Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

1

for inclusion in the Official Record before the Committee.

As

2

3

4

grounds for such request, respondent would show that:

"1.

Special Counsel has set November 20,, 1980 as the

cutoff point for the submission of material for inclusion of

5 material.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

: 21

22

"2.

It has been the consistent position of respondent's counsel that all portions of the District Court proceeding must

be included in the Committee's Official Record for an informed

judgment by this Committee. It is the position of special
counsel Mr. Prettyman that self-designated portions of the
District Court proceedings are 'not important' enough to jus-
tify their inclusion in the bound version of the record now be-
fore the Committee. As a consequence, it has become the re-
spondent's burden to supply the portions of the District Court
proceedings which special counsel has deemed 'not relevant.'
This can be done only after an examination of the printed rec-
ord to discover what portions have been omitted. Counsel for
respondent obtained this printed record at 3:00 p.m. on November
19, 1980 and has been unable to complete the required examina-
tion and subsequent duplication of the required pages.

"3.

Special counsel has refused to include in the printed record the proceedings held in District Court on November 12

and 13, 1980. The transcript of these proceedings are not yet

[blocks in formation]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

the December hearings scheduled by Judge Penn for December

in United States District Court."

I might clarify, the hearings are set for December 17

through December 20.

"Respondent John W. Jenrette believes that simple fair

ness requires the record before the Committee to be held open

until such time as all of the evidence can be presented.

Any

8 decision made without all of the evidence present can be termed

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The Chairman.

All right. Now, the procedure we will

follow at this point is, I will ask Mr. Prettyman to respond.

[blocks in formation]

First of all, you will note that counsel says that he

obtained the printed record on November 19th. Actually, the

entire record was available in my office on October 17th, a

month ago, and you will see from a letter of mine of that date

which will be introduced shortly as Exhibit F, that I told Mr.

Robinson that the record was available and asked him to come and

cross designate those portions of it which he wished to cross

11

[blocks in formation]

When he told me in response that he wanted the entire

13

record in, I objected to

-

I thereupon included in this

14

15

16

printed record all of the trial testimony, all of the evidence,

including some I might say which I thought was entirely

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The only things left were the pleadings, the bench conferences, the arguments out of the hearing of the

jury, Mr. Stowe's attorney summation, matters of that sort,

but the evidence is all here.

What counsel is really trying to do when he talks about

all portions of the District Court proceeding is to include not

[blocks in formation]

only the pre-trial motions and the bench conferences and

25

2

3

4

5

arguments, but also the proceedings that are still going on,
which, of course, I submit to you as we faced in the Myers

case, are not relevant to the matter for consideration before
this committee.

The essential matters for consideration before this com

6

mittee today I would remind you are whether offenses have

7

been committed which are within the jurisdiction of the committee

8

and I submit that you can determine that from the evidence

9

that was introduced at the trial, all of which is now before

10

you.

11

The Chairman.

Then the procedure we will follow at this

12

13

14

155

16

point would be that I would like you to read the next one you

want to read.

Mr. Robinson. Is it inappropriate for me to have an opportunity to make a brief reply to what was said?

The Chairman.

16

[blocks in formation]

You can reply.

Thank you.

I would say first that Mr. Prettyman knows that on October

17th I was still engaged in trial before the same Judge Penn,

Now, the Jenrette matter ended October 7th. Judge Penn made

me begin a four-week sports betting conspiracy case before him two days after the Jenrette verdict, over my very strong oejctions.

I was in trial until I think the verdict came in the day after the election, November 5, 1980. I was in trial before

:

Judge Penn. I do not have the privilege of having a 200-man

-

law firm, I almost called him Mr. Carter Mr. Prettyman has.

2

3

We have certain time problems.

4

5

Secondly, he says, Mr. Prettyman says much of what I

want admitted is irrelevant and immaterial.

6

7

Of course I challenge Mr. Prettyman when was the last time he tried a jury trial in a criminal case? He doesn't

8

know what is irrelevant and immaterial. He doesn't know

9

what a Federal Judge ruled was relevant and material.

The

[blocks in formation]

13

14

15

The Chairman. But it has all been put in?

Mr. Robinson. No, it hasn't. Mr. Prettyman says all.

Mr. Prettyman, with all due respect, is a downtown civil
lawyer. He is not an uptown versus a criminal lawyer. He
does not try these kinds of cases.

16

He doesn't have the ability to interpret what is

17

18

19

20

crucial to a conspiracy case and what constitutes violations of law. Judge Penn has serious questions about whether Jenrette

did anything wrong or not, and he hasn't ruled whether to set aside the verdict.

[blocks in formation]

That wasn't a matter before the committee on the Myers

case. The judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, as members and judges know, is a very serious negotiation. Usually they

are denied willy-nilly because there is insufficient evidence

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »