US vs LEONARD PELTIER TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS Case Number CR77-3003

SA STEVEN L HANCOCK, OREGON
FURTHER INFO ON OREGON STOP AND SEARCH  HERE

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury:)
 STEVEN L. HANCOCK
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
 DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CROOKS:
Q  Mr. Hancock, would you again give your full name for the record, please.
A  Steven L. Hancock.
Q  Where do you live, sir?
A  Portland, Oregon.
Q  And what is your occupation?
A  Special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q  And how long have you been employed as an FBI agent?
{2458}
A  Six and a half years, sir.
Q  Calling your attention back to November of 1975 -- excuse me. What was your duty station?
A  Portland, Oregon.
Q  And what area in Portland does it, or in Oregon, excuse me, does the Portland office cover?
A  IT covers all of the state of Oregon.
Q  And do you recall during that period of time approximately how many agents were at the Portland office?
A  In the Portland office, it's approximately 60.
Q  Now directing your attention back to November 14 and the days following thereafter of 1975, did you have occasion to travel to Ontario, Oregon, for the purpose of examining certain evidence?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  And can you describe how you became involved in this part of the investigation?
A  We were conducting a fugitive investigation concerning Leonard Peltier. We received information that a mobile home and a station wagon were stopped in Ontario, Oregon by the Oregon State Police and it was believed that Leonard Peltier might have been one of the occupants. That occurred on the 14th, November 14th. And the next day --
Q  Go ahead. I'm sorry.
A  The next day I flew out to Boise and was transported by {2459} car to Ontario, Oregon.
Q  When you arrived in Ontario, where did you go?
A  I went to the Oregon State Police office.
Q  And do you recall the approximate time that you arrived yourself?
A  It was in the afternoon. I don't recall. It was after 12:00.
Q  Insofar as you were concerned, were you present when the state police officers conducted a search of their own pursuant to a state search warrant?
A  Yes, sir, I was.
%Q  And did you observe, for instance, some of the things that came out of the vehicle during that period of time?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  What part, if any, did you play in their search?
A  I was an observer. I did not take any part in their search.
Q  At a subsequent time was there a federal search warrant obtained?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And do you recall when that was actually executed or a search made pursuant thereto?
A  Was executed on November 17.
Q  Do you recall whether the warrant was dated on the 17th or was it dated an earlier time than that?
{2460}
A  I don't recall the date on the search. I did not take part in the federal search.
Q  Insofar as the state search was concerned, were certain items found which were turned over to you as a representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And would you indicate what item, if any, that would have been?
A  There were items, there were document items and weapons, rifles, handguns, shotguns. There were food stuff containers.
Q  All right.
What specifically -- well, was there any type of boxes or containers which were turned over to you or made available to you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And what was the nature of that?
A  There were tool boxes, cardboard boxes with ammunition in them.
Q  During the course of your time in Oregon, did you open one of the tool boxes or was it opened in your presence?
A  Yes.
Q  And what was it? Give a description of this tool box.
A  The tool box doesn't have any markings on it to identify it as the make but it's a brown tool box. It appears to be a tool box that's got a red shelf in it, inside shelf that you can {2461} pull out.
Q  Who gave you that tool box?
A  Edward Hanson of the Oregon State Police.
Q  Upon examining the contents of the tool box, did you find anything which you retained as evidence?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I'll show you Exhibit No. 35F and ask what they are.
A  Those are six .357 magnum rounds which I observed in the tool box and upon, which was given to me by Mr. Hanson.
Q  And insofar as these . 357 rounds are concerned, in 35F, are they the shells which were in the tool box?
A  Yes, sir.
MR. CROOKS:  United States offers 35F.
MR. ELLISON:  We have no objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  35F is received.
Q  (By Mr. Crooks) Now pursuant to your time in Ontario, were in photographs taken by either by you or the state officials?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I hand you Exhibit No. 61 and ask if you can identify these.
A  Yes, sir. I took those.
