage was engaged in business dealings with respect to

   9   tractors, that two photographs of goat slaughter are going to

  10   be introduced, and defendant El Hage may read those portions

  11   of the stipulation which he wishes to read and the government

  12   will be able to read those portions which it believes are

  13   required by completeness, at which point all of that -- all of

  14   that will take, I would think, a maximum of ten minutes, at

  15   which point the defendant El Hage will either rest or will

  16   call a witness.

  17            MR. DRATEL:  We have other stipulations, your Honor,

  18   that we're in agreement on.  We have about, I think eight or

  19   nine other stipulations that we're in agreement on.  It won't

  20   take too long to read.

  21            There is one other stipulation that I was working on

  22   with Mr. Karas, but he's not here yet and it was -- I didn't

  23   think there was any problem with it, but he's not here.  We

  24   had discussed --

  25            THE COURT:  I will permit you to rest subject to


   1   that, subject to that and subject to that only.

   2            We'll take five minutes.

   3            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, may I just make one

   4   suggestion with respect to the stipulation on Al-Fadhl?

   5            THE COURT:  Yes.

   6            MR. DRATEL:  The statement "Wadih traveled to the

   7   U.S. and Russia on unknown Bin Laden business," and because

   8   801(d)(1), which talks about prior statement of witnesses,

   9   says that the declarant has to testify at the trial or hearing

  10   and be, and I'm quoting here, "subject to cross-examination

  11   concerning the statement," that he wasn't, that was not part

  12   of his testimony.  It was not.  So we would just ask to strike

  13   "unknown" and if it says "U.S. and Russia on Bin Laden

  14   business," that would be sufficient for us.

  15            THE COURT:  Appearing where?

  16            MR. DRATEL:  On the first line of the last page, your

  17   Honor, the second to the last page.  The last page of text

  18   there's a line for -- the page for signatures.

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  The witness wasn't imputing El Hage.

  20            THE COURT:  Yes, denied.  We'll take five minutes.

  21   That will be it.

  22            (Recess)





   1            THE COURT:  Just one other thing, Mr. Schmidt.  Out

   2   of an excess of caution, in the event El Hage rests without

   3   testifying, there is to be no statement made in front of the

   4   jury as to the reason why that is occurring.

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  I am sorry.  We are going to rest --

   6            THE COURT:  We are going to do what we have just

   7   agreed to.  It takes about 10 minutes.  It may take a little

   8   longer, but relatively speaking.  It will be done certainly

   9   before the afternoon recess.

  10            MR. SCHMIDT:  That is right.

  11            THE COURT:  Then I am going to call on you and either

  12   El Hage is going to rest or call a witness.  In the event that

  13   the decision is to rest and not call him, there is not to be

  14   any statement made as to why Mr. El Hage is not testifying.

  15            MR. SCHMIDT:  Certainly.

  16            THE COURT:  It wouldn't occur to you to do so.  I

  17   just want to make it clear that --

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  I understand that.  I don't see what

  19   possible reason I could give that would be valid under the

  20   circumstances.

  21            THE COURT:  I agree.  I agree.  No problem.  Let's

  22   bring in the jury.

  23            (Jury present)

  24            THE COURT:  A juror wants to know if she can keep a

  25   doctor's appointment May 11, 8:30.


   1            MR. COHN:  Your Honor, we may well be in

   2   deliberations by then.  You might want to suggest that maybe

   3   if you call the doctor they will squeeze her in somewhere else

   4   at an appropriate time so she doesn't have to wait another

   5   three months.

   6            THE COURT:  Friday, May 25, Memorial Day weekend, it

   7   is pretty safe we won't be sitting.

   8            MR. COHN:  Not on this phase anyway.

   9            (Jury present)

  10            THE COURT:  Mr. Schmidt.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, at this time I am offering

  12   into evidence P51 and P56, two photographs.  I would ask that

  13   they be entered into evidence and displayed to the jury.

  14            THE COURT:  P51 and P56, two photographs, are

  15   received in evidence and they may be displayed to the jury.

  16            (Defense Exhibits P51 and P56 received in evidence)

  17            MR. SCHMIDT:  These photographs also indicate, the

  18   translation of the Arabic is Eid festival, slaughtering,

  19   Kenya, Mombasa, and the date, although it is not clear on

  20   here, is 24/4/96, which would be April 28, 1996.

  21            At this time I also offer into evidence the following

  22   exhibits, all beginning with WEHX:  WW20A, 20B, 20E, WW31,

  23   WW34.  Very briefly, these documents cannot be displayed

  24   because some of them are very faded.  Some are facsimiles

  25   relating to correspondence between Cylim Import Export with


   1   ZTS Trading, S.R.O. in the Slovak Republic, relating to the

   2   purchase of tractors and parts that date October 1996, May

   3   1996, May 1996, October 1995, and they are between Mr. El Hage

   4   and representatives of ZTS Trading.

   5            THE COURT:  Received.

   6            (Defense Exhibits WEHXWW20A, 20B, 20E, WW31, WW34

   7   received in evidence)

   8            MR. SCHMIDT:  Mr. Dratel will read a few stipulations

   9   to the jury at this time.

  10            MR. DRATEL:  May I proceed, your Honor?

  11            THE COURT:  Yes.

  12            MR. DRATEL:  Thank you.  It is hereby stipulated and

  13   agreed by and between the United States of America by Mary Jo

  14   White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New

  15   York, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W.

  16   Butler, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and

  17   defendant Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his

  18   attorneys, as follows:

  19            1.  That if called as a witness a custodian of

  20   records for the nongovernmental organizations board for the

  21   Republic of Kenya would testify that the following document is

  22   a true and accurate copy of a certificate filed with and

  23   maintained by the Nongovernmental Organizations Board of the

  24   Republic of Kenya.  That is WEHX-WW5, dated December 14, 1995,

  25   the certificate of registration for Help Africa People, and if


   1   we could display that, please.  I would move that in evidence,

   2   your Honor.

   3            THE COURT:  Received.

   4            MR. SCHMIDT:  It is further agreed that the

   5   stipulation and may be received as a defense exhibit at trial,

   6   and it is WEHX-S4.

   7            (Defense Exhibits WEHXWW5 and WEHX-S4 received in

   8   evidence)

   9            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed by

  10   and between the United States of America by Mary Jo White,

  11   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

  12   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W. Butler,

  13   Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and defendant

  14   Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his attorneys, as

  15   follows:

  16            That if called as a witness, Special Agent Barry Bush

  17   of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States

  18   would testify that the chart designated as WEHX-M1 accurately

  19   reflects the room in which each document was recovered during

  20   the August 20, 1998 search of the offices of Mercy

  21   International Relief Agency, hereinafter Mercy International,

  22   at 100 Mufulo Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya, by Kenyan and United

  23   States law enforcement officials.

  24            2.  That, reading from left to right, the column

  25   labeled NY1 -- excuse me, your Honor.  I have the document.


   1   That reading from left to right the column labeled 1B number

   2   indicates the Bates stamp number assigned to each document as

   3   explained at paragraph 4 of the stipulation previously

   4   introduced in evidence as Government's Exhibit 154.

   5            3.  The column labeled K number, indicating the

   6   corresponding K number for the particular document, which

   7   items and/or documents some of which are also Government's

   8   Exhibits previously admitted in evidence, so labeled were

   9   submitted for forensic analysis by United States and/or Kenyan

  10   law enforcement officials.

  11            4.  The column labeled Q number indicates the

  12   corresponding Q number for the particular document, which

  13   items or documents, some of which are also government exhibits

  14   previously introduced in evidence so admitted by United States

  15   and/or Kenyan law enforcement officials.

  16            5.  The absence of any corresponding K or Q number

  17   indicates that the particular item or document was not

  18   submitted for forensic analysis by United States and/or Kenyan

  19   law enforcement officials.

  20            6.  The column labeled RM indicates the room in which

  21   the document or documents were found as explained in paragraph

  22   4 and 5 of the stipulation previously introduced in evidence

  23   as Government's Exhibit 154.

  24            7.  It is further stipulated and agreed that El Hage

  25   defense exhibit WEHX-M1 may be received in evidence as a


   1   defense exhibit at trial.

   2            8.  It is further agreed and stipulated that this

   3   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

   4   at trial.  That is WEHX-S5.

   5            THE COURT:  Received.

   6            (Defense Exhibits WEHX-M1 and WEHX-S5 received in

   7   evidence)

   8            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed by

   9   and between the United States of America, by Mary Jo White,

  10   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

  11   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W. Butler,

  12   Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and defendant

  13   Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his attorneys, as

  14   follows:

  15            1.  That if called as a witness, a custodian of

  16   records for the Department of State of the State of Arizona

  17   would testify that the following document is a true and

  18   accurate copy of a certificate filed with and maintained by

  19   the Department of State for the State of Arizona:  WEHX-WW16,

  20   dated June 21, 1989, a certificate of trade name for Al Binion

  21   Islamic Information Center.  If we could put WW16, please.  I

  22   move WW16 in evidence, your Honor.

  23            THE COURT:  Received.

  24            (Defense Exhibit WEHXWW16 received in evidence)

  25            MR. DRATEL:  2.  It is further stipulated and agreed


   1   that this stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense

   2   exhibit at trial.  This is WEHX-S6.

   3            THE COURT:  Received.

   4            MR. DRATEL:  Thank you.

   5            (Defense Exhibit WEHXS6 received in evidence)

   6            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed by

   7   and between the United States of America, by Mary Jo White,

   8   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

   9   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W. Butler,

  10   Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and defendant

  11   Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his attorneys, as

  12   follows:   That if called as a witness, a person with fluent

  13   in Arabic and English would testify that El Hage Defense

  14   Exhibit WEHXE-15-T is a fair and accurate translation of the

  15   chart depicted in the photograph of an interior wall of the

  16   Nairobi, Kenya offices of Mercy International Relief Agency

  17   located at 100 Mufulo Avenue, which photograph has previously

  18   been introduced in evidence as El Hage Defense Exhibit

  19   WEHXE15.  If we could show WEHXE15 and then if we could show

  20   WEHXE15T.

  21            (Mr. Dratel read to the jury from Defense Exhibit

  22   WEHXE15T)

  23            MR. DRATEL:  2.  It is further stipulated and agreed

  24   that WEHXE15T is received in evidence.

  25            3.  It is further stipulated and agreed that this


   1   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

   2   at trial.

   3            THE COURT:  Received.

   4            MR. DRATEL:  Thank you, your Honor.  This is WEHXS-7.

   5            (Defense Exhibits WEHXE15T and WEHXS7 received in

   6   evidence)

   7            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed by

   8   and between the United States of America, by Mary Jo White,

   9   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

  10   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, of counsel, and the defendants, by and

  11   with the consent of their attorneys, as follows:  That if

  12   called as witnesses, representatives of the United States

  13   government who interviewed Jamal Ahmed al Fadhl in September,

  14   October and November 1996 would testify that the interviews of

  15   Mr. Al Fadhl were conducted through a qualified Arab

  16   interpreter and their reports of those interviews state the

  17   following:

  18            A.  The reports for September 13, 1996, state that

  19   Mr. Al Fadhl told United States officials that he was a former

  20   colleague of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and that they had trained

  21   together.  The reports for October 22, 1996, state that Mr. Al

  22   Fadhl told United States officials that he had never actually

  23   seen World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.

  24            B.  The reports for September 13, 1996, state that

  25   Mr. Al Fadhl told United States officials that he traveled to


   1   the US in 1985 and 1986 for Islamic military training.

   2            C.  The reports for October 21, 1996, state that

   3   Mr. Al Fadhl told United States officials that he also used

   4   the money he stole from Mr. Bin Laden's companies to build a

   5   factory for his brother, and I will spell it, A-D-I-L, U-M-M,

   6   new word D-U-R-M-A-N, and that the factory is known as the,

   7   and I will spell again, A-B-U, new word, A-L dash

   8   M-U-W-A-F-F-A-Q, next word is oil, O-I-L, and press,

   9   P-R-E-S-S.

  10            D.  The reports for September 24, 1996, indicate that

  11   Mr. Al Fadhl provided United States officials with handwritten

  12   notes stating, among other things, that Usama Bin Laden's Taba

  13   Investment company in Khartoum, the Sudan, was managed by a

  14   Lebanese person who had United States citizenship.  The

  15   reports for October 21, 1996, state that Mr. Al Fadhl told

  16   United States officials that Wadih was a Lebanese individual

  17   who was apparently also a United States citizen, about 5 feet

  18   8 inches tall, with a large chest and almost blondish hair,

  19   and that he was over 45 years old but still youthful looking

  20   and that he had a good relationship with Mr. Bin Laden.  The

  21   same report indicates that Mr. Al Fadhl also told United

  22   States officials that Wadih traveled to the US and Russia on

  23   unknown Bin Laden business and that he was uncertain if Wadih

  24   served in Afghanistan.

  25            E.  United States officials' initial interviews of


   1   Mr. Al Fadhl included approximately 23 sessions from September

   2   6, 1996, through October 21, 1996.

   3            2.  It is further stipulated and agreed that this

   4   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

   5   at trial.  That is WEHX-S13.

   6            THE COURT:  Received.

   7            (Defense Exhibit WEHXS13 received in evidence)

   8            MR. DRATEL:  It is stipulated and agreed by and

   9   between the United States of America by Mary Jo White, United

  10   States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Patrick

  11   J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas, Paul W. Butler, Assistant

  12   United States Attorneys, of counsel, and the defendant Wadih

  13   El Hage, by and with the consent of his attorneys, as follows:

  14            1.  That none of the items seized during the August

  15   21, 1997, search of 1523 Fedha Estates, Nairobi, Kenya, the

  16   residence of Wadih El Hage, have been examined for fingerprint

  17   or other forensic analysis.

  18            It is further stipulated and agreed that this

  19   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

  20   at trial.  That is WEHX-S8.

