17 May 2001
Source: Digital file from the Court Reporters Office, Southern District of New York; (212) 805-0300.
This is the transcript of Day 48 of the trial, May 17, 2001.
See other transcripts: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ubl-dt.htm
6321 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 v. S(7) 98 Cr. 1023 5 USAMA BIN LADEN, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 ------------------------------x 8 New York, N.Y. 9 May 17, 2001 9:30 a.m. 10 11 12 Before: 13 HON. LEONARD B. SAND, 14 District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6322 1 APPEARANCES 2 MARY JO WHITE United States Attorney for the 3 Southern District of New York BY: PATRICK FITZGERALD 4 KENNETH KARAS PAUL BUTLER 5 Assistant United States Attorneys 6 ANTHONY L. RICCO 7 EDWARD D. WILFORD CARL J. HERMAN 8 SANDRA A. BABCOCK Attorneys for defendant Mohamed Sadeek Odeh 9 FREDRICK H. COHN 10 DAVID P. BAUGH LAURA GASIOROWSKI 11 Attorneys for defendant Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali 12 DAVID STERN DAVID RUHNKE 13 Attorneys for defendant Khalfan Khamis Mohamed 14 SAM A. SCHMIDT 15 JOSHUA DRATEL KRISTIAN K. LARSEN 16 Attorneys for defendant Wadih El Hage 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6323 1 (Deliberations resumed) 2 (Time noted, 9:45 a.m.; jury not present) 3 THE COURT: Are there any disagreements as to what 4 should be read to the jury in response to the note? 5 MR. COHN: There are, your Honor. 6 MR. WILFORD: Your Honor, my client is not able to 7 hear anything. 8 MR. COHN: The government agrees with those portions 9 which I think are relevant but they have additional portions 10 which I think are not. Therefore, let me give you the ones 11 that we believe that we are in agreement on and then obviously 12 you will want to hear from the government. 13 THE COURT: Yes. 14 MR. COHN: Page 2020, line 23 -- 15 THE COURT: I tell you what. I am not so much 16 interested in those that you are agreed upon. That is a 17 matter of giving that list to the reporter. I think we should 18 focus on those things where there is disagreement. 19 MR. COHN: Except, your Honor, that the disagreement 20 is conceptual, I think, and I believe that the question 21 addressed to the bombing, the motive for the bombing of the 22 embassies -- 23 THE COURT: The language of the note is what he said 24 regarding why embassies are targeted. What is the date of the 25 transcript? 6324 1 MR. COHN: The date of it, your Honor, is March 7. 2 THE COURT: Is it all on that day? 3 MR. KARAS: Yes. 4 THE COURT: You are in agreement with page 2020 -- 5 MR. COHN: Line 23, through 2021, line 11. Then we 6 are in further agreement on page 2023, line 19, through 2024, 7 line 6. The government then has further material. 8 THE COURT: The government wants what? 9 MR. KARAS: There are two additional questions, your 10 Honor, that are responsive to the note that the jury has 11 brought out. The first one is on page 2021, beginning on line 12 12. It goes down to line 24. 13 THE COURT: That deals with when rather than why. 14 MR. KARAS: The only thing, in particular, line 21, 15 on page 2021, what Al-'Owhali explained to Agent Gaudin was 16 that the group wanted to attack American targets outside the 17 United States, which we think is responsive to why embassies 18 are targeted, so that it could weaken the United States. 19 THE COURT: Where is that? 20 MR. KARAS: Page 2021, line 21, the sentence that 21 begins with first, and he says first, we must first, Saleh 22 explains to Al-'Owhali that we have to have many attacks 23 outside the United States, and this will weaken the US and 24 make way for our ability to strike within the United States. 25 THE COURT: That does relate to why embassies are 6325 1 targeted. 2 MR. COHN: You say does or doesn't? 3 THE COURT: It does. 4 MR. COHN: It talks about undifferentiated targets 5 and could include all sorts of things, including military 6 bases and all the things that are sort of off campus. I don't 7 think it is specific enough. Your Honor said at the beginning 8 of this process that we would give a close literal reading of 9 the request. I don't think that is responsive. I think it is 10 too broad. 11 MR. KARAS: Your Honor, all this has to be viewed in 12 context. This is right after Al-'Owhali has explained why the 13 embassy in Nairobi was to be targeted, and then right after he 14 gives that answer, the next question and answer deals with the 15 types of training they received, and at the top of page 2022, 16 the answer given is that Al-'Owhali explained to me during his 17 training they emphasize priorities of attacks, three of those 18 to be US missions or diplomatic posts and kidnapping 19 ambassadors. 