Q  What are they?
A  Photographs of the evidence that the Oregon State Police found during their search.
Q  And these photographs were taken by you yourself?
{2462}
A  Yes, sir. I recognize them as mine.
Q  They are various vehicles depicted on page 1. Are these vehicles which were in connection in any way with the search?
A  Yes, sir. Those are the vehicles.
Q  And the subsequent pages are items which you observed having come out of the vehicles, is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
MR. CROOKS:  The United States at this time will offer Exhibit No. 61.
MR. ELLISON:  Your Honor, I'd like to ask a question or two on voir dire.
THE COURT:  You may.
MR. ELLISON:  Mr.Hancock, Agent Hancock, you testified that these were photographs of the weapons which were seized by the Oregon State Police in their search of the motor home, is that correct?
THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
MR. ELLISON:  Does that include all of the weapons seized by the Oregon State Police?
THE WITNESS:  No, sir.
MR. ELLISON:  In fact, it selectively excludes an AR15 from those photographs, doesn't it?
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, I'll object to this. This is not proper voir dire. This is simply cross-examination.
MR. ELLISON:  No, Your Honor. This exhibit is being {2463} offered, I believe, to show the weapons that were found by the Oregon State Police and turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is a misleading exhibit in that it does not show an AR15 which was seized.
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor --
THE COURT:  That would not render it inadmissible. That would be something that you could bring out on cross- examination.
MR. ELLISON:  All right. Very well. I have no further questions. Subject to the record, we have no objection.
THE COURT:  Very well.
Exhibit 61 is received.
{2464}
Q  (By Mr. Crooks) All right, with regard to the photographs shown on Exhibit No. 61, counsel has anticipated my next line of questioning.
Were these all of the weapons that were taken out of the vehicles as depicted in these photographs, three, four and five?
A  No, sir.
Q  Were there other weapons removed?
A  Yes, sir.
**Q  And do you recall the makes or types of any of these weapons that are not shown in the picture, but that you observed having been removed?
A  (Examining) There were two more weapons that were found, Valmet 7.62 caliber -- semi-automatic weapons that were taken out. There was a .44 magnum.
Q  Do you recall any other ones specifically at this time?
A  And there was an AR-15.
Q  So two of the weapons -- well, strike that.
I hand you Exhibit No. 40-A which has already been received in evidence through Mr. Zeller -- you stated a .44 magnum -- and ask you if you can identify that?
A  (Examining) Yes, sir. That's the weapon.
Q  That appears to be the one you are referring to not shown in the photograph?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right. With regard to the AR-15, I would show you {2465} Government Exhibit 34-AA, and ask you whether or not the AR-15 which you observed was similar to the one I am holding in my hand?
A  Yes, sir, it is similar.
Q  Now, is there a difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 rifle?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  To your knowledge what is the difference, if you know?
A  The difference is that the AR -- or that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, and the M-16 has a selector and can fire semi-automatic or full automatic.
Q  The M-16, is there any particular agency or part of our Government that would use that principally?
MR. ELLISON:  Your Honor, I am going to raise an objection. I believe that the correct terminology is either a M-16 or AR-15.
MR. CROOKS:  I stand corrected, I misspoke.
Q  (By Mr. Crooks) The M-16.
A  Would you repeat that, please?
Q  With regard to the M-16, is that used by any particular part of our Government or any governmental organizations in particular, if you know?
A  Yes, sir, it is.
Q  And what would that be?
A  It is used by the Services and by the FBI.
{2466}
Q  All right, and with regard to the AR-15, this would be -- what I am showing you here is Exhibit 34-AA. This would be a semi-automatic model as opposed to an automatic?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And this would be, I would assume, something that would be available for civilian use?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  As opposed to military or police units.
Now, with regard to the weapons that were taken out of that vehicle, do you recall anything from your examination of the various weapons and the weapons that were subsequently turned over to you by the Oregon State Police, did you observe anything unusual insofar as the serial numbers were concerned?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And what was that?