  21            THE COURT:  Received.

  22            (Defense Exhibit WEHXS8 received in evidence)

  23            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed by

  24   and between the United States of America, by Mary Jo White,

  25   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,


   1   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas, Paul W. Butler,

   2   Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and the

   3   defendant Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his

   4   attorneys, as follows:

   5            That Wadih El Hage, his wife April and their six

   6   children departed Nairobi, Kenya, of September 20, 1997, on

   7   Saudi Air flight No. 448 at 5:45 a.m., local Nairobi time,

   8   which arrived later that day in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

   9            2.  That the El Hage family departed Jeddah, Saudi

  10   Arabia, on September 23, 1997, v. Saudi Air flight No. 21, at

  11   1:10 a.m., local Saudi time, arriving in New York later that

  12   day.

  13            3.  That the El Hage family was scheduled to continue

  14   to Dallas, Texas, that day, September 23, 1997, aboard Delta

  15   flight No. 381.

  16            4.  That Wadih El Hage informed representatives of

  17   the United States government of all the dates, flights, times

  18   and destinations listed above.

  19            5.  That upon arriving at John F. Kennedy

  20   International Airport in Queens, New York, on September 23,

  21   1997, the El Hage family was met by United States government

  22   officials.  Mr. El Hage was served with a subpoena to testify

  23   before a Southern District of New York grand jury the next

  24   day, September 24, 1997, and his wife April and their six

  25   children were taken to a hotel.


   1            6.  Mr. El Hage spent the next several hours with

   2   officials of the United States government.  Mr. El Hage was

   3   driven back to the hotel where his family had been taken for

   4   lodging, arriving before midnight.

   5            7.  Representatives of the United States government

   6   picked up Mr. El Hage at the hotel the next morning, September

   7   24, 1997, and he testified before the grand jury commencing

   8   that morning.

   9            8.  That in the morning hours of September 14, 1998,

  10   Mr. El Hage returned to Arlington, Texas, by car from a trip

  11   to Elgrove, California, where he along with his son had

  12   visited his mother who was visiting from Lebanon and his

  13   sister.  On the way back to Arlington, Mr. El Hage had stopped

  14   in Tucson, Arizona, to visit his mother-in-law Marion Brown.

  15            9.  The next day, September 17, 1998, Mr. El Hage was

  16   subpoenaed to testify again in the grand jury of the Southern

  17   District of New York.  Mr. El Hage flew to New York that

  18   afternoon where he was met by FBI agents.  He spent the next

  19   several hours in their company and was taken to a hotel for

  20   lodging at approximately 11 a.m. that evening.  The next day,

  21   September 18, 1998, Mr. El Hage testified again before the

  22   grand jury.

  23            11.  It is further stipulated and agreed that this

  24   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

  25   at trial.


   1            THE COURT:  Received.

   2            MR. DRATEL:  Thank you.  That is WEHX-S9.

   3            (Defense Exhibit WEHXS9 received in evidence)

   4            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by

   5   and between the United States of America by Mary Jo White, the

   6   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

   7   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W. Butler,

   8   Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and defendant

   9   Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his attorneys, as

  10   follows:

  11            1.  That if called as a witness an agent of the

  12   United States Federal Bureau of Investigation would testify

  13   that on November 14, 1998, Sikander Juma, when shown a

  14   photograph of Wadih El Hage, failed to identify Mr. El Hage

  15   from the photograph.

  16            2.  It is further stipulated and agreed that this

  17   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

  18   at trial.

  19            THE COURT:  Received.

  20            MR. DRATEL:  That is WEHX S10.

  21            (Defense Exhibit WEHXS10 received in evidence)

  22            THE COURT:  Anything further?

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes, your Honor.  Your Honor, at this

  24   time I am going to read another stipulation, WEHXS12.  It is

  25   hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the United States


   1   of America by Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney for

   2   the Southern District of New York, Patrick J. Fitzgerald,

   3   Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W. Butler, Assistant United States

   4   Attorneys, of counsel, and defendant Wadih El Hage, by and

   5   with the consent of his attorneys, as follows:

   6            That in July 1997, Yumico, Y-U-M-I-C-O, Abueilen,

   7   A-B-U-E-I-L-E-N, also known as Um Badr, U-M, B-A-D-R, and

   8   their four children, B-A-D-R, N-A-S-S-E-R, K-H-A-L-I-D and

   9   Suma, stayed at the home of Wadih el Hage and his family.

  10   Yumico Abueilen is the sister of April Ray, the wife of Wadih

  11   El Hage.

  12            2.  The Abueilen family resided in Qatar.  The

  13   children's father and Yumico's husband Atef Abueilen, also

  14   known as Abu Badr, remained in Qatar to work.  Abu Badr spoke

  15   with and consulted with Mr. El Hage during the family visit.

  16            3.  The documents designated as Grand Jury Exhibits

  17   36 and 36T during the testimony of Wadih El Hage in the grand

  18   jury on September 16, 1998, in Government's Exhibit 420C, a

  19   letter recovered from the offices of Mercy International

  20   Relief Agency, is a letter sent by facsimile to Atef Abu Badr

  21   by Wadih El Hage on July 14.

  22            At this time, your Honor, I just want to refer to --

  23   to place the letter that is now marked as Defense Exhibit

  24   WEHXWM42 and 42T, the translation, on the monitor and offer

  25   that into evidence.


   1            MR. FITZGERALD:  No objection.

   2            THE COURT:  Received.

   3            (Defense Exhibits WEHXWM42 and 42T received in

   4   evidence)

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  Now if we can have the translation.

   6            (Exhibit read)

   7            MR. SCHMIDT:  I also at this time would like to read

   8   from the grand jury testimony that was previously entered by

   9   the government.

  10            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, it has previously been

  11   read in evidence.

  12            THE COURT:  It has already been read?

  13            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  14            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes, your Honor.  It relates to this

  15   document.

  16            THE COURT:  How long is it?

  17            MR. SCHMIDT:  I am just going to read a very short

  18   part, about eight lines.

  19            THE COURT:  You may read it.

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  Thank you.

  21   BY MR. SCHMIDT:

  22   "Q.  Do you recognize the text of that letter in any way,

  23   shape or form?  Did you write that letter?

  24   "A.  No, I didn't.

  25   "Q.  Do you know what it meant when it says concerning the


   1   group I have to stay here until I get back so the color gets

   2   just like that of the locals and they get used to the rough

   3   African life?

   4   "A.  I don't know what that means.

   5   "Q.  Could it be that you were trying to get Usama Bin Laden's

   6   group into Kenya so they would blend in and fit in with the

   7   rest of the people?

   8   "A.  I don't know what's meant by that."

   9            4.  The reference to the group refers to the children

  10   of Yumico and Atef Abueilen.

  11            At this time, your Honor, I would like to display a

  12   photograph that was entered last week, P3, that had not yet

  13   been displayed to the jury.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  May I object for a moment.  I just

  15   want to see the photograph.

  16            MR. SCHMIDT:  Very well.

  17            MR. FITZGERALD:  Oh, no objection.

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  Please note the date that is difficult

  19   to read on this photograph, July 13, 1997.

  20            It is further stipulated and agreed that this

  21   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

  22   at trial, dated April 30, 2001, signed by Patrick Fitzgerald

  23   and Sam Schmidt, and I offer that into evidence.

  24            THE COURT:  Received.

  25            MR. DRATEL:  It is hereby stipulated and agreed by


   1   and between the United States of America by Mary Jo White,

   2   United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,

   3   Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas and Paul W. Butler,

   4   Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, and the

   5   defendant Wadih El Hage, by and with the consent of his

   6   attorneys, as follows:

   7            1.  That on September 23, 1998, the premises located

   8   at 94 Dewsbury Road, London, England, were searched by British

   9   law enforcement officials from New Scotland Yard and the

  10   following items among others were recovered:

  11            The first item is WEHX-L-GMW/1-159.  That is

  12   statement No. 1 dated April 10, 1994.

  13            WEHX-L-BM/4-119, that is dated September 13, 1994,

  14   entitled Saudi Arabia reveals its battle against Islam and its

  15   clergy.

  16            Next is WEHX-L-BM/4-117, dated September 16, 1994,

  17   entitled urgent letter to the security men.

  18            Next is WEHX-L-BM/4-115, dated September 19, 1994,

  19   entitled an important message to our brethren in the armed

  20   forces.

  21            Next is WEHX-L-BM/4-108, dated October 15, 1994,

  22   entitled the supreme council for damages.

  23            Last is WEHX-L-BM/1-140, entitled 1995, second

  24   report.

  25            2.  The following items with the suffix T are


   1   translations of the documents with the correspondence numbers

   2   without the suffix T.  They are WEHX-L-JMW/1-159-T;

   3   WEHX-L-BM/4-119-T; WEHX-L-BM/4-117-T.  WEHX-L-BM/4-115-T;

   4   WEHX-L-BM/4-108T; and WEHXL-GMW/1-163-T; WEHX-L-GMW/1-140-T;

   5   and WEHX-L-BM/4-81 and 82-T.

   6            3.  It is further stipulated and agreed that the

   7   government and the defendants are agreeing to the authenticity

   8   of the documents as specifically above and more generally in

   9   the preceding paragraph, and the government and the defense

  10   reserve the right to object to the admissibility of any

  11   particular item or the translation of same as each is offered.

  12   It is the purpose of this stipulation to avoid the necessity

  13   of calling and recalling multiple authentication witnesses at

  14   trial during the government and defense cases regarding the

  15   translations.  The parties stipulate that if called as a

  16   witness, a person fluent in Arabic and English would testify

  17   that the translations listed above are fair and accurate

  18   translations.

  19            4.  It is further stipulated and agreed that this

  20   stipulation may be received in evidence as a defense exhibit

  21   at trial.

  22            Your Honor, I would move the underlying documents

  23   listed in the stipulation in evidence.

  24            THE COURT:  Received.

  25            MR. DRATEL:  Thank you, your Honor.  The stipulation


   1   is WEHXS11.

   2            THE COURT:  Received.

   3            (Defense Exhibits WEHXS11 and exhibits described

   4   therein received in evidence)

   5            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, other than what we briefly

   6   mentioned, defendant rests.

   7            THE COURT:  Defendant El Hage rests?

   8            MR. SCHMIDT:  That is correct.

   9            THE COURT:  That is with the exception of a

  10   stipulation, Mr. Schmidt, which is in the process.

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  That was actually executed, Judge.

  12            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes.

  13            THE COURT:  I think it was just executed and read.

  14            MR. DRATEL:  Yes, we just did that one.  Mr. Schmidt

  15   was unaware.

  16            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, I think there is one

  17   possible outstanding one.

  18            THE COURT:  A stipulation which has already been

  19   discussed with the government?

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  It has been discussed but not

  21   concluded.

  22            THE COURT:  But no live testimony?

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  No additional live witnesses, that is

  24   correct.

  25            THE COURT:  Very well.  Mr. Cohn.


   1            MR. COHN:  Thank you, your Honor.  Your Honor, I have

   2   one, just one stipulation.  It is hereby stipulated and agreed

   3   by and between defendant Al-'Owhali, by and with the consent

   4   of his attorney and the United States of America by Mary Jo

   5   White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New

   6   York, Patrick Fitzgerald, Kenneth M. Karas, Paul W. Butler and

   7   Michael J. Garcia, of counsel, that:

   8            1.  Government's Exhibit 562 -- may we have that,

   9   flip the switch for us, please?  Thank you -- that

  10   Government's Exhibit 562 is the newspaper photograph which the

  11   witness Charles Mwaka Mula stated in August 1998 that he

  12   recognized as depicting the person that he saw emerge from the

  13   passenger side of the truck and begin throwing items the day

  14   of the embassy bombings.

  15            Further, it is stipulated that Government's Exhibit

  16   563 is the composite sketch prepared by an FBI agent based on

  17   the description provided by the witness Charles Mwaka Mula on

  18   August 11, 1998, of the individual he observed exiting the

  19   truck and throwing items on the day of the bombing.

  20            It is further stipulated and agreed that Government's

  21   Exhibits 562 and 560 may be received in evidence at trial --

  22   and, your Honor, I believe they already are in evidence.

  23            It is further stipulated and agreed that this

  24   stipulation may be received as evidence at trial, and this

  25   stipulation is marked Al-'Owhali L.


   1            THE COURT:  Received.

   2            (Defense Exhibit Al-'Owhali L received in evidence)

   3            MR. COHN:  Thank you, your Honor.  Defense rests.

   4            THE COURT:  Defense rests.

   5            MR. RUHNKE:  Your Honor, on behalf of Khalfan Khamis

   6   Mohamed, we rest on the present state of the record.

   7            THE COURT:  As you have heard, ladies and gentlemen,

   8   all the defendants have rested.  We will take a recess now

   9   until 1:30.  I hope your lunch -- make it 2:00.  We will take

  10   a recess until 2:00.

  11            (Jury excused)

  12            THE COURT:  If there is no objection, it is my

  13   present intent to allocute defendants Al-'Owhali, K.K.

  14   Mohammed and El Hage concerning their decision not to plead.

  15            MR. RUHNKE:  No objection.

  16            MR. COHN:  No objection.

  17            THE COURT:  Mr. Kenneally, will you place under oath

  18   or have those defendants affirm.  They may remain seated.

  19   Place them all under oath.  Mr. El Hage is fluent in English.

  20            (Defendant Wadih El Hage sworn)

  21            THE COURT:  Now Mr. Al-'Owhali.

  22            (Defendant Mohamed Al-'Owhali sworn)

  23            THE COURT:  Mr. Mohamed.

  24            (Defendant Khalfan Khamis Mohamed sworn)

  25            THE COURT:  The purpose of this proceeding is for it


   1   to be clear that you understand that under our system of

   2   criminal justice the defendant has the right, if he wishes, to

   3   take the stand and to testify.  If he takes the stand and

   4   testifies, he is treated as any other witness, that is, he is

   5   subject to cross-examination, and he cannot pick and choose

   6   what questions he does or does not answer on

   7   cross-examination.