20 So I don't think in context it can be read as a very 21 vague abstract. 22 THE COURT: I agree. So that is 2020 -- I disagree 23 with the government with respect to the line prior line 23 on 24 page 2020. 25 MR. KARAS: Or line 21, at the end of the line there, 6326 1 first we must? 2 THE COURT: Where would you begin? 3 MR. KARAS: Line 21, the sentence that begins with 4 first. 5 MR. COHN: This is on page what? 6 MR. KARAS: 2021. 7 THE COURT: Page 2021, what line? 8 MR. KARAS: At the very beginning it would be, as 9 your Honor noted, page 2020, line 23. 10 THE COURT: So you would begin on 21, first we 11 must -- 12 MR. KARAS: I may have misunderstood your question, 13 your Honor. When you ask where would we begin, the bottom of 14 page 2020, line 23. 15 THE COURT: That's clear, right? There is no 16 disagreement as to that. 17 MR. COHN: No, and we are in agreement through line 18 11 on the next page. The government wishes to continue. 19 MR. KARAS: I think, your Honor, in terms of context 20 to make it clear, I think we go through to page 2022, line 5. 21 THE COURT: To line 5, I agree. 22 MR. COHN: Note my objection. 23 THE COURT: So it will be 2020, line 23, through 24 2022, line 5. 25 MR. COHN: Just so the record is clear -- 6327 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 MR. KARAS: The next one where we do agree is page 3 2023, line 19, through to page 2024, line 6. That was where 4 we agreed. And then the last area of disagreement is, turning 5 to page 2037, beginning with line 8, through to 2038, line 2. 6 And there Agent Gaudin asks Al-'Owhali what it is that it 7 would take for this to stop, referring to the embassy 8 bombings, and Al-'Owhali explains again the motives as to why 9 American embassies are targeted, and he lists the three 10 conditions in which those attacks would stop. 11 MR. COHN: Your Honor, he is asking questions about 12 policy and it is not directed to the embassy. 13 THE COURT: You would read to where? What line? 14 MR. KARAS: We would seek to have read back page 15 2037, line 8, to 2038, line 2. 16 THE COURT: No, I will sustain the objection to that. 17 I think the question is why embassies, and this is more 18 general. 19 So that's it? 20 MR. KARAS: That's it. 21 MR. COHN: That appears to be it. 22 THE COURT: We will bring the jury in. I will tell 23 the jury that if there is anything else they want of the 24 testimony of Agent Gaudin, they should send us another note. 25 MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, before we bring the jury 6328 1 in, I also request your Honor that before you have this 2 material read that you give the limiting instruction 3 concerning the use of the statement made by Mr. Al-'Owhali as 4 to the other defendants. 5 THE COURT: That is appropriate. I will do that. 6 MR. WILFORD: Your Honor, is it your intent to 7 reiterate the last paragraph of your charge on admissions of 8 defendants? 9 THE COURT: I intend to say I remind you that the 10 testimony of the agent with respect to postarrest statements 11 by Mr. Al-'Owhali were received only with respect to him. 12 If they want the totality of his testimony, there is 13 the alternative, of course, of sending in the transcript. 14 MR. COHN: I don't think so. My client wishes to put 15 on the record that he disagrees with my interpretation of the 16 question and does not believe that the question requires an 17 answer in regard to the specific Nairobi embassy bombing, and 18 that it is only general. 19 THE COURT: Very well. The record will so indicate. 20 (Time noted 10:00 a.m., jury present) 21 THE COURT: Good morning. 22 JURORS: Good morning. 23 THE COURT: Your last note reads: For tomorrow -- 24 meaning today -- we would like to have Special Agent Gaudin's 25 testimony read to us. Specifically, we are interested in what 6329 1 he said regarding why embassies are targeted. 2 Let me say a few things before we read that. The 3 first, I want to remind you that Agent Gaudin's testimony as 4 to what Mr. Al-'Owhali said after his arrest was received in 5 evidence solely against Mr. Al-'Owhali, and that of course 6 applies. 