A  Some of the weapons obtained by Trooper Hanson had obliterated serial numbers.
Q  Do you recall the total number of weapons that you observed, and then my secondary question would be, do you know which of those or how many of those had obliterated serial numbers, and how many did not?
A  There were 14 total weapons. There were eight that had obliterated serial numbers.
Q  By "obliterated serial number", what do you mean, Mr. Hancock?
{2467}
A  That the serial number on the weapon was filed off, and in some cases stamped over with a tool to make marks in it so that it could not be read.
Q  In the ordinary case, once the serial number is taken off, could a weapon then be traced through NCIC or some other usual tracing method?
A  No, sir, not usually.
Q  All right. With regard to the weapons that you observed having been taken from the vehicle, could you state whether or not the AR-15, which class that fell into?
A  That had an obliterated serial number.
Q  All right. Now, Special Agent Hancock, during the course of your examination, you testified previously that you were furnished a considerable number of items by the State Police Force, is this correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And with regard to the items, do you recall when you received the bulk of the -- or the documents or the items from the State Police, as best you can recall?
A  The majority of the items were furnished to me by Edward Hanson on November 18th.
Q  All right. Insofar as some of the items which were being recovered, did you consult with Special Agent Zeller for any reason?
A  Mr. Zeller, yes.
{2468}
Q  Or excuse me -- I am not sure of his official title. Mr. Zeller?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And did you discuss various items with him?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you stated previously that you were there attempting to locate, if you could, fugitives from justice, is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And in what context did you talk to Mr. Zeller?
A  We were interested in information that he developed through his search that would assist us in identifying -- or just identifying the individuals that were in the homes, to verify that we had Federal fugitives.
Q  And do you recall when you talked to Mr. Zeller, if the date comes to you?
A  I talked to him on November 17th.
Q  All right, and with regard to Special Agent Zeller, did he turn documents or things over to you at that time?
A  Not on the 17th.
Q  All right, and did he display items to you, if you recall?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right. Did you ask him -- and I go into this because counsel has raised it on cross examination of Mr. Zeller -- did you ask him whether or not from his initial investigation {2469} he could give you information concerning latent prints?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And would you explain the context in which a discussion took place concerning that, and basically what was said?
**A  He had done a preliminary examination on some of the weapons, a .357 magnum that was found alongside the road, this .44 here (indicating), and several other -- I believe out at the ranchhouse he took some latent prints; and he advised me at that time he had not effected any identifications on his preliminary examination and that he was going to retain these items in evidence, take them to his laboratory where he could further photograph and process the evidence.
Q  All right. Do you know, or did you see whether or not he had had, for instance, his fingerprint negatives ready for you when he had talked to you?
A  No, sir. He hadn't taken any pictures at that time. That's why he took the evidence back to his lab in Salem, Oregon, was to take photographs of the impressions that he had developed on the different items.
Q  So insofar as the information or the items you did discuss he gave you no information on the 17th which answered your question, would that be correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right. When the -- when the Federal search warrant was executed, were you there during any or all or part of that {2470} search, if you recall?
A  I was present during -- off and on during the Federal search, but I didn't take part in the Federal search.
MR. CROOKS:  All right.
(Counsel confer.)
MR. CROOKS:  That completes the direct examination, your Honor.
 CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. ELLISON:
Q  Special Agent Hancock, do you read your 302's prior to testifying to refresh your recollection?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did they refresh your recollection as to the events which you participated in in November, 1975?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  At the time you went out to Ontario Oregon, in November of 1975, were you aware that the FBI was conducting an investigation of the shooting deaths of two agents?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you learned of this in your official capacity, you were aware of this in your official capacity as an FBI Agent?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did you ever read or hear or see any news reports around the time of the incident on June 26th, 1975?
A  The newspapers, yes.
{2471}
Q  All right, and was this while you were stationed in Oregon?
A  Yes.
Q  By the way, Agent Hancock, what is the population of Portland? I believe you said you were stationed in Portland?