   8            The defendant also has the right not to testify, and

   9   the jury is instructed that the defendant has a constitutional

  10   right not to testify and that no consideration may be given or

  11   adverse inference drawn by virtue of a defendant exercising

  12   his constitutional right not to testify.

  13            The decision whether or not to testify is a decision

  14   to be made by the defendant.  Although the defendant may

  15   receive advice from counsel concerning whether or not it is in

  16   his best interests to testify or not to testify, the ultimate

  17   decision whether or not to testify is one made by the

  18   defendant.

  19            Mr. El Hage, do you understand what I have just

  20   stated?

  21            DEFENDANT EL HAGE:  Yes, I do.

  22            THE COURT:  Understanding what I have just stated, is

  23   it your desire that you not testify in this proceeding?

  24            DEFENDANT EL HAGE:  Yes, it is.

  25            THE COURT:  Mr. Al-'Owhali, have you understood what


   1   I have just said?

   2            DEFENDANT AL-'OWHALI:  Yes.

   3            THE COURT:  Understanding that, is it your desire not

   4   to testify in these proceedings?

   5            DEFENDANT AL-'OWHALI:  Yes.

   6            THE COURT:  Mr. Mohamed, have you understood what the

   7   court has just said?

   8            DEFENDANT MOHAMED:  Yes.

   9            THE COURT:  Understanding that, is it your desire not

  10   to testify?

  11            DEFENDANT MOHAMED:  Yes.

  12            THE COURT:  All right, thank you.

  13            I have had the jury come back at 2, but I don't think

  14   we have any business for the jury this afternoon.

  15            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, there is one additional

  16   stipulation that was discussed via correspondence over the

  17   weekend with the government that we want to resolve.  If that

  18   stipulation is going to be admitted in evidence then we will

  19   want to read that stipulation.  Before your Honor leaves for

  20   lunch, maybe we can deal with that issue now.

  21            THE COURT:  Does the government have any further

  22   information as to whether it will or will not call a rebuttal

  23   witness?

  24            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, we will check the

  25   various status of matters over lunch.


   1            THE COURT:  So I should keep the jury.

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  Certainly there are some documents

   3   we are going to offer regardless that we can do after lunch.

   4            MR. SCHMIDT:  If the documents that we received today

   5   are the ones they are offering, we are going to have to

   6   discuss that matter because I know that we have an objection

   7   to a number of those documents.

   8            THE COURT:  Why don't we break now.  It is 12:30.

   9   Why don't we reconvene at 1:45, so that if there is anything

  10   for the court to take up, we will take it up at 1:45.

  11            Just one other thing.  I just want to respond to

  12   these inquiries from the jurors.  We will ask the jurors to

  13   cancel the May 11, 8:30 doctor's appointment and tell the jury

  14   that we will not be sitting on Friday, May 23.  Very well.  We

  15   are adjourned until 1:45.

  16            (Luncheon recess)











   1                  A F T E R N O O N   S E S S I O N

   2                             1:45 p.m.

   3            THE COURT:  Government have any more insight it can

   4   furnish with respect to the calling of a rebuttal witness?

   5            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, Judge.  I'll tell you where we

   6   stand right now.  On one issue, which is with regard to

   7   authenticating statements of Usama Bin Laden, my understanding

   8   is we're supposed to obtain a certified copy of an original

   9   tomorrow morning overseas and have it faxed to us.

  10            Put that to the side for the moment.  The effort to

  11   identify on short notice the location of the Marines who were

  12   in the hotel in Yemen hit a snag, and we thought that it was

  13   located in a certain warehouse, which they went to, and it's

  14   not there.  So they are still looking on that.  And similarly,

  15   the effort to locate the leaflet described in the letter this

  16   morning has not brought fruit.  We found evidence that there

  17   was a leaflet, but a description of it, not the leaflet

  18   itself.

  19            It's the government's present intention to push

  20   forward on those fronts but not to delay the proceedings.  If

  21   we get those documents tomorrow morning or if we find what we

  22   need, we would like to hold open the right to offer that, but

  23   given that experience tells us when we look for these things,

  24   sometimes it takes weeks to find, we don't want to delay the

  25   proceedings.


   1            What we do wish to offer are a number of documents

   2   and stipulations -- when I say "number," I mean a small

   3   number.  I think there are four corrected stipulations.  They

   4   are off the stipulation chart, a single document from a Mercy

   5   International search, a stipulation regarding the chemist's

   6   testimony which is being worked out with the Odeh defense

   7   team, a document which I believe is a stipulation with the El

   8   Hage defense team, and simply to offer the Grand Jury exhibits

   9   as a group.  And then we were seeking to call a Department of

  10   Defense witness to establish the time line of American

  11   casualties in Somalia to show that they predated July of 1993,

  12   and that witness is available today.

  13            THE COURT:  With respect to the casualties in

  14   Somalia, there is no claim, I take it, that all of those

  15   casualties are attributable to al Qaeda but are simply to show

  16   that American troops were sustaining casualties prior to --

  17            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, the Abdi House incident.

  18            THE COURT:  Okay.

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  It's a very limited offer, very

  20   discrete.

  21            THE COURT:  All right.

  22            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, as to that, the problem is

  23   that the nature of the casualties, I know a number of them

  24   involve car accidents, a number of them were a --

  25            THE COURT:  Don't they break it down to military and


   1   non-military?  Most military statistics draw that distinction.

   2            MR. SCHMIDT:  But the issue, then, your Honor, is

   3   that now it leaves -- puts in casualties that are located in

   4   different areas unrelated to anything that is going on.  We

   5   need the information that -- more information, not just of the

   6   casualties, but information about it so we can take a look at

   7   it and see what our objections are.

   8            THE COURT:  My understanding of this is that we

   9   are -- and what the government has just said is that we're

  10   dealing here solely with the claim that anti-American

  11   sentiment in Somalia which manifested itself in the infliction

  12   of casualties on American troops did not begin until there was

  13   this popular response to the attack on Abdi House.  And if

  14   that is what we have referred to by shorthand as the temporal

  15   defense, and if that is a defense, I don't see why the

  16   government isn't free to show that in fact American troops

  17   were sustaining significant casualties prior to that event.

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  The argument, your Honor, wasn't of all

  19   of Somalia, it was relating to the attacks in Mogadishu which

  20   was the subject of the government's evidence.  The

  21   government's evidence all throughout the case during our

  22   discussions were related to attacks in southern Mogadishu.  We

  23   were addressing the issue about the attacks in southern

  24   Mogadishu.

  25            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, if that's so, then


   1   Dr. Samatar's testimony with respect to the Abdi House should

   2   be stricken because it is defendant Odeh's position that the

   3   premise that the Court is operating on as advanced by

   4   Mr. Schmidt is not factually correct and it's certainly not a

   5   position that we intend to advance to the jury.

   6            And if Mr. Schmidt is taking the position that that

   7   evidence was introduced for the purposes of responding to the

   8   18 casualties, then perhaps the remedy would be to strike that

   9   portion of Dr. Samatar's testimony as relating to the Abdi

  10   House.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Not related only to the 18 casualties

  12   as testified to by the agent, it's also related to the

  13   testimony of Kherchtou relating to the events in Mogadishu as

  14   related to him by Harun and Abu Mohamed.  So if we are able to

  15   eliminate that testimony, we might be in a position that we

  16   would not need the Abdi House issue.  However, we can't

  17   eliminate that testimony as part of the case for the

  18   government.

  19            THE COURT:  In answer to what Mr. Ricco says, I don't

  20   think it's the Court's role to judge the persuasiveness of a

  21   claimed defense, and so that unless there is an agreement that

  22   that defense is not going to be asserted, which I take it is

  23   not the case, I can't say that the government can't refuse.

  24            MR. RICCO:  Judge, I'm making a 403 argument on

  25   behalf of Mr. Odeh, and the prejudicial testimony that the


   1   jury is going to hear is about casualties that have no other

   2   connection to him in this case other than the defense raised

   3   by his codefendant.  That defense prejudices Mr. Odeh and

   4   because of that, we would ask the Court to either strike that

   5   portion of Dr. Samatar's testimony or grant Mr. Odeh a

   6   severance because that defense, no matter how much merit it

   7   does or does not have, it is about to have the effect of

   8   allowing in extremely prejudicial evidence that would not

   9   otherwise be in this case.

  10            THE COURT:  I think to refute --

  11            MR. RICCO:  One other point --

  12            THE COURT:  I don't see a lot of blood being strewn

  13   around the courtroom.  As I understand it, the government is

  14   proposing that it offer what it calls a timeline to show the

  15   period of time during which American troops in Somalia were

  16   sustaining casualties, and it seems to me that that's very

  17   brief and very statistical in nature.

  18            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, if the Court would not grant

  19   Odeh's --

  20            THE COURT:  Tell me, what portion of Dr. Samatar's

  21   testimony would you have the Court strike?

  22            MR. RICCO:  The portion that dealt with the Abdi

  23   House.

  24            THE COURT:  That was the whole raison d'etat for his

  25   being called.


   1            MR. RICCO:  Judge, I've gone through the testimony,

   2   and a very small portion of his testimony goes to the Abdi

   3   House.  A great deal of his testimony goes to matters outside

   4   the Abdi House.  And I would take the position, your Honor, if

   5   the Court is going to allow this evidence in over our

   6   objection and our request for the striking the testimony and

   7   the severance, then I would request that the Court -- when

   8   this evidence comes in, that the jury is given an instruction

   9   and the instruction is that this evidence is coming in as

  10   against Mr. El Hage for the purposes of the defenses that he's

  11   advancing in the case.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with

  12   our case.

  13            THE COURT:  I don't know that that is the wording

  14   that I would use, but I think maybe something along those

  15   lines might be appropriate.

  16            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, if they --

  17            THE COURT:  Is El Hage willing to stipulate to the

  18   fact that Americans were sustaining significant casualties in

  19   military action in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia prior to

  20   the attack on Abdi House?

  21            MR. SCHMIDT:  Correct, your Honor.  That's the

  22   problem.  My testimony relating to the Abdi House did not have

  23   to do with the casualties that occurred outside of southern

  24   Mogadishu.  It was in direct response to the testimony of the

  25   helicopter pilot and testimony of Kherchtou concerning


   1   Mogadishu.  I am not going to argue any timeline issue as to

   2   any anti-American activity outside Mogadishu.  Now, with the

   3   stricken testimony of the pilot, I'm only dealing with the

   4   statements made by Harun and Abu Mohamed to Kherchtou as to

   5   what they did in Mogadishu.  That's how it now is limited.

   6            So if there is no testimony by the helicopter pilot

   7   and no later testimony brought out concerning Mogadishu and

   8   Harun and them, then it would not be an issue.  I am not

   9   talking about a timeline for all of Somalia.  We were talking

  10   about the Mogadishu issue, period.

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, that's not true.  The

  12   testimony from Al-Fadhl was that the military commander went

  13   to Somalia and indicated they wanted to work with the Somali

  14   tribes to end up fighting the U.S. and they started off to try

  15   and maybe eventually do something big.

  16            Our offer of proof wasn't limited to Mogadishu.

  17   Clearly Yacone's testimony was focused on that event, but that

  18   was stricken.  Mr. Schmidt can't now pick and say, well, I'm

  19   not only dealing with Mogadishu, which has been struck.

  20            The fact is that we have in the overt act in the

  21   indictment that al Qaeda sent trainers to Somalia -- not to

  22   Mogadishu, to Somalia -- and there were casualties occurring

  23   against American troops in Somalia beginning in January 1993

  24   if not the month before.  The most casualties were in October

  25   1993, but I think that should be established so we have a fair


   1   time line.  Those casualties are in Mogadishu and elsewhere.

   2            THE COURT:  Do your casualties figures have any

   3   regional description where in Somalia this took place?

   4            MR. FITZGERALD:  They don't, your Honor.  I know that

   5   there are two underlying -- well, you can figure out four

   6   underlying events, I believe, seven fatal incidents.  One is

   7   obviously the Mogadishu airport attack and one is the mortar

   8   attack.  One was a soldier killed in Mogadishu January of

   9   1993, and one from a report was a different area of Somalia,

  10   Belet Ven, in I think later January 1933.

  11            THE COURT:  I guess one question --

  12            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor struck the testimony of the

  13   helicopter pilot in relation to --

  14            THE COURT:  October 3rd and 6th in Mogadishu.

  15            MR. SCHMIDT:  Because there was no apparent

  16   connection to anything done by members of al Qaeda or the

  17   conspiracy.  The testimony or the casualties that the

  18   government is offering now to prove has also -- there is no

  19   connection to the conduct of al Qaeda or the conspiracy.  The

  20   government argument is training, and that's what we were

  21   always prepared to fight, training.

  22            THE COURT:  Yes, but I understood, and I repeated it

  23   over and over again and asked you whether that was it, and you

  24   usually equivocate and say, well, that's part of it, but the

  25   part of it was that training -- understand training is the


   1   heart of the government's contentions with respect to Somalia.

   2   Training of Somalis.  But not to be regarded as anti-American

   3   or in furtherance of a goal to kill Americans prior to the

   4   Abdi House attack, that it was only after that took place that

   5   one could say that the overwhelming sentiment in Somalia was

   6   anti-American.

   7            Now, if that's the contention, then the government is

   8   entitled to show that long before the Abdi attack, the

   9   sentiment in Somalia was such that American troops were

  10   sustaining significant casualties.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, you used the word

  12   "significant."  First of all, I think the government indicated

  13   something like six was the number.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  There were seven incidents resulting

  15   in fatalities during the entire time frame.  That's

  16   significant.  He wants to ignore the ones before July 1993 and

  17   just focus on the ones afterwards.

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  No, I don't want to do that.

  19            THE COURT:  Do you want to stipulate to all of this?

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  We tried to stipulate earlier on.

  21            THE COURT:  Maybe you should try again.  I understand

  22   that there is --

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor --

  24            THE COURT:  Let me finish the sentence.

  25            -- the apprehension on the part of the other


   1   defendants to the fact that, in rebuttal to an argument, the

   2   factual basis for which is extremely problematic, the case is

   3   going to end with American servicemen being killed, and I can

   4   understand that, but it seems to me if that is an argument

   5   which is going to be made and which has any colorable factual

   6   basis, the government has to be allowed to refute it.