7 Second, with respect to this note, as with respect to 8 all of the notes we receive from you, we try to limit the 9 response to what it is that you ask for, giving that a fairly 10 strict interpretation. But please, if what we read or what we 11 send you does not include everything you want, just simply 12 send us a note. 13 So what we will have now read is the portions of the 14 testimony specifically addressed to the testimony as to why 15 embassies are targeted. If there is anything else in his 16 testimony that you would like to have reread, just send us a 17 note. 18 (Record read) 19 THE COURT: That is the testimony specifically 20 related to why embassies are targeted. As I say, if there is 21 anything else you want read, please send us a note. 22 MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, what we discussed prior 23 to -- 24 THE COURT: I said that. 25 (Jury excused) 6330 1 THE COURT: Does it create any special hardship for 2 counsel if we begin at 9:30? Because in fact this jury is 3 arriving at 9:00. We will begin each day at 9:30. They 4 arrive at 9, and I think they have a little breakfast. 5 With respect to the victim impact testimony, is that 6 now ripe for adjudication? 7 MR. COHN: Yes. 8 THE COURT: The court has received various documents 9 which have been furnished to counsel. These include the bill 10 of particulars by cover letter dated May 10, specifying the 11 particularized categories of "injury, harm and loss" that will 12 be proffered at sentencing, and that consists of redacted 13 302's. 14 MR. GARCIA: Names and identifying details. 15 THE COURT: And that will be furnished -- 16 MR. GARCIA: Yes, Judge, except for the telephone 17 numbers and addresses. 18 THE COURT: In addition, there is a chart that I take 19 it is in response to the request for a summary, one for Kenya 20 and one for Tanzania. There is also the government's 21 response, which deals with, in particular deals with 22 photographs, Exhibit A being photographs the government 23 intends to introduce with respect to Nairobi, B with respect 24 to Kenya, and Exhibit C, which I take it is by way of 25 comparison, photographs which the government does not intend 6331 1 to introduce, I take it for reasons which include gruesome 2 character. 3 With respect to victim impact testimony, is there 4 anything -- 5 MR. COHN: There is also a tape, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: There is the tape, which I have watched, 7 although I am not sure I watched it to its conclusion. I 8 watched it to the point where foreign service officers were 9 summarizing who was killed or injured in the -- who had 10 accompanied her on a mountain climb. Is that the end of the 11 tape? 12 MR. GARCIA: I think then just the scroll of names of 13 Americans and foreign service nationals who were killed in 14 both bombings. 15 THE COURT: My first question is, by way of discovery 16 is there anything further which the defendants require in 17 terms of what the government intends to offer at each of the 18 two -- 19 MR. COHN: Your Honor, we would -- 20 THE COURT: Let me finish the sentence. I like when 21 there is a sentence where you can put a period. Sometimes 22 there is a pause. 23 MR. COHN: I apologize. It seems to be my nature to 24 interrupt virtually everybody, no matter how powerful. 25 It is our contention that what we got was not 6332 1 sufficient, for the reasons set we set forth. 2 THE COURT: Just to focus, what is there about what 3 the government intends to introduce with respect to victims 4 and victim impact that you don't have? 5 MR. COHN: What we have is what there is. That may 6 seem to be a distinction without a difference. But unless we 7 are to get advisory opinions from you on objectionable 8 material in each of the 302's, it seems to me that we should 9 be entitled to a precis of the expected testimony, not of the 10 available information. There is material in a number of the 11 302's that if introduced into evidence would call for an 12 objection and too late. 13 THE COURT: I suppose it would be helpful if the 14 government were to state what the function of these charts is. 15 Maybe we should mark them in evidence as Court Exh GARCIA: Your Honor, yes. To be perfectly clear, 22 on this photograph, she won't be able to respond because she 23 can't see now. 24 THE COURT: She is blind. 25 MR. GARCIA: She is blind. The other photographs 6343 1 that I believe there was objection to all deal with injured 2 victims, which go directly to what we were speaking about, the 3 category of aggravating factors. I think it is very limited 4 considering that hundreds of people were injured, many far 5 more seriously than those depicted in the photographs. 6 MR. COHN: Just let me point out, your Honor, that 7 what we usually call a 403 analysis here is much less 8 burdensome to the defendant than it is under the general rules 9 of evidence, and that McVeigh certainly indicates to us that 10 the court should exercise some balance in the amount of this 11 stuff that comes in. That is what we are really addressing. 12 THE COURT: What is a fair balance? You start to do 13 the arithmetic of McVeigh and the number of witnesses and the 14 number of victims and you set up a formula? 15 MR. COHN: No, Judge. I believe that everyone in 16 this courtroom on this side of the bar is an experienced trial 17 lawyer or experienced judge, and you understand impact, if not 18 better than I do, and I think that 42 victims testifying, 12 19 before and 30 now, is a bit much, and that particularly, if 20 you look at their chart, many are duplicative in terms of 21 categories. How many blind people do you need to testify? I 22 don't mean to be grotesque but that is what it is about. It 23 is a parade of people who have serious injuries. Every family 24 suffered from all of this and we all know it. How much of it 25 is reasonable is something that is within your sound 6344 1 discretion. 2 You are never going to be reversed on what you do, I 3 know that. 4 THE COURT: That is not my criterion. 5 MR. COHN: And I know it is not, but it is not ours 6 either. I just think it is too much. We had the film. Yes, 7 the government was nice about it and didn't put in a lot of 8 the stuff that they could have, but they got a lot for it. 9 They didn't have to bring irrelevant witnesses from Nairobi 10 and do all that stuff. 11 THE COURT: And that was a benefit to the government? 12 MR. COHN: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Unilateral benefit? 14 MR. COHN: Unilateral, no. I said they got something 15 for it. It was a quid pro quo. While they are all nice young 16 men individually is hardly being charitable. 17 THE COURT: Wait a minute. First of all, ad hominem 18 comments, and there have been very few during the course of 19 the trial, should not be made even at this stage as the trial 20 winds down. 21 MR. COHN: It is not an attack on any of these people 22 personally. The government does what it does. 23 THE COURT: The government has an obligation. It has 24 an obligation to fulfill its mission. It has an obligation to 25 present to this jury a fair and reasonable depiction of what 6345 1 occurred. What occurred was not a bloodless event. You 2 recall that when we voir-dired this jury they were alerted to 3 the fact that the evidence might include photographs -- I 4 don't have the exact language before me now, but basically 5 gory. As I look through these photographs, I don't find that 6 blood is being displayed in an excessive fashion. Blood was 7 spilled. Part of the agony of the victims and the agony of 8 members of their families and others who were observing was 9 that. I think that the government's submission insofar as the 10 photographs are concerned are reasonable, appropriate, within 11 the scope of Payne and McVeigh, and insofar as the objections 12 are directed to that, they are denied. 13 With respect to the video, what is the government's 14 intent? I take it the video was not prepared for the trial. 15 MR. GARCIA: No, it was prepared for the one-year 16 anniversary of the bombing. 17 THE COURT: Does the government plan to play any or 18 all of that tape? 19 MR. GARCIA: Yes, your Honor. So the record is 20 clear, we redacted the end of the video, which is available 21 for your review, if you care to, which has Ambassador Bushnell 22 giving a speech and things like that. The government would 23 seek to play the video as we submit it to your Honor. If 24 there is an objection to the portion of it describing the 25 victims, then the government would contemplate only using the 6346 1 photographic images and putting it in, authenticating it in a 2 different way without any narrative. 3 THE COURT: Have defense counsel seen the video? 4 MR. COHN: My colleague has, I have not. 5 MR. BAUGH: I have, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Are there objections to the video? 7 MR. BAUGH: Yes, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: What are the objections? 9 MR. BAUGH: Several, your Honor. As the tape opens, 10 there is a list of words that fade in and out, with sort of a 11 kind of spiritual and patriotic theme to them that we believe 12 is not dispositive of any issue that is in controversy. 13 MR. GARCIA: We can redact that, Judge. 14 MR. BAUGH: Additionally, the rest of the tape 15 appears to have been -- I don't know if the people who are 16 speaking on the tape wrote it all themselves, other than those 17 portions they attribute to poetry, but it certainly appears 18 that they are reading off of something. More importantly, 19 citing specific language in Payne, it goes way beyond showing 20 what is lost. It is taking the jury to a memorial service, 21 taking the jury to a funeral. 