   7            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, as I indicated to your

   8   Honor how the issues were not that simple, I am not saying

   9   that there was no anti-American sentiment in all of Somalia

  10   prior to the Abdi House.  It was related to the change that

  11   occurred after Abdi House that led to the great number of

  12   casualties in Mogadishu.  That was the direct need as to the

  13   Abdi House.  It changed.

  14            As the witness testified, it became a war between

  15   Aideed and the Americans over there.  I am not claiming, and I

  16   will not get up there and claim, that there was no

  17   anti-American sentiment in Somalia during that period of time.

  18   And I'm willing to be bound by that.

  19            THE COURT:  And therefore, the statements of Harun

  20   and others that they were engaged in training of Somalians is

  21   relevant to the government's claim that this was part of the

  22   conspiracy to kill Americans.

  23            MR. SCHMIDT:  That's right.  And that's in.  Their

  24   testimony isn't quite as your Honor indicated, but that Harun

  25   and Abu Mohamed and Abu Hafs have made those statements, and


   1   I'm absolutely willing to deal with those statements on a

   2   level playing field.  I'm looking to prevent the complication

   3   issue of the nature of the casualties, the location of the

   4   casualties --

   5            MR. FITZGERALD:  And, your Honor --

   6            MR. SCHMIDT:  -- the connection to the casualties

   7   being brought at the last minute now.  But I am easily ready

   8   to deal with the Harun statements and the Bin Laden statements

   9   and Abu Hafs statements.  That is not a problem.  I am not

  10   looking to change that part of the argument, nor am I looking

  11   to make an argument that there was no anti-American feeling in

  12   Somalia at the time.  So of course it couldn't have been

  13   anybody who did it.  Obviously there was an anti-American

  14   feeling in Somalia at the time and I'm not saying that there

  15   isn't.  There was a change and it was necessary by the

  16   government's case and not mine.

  17            THE COURT:  I think that we've really gone as far as

  18   we can go with this issue at this time and that maybe tomorrow

  19   before the jury comes in we'll have a further offer of proof

  20   of what it is that the government plans to show, and I suggest

  21   some serious soul searching on the part of counsel for El Hage

  22   and others whether it is in the interests of any defendant --

  23   the interests of any defendant -- to raise what we have called

  24   the temporal argument, which I now understand is to be the

  25   temporal Mogadishu argument.


   1            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, may I make a suggestion?

   2            THE COURT:  Surely.

   3            MR. FITZGERALD:  Not to quote you back, but with

   4   Somalia, if you put it off until tomorrow, it's going to be

   5   put off until the day off after.  Why don't we just deal with

   6   it now.  It's a moving target.  We can't address it anymore

   7   because every time we try and address it, something else comes

   8   up.

   9            THE COURT:  I will allow a government witness to

  10   testify that American troops in Somalia sustained casualties

  11   resulting from military causes during the period beginning X

  12   and ending Y.  What is the date of the Abdi House?

  13            MR. DRATEL:  July 12, 1993.

  14            THE COURT:  July?

  15            MR. DRATEL:  July, your Honor, yes.  July 12.

  16            THE COURT:  Now, is there a pattern?  Is there an

  17   escalation or --

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  There is.  Certainly there is an

  19   escalation in the number of fatalities, and the incidents are,

  20   I believe, two in January, one in March, one in August, one in

  21   September and two in October.

  22            THE COURT:  And that's it?

  23            MR. FITZGERALD:  Those are the incidents resulting in

  24   deaths.

  25            THE COURT:  But that's the totality of the


   1   government's proof?

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, it depends on where

   3   we're going.  I don't know what the defense is going to get

   4   into.  There are other incidents involving injuries.  We're

   5   trying to make it simple.  But that's the nature of the proof.

   6   We're not going to put up --

   7            THE COURT:  There's going to be no testimony as to

   8   the nature of the events or the nature of the injuries

   9   sustained and so on?

  10            MR. FITZGERALD:  Unless defense counsel want to

  11   explore that.  There were people shot in the head, there are

  12   land mines, there are different incidents.  We weren't going

  13   to get into that.

  14            MR. COHN:  I have to say, your Honor, I thought the

  15   government said they were going to offer evidence of

  16   fatalities as opposed to casualties.

  17            MR. FITZGERALD:  That was the --

  18            MR. COHN:  I thought the Court had said casualties

  19   and I would like that ventilated.

  20            THE COURT:  Casualties does not necessarily limit it

  21   to fatalities.

  22            MR. COHN:  I want to find out whether it was

  23   limiting.  I didn't know what the Court meant.  Obviously we

  24   think that they can -- their proof is that there were

  25   casualties.  That's what their proof is so far, that Fadhl and


   1   others said there were casualties.  I don't know why you have

   2   to say that they were fatalities.

   3            MR. FITZGERALD:  I was trying to keep it simple.

   4   We'll put up -- there's hundreds of casualties.  Every time I

   5   try and take some gore out of the case I get gored.  We wanted

   6   to prove up that there were hostile actions against American

   7   troops.  If we want to go down the road of charting all the

   8   injuries, we can go down that road.

   9            THE COURT:  I think that's the road we don't want to

  10   take.

  11            MR. RUHNKE:  Your Honor, I have not had an

  12   opportunity to voice our view on the situation.  Since there

  13   are different positions on the defense, I can't react -- I

  14   can't rely on the general rule of adopting.  Under 401 or 403

  15   basis, we object to this evidence.  It's not a rebutting of

  16   certainly anything we have done in our case, and I think your

  17   Honor should entertain or tell the jury that this evidence is

  18   being brought in only to rebut matters that were put before

  19   the jury in the defense of El Hage and should not be

  20   considered as to any other defendant.

  21            THE COURT:  That's what Mr. Ricco suggested, and as I

  22   said, I think there is considerable persuasiveness to it.  If

  23   one defendant and only one defendant is advancing a particular

  24   contention and the evidence is admissible solely to rebut that

  25   contention, I think there is a basis to advise the jury of


   1   that.

   2            MR. RUHNKE:  To state my objection fully, what I am

   3   concerned about and what worries me is having this spill over

   4   into a potential penalty phase and having a jury consider and

   5   thinking about dead American soldiers that my client is not

   6   charged with being involved in, had no allegation whatsoever

   7   that he had any involvement in it whatsoever, and that the

   8   jury is going to be asked to compartmentalize this evidence to

   9   one defendant.  So I object to it on Constitutional grounds as

  10   well as on 401 and 403 grounds.

  11            THE COURT:  Mr. Schmidt, do you --

  12            MR. SCHMIDT:  For the --

  13            THE COURT:  Let me say something.  Do you object to

  14   an instruction to the jury to the following effect:

  15            The jury is about to hear some testimony presented by

  16   a government witness which deals with the period of time

  17   during which casualties were sustained by United States

  18   military personnel in Somalia.  This testimony is being

  19   offered and you may consider it only in connection with any

  20   defense contention that efforts made by al Qaeda and its

  21   representatives to train Somali troops took place at a time in

  22   which such efforts cannot be characterized as being made

  23   pursuant to a conspiracy to kill Americans.

  24            Would you read that back?

  25            (Record read)


   1            THE COURT:  Would you object to that?  Obviously it

   2   requires a little polishing, but the substance of that, do you

   3   object to that?

   4            MR. SCHMIDT:  One, I would eliminate "troops," but

   5   no, I have no objection.  You said "Somali troops," and it's

   6   not Somali troops.  You used the word "train Somali troops."

   7            THE COURT:  Somali --

   8            MR. SCHMIDT:  It's Somalis.

   9            THE COURT:  Somalis.

  10            MR. SCHMIDT:  I have no objection to that.

  11            MR. COHN:  Can I just say something, your Honor?

  12            MR. SCHMIDT:  If I may, I object.  I still have my

  13   objection to the need for casualties that are not connected

  14   to, obviously, al Qaeda but --

  15            THE COURT:  But I attempt to do that in that

  16   sentence.

  17            MR. SCHMIDT:  That coming out, yes, I would accept

  18   that stipulation -- excuse me, that instruction.

  19            MR. COHN:  Your Honor, just to make our position

  20   clear and to voice the troubles.  I join Mr. Ruhnke's position

  21   as announced, but there seems to be no real record in issue

  22   that this all stems from the joinder that started in the

  23   beginning that started this case down this path, and what

  24   happens in a case where you have disparate people joined is

  25   that there is always this notion -- and everybody tries to do


   1   it, the lawyers on all sides -- that you try to make it work

   2   because they are looking for some solution that makes the

   3   joinder actually work, when the recognition should be it can't

   4   work, and that while it's all very nice for us to have a

   5   limiting instruction which I think is nicely crafted, the

   6   bottom line is if we get to a penalty phase, somebody in

   7   there, when some juror is holding out for my client's life, is

   8   going to say, "but remember those poor people, those poor

   9   American soldiers in Somalia."

  10            And we'll never find out because, as you well know,

  11   we're not allowed to interview jurors post-trial without

  12   permission of the Court.  I know what you are going to say to

  13   that application about wanting to interview them about that.

  14   So we're in terrible trouble because it's not going to take

  15   much.  So it's very nice to say that Mr. Ricco has found the

  16   solution, and it is a solution and it may be the one that your

  17   Honor accepts, but there should not be any mistake we are

  18   going along with it reluctantly, if at all.

  19            THE COURT:  Government have any objection to it?

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  To this instruction, no, except I

  21   think we should make clearer if -- no, that's actually fine.

  22   Thanks.

  23            THE COURT:  Should we bring in the jury now?

  24            MR. RUHNKE:  I'm sorry, just one issue on this.  Just

  25   so I'm understanding your Honor's ruling, are you limiting


   1   casualties or fatalities that predate Abdi House, which was

   2   the July 12, 1993?

   3            THE COURT:  It's during the period of time.

   4            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.  It covers --

   5            THE COURT:  I think maybe if you --

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, I think, knowing your

   7   Honor's ruling, we can show the defense a chart and see if we

   8   can make sure that we're all on the same wavelength.

   9            THE COURT:  Very good.

  10            MR. RUHNKE:  I just want to know what the rules are.

  11   We're talking about pre Abdi House.

  12            THE COURT:  We'll address this again tomorrow

  13   morning, but the jury has been now sitting in that room for

  14   two hours and we have some other business before.

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, I'm waiting to see where

  16   we are on stipulations, etc.  The bulk of the business -- we

  17   need to just check with counsel if they have signed off on.

  18            MR. RUHNKE:  I haven't seen it.

  19            MR. COHN:  We haven't seen it.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  We circulated a letter that we're

  21   going to offer, a MIRA document, Government Exhibit 652.  I

  22   just don't want to stand up in front of the jury and then we

  23   have a sidebar.

  24            THE COURT:  That's why we've kept this jury.

  25            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, if I may have a moment.


   1            THE COURT:  I'll take a recess.  Let me know when you

   2   are ready.

   3            Now, I believe there's been distributed the latest

   4   draft of the verdict form and the instructions.

   5            MR. COHN:  We haven't gotten the instructions.

   6            MR. DRATEL:  Not the instructions, just the verdict

   7   form.

   8            THE COURT:  They're en route.  I assume that

   9   tomorrow, whatever this resolution is, this particular problem

  10   is -- by 11:00 it's all finished, right?

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, your Honor.  I think, frankly,

  12   if we sit down maybe we can resolve it now, because tomorrow

  13   morning we'll be where we are now.  The witness is here.

  14            THE COURT:  Even if it's 11:00, we would begin soon

  15   thereafter with the government's summation.

  16            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, your Honor.  But my hope is,

  17   the witness is here, we can resolve it now; we can do that

  18   today and be done with it.

  19            THE COURT:  I would certainly encourage that.

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  They want to deal with that document

  21   that we want to put in.

  22            THE COURT:  Do whatever it is that can be

  23   accomplished with the goal that Mr. Fitzgerald has just

  24   articulated, which is to have all aspects of the record

  25   closed.


   1            MR. SCHMIDT:  If I may, your Honor, the document that

   2   the government wants to put in from Mercy International should

   3   not be received, period.  There can be no stipulation on that

   4   document or the other documents that they want to put in.  It

   5   is simply inadmissible hearsay and they can't --

   6            THE COURT:  What is the document?

   7            All right, so now we know there's something which is

   8   not going to be resolved.  What is it?

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, first of all, there was

  10   a stipulation that all the documents that are produced in

  11   discovery on Mercy were authentic.  There was a stipulation as

  12   to authenticity.

  13            MR. SCHMIDT:  It's an authentic, your Honor,

  14   authentic, apparently, document.

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  I will hand it up to your Honor.

  16            THE COURT:  Would you hand me the document and would

  17   you tell me --

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  Our position on the document is very

  19   simple.  Government Exhibit 652 we're going to offer and not

  20   read, the extent to which Mr. Schmidt has put in several

  21   inches of documents indicating that the relief organizations

  22   were purely about relief work and charity and also to the

  23   extent that he established a lack of an anti-American animus.

  24            If you look on page 2, in Luuq and elsewhere, it

  25   discusses Al Ittihad.  It shows as of February 9, which is the


   1   date on the front page of the report, there was great concern

   2   that the Americans were coming, that the Americans were

   3   hostile to Al Ittihad and the Muslims and America wanted the

   4   oil in the region, that the America's attitude toward the

   5   Muslims was improper, that they were bringing in alcohol, that

   6   they were immoral, and it just shows that there's an

   7   anti-American sentiment among the other motivations going on

   8   with the group and I think it's a fair response to the

   9   presentation of Mr. Schmidt.

  10            THE COURT:  And this is August and --

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  It's February.

  12            THE COURT:  It's February.

  13            MR. FITZGERALD:  -- 8, '93 to February 19, which is

  14   precisely six months before.