22 THE COURT: It varies. In some instances it seemed 23 to me that the testimony, what the person said on the video 24 could have been said on the witness stand. It fell within the 25 scope of the aggravators, within the scope of Payne and 6347 1 McVeigh, in some instances. The reading of the poetry, I 2 suppose, would not. The description of a crime as a crime of 3 hate, it is about the first 10 minutes. And the end, which is 4 sort of an exhortation to foreign service officers to duty and 5 the calls of duty, I think, would not be permitted. 6 Why don't you do, with respect to the tape, the same 7 thing as you are doing with respect to the 302's. Maybe you 8 can watch it together and agree on what could be redacted. 9 MR. COHN: We will try, Judge, but I am less sanguine 10 about that than I am with the 302's. 11 THE COURT: You haven't seen it, right? 12 MR. COHN: No. 13 THE COURT: You are making that statement not having 14 seen it. I am saying that, having watched it, there are some 15 which in their totality would be permitted on the stand. If 16 the defendants think it is to their advantage to have a longer 17 parade of live victim witnesses, that's an alternative. 18 MR. COHN: It is not the only alternative, Judge, 19 because what I was going to point out to the court was that if 20 those people -- and I don't know how many there are -- 21 THE COURT: You know what, Mr. Cohn, maybe it would 22 really be more useful for you to have seen the tape before you 23 venture your views on its admissibility. 24 MR. COHN: Perhaps, your Honor, but I think given 25 your description of it I could have said what I was about to 6348 1 say, but if the court doesn't want to hear it, that works for 2 me. 3 MR. BAUGH: And I would agree with Mr. Cohn that if 4 the government is going to put the live witnesses on and have 5 them on videotape -- 6 THE COURT: Not the same, right? Is there 7 duplication? 8 MR. BAUGH: Yes, your Honor, there is. We have 302's 9 from people who are on the tape. 10 MR. GARCIA: Your Honor, we will redact out so there 11 is no overlap. 12 MR. BAUGH: However, we are still permitted to go 13 through and point out to you those portions which we say 14 should be excised as well. 15 MR. GARCIA: And we will indicate which we will 16 redact so there is no duplication. 17 MR. BAUGH: And we will have that by the close of 18 business tomorrow. 19 Your Honor, could I have until noon tomorrow on the 20 instructions so I can do this today? 21 THE COURT: Yes. I don't know how you divide your 22 work up. 23 MR. COHN: I take some comfort in the fact that 24 neither do we -- never mind, Judge, another smart remark. 25 MR. BAUGH: Cocounsel points out, because as you 6349 1 know, we are working a lot here, even though Mr. Cohn has 2 kindly consented that we would present our objections to the 3 printed material by the close of business tomorrow, could we 4 submit ours with Mr. Ruhnke as well? 5 THE COURT: Yes. 6 MR. BAUGH: Thank you. 7 THE COURT: Anything else? 8 MR. RUHNKE: Your Honor, there is some victim impact 9 evidence that we have not discussed with respect to K.K. 10 Mohammed. Just by way of preamble to this, the danger here is 11 that natural human emotion takes over what a juror's 12 responsibilities are to the law. 13 THE COURT: You know, we know something -- I have the 14 rest of the day. I have the rest of the day to listen to you, 15 but I wanted to say, we know something now that we didn't know 16 before. We know something about this jury. We know that this 17 is a jury which hasn't had a kneejerk reaction to the 18 magnitude of the losses. We know this is a jury which has 19 already demonstrated that it is carefully considering, 20 meticulously reviewing the evidence, and there is no reason to 21 think that the response will change. 22 MR. RUHNKE: The danger that has been identified and 23 associated with victim impact evidence is that it has a 24 tendency to overwhelm reason with emotion. 25 THE COURT: You know, you are arguing against 6350 1 yourself, you see, because one of the arguments was that it is 2 duplicative. This jury has already seen the blood and the 3 gore. But the seeing of the blood and the gore has not led 4 this jury to say what a horrible catastrophe this was and to 5 just check the box. 6 Anyhow, I will now be quiet. 7 MR. RUHNKE: Your Honor, anytime, obviously. There 8 was a time in our history when the United States Supreme Court 9 said this type of evidence is so entirely inflammatory that it 10 cannot be allowed in a capital case. What happened is, two 11 years later, the only thing that changed was the makeup of the 12 United States Supreme Court, which said now it can come into 13 evidence and it is perfectly fine that it come into evidence. 14 What we are guided by, accepting Payne and Gaithers 15 and the Booth, Gaithers, Payne history, is that the laws 16 enacted by Congress talk not in terms of evidence but 17 information at a penalty phase that seems otherwise relevant. 