  15            THE COURT:  And this document is a document?

  16            MR. FITZGERALD:  Recovered in the search of Mercy

  17   International, which has been agreed to be authentic.

  18            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, first of all, it's from an

  19   organization South Africa Relief and Rehabilitation.  No idea

  20   who they are.  This is why hearsay is inadmissible -- because

  21   you can't cross-examine for the truth.  And in fact, the

  22   information is not correct.  It is just classic hearsay.  Our

  23   document --

  24            THE COURT:  All right.  What is this South Africa

  25   Relief and Rehabilitation?  What is its relationship to Help


   1   Africa?

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  The documents were in the files.

   3            MR. DRATEL:  Whose files?  Help Africa's?

   4            THE COURT:  Could you, please?

   5            MR. DRATEL:  I'm sorry.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  When I said it was a Mercy search

   7   document, I meant to indicate it was found in a search of the

   8   agency at the Mercy International, which, one, shows a link.

   9   There are other documents showing a number of different relief

  10   agencies came to Mercy.

  11            It's not offered to show the truth of the matter

  12   asserted, it's offered to show the attitude of the people who

  13   did an assessment at the Al Ittihad region.  The fact that

  14   America was coming to colonize and immoralize Somalia, we're

  15   not trying to prove that.


  17            (Continued on next page)










   1            THE COURT:  But how does the presence of the document

   2   in the file without any endorsement of the document or

   3   memorandum which says this is a group whose views and

   4   attitudes we join -- you know, you could have something in

   5   your files because you keep track of what organizations you

   6   are opposed to.

   7            MR. FITZGERALD:  Two responses.  First, they put in a

   8   stack of documents of other organizations found in the files

   9   to show what that attitude was.  Secondly, South Africa Relief

  10   Services was visiting the relief areas Luuq and Belet Ven in

  11   1993, showing that there was an anti-American animus at the

  12   camps.

  13            THE COURT:  So you are offering this for the truth.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  No, the truth is that their

  15   statement of what they think of America is offered to show

  16   what they think of America, not that their thoughts are

  17   accurate.  When you say America is coming here, paraphrasing,

  18   to colonize us, we are not offering that for the truth, we are

  19   offering to show their attitude, which is precisely what their

  20   expert Dr. Samatar was talking about a lack of anti-American

  21   animus before Abdi.

  22            THE COURT:  Upon whom?

  23            MR. FITZGERALD:  Upon people visiting those regions,

  24   precisely.  Dr. Samatar talked about what he heard on BBC in

  25   London.  These are people who visited the regions, they kept


   1   the documents, and they are expressing concern about America's

   2   intentions and saying that Mujahideen are in these areas.

   3            THE COURT:  I think absent some showing that this is

   4   a group that was working with Al Qaeda or a group which was

   5   endorsed by Al Qaeda, the mere presence of the document in the

   6   Mercy file is not a basis for its introduction.

   7            MR. FITZGERALD:  We are trying to show the state of

   8   mind of the group Al Ittihad and Mercy, because the defense

   9   was trying to show what it was doing in their files.  We are

  10   trying to rebut the attempt to show that there was not

  11   anti-American animus.  There were conversations later today

  12   about what Mercy people were thinking about Ethiopia.  A

  13   number of documents were put in to show what were Mercy's

  14   missions and goal.  We are trying to show the state of mind of

  15   Mercy, to rebut the inference that --

  16            THE COURT:  We are going around in a circle.  The

  17   fact that I had something in my files, I could have a copy of

  18   Mein Kampf in my library.  It doesn't mean that I support

  19   Hitler.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  But El Hage put in other documents

  21   from other organizations.

  22            THE COURT:  Is there something that shows that this

  23   organization is an organization with which Mercy International

  24   or Help Africa or anyone from Al Qaeda worked?

  25            MR. FITZGERALD:  I will have to look at another


   1   document this evening.  I believe there is a document that

   2   indicated that --

   3            THE COURT:  There is, I believe, I believe you cited

   4   in your opposition to striking overt act E, I think you cited

   5   testimony there with respect to the selection of --

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, that Al Qaeda selected a

   7   particular tribe with which they were philosophically aligned,

   8   for lack of a better word, and our point is to respond to the

   9   proof about what Mercy International's aims were.  I objected

  10   on hearsay grounds and there were documents stating what their

  11   aims were, specifically excluding any political aims.

  12            THE COURT:  What is the relationship between Al

  13   Ittihad and this South Africa Relief and Rehabilitation?

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  From the document itself it

  15   indicates they went to the area where Al Ittihad was and which

  16   I believe Dr. Samatar also said was working with the groups in

  17   that region at the time.

  18            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, the government did not

  19   object to the Mercy International documents that Mr.

  20   Fitzgerald is talking about, and in fact they were just Mercy

  21   documents.  The only other things that we had were UN letters

  22   to Mercy commending it on its effort.  The government put in a

  23   poem that was --

  24            THE COURT:  But look at page 2 of the government's

  25   letter of April 28 on the subject of striking overt act E, in


   1   which Agent Anticev testified.

   2            MR. DRATEL:  Tribe Um Rahan.  There is nothing about

   3   this organization.

   4            THE COURT:  While Odeh was training the Um Rahan

   5   tribe, a tribe allied with Al Qaeda in the Al Ittihad group --

   6   what is the basis for saying that tribe is allied with this

   7   group?

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  My recollection, that came in the

   9   testimony three different times.  I believe that Odeh

  10   testified -- correct me if I am wrong -- from the notes of

  11   Agent Anticev.  Secondly, I believe Kherchtou testified that

  12   Al Qaeda worked with Al Ittihad and in doing that worked with

  13   Ahmed Sheikh Adam, the director of Mercy International, of

  14   whom many documents were admitted.  I believe besides

  15   Kherchtou and Odeh's statement -- I am slipping on the third

  16   one that came to my mind earlier.  But the understanding was

  17   that Al Qaeda worked with the Al Ittihad group because it was

  18   an Islamic group of Somalis.  Ahmad Tawhil was someone that

  19   Kherchtou testified and said that Mercy used to give

  20   identification cards to slip across the border to Somalia.

  21            MR. DRATEL:  There is nothing that says El Hage

  22   endorsed this document.  It is describing something from a

  23   source with which there is no connection.

  24            THE COURT:  I sustain the objection absent any

  25   evidence which indicates an endorsement on affiliation between


   1   South Africa Relief and Rehabilitation and the defendants.

   2            What else remains?

   3            MR. SCHMIDT:  There was a discussion concerning a

   4   stipulation between the government and the defendant and I am

   5   withdrawing my offer of a stipulation.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  You are talking about the request?

   7            MR. SCHMIDT:  Yes.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  Besides the stipulation the only

   9   thing I think productive today -- we can save that for the

  10   morning if we have to work it out.  There is one document

  11   there was a stipulation on, I believe with regard to the Ib

  12   Wahith birth document.

  13            MR. COHN:  I don't know what the purpose of it is.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  Then we will offer the grand jury

  15   witnesses.  All that is left is the Department of Defense

  16   employee, and I suggest we sit down with defense counsel and

  17   work out what exhibits we put in so we don't do it again

  18   tomorrow morning.

  19            I did want to offer Government's Exhibit 445 which is

  20   the handwriting expert's handwriting.

  21            THE COURT:  It is received.

  22            (Government Exhibit 445 received in evidence)

  23            THE COURT:  I am hesitating about whether we keep the

  24   jury or send the jury home.

  25            MR. FITZGERALD:  My suggestion, your Honor, why don't


   1   we take 10 minutes, and if we can work something out, fine.

   2   If not, we can give up.  Otherwise we will be now where we are

   3   tomorrow, like Ground Hog Day.

   4            THE COURT:  Let Mr. Kenneally know.

   5            Is there a need for a further charging conference

   6   prior to the government's commencement of its summation?

   7            MR. COHN:  There may be, your Honor.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  Not having read the revised

   9   charge --

  10            THE COURT:  We will take 10 minutes, see what we do

  11   about the jury, and it may be then that we will adjourn for a

  12   couple of hours and then have a new charging conference.  Very

  13   well.

  14            Let Mr. Kenneally know where you are.

  15            (Recess)

  16            MR. FITZGERALD:  So the court knows where we are,

  17   what I did was, sticking to fatalities and not just injuries

  18   and serious injuries, to try and minimize the volume, what I

  19   propose are two charts, one of which was handed up to the

  20   court, one which lists the name of the person, date and time

  21   of casualty, leave out the last column, list the names and

  22   dates which people were killed.  The second is a month by

  23   month 1993, the number of incidents that resulted in

  24   fatalities.  We would call the witness and put that in if that

  25   were acceptable to everyone else.  If we go beyond that, we go


   1   beyond that.

   2            THE COURT:  And I would tell the jury and advise that

   3   the government's next witness who will testify as to the

   4   period of time during which American military personnel

   5   sustained casualties in Somalia, this testimony is being

   6   received solely to avoid any contention that Al Qaeda training

   7   of Somalis took place at a time when such training was

   8   considered anti-American.

   9            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, we have two points.  One

  10   concerns the names and dates.  It is totally irrelevant to the

  11   purpose of showing the second chart, which is that there were

  12   casualties at the time.  What the government is doing with the

  13   listed individuals is putting the 18 servicemen back into the

  14   case when the court has taken them out.

  15            THE COURT:  These names are not really relevant to

  16   this point.  I know it is sort of personalizing the deaths.

  17   But why isn't the second chart -- isn't the second chart

  18   sufficient?

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  Can I answer that -- I keep

  20   negotiating against myself.

  21            MR. RICCO:  One other point, with respect to your

  22   Honor's instruction.  Would you kindly instruct the jury that

  23   it is a defense that Mr. Schmidt is raising on behalf of

  24   Mr. El Hage?

  25            THE COURT:  Apropos of that, I don't engage in


   1   extensive dialogue on severance every time the issue is

   2   raised, although, as I said at the time I denied the severance

   3   motions, it is a matter with respect to which I have an

   4   ongoing responsibility.  But, you know, the big issue on

   5   severance was separating the death-eligible from the

   6   nondeath-eligible, and it is obvious here that this is a

   7   controversy the proponents of which are two nondeath-eligible

   8   defendants.

   9            MR. RICCO:  This is an issue that goes both

  10   vertically and horizontally.

  11            THE COURT:  Yes, but I just want to point out that

  12   had I granted the severance that was requested, Odeh and El

  13   Hage would still be in the same trial.

  14            My question is, assuming that the witness testifies

  15   to the chart, the one-line chart which lists no names and

  16   simply testifies to those facts and the court gives the

  17   instruction that I gave, leaving open the question whether I

  18   identify it as a defense being put forth solely by El Hage,

  19   whether anyone has any further objection.

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, if I may, the chart is a

  21   good idea.  The only problem I have is that it talks about

  22   number of incidents as opposed to giving a percentage of

  23   casualties, and it skewers it.  It is my understanding that

  24   the number of casualties from January to July suffered by

  25   Americans is 10 percent.  The casualties from August to


   1   December is 90 percent.  I would rather have a percentage than

   2   number of instances since it more accurately reflects --

   3            THE COURT:  No, you wouldn't.  Rather than say 2

   4   people died you would rather have percentages?  You can't be

   5   serious about that.

   6            MR. SCHMIDT:  This is not the number of casualties,

   7   this is number of incidents.

   8            MR. FITZGERALD:  In terms of incidents, the fact that

   9   in October 18 were killed and 19 --

  10            THE COURT:  I don't understand that.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  I think you misunderstand.

  12            THE COURT:  The first chart is headed hostile US

  13   deaths in Somalia.  The second is headed incidents.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  That is a misnomer.  Incidents in

  15   which -- hostile incidents in which fatalities resulted.

  16            THE COURT:  So this could read hostile US military

  17   incidents resulting in fatality?

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  The other way around.  Hostile

  19   incidents in which US military fatalities resulted.  The

  20   people killed were the American soldiers.

  21            THE COURT:  This isn't an automobile accident.  This

  22   is hostile action.

  23            MR. FITZGERALD:  That comes from the bigger chart,

  24   which listed accident and terrorist.  The accident ones were

  25   deleted.  I took terrorist and called it hostile, anticipating


   1   a 403 objection -- give me some credit.  Hostile incidents in

   2   which US military fatalities resulted.

   3            THE COURT:  In this first chart, couldn't the witness

   4   simply testify that during the period of December 9 through

   5   March 28, 1994, as a result of hostile actions against the US

   6   military there were 29 deaths in Somalia, and that the second

   7   chart reflects the dates on which incidents resulting in

   8   fatalities took place.  Yes?

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  10            MR. RICCO:  Hold on.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  You don't have to do that, Mr. Ricco.

  12   You don't have to do that, Mr. Ricco.

  13            MR. RICCO:  My point is that the jury doesn't even

  14   have to hear the number of fatalities in lieu of the court's

  15   instruction.  If the government wants to make the point that

  16   there were casualties before Abdi House, then this chart, the

  17   chart that lists the incidents satisfies that.  When there is

  18   testimony about the 18 or 29 deaths, then the number of deaths

  19   are right back in the case and the whole purpose of striking

  20   Special Agent Yacone's testimony has been defeated.

  21            My position is, if the court is going to allow

  22   testimony with respect to the 18 deaths, which is now 29

  23   deaths, then I say reinstate Yacone's testimony, because this

  24   is more prejudicial to us than Yacone's testimony, and we are

  25   sensitive to this issue because it was raised by a defendant


   1   who was never present in Somalia, and our client Mr. Odeh is a

   2   defendant who was present in Somalia and we have to deal with

   3   these issues that took place in Somalia and Mr. El Hage does

   4   not.

   5            So what we have here are the 18 deaths right back

   6   into the case after they have been stricken, but in a much

   7   more prejudicial form.

   8            THE COURT:  I don't agree with that.

   9            I will hear from Mr. Ruhnke and then I will hear very

  10   briefly and then I am going to make a ruling and I will bring

  11   in the jury.  The witness is ready?

  12            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  13            MR. RUHNKE:  Your Honor, first, I join what Mr. Ricco

  14   said.  There is also evidence in this case that my client

  15   spent time in Somalia limited to 1997.  We started off

  16   striking 18 deaths.  Somehow to rebut something that was

  17   hardly a clarion call of the El Hage defense, we are now

  18   letting the government put in 29 deaths with a dangerous

  19   spillover to people on trial facing the death penalty.  That

  20   is just not right, your Honor.  It should not be allowed to

  21   happen, whether it is a 403 basis or a 401 basis, or even a

  22   cutoff of the Abdi House.  If we talk about the number of

  23   fatalities prior and after the Abdi House, there were three

  24   fatalities that occurred prior to the Abdi House incident.

  25   The point needs to be made that there was hostile feeling and


   1   action including the fatalities to US troops predating Abdi

   2   House --

   3            THE COURT:  Your objection is to the number?  You

   4   want to say during the period of December 9 through March 28,

   5   '94, there were a significant number of deaths in Somalia?

   6            MR. COHN:  No, casualties.

   7            THE COURT:  Deaths?

   8            MR. RUHNKE:  Deaths.

   9            MR. FITZGERALD:  Why don't we leave out a number and

  10   say casualties including deaths, but no numbers.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, that skewers the whole

  12   purpose of allowing the government to bring out any

  13   casualties.  My understanding of the purpose to allow them to

  14   bring out casualties was to show hostility prior to the Abdi

  15   House.  There were two deaths.  Two appeared to be by running

  16   over a stationary landmine and one appears to be by armed

  17   fire --

  18            THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.  Mr. Cohn.

  19            MR. COHN:  Your Honor, I want to make clear that I

  20   join with Mr. Ruhnke but I do need to clarify, as usual,

  21   because I think I am having one of my more slow days.  It

  22   seems, to put proof of these casualties in you have to have a

  23   but-for argument, but for the activities of Al Qaeda this

  24   would not have happened, and I don't think anybody has gotten

  25   there.  There is no connection.


   1            THE COURT:  Please, please.  The point is, there are

   2   significant statements made by leaders of Al Qaeda concerning

   3   activities in Somalia, and the indictment alleges and the

   4   government has introduced proof that the actions in Somalia

   5   were designed to further the overall objection of killing

   6   Americans.

   7            You may be seated.  Thank you.  I have heard

   8   sufficient argument on this.

   9            MR. RUHNKE:  I have an application that I can state

  10   in 10 words.  I move for a mistrial and severance on behalf of

  11   K.K. Mohamed if that evidence goes in.

  12            MR. COHN:  And I join the application.

  13            THE COURT:  Denied.  What is going to happen is, the

  14   jury is going to be brought back.  I will say to the jury I am

  15   advised that the government's next witness will testify as to

  16   the period of time during which American military personnel

  17   sustained casualties in Somalia.  This testimony is being

  18   received solely to rebut any contention made on behalf of the

  19   defendant El Hage that some of Al Qaeda's efforts to train

  20   Somalis took place at a time when such training was not

  21   intended to be anti-American.

  22            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor --

  23            THE COURT:  That the witness will then testify that

  24   during the period of December 9, 1992, through March 28, 1994,

  25   there were casualties, including deaths, in Somalia.  And


   1   there will be introduced in evidence the skinny chart, which

   2   indicates the dates on which incidents which resulted in

   3   fatalities took place.

   4            MR. SCHMIDT:  If I may now respond, your Honor, if

   5   you highlight Mr. El Hage, this was an ancillary defense as

   6   stated by Mr. Ruhnke, because Mr. El Hage was not there and

   7   not involved.  However, the government has put Somalia in as

   8   part of the conspiracy, and because Mr. El Hage is alleged to

   9   be part of the conspiracy I have been dealing with that issue.

  10   If you are going to put in Mr. El Hage's defense as you have

  11   just stated now, I will do whatever is necessary to take

  12   Mr. El Hage's defense out of play because I think it is so

  13   highly prejudicial to put his name into Somalia when he is not

  14   there that I will do whatever I have to do as a result of

  15   that.  I don't think I should have to do it --

  16            THE COURT:  Are you telling me that you are willing

  17   to stipulate on behalf of El Hage that no claim will be made

  18   that during the time in which Al Qaeda representatives were

  19   engaged in the training of Somalis was such training not

  20   directed against the United States?

  21            MR. SCHMIDT:  You are asking me to stipulate to one

  22   of the charges?  Is that what you are doing, your Honor?

  23   That's what it sounds like.

  24            THE COURT:  What is it that you are offering to do?

  25            MR. SCHMIDT:  I am not quite sure what's necessary.


   1   All I wanted to do, your Honor, is, after the government

   2   presented their proof is to show that the violence attributed

   3   to somebody in Mogadishu, and that was very clear, that period

   4   of time after Abdi House, was more complicated than the

   5   government set forth.  The government's own witnesses have

   6   testified that Al Qaeda sent people to train Somalis prior to

   7   the US and the UN being there.  I am assuming that I am

   8   allowed to discuss that.  I will not discuss that there was no

   9   anti-American feeling prior to Abdi House because there was,

  10   and I won't even mention Abdi House if your Honor indicates

  11   that I shouldn't.  I have never said that there was no

  12   anti-American sentiment.

  13            THE COURT:  Should we strike the testimony of

  14   Dr. Samatar with respect to the Abdi House incident?

  15            MR. SCHMIDT:  If the government is not going to

  16   allege deaths of Americans subsequent to the Abdi House, then

  17   I will then consent to striking Professor Samatar's testimony

  18   as to the Abdi House.

  19            MR. FITZGERALD:  But we already have the testimony

  20   concerning Bin Laden and Abu Hafs' statements in the other

  21   testimony that Al Qaeda was responsible --

  22            MR. SCHMIDT:  Am I barred from saying other people

  23   were responsible for the deaths?

  24            MR. FITZGERALD:  No, Judge.

  25            THE COURT:  The question is the motivation of Al


   1   Qaeda and the motivation of the people who went to Somalia to

   2   train.

   3            MR. SCHMIDT:  Your Honor, I will limit my summation

   4   to the motivation of Al Qaeda as alleged by the government's

   5   own witnesses.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, I don't know what he

   7   means when he says that.  I know that if the jury was sitting

   8   where we were all sitting last week, they were under the

   9   impression that the anti-American animus rose after the Abdi

  10   House.

  11            MR. SCHMIDT:  That's not what he said, your Honor.

  12   It changed.  It didn't rise, it changed.  I think to say that

  13   it didn't change is not truth nor reality.  It did change.

  14   The manner or who was involved in it is different.

  15            THE COURT:  What also changes on an almost daily

  16   basis is the use that El Hage seeks to make of this.  At one

  17   time we had this incident which was the key point for the

  18   significant change in the attitude on the part of the

  19   Somali --

  20            MR. SCHMIDT:  It's a matter of record that indeed it

  21   is.  It is a matter of record in the UN reports, it is a

  22   matter of record in the US reports.

  23            THE COURT:  I have heard your arguments now.  Would

  24   you please be seated.

  25            MR. SCHMIDT:  As I indicated, whatever is necessary


   1   to eliminate pointing out Mr. El Hage on a defense that is

   2   ancillary to the rest of his defense, we will do it.

   3            THE COURT:  What is necessary is the striking of any

   4   testimony of Dr. Samatar as to an attack on Abdi House and any

   5   contention that that event was a precipitating or aggravating

   6   event with respect to anti-American hostilities against the

   7   United States.

   8            MR. SCHMIDT:  I think that is more than necessary.

   9   If your Honor makes that decision, fine.  My alternative

  10   suggestion, your Honor, to put us back where we were a few

  11   days ago, reinstate the helicopter pilot's testimony and

  12   simply drop it and move on.

  13            THE COURT:  Does anybody have any objection to my

  14   calling in the jury and reading -- I will read it again if you

  15   like.  I take it then the government will rest --

  16            MR. FITZGERALD:  We still have a few documents.

  17            THE COURT:  OK.

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  If I may, are you going to read the

  19   contention of Mr. El Hage?

  20            THE COURT:  No.  Listen to what I am going to read.

  21   Listen to what I am going to read:  The court strikes any

  22   testimony of Dr. Samatar as to any attack on Abdi House and

  23   any contention that that event was a precipitating or

  24   aggravating event with respect to anti-American hostility in

  25   Somalia.  Anybody object to that?


   1            Silence is acquiescence.  Bring in the jury.  I will

   2   read this to them, and then you have some documents?

   3            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, but we have to resolve them

   4   with defense counsel.  The one issue that remains outstanding,

   5   we will probably stipulate on the chemist testimony.  There is

   6   a possibility that won't happen.  If it doesn't, it will be 20

   7   minutes tomorrow, if that.

   8            THE COURT:  So I call the jury in, I read this to

   9   them and I send them home.

  10            MR. RICCO:  Yes.

  11            THE COURT:  Bring in the jury, please.

  12            When we adjourn, we will adjourn until 4:30 for the

  13   charging conference?  Yes?  How much time do people want now

  14   that there has been the distribution of the revised

  15   instruction and verdict form before we have the charging

  16   conference?  5:00?  Tell me.

  17            MR. FITZGERALD:  Can we make it 4:30?

  18            MR. SCHMIDT:  I missed the question.  I didn't hear

  19   what the question was, your Honor.

  20            THE COURT:  How much time you need.  The court has

  21   distributed the proposed charge and the revised verdict form,

  22   and how much time do you need before we have our charging

  23   conference, and the suggestion was 4:30.  I am going to mark

  24   these two documents Court Exhibit A of today's date and --

  25   that's the charge -- and Court Exhibit B is the verdict form


   1   of today's date.

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  One issue, so we don't delay

   3   tomorrow.  There were a number of stipulations entered into by

   4   all four defendants and the government.  There are a couple of

   5   stipulations that are mainly housekeeping changes.  As I

   6   understand it now, we have agreement between the government

   7   and three of the defendants to that stipulation.  I don't

   8   think that the details affect at all the case against the one

   9   defendant who does not wish to stipulate.  I just don't want

  10   to have a snag tomorrow.  It would be the government's

  11   intention to replace the signature page with a signature page

  12   omitting that defendant's signature and offering that.  I

  13   didn't want an issue tomorrow, so that in terms of the jury

  14   looking at the signature page it is not highlighted.

  15            THE COURT:  Do we have tomorrow morning a summary of

  16   the stipulations?

  17            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, your Honor, but we have to add

  18   in.  To save time, your Honor, if we could offer the 1998

  19   grand jury exhibits as one collective exhibit, Government's

  20   Exhibit 420C.

  21            THE COURT:  OK.

  22            (Jury present)

  23            THE COURT:  I hope via the marshal I have responded

  24   to all your questions with about dates and times, and I have

  25   already dictated the letter that was requested with respect to


   1   sitting on Friday.

   2            The court strikes from the record, and you are to

   3   disregard, any testimony of Dr. Samatar with respect to an

   4   attack on Abdi House, and any contention that that event was a

   5   precipitating or aggravating circumstance with respect to

   6   anti-American hostilities in Somalia.  Let me repeat that.

   7            The court strikes from the record, and you are to

   8   disregard, any testimony by Dr. Samatar as to an attack on

   9   Abdi House and any contention that that event was a

  10   precipitating or aggravating circumstance with respect to

  11   anti-American hostility in Somalia.  I urge that those who are

  12   taking notes make note of that in your notes as well.

  13            Is there something ready now?

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, there is.  I believe

  15   stipulation 192, and that reads as follows:

  16            It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the

  17   undersigned parties, including the government and counsel for

  18   El Hage, that Government's Exhibit 455 is a true copy of a

  19   consular report of birth abroad of a citizen of the United

  20   States of America and supporting documentation for the birth

  21   of Suliman, S-U-L-I-M-A-N, Ali, A-L-I, on March 10, 1996,

  22   listing Ihab, I-H-A-B, Mohammed, M-O-H-A-M-M-E-D, Ali, A-L-I,

  23   as the father of Suliman Ali.

  24            It is further stipulated and agreed that Government's

  25   Exhibit 455 may be received in evidence as a Government's


   1   Exhibit at trial.

   2            Your Honor, if I could just display the relevant page

   3   on will Elmo.  The first page display indicates that the

   4   person born is Suliman Ali and that the date of birth is March

   5   10, 1996, and the father is Ihab Mohammed Ali, and the second

   6   page we will display indicates the address provided to the

   7   consular section recording of citizen born abroad, and under

   8   the present address is indicates P.O. Box 72239, Nairobi,

   9   Kenya.

  10            The balance will be ready tomorrow morning, Judge.

  11   Thank you.

  12            THE COURT:  Ladies and gentlemen, it is my

  13   understanding that, as Mr. Fitzgerald just stated, tomorrow

  14   morning there will be some brief period of time devoted to

  15   some further stipulations, but that there will be no further

  16   live witnesses and that tomorrow morning the government will

  17   begin its closing argument to you.  Let me explain the

  18   sequence of closing arguments.

  19            The government, because it has the burden of proof,

  20   goes first, so we will hear closing argument made on behalf of

  21   the government.  Following that, in the order in which they

  22   are listed in the indictment we will hear closing arguments on

  23   behalf of the defendants El Hage, Odeh and Al-'Owhali and

  24   Mohamed.  After that, the government is given an opportunity

  25   to make a rebuttal argument.  All of that will take all of the


   1   week, perhaps the start of next week.  Following that, the

   2   court will instruct you, and then our task ends and your task

   3   begins.  You will begin your deliberations.  So that is our

   4   present expectations and timetable.  The only thing else I

   5   have to say is, have a good evening.

   6            (Jury excused)

   7            THE COURT:  We are adjourned until 4:30.  For

   8   purposes of the charging conference, if the defendants wish to

   9   be present it is certainly their right to be present.  If the

  10   defendants wish to be excused and waive their appearance, the

  11   court has no objection to that.

  12            MR. COHN:  Mr. Al-'Owhali will waive his presence,

  13   except if there is no unanimity they will take him back.