18 What Mr. Cohn alluded to before is that Congress, whether, God 19 bless them, this was a conscious choice or they just didn't 20 know what they are they were doing on that particular day, 21 enacted a statute which says evidence may be excluded if its 22 probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair 23 prejudice, confusing the issues or misleading the jury. 24 Whether that is a conscious effort to make the standard 25 broader than Rule 403, which talks about substantially 6351 1 outweighing the danger, I don't know. The legislative history 2 of this particular enactment is not anything that would take a 3 long time to read, and there is no discussion of this 4 particular change in the history of legislation. 5 So we come to a penalty phase where a jury is going 6 to be required to decide whether or not to sentence someone to 7 life or death. That is the issue at penalty. Then the 8 argument becomes do, for example, photographs bear a relevant 9 relation to that process, and if the answer to that is yes, 10 whether there is danger of unfair prejudice from the 11 photographs. That's the analysis that we need to undertake, 12 accepting that Payne is the law and accepting what Congress 13 did when it enacted the relevance exclusion of information 14 standard that it did. 15 The government has proffered five photographs in 16 connection with the bombing in Dar es Salaam. There are tabs 17 behind Exhibit B in the materials that were submitted. I 18 lodge an objection to the second photograph, which depicts a 19 charred and disfigured corpse lying on the ground -- they are 20 in different order? There is a photograph among the five of a 21 charred corpse. 22 THE COURT: With burned out automobiles in the 23 background. 24 MR. RUHNKE: Yes, and the embassy fence in the 25 background. 6352 1 If this was a case, for example, where the government 2 had argued a statutory aggravating factor that the murder was 3 accomplished in a manner that was heinous, atrocious and 4 cruel, there might be some relevance to this photograph. But 5 all this photograph does is show a horribly disfigured body of 6 somebody who was killed in the bombing. It does not prove or 7 move forward any of the aggravating factors alleged by the 8 government that are not already in this case. So I object to 9 that photograph. 10 I object as well to what is photograph number 4 in my 11 set, which is what I can only describe as a pile of human 12 corpses on the floor, it appears probably of some morgue in 13 downtown Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I argue that that proves 14 nothing other than that people died, something which is part 15 of the atmosphere of this case, something the jury will have 16 decided if we are to move on to the penalty phase. I 17 particularly argue that there is a danger of unfair prejudice, 18 that simply there is a danger of unfair prejudice, not 19 substantially outweighing probative value, but that there is a 20 danger and that your Honor ought to exclude both of those two 21 photographs. 22 THE COURT: All the photographs? 23 MR. RUHNKE: Those two photographs, two out of the 24 five. 25 THE COURT: The pile of bodies and the charred 6353 1 corpse. 2 MR. RUHNKE: Yes. 3 MR. GARCIA: Your Honor, I don't quarrel with Mr. 4 Ruhnke's statement of the rule and the statute -- 5 MR. RUHNKE: Could you keep your voice up. 6 MR. GARCIA: -- which is a different standard than 7 403. We have five proposed photographs for Dar es Salaam, 8 including the two Mr. Ruhnke specifies. We have noticed an 9 aggravating factor of multiple killings. It is the same 10 analysis as the government doesn't have to stip the cause of 11 death. They are multiple killings. It is an aggravating 12 factor that the government has to prove. 13 In addition, especially the photograph of the body 14 lying outside the embassy, this is not a government 15 photograph. This is what the scene looked like as other 16 victims were walking out of the embassy. This is what 17 happened in Dar es Salaam and this is an impact on the 18 survivors, as well as the individual who was killed in this 19 manner depicted in the photograph. There were 11 people 20 killed in Dar es Salaam. These photographs show that and they 21 also show the impact. This is a morgue photo of people going 22 there and seeing this. It is also impact on survival victims. 23 Sometimes it is seen in light of the Nairobi bombing but it is 24 still a case of mass murder. 25 I think these photos are relevant and restrained and 6354 1 that the jury should see them. 2 THE COURT: The motion to preclude use of the 3 photographs is denied. 4 Anything else on our agenda? 5 MR. COHN: Does your Honor wish to discuss at all the 6 sheer number of witnesses or do you want to await the 7 analysis -- 8 THE COURT: The government has told us -- how many 9 witnesses, how long? 10 MR. COHN: They said about 30, maybe 29, maybe 31 11 victim witnesses. 12 THE COURT: And the estimated length of time? 13 MR. GARCIA: Two days, Judge. Two to four, building 14 in some cross or some delay. But they will be very short, 15 victim impact testimony. Very short direct. 16 MR. COHN: I understand there are a lot -- 17 THE COURT: Is there really an objection in the 18 context of this case that that is excessive? 19 MR. COHN: Yes, your Honor. You have to put it in 20 the context of 12 people who already testified. The jury is 21 aware of victim impact. Cumulation mounts and I don't think 22 it adds anything. They know that there were 5,000 living 23 victims. They know that. I don't mean to make light of it or 24 try to be morbidly funny. I am not. How many people with the 25 same injuries need they see? That is cumulative. McVeigh 6355 1 seemed to indicate that there ought to be some limit. One 2 hundred seventy-six dead people in McVeigh, in the order of 3 magnitude, a similar amount of injury. 4 THE COURT: There is also language which says the 5 government has the right to enable the jury not to deal with 6 these as abstractions but to recognize the fact that these are 7 human beings, and there is specific language which says, both 8 in Payne and McVeigh, that these are human beings with lives 9 and families and so on. 10 I don't want to engage in rhetoric. One justice has 11 commented that the position of the defendants is to have sort 12 of an inverse ratio between the magnitude of the crime and 13 what it is that the government can show. That is not 14 appropriate. I think two days of testimony, that number of 15 witnesses does show restraint, appropriate restraint on the 16 part of the government, and I think it would be inappropriate 17 for the court to impose any further restraint, inappropriate 18 in attempting to enable that jury, which, as I have said, has 19 shown that it is not likely to be stampeded or to be 20 overwhelmed by emotion, because, as you have already pointed 21 out, they have already had significant exposure to victim 22 impact. But I think they are entitled at this phase of the 23 case, if we reach it, to have some sense of the trauma, some 24 sense of the consequences of blowing up these two embassies. 25 Anything further? 6356 1 MR. BAUGH: One thing briefly, your Honor. During 2 your discussion, several times you mentioned discovery. I 3 wanted the court to be reminded that nothing that has been 4 tendered was pursuant to Rule 16. It was all done in response 5 to notice. We have not figured made Rule 16 discovery 6 requests in this case. The court will understand. Thank you. 7 THE COURT: What remains open? Where are we with the 8 Brady material? Is that resolved? 9 MR. FITZGERALD: I believe the disclosure, classified 10 disclosure was made by placing some documents in the secure 11 facility for the defendants today. I know it was prepared 12 yesterday evening. 13 MR. RUHNKE: That is fine. This is the first time I 14 am learning that. 15 MR. FITZGERALD: It is ready to go. If it is not 16 physically there we will have someone walk over and make sure. 17 THE COURT: Having reviewed that matter, if that 18 disclosure and the way it is made and the restrictions to 19 which it is subject does not resolve the matter, then I am 20 available to hear from counsel. 21 What is the status with respect to, I guess the 22 military matter? 23 MR. BAUGH: I have not heard from him again. I will 24 call him again today. 25 MR. FITZGERALD: The last I heard from Mr. Ailey, 6357 1 when Mr. Baugh stated that he had not heard on the Friday, May 2 11, despite a promise of a letter, Mr. Baugh told me he did 3 not send a letter because he spoke to him on the 11th. When I 4 asked him if he was aware that the focus was not the specific 5 dates but the frequency, he said he was not aware of that and 6 would pursue it. My suggestion is that we try to contact 7 Mr. Ailey today and send a letter in writing. 8 THE COURT: Would you have any objection if Mr. 9 Fitzgerald was a part of that telephone conversation? 10 MR. BAUGH: No, not at all. 11 THE COURT: I think it might be useful. There seem 12 to be failures of communication here. 13 Then we are adjourned awaiting some further 14 communication from the jury. 15 (Recess) 16 (Proceedings adjourned at 4:00 p.m. until 10:30 a.m., 17 Friday, May 18, 2001) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
HTML by Cryptome.