  14            MR. RUHNKE:  Mr. Mohamed as well would request to be

  15   excused if it is unanimous.

  16            MR. SCHMIDT:  Mr. El Hage wishes to be excused if it

  17   is unanimous.

  18            MR. RICCO:  Mr. Odeh would excuse himself.

  19            THE COURT:  Waives his presence.  Adjourned till

  20   4:30.

  21            (Continued on next page)






   1            THE COURT:  All right, I have marked as Court Exhibit

   2   A the proposed charge for the jury which is captioned "Third

   3   Working Draft as of April 30th, 2001," and I marked as Court

   4   Exhibit B the verdict form which is marked "Second Working

   5   Draft as of April 30, 2 p.m."

   6            The first comment that I have on the proposed charge

   7   to the jury is on page 21.  Does anyone have anything before

   8   page 21?

   9            MR. COHN:  I have my pet project on page 15, your

  10   Honor.

  11            THE COURT:  Page 15?

  12            MR. COHN:  Yes, in which you promised, because when I

  13   whined about the fact that you made voluntariness invisible,

  14   you said you would put in the words "if any," after the weight

  15   and --

  16            THE COURT:  I put in "if any."

  17            MR. COHN:  Not on page 15, you didn't.

  18            THE COURT:  Page 15, "in deciding what weight, if

  19   any."

  20            MR. COHN:  You're right.  I looked at the wrong

  21   place.  You are absolutely right, your Honor.  I will be

  22   mortifiedly silent from here on in.

  23            THE COURT:  On page 21, there was some colloquy in

  24   which I gave the jury an instruction about considering a plea

  25   of guilty and then Mr. Fitzgerald said that I had changed it


   1   to take out benefits, and we have reviewed the notes --

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  I was wrong, Judge.  I checked my

   3   notes as well and I had asked that it be stricken and my notes

   4   said "not stricken."

   5            THE COURT:  So just the admonition to counsel not to

   6   argue based on the instruction is rescinded.  This is what the

   7   charge will say.

   8            My next comment is on page 23, the next to the last

   9   line, is it Government Exhibit 7 that has a list --

  10            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  11            THE COURT:  My next comment is on page 93.

  12            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, could the Court incorporate

  13   all our previous objects, or should we state them again just

  14   in terms of certain requests that were made previously that

  15   were denied and then, as a result, obviously is not --

  16            THE COURT:  There is no need to state them again.

  17   There is no need to state them again.  This is what the Court

  18   proposes to charge.  This contains the Court's resolution of

  19   all the issues that were left open.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, just looking at page 21,

  21   Government Exhibit 7, as I understand it, is a list of all the

  22   government's stipulations entered into as of today as

  23   government exhibits.  So no one is misled, it says, "Here isa

  24   brief description of all the stipulations."  There are a

  25   number of defense stipulations that have gone in.  We still


   1   have to get some copies.  A number of them have been entered

   2   in the last few days.

   3            THE COURT:  What page are you on?

   4            MR. FITZGERALD:  Page 23.

   5            THE COURT:  Page 23.

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  We just have a description of the

   7   government stipulations.  If the defense wants to put in a

   8   corresponding list of what they have put in, but that

   9   technically doesn't describe it accurately, Government Exhibit

  10   7.  That's a list of all the stipulations we entered.

  11            THE COURT:  I should add to that sentence "by the

  12   government"?

  13            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  14            THE COURT:  I'll add "by the government."  And if the

  15   defendants want to prepare a like document, I will add to it.

  16            MR. FITZGERALD:  Thanks.

  17            THE COURT:  "Defense Exhibit X contains a list of all

  18   the stipulations and description of the defendants'..."

  19            Page 23.

  20            MR. WILFORD:  Your Honor, before we go to page 98?

  21            THE COURT:  Page 23.

  22            Before we go to 98, yes.

  23            MR. WILFORD:  Page 40.

  24            THE COURT:  Page 40.

  25            MR. WILFORD:  In the third full paragraph on that


   1   page.

   2            THE COURT:  Page 40?

   3            MR. WILFORD:  Beginning with "it is important."

   4            THE COURT:  Yes.

   5            MR. WILFORD:  Your Honor, we request that after "as

   6   well as those" you insert the word "independent."

   7            THE COURT:  After where do I insert "independent"?

   8            MR. WILFORD:  After "as well as those," so that it

   9   would read "as well as those independent persons alleged to be

  10   coconspirators."

  11            THE COURT:  I don't know what that means.

  12   Independent person alleged to be a coconspirator?  I don't

  13   understand it.  I can't grant it because I don't understand

  14   what you are asking for.

  15            MR. WILFORD:  Your Honor, the sentence reads "by

  16   independent evidence of his own acts or statements as well as

  17   those of persons alleged to be coconspirators."

  18            THE COURT:  This is what the law is.  This is the

  19   Bourjaily case and some other Supreme Court cases.

  20            MR. WILFORD:  I understand that, your Honor, but it

  21   appears as though, unless I'm reading the sentence

  22   incorrectly, which is possible, maybe even probable, it says

  23   an --

  24            THE COURT:  It used to be that it would read "by

  25   independent evidence of his own acts or statements."  The law


   1   is now clear that the rest of that sentence is appropriate.

   2            MR. WILFORD:  The next objection --

   3            THE COURT:  As well as those -- do you want "may be

   4   evidence of his own acts or statements as well as acts or

   5   statements of..."?

   6            MR. WILFORD:  Yes, just trying to get this clarity so

   7   it wasn't --

   8            THE COURT:  I see.  All right.  That line will read

   9   "statements as well as those acts or statements of."  The

  10   Court doesn't understand that to be a substantive change, but

  11   just for clarification.

  12            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, I think if we put in

  13   that extra statement that "those" should come out.  I think

  14   the "those" --

  15            THE COURT:  It will now read, "It is important for

  16   you to note that each defendant's participation in the

  17   conspiracy must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by

  18   independent evidence of his own acts or statements as well as

  19   those acts or statements of persons alleged to be

  20   coconspirators."

  21            MR. FITZGERALD:  Okay.  "Those" is a little

  22   confusing, "as well as those acts."  I thought "acts or

  23   statements" would replace "those."

  24            THE COURT:  We can take out the "those."

  25            "...as well as acts or statements of."  Okay.


   1            Anything before 93?

   2            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes, Judge, just on page 54.

   3            THE COURT:  Page 54.

   4            MR. FITZGERALD:  The last full paragraph, the last

   5   sentence, it ends with "the defendant you are considering

   6   knowingly and willfully engaged in an act of conspiracy

   7   outside the United States."  If we could just add that if they

   8   find the defendant did that, the fact that he may also have

   9   engaged in conduct inside the United States does not matter,

  10   he can still be found guilty.

  11            THE COURT:  If he did so --

  12            MR. FITZGERALD:  We can say, "If he did so, it does

  13   not matter whether he also engaged in conduct within the

  14   United States."

  15            THE COURT:  "It does not matter if he also engaged in

  16   that conspiracy while in the United States."

  17            Mr. Wilford.

  18            MR. WILFORD:  Yes, your Honor, the next item I have

  19   is on page 80.

  20            THE COURT:  Page 80.  Yes.

  21            MR. WILFORD:  The series of questions, the second

  22   question, your Honor, which reads, "Do he associate himself

  23   with a group or venture knowingly and willfully."

  24            THE COURT:  Do you want me to add -- this is time

  25   honored --


   1            MR. WILFORD:  The only reason that I am suggesting

   2   anything be done with that particular sentence, your Honor, is

   3   that in the earlier charge on conspiracy, you do mention

   4   association and I'm just concerned that there may be some

   5   confusion amongst the jury members -- of course, we as lawyers

   6   can discern the difference between the words in the earlier

   7   association with persons and in this particular instance it's

   8   an association with a criminal venture.  I just didn't want

   9   the jury to become confused and propose either here or an

  10   earlier instance when they are considering conspiracy and not

  11   really be clear on which type of association or which

  12   particular association the Court was instructing them to deal

  13   with.

  14            THE COURT:  Denied.

  15            MR. WILFORD:  All right.  Also, in that same section,

  16   your Honor, and this is overall to most of the remaining

  17   counts in which the Court instructs on Five and Six, as an

  18   example, 283 and 284, the Court instructs the jury to

  19   consider -- not on this particular page, your Honor, but this

  20   particular section of the charge, when you are talking about

  21   Counts Five and Six, which begins on page 72, and you talk in

  22   that instance, you talk about Mohamed Sadeek Odeh and Mohamed

  23   Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, and also in Count Six, Khalfan Khamis

  24   Mohamed, because the elements are the same, the Court has

  25   grouped in a section both, all three of these particular


   1   defendants.

   2            However, because of the difference in proof that has

   3   been adduced at trial, the fact that Mr. Odeh has nothing to

   4   do whatsoever with anything in Tanzania, I think that it adds

   5   some confusion for the jury and what we are requesting is that

   6   it be a separate section charging the Kenyan events as opposed

   7   to having them both together.  I understand, I think, what the

   8   Court was trying to do was to shorten and have the jury

   9   consider those groups of elements or that group of elements

  10   for those particular crimes, but what it does do --

  11            THE COURT:  I understand what you are saying, but I

  12   think it sets out the legal principles, which are the same,

  13   and then it very clearly indicates which counts are Kenya and

  14   which counts are Tanzania, looking at the first full paragraph

  15   on page 75, and any danger, I think, of that is dissipated by

  16   the structure of the special verdict form.

  17            What I usually do is I go back and forth.  When I

  18   complete a count, I will then say, "Now turn to the special

  19   verdict form and you will see..."  So I don't think that's

  20   worth regurgitating the same.

  21            MR. WILFORD:  Thank you, Judge.

  22            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, the only other comment

  23   the government had that's not tied to a particular page but we

  24   thought maybe might be appropriate around page 81 was to

  25   suggest the possibility of a conscious avoidance charge on the


   1   substantive bombings, and the reason I suggest that is looking

   2   ahead specifically with regard to the Odeh case and the

   3   bombing, there was some discussion during the Wahhaj testimony

   4   about whether he inquired about what others were up to, but I

   5   could easily foresee the way the summations might play out

   6   that there may be an argument by the government that he can't

   7   be in the middle of things and, pardon the expression, but

   8   "stick his head in the sand."

   9            THE COURT:  Like an ostrich.  I was thinking about

  10   all our ostrich discussion, that we'll not be able to get

  11   through closing statements without somebody making the analogy

  12   to ostriches.

  13            MR. FITZGERALD:  I jumped the gun, I guess.

  14            What I thought that -- I think it's very likely we'll

  15   end up discussing that issue and I thought it would be

  16   appropriate that we have guidance for the jury on what a

  17   defendant is required to do and not required to do in the face

  18   of evidence of criminal activity.

  19            THE COURT:  I deny conscious avoidance of guilt

  20   because of thought that that concept comes into play where

  21   someone is seeking to shield himself from criminal liability

  22   by not asking what is in this suitcase that I'm bringing from

  23   one place to another, when any reasonable person would know

  24   that those are narcotics.  And you have here such a different

  25   situation where almost as a quasi military operation people


   1   were not given more information, not because it would expose

   2   them to criminal liability, this was not a motivation of these

   3   defendants, but would perhaps run the risk of people becoming

   4   informants or people being captured and interrogated, perhaps

   5   interrogated with more vigor than would happen in American law

   6   enforcement.  And it seemed to me that the government is free

   7   to make its arguments on what the circumstantial evidence will

   8   show and so on, but that to use that as a predicate for

   9   substantive liability was inappropriate in the facts of this

  10   case.

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  The only thing I would suggest, your

  12   Honor, if one participates in a cell structure as part of an

  13   organized enterprise, coconspiracy, but one says, I'm going to

  14   follow, I'm not going to ask what else is going on, which is

  15   not -- forgetting what other people want to tell a person,

  16   someone closes his eyes and says, okay, this is "military

  17   work," which we view as terrorism work, and doesn't know the

  18   details because they want to help out the overall enterprise,

  19   why isn't that appropriate?

  20            THE COURT:  Where is there evidence of that?

  21            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, to the extent that there

  22   has been discussion with the witnesses that there was a cell

  23   structure and it's been argued that people didn't tell

  24   everyone that needed to know, if a defendant sees signs around

  25   him that an operation is going on but decides, out of training


   1   in the cell structure that's been in the documents and in the

   2   the testimony, not to make further inquiry, then I think it

   3   would be just as appropriate an argument as if the person is

   4   handed a bag to get on the airplane and decides not to look.

   5            THE COURT:  You see, the other thing is in the

   6   narcotics analogy, again it's a very specific thing, you know,

   7   what is the content of the suitcase.  The object of these

   8   conspiracies is much broader and what you are saying is, so

   9   long as he's in a cell, the object of which is to kill

  10   Americans anywhere in the world, he could be held to have

  11   known that one of the means of effectuating that was some

  12   particular episode or endeavor of which he did not have actual

  13   knowledge.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  And my argument, just to make clear,

  15   I'm not seeking a conscious avoidance charge on the

  16   conspiracy, just the substantive count.  My argument would be

  17   if he's in a hotel and understanding he has to leave that

  18   night because they are expecting retaliation from the

  19   Americans, and a bombing instructor is there, his bomb trainer

  20   from Afghanistan, and people are all leaving, that if he

  21   decides not to ask because he's following the rules of al

  22   Qaeda, that that would be appropriate to hold him to the

  23   conscious avoidance charge.

  24            THE COURT:  I understand your point.  I've given it a

  25   lot of thought, and I decline to do so.


   1            MR. COHN:  Your Honor, back on page 82 --

   2            THE COURT:  Back on page 82.

   3            MR. COHN:  I saw something Ms. Gasiorowski pointed

   4   out to me and I'm not sure whether --

   5            THE COURT:  Yes.

   6            MR. COHN:  That is, in your statement of the

   7   indictment, it says "used by the United States and by an

   8   agency of the United States, nationals and an agency," and in

   9   your charge on each of the counts on the elements you charge

  10   the disjunctive.

  11            THE COURT:  Exactly right.

  12            MR. COHN:  Pardon?

  13            THE COURT:  Exactly right.  First of all, this is a

  14   quote of the indictment.

  15            MR. COHN:  That's right.

  16            THE COURT:  The indictment uses "and" and the

  17   government has the burden of proving "or."

  18            MR. COHN:  Is it a permissible variance, is what I'm

  19   asking?

  20            THE COURT:  No.  No.  Not only is it a permissible

  21   variance, but it's the standard way.  Congress says if the

  22   indictment says "or" it would be an invalid indictment.  So

  23   the indictment says "and" and the charge always says "or."

  24   This is nothing new.  An indictment which would follow the

  25   language and say you did either X or you did Y would be


   1   defective because it would not sufficiently inform the

   2   defendant of what he is charged with doing.

   3            MR. COHN:  Unless it was particularized.

   4            THE COURT:  No, that's why the statute says "or," the

   5   indictment says "and" and the charge says "or."

   6            MR. COHN:  Okay.

   7            THE COURT:  On page 93 we need a stipulation number.

   8   I just need the number.  You don't have to give it to me now,

   9   but if you could just tell me what stipulation that is.  And

  10   that applies to page 94 and 93.

  11            MR. FITZGERALD:  We believe that the number on 93 is

  12   39 and we'll --

  13            THE COURT:  Yes.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  And 94 we'll have to check.

  15            THE COURT:  Okay.  Who else has anything on the

  16   charge?

  17            MR. DRATEL:  Just I put in writing initially but did

  18   not mention at the last charge, which is just venue beyond a

  19   reasonable doubt.

  20            THE COURT:  We put in venue.  We put another sentence

  21   in venue, which I think you saw, which is --

  22            MR. DRATEL:  Venue proof.

  23            THE COURT:  Venue is at page 125?

  24            MR. DRATEL:  Just for the reasons we set forth --

  25            THE COURT:  That sentence beginning, the bottom of


   1   page 126, "that venue has not been proven, then you must find

   2   the defendant you are considering not guilty as to that

   3   count."  That's a new sentence.

   4            MR. DRATEL:  Yes, but -- I was just asking as we

   5   announced initially, just to rerepeat --

   6            THE COURT:  You are repeating your argument that it

   7   has got to be beyond a reasonble doubt, whereas the charge

   8   says by a preponderance of the evidence.

   9            MR. DRATEL:  Exactly, your Honor.

  10            THE COURT:  Your position on that point is preserved.

  11            Anything else?

  12            That's it.  Very well.

  13            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, can I just ask, we

  14   proofed the changes that your Honor said you would make and

  15   the ones you were thinking about, and we're aware of that

  16   change and also a change with law enforcement techniques.  Is

  17   there anything else in the charge that you are aware of that

  18   substantially changed?

  19            THE COURT:  Substantially changed, no.  I declined

  20   your suggested revision of the multiple conspiracies in light

  21   of, I think it's the Burrows case.  I reread that case and

  22   that's a holding -- that language was not was harmless error

  23   and it was a supplementary instruction given after the jury

  24   raised some question, and I decline to use that language and

  25   adhere to the language which is in this charge.


   1            Mr. Wilford.

   2            MR. WILFORD:  Yes, your Honor.  This doesn't have to

   3   do with the charge directly but it does have to do with the

   4   indictment.

   5            THE COURT:  Yes.

   6            MR. WILFORD:  Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Odeh, we

   7   are requesting that the Court strike, commencing at page 3,

   8   paragraph 1, little paragraph xi on page 8 of the indictment.

   9            THE COURT:  I'm buried in paper, but that's a

  10   document that I don't have.

  11            MR. WILFORD:  Would you like to have mine, your

  12   Honor?

  13            THE COURT:  My able law clerk is finding it under the

  14   mountain of paper.

  15            That's old, but I think --

  16            MR. WILFORD:  If it's old, it hasn't changed, your

  17   Honor.  The first indictment has not changed.

  18            THE COURT:  What is it you want?

  19            MR. WILFORD:  What the government has characterized

  20   in those particular paragraphs as background of al Qaeda.

  21            THE COURT:  Yes.

  22            MR. WILFORD:  For the indictment itself that may have

  23   been very nice and appropriate, but with respect to the jurors

  24   who have sat through the government's proof, all this does is

  25   allow the government to have their theory of the case


   1   accompany the jury into the jury room.  They are sitting there

   2   reading what the government says the case is all about.  Now

   3   what they should be doing is deciding whether or not the

   4   government has proven Counts One --

   5            THE COURT:  You are moving to strike the background?

   6            MR. WILFORD:  Yes.

   7            THE COURT:  Although the Court usually reads the

   8   indictment, I am not planning to read the indictment and I

   9   think that background is an essential part of understanding

  10   the government's theory here and the jury is told this is in

  11   evidence and this is the accusation and that's part of what

  12   the accusation is.

  13            Denied.

  14            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, I have one question.  From

  15   reading the most recent indictment, there are no more sort of

  16   blank counts.  The government does not move up all the counts,

  17   so there are no missing counts.

  18            THE COURT:  These are the final lettering, final

  19   numbering?

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  21            MR. DRATEL:  So whatever was is -- it's all

  22   compressed.

  23            THE COURT:  Turning, then, to Court Exhibit B, the

  24   verdict form, the only thing I'm aware of is that we didn't

  25   adopt the government's proposed change in the structure of the


   1   perjury counts.  We thought that the way it appears here is

   2   clearer and --

   3            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, can I just ask as an

   4   alternative that, "Please mark all that apply" or "indicate."

   5   My concern is if they find five specifications, they check one

   6   and then there's an appellate issue on that specification if

   7   they don't answer B through E.  So, for example, on page 44,

   8   there's just a statement "indicate all that apply."

   9            THE COURT:  You just want "answer all that apply"?

  10            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  11            MR. WILFORD:  What page, Judge?

  12            THE COURT:  Page 44.  That would be true of all of

  13   the perjury counts.

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  You could even put it in front of,

  15   "If there is no answer that you find the defendant, then you

  16   must find the defendant guilty" to make sense.

  17            THE COURT:  Then put after that, answer --

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  Before, "If there is no answer,

  19   answer all that apply."  "If there is no answer which you --"

  20            THE COURT:  Okay.  Does everybody follow what Mr.

  21   Fitzgerald is suggesting?  I'm having difficulty with "apply."

  22            MR. DRATEL:  Your Honor, would it be easier after the

  23   which of you --

  24            (Pause)

  25            THE COURT:  If you look at 229, you have a problem


   1   with this because it goes from A to N, and to answer all that

   2   apply A to N on, it's a heavy burden.

   3            MR. FITZGERALD:  That I understand, Judge, but --

   4            THE COURT:  You think it's less of a burden than

   5   arguing on appeal where there is no response?

   6            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.  And frankly, I think it's

   7   important if they find more than one specification that we

   8   have that there.

   9            THE COURT:  That you know that.

  10            All right.  Answer which of these do you now find to

  11   to be false."

  12            Answer all as to which -- I don't know what "applies"

  13   means.  "Answer all as to which you have unanimously" --

  14            MR. FITZGERALD:  "Found to be false."

  15            THE COURT:  "Found false."  So that on every perjury

  16   count after the letters, the sentence is going to appear,

  17   "Answer all as to which you have unanimously found false."

  18            MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you.

  19            MR. DRATEL:  I think it may be easier to go after the

  20   question, "Which of these do you unanimously find to be

  21   false?" and then say "answer all."  That might be the better

  22   direction, and leaving the last sentence by itself.

  23            THE COURT:  Where would you put it?

  24            MR. DRATEL:  After the question, "Which of these do

  25   you unanimously find to be false?"  Then it says, "Answer


   1   all," so that before they get to it, they know, they reach all

   2   of them.

   3            THE COURT:  I think that's probably right.

   4            MR. FITZGERALD:  Either way.

   5            THE COURT:  I think I will accept Mr. Dratel's

   6   suggestion.

   7            MR. FITZGERALD:  Your Honor, the only other comment

   8   from the government is with regard to the findings with regard

   9   to Al-'Owhali and Khalfan Mohamed on aiding and abetting, when

  10   they have to make the alternate findings, I know in the charge

  11   you have a sentence that says, "Consider whether they are

  12   guilty as a principal first, and if you find that they are, do

  13   not consider what" --

  14            THE COURT:  Yes.

  15            MR. FITZGERALD:  In the instructions in the verdict

  16   form, if they don't remember that, I suggest that we put

  17   language in that says, "Consider whether the defendant is

  18   guilty as a principal.  If so, indicate yes.  If not, consider

  19   aiding and abetting."

  20            THE COURT:  You take the language which is in the

  21   instruction itself, the substance of that?

  22            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.

  23            THE COURT:  And put it in which count?

  24            MR. FITZGERALD:  All the counts that involve aiding

  25   and abetting, which are a number of them.  I think it shows up


   1   first maybe at page 12.

   2            THE COURT:  Page 12.

   3            MR. FITZGERALD:  The language is on page 79.  Maybe

   4   on -- it may show up actually before then.

   5            MR. COHN:  Your Honor, is it really necessary to

   6   duplicate language in the charge in the verdict form?

   7            MR. FITZGERALD:  I think it starts on page 79.

   8            THE COURT:  79, you say, "Here, if you find the

   9   defendant you are considering himself committed the crime

  10   charged, you need not consider whether he also aided and

  11   abetted another person's commission of the crime.  That is to

  12   say, if you find the defendant you are considering acted as a

  13   principal and personally committed the offense, then you need

  14   not evaluate whether he might also have acted as an aider or

  15   abettor."  And that's the language which you want reflected in

  16   the --

  17            MR. FITZGERALD:  Yes.  Maybe we could do a shorthand.

  18   What we might do is the first time aiding and abetting comes

  19   up in the special verdict form, incorporate that language so

  20   then you could say, "Thus, you should only check one box," and

  21   then thereafter you can, when you say, "Thus, you should only

  22   check one box," you can even put "see page 7 above."

  23            MR. COHN:  Why don't you say "check one box only" and

  24   let it go with that?

  25            MR. RUHNKE:  It does say that.


   1            MR. FITZGERALD:  But they don't understand which box

   2   to consider first, and that's important because if six think

   3   it's principal, six are aiding and abetting, they can sit

   4   there and hang because they don't have a structure in which to

   5   move forward.

   6            THE COURT:  Let me suggest now what I was going to

   7   say is the first time we have aider or abettor, we have a

   8   footnote that says, "With respect to the relationship between

   9   the defendant himself committing the crime or aiding and

  10   abetting, bear in mind the instruction at page 79 of the

  11   charge."  We could do that.  The problem with that is it just

  12   gets too complex.

  13            I'm thinking over this jury and we've got some very

  14   sophisticated people who have taken very careful notes and are

  15   very well-educated and will have no difficulty with that and

  16   others as to whom that would not be an accurate description.

  17            Let me think about it.  The way I might do it is just

  18   do it orally when I go from the first aiding and abetting

  19   charge in the instruction and then go to the count.

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  If I could bring up one section

  21   before we get to a page that has aiding and abetting on it,

  22   there might be one sheet that just says, "From here on after,

  23   when you are considering aiding and abetting and the principal

  24   liability as discussed in the charge, please consider the

  25   principal liability first, then aiding and abetting


   1   liability."  Then everywhere else you need not import the

   2   language, you can say "as discussed at page 8 above," whatever

   3   the number is, "please only check one box."

   4            THE COURT:  All right.  I understand.  I don't have

   5   any problem with the substance of it.  Whether we do it by

   6   separate paragraph or a footnote or so on, we'll consider.

   7   But I understand the point and I will try to accommodate it.

   8            MR. COHN:  Your Honor, in regard to those page after

   9   page of answering the question as to various dead people, I

  10   assume that you are leaving it the way it is, it is not an

  11   oversight, you rejected my request that it be chanced into

  12   one?

  13            THE COURT:  Yes.  No, I thought I indicated that the

  14   last time.  It was not an oversight.

  15            Anything else?

  16            MR. RICCO:  Your Honor, can I see you in the robing

  17   room with the government?

  18            THE COURT:  With the government?

  19            MR. RICCO:  Yes.

  20            THE COURT:  All right.  Surely.  Otherwise, we are

  21   adjourned until tomorrow.

  22            Should we meet before 10 a.m.?  Are there still some

  23   stipulations which at the last moment will be the subject --

  24            MR. FITZGERALD:  Why don't we meet at 9:45 and I

  25   think were ready to go.


   1            THE COURT:  9:45 tomorrow.

   2            MR. COHN:  One other thing, your Honor, before our

   3   summation, we're using some Powerpoint charts and other things

   4   that we have created out of the evidence which have not been

   5   marked in evidence.  I expect to preview that with the

   6   government before my summation, and if there is any problem,

   7   we'll come to the court about it.

   8            THE COURT:  Very well.

   9            MR. COHN:  Just to tell you now that that's what

  10   we're going to use.

  11            THE COURT:  I will be available for that.

  12            MR. COHN:  I assume that we won't sum up until next

  13   week sometime.

  14            THE COURT:  Two and a half days.  I've got a chart

  15   someplace.

  16            MR. COHN:  Two and a half days gets us to Thursday

  17   afternoon and El Hage is going first, so it doesn't get me up

  18   until Monday or Tuesday.

  19            MR. DRATEL:  The government still anticipates --

  20            MR. FITZGERALD:  I think the best thing to say,

  21   having predicted a nine to twelve-month trial, is after the

  22   end of the first day of summation, we'll tell you where we

  23   are.  In other words, if it's way ahead of pace, we'll give

  24   you a heads up so there is no surprise.

  25            THE COURT:  We're adjourned until tomorrow at 9:45.


   1            (Adjourned to 9:45 a.m. on May 1, 2001)

   2            (Pages 5210 through 5211 filed under seal)

   3            (Continued on next page)























HTML by Cryptome.