A  Yes, sir. I don't really know.
Q  Do you have an approximate figure?
A  No, I don't know.
Q  About 350,000?
A  That sounds right.
Q  O.k. Do you have any idea what the population figure of the entire State of Oregon is?
A  No, I don't.
Q  Just for purposes of clarification, on direct examination you were asked by Mr. Crooks as to the agencies, which Federal agencies would use M-16's?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And the M-16 is an automatic weapon?
A  It can be, semi-automatic or automatic.
Q  But it can fire automatic?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And the FBI does use M-16's?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you also testified on direct examination concerning obliterated serial numbers.
{2472}
To your knowledge are you capable -- is the FBI capable of telling, say within the period of a few weeks or perhaps longer, as to when a weapon has its serial numbers obliterated?
A  I don't know.
Q  Did you find any evidence during your search that the people who were in the mobile home and the Plymouth station-wagon obliterated those serial number on the weapons which you found?
**A  I didn't conduct any search.
Q  All right. Well, are you aware of any evidence that the people in that mobile home obliterated the serial numbers on the weapons found, say, in lieu of having gotten the weapons in that condition?
A  We had evidence that we -- we had evidence that we collected that we believed was used, yes, on the weapon.
Q  All right, but do you have any evidence that the people who were in the mobile home and the Plymouth stationwagon used whatever tools or whatever you found to obliterate those serial numbers?
A  No, sir.
Q  Now, I believe you testified on direct examination that when you went out to Ontario, Oregon, that you went there believing that Leonard Peltier might have been in one or both of those vehicles?
A  Yes, sir.
{2473}
Q  And you went there seeking evidence to in fact solidify your belief?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you were present during the examination by the Oregon State Patrol?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Of the mobile home, and the Plymouth stationwagon?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I believe that you were shown on direct examination an AR-15, is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And I believe you also testified that an AR-15 was found in the mobile home by Oregon State Patrolmen?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And when you took the photographs which are depicted in Government's Exhibit 61-A, did you take a photograph of the AR-15? You can move the .44 to look at the exhibit.
A  (Examining) It is not in this photograph.
Q  It is in other photographs?
A  (Examining).
Q  Please cheek the entire exhibit, Government's Exhibit 61A.
A  (Examining) No, sir, it is not on this photograph, or these photographs.
Q  You remember taking photographs of that AR-15 though, don't you?
{2474}
A  I took a photograph of it, yes.
Q  You were trying to be, in your photographic examination, you were trying to be as thorough as you could?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you turned those photographs over to the U. S. Attorney's office?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did you actually put together Government's Exhibit 61-A, or did you take --
MR. CROOKS:  (Interrupting) I will object. Apparently counsel is trying to accuse our office of hiding some evidence. This is an improper question to this witness, and it is improper in any event. I object.
MR. ELLISON:  Your Honor, I am not trying to accuse anyone. I am simply trying to ascertain some facts in connection with this exhibit.
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, it is obvious that this witness had nothing to do with putting this book together. That was done by trial counsel. It is an unfair question to this witness, and it is an unfair and incorrect innuendo to our office and I resent it, and I object to it.
MR. ELLISON:  I was trying to find out who actually prepared the exhibit. The information has just been furnished, so I will move to another area.
THE COURT:  Very well.
{2475}
Q  (By Mr. Ellison) The AR-15 was turned over to you by Trooper Hanson, is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  As well as the .357 magnum which is Government's Exhibit 35-A?
A  I would have to look at it.
Q  All right. I will show it to you.
(Counsel confer.)
{2476}
MR. ELLISON:  I will withdraw my last question for the moment.
Q  (By Mr. Ellison) Do you recall how many photographs you took of the AR-15?
A  No, sir, not exactly.
Q  Did you take more than one?
A  I took maybe one or two.
Q  All right. And these photographs were turned over to the U.S. Attorney's office?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  All right. I show you what has been marked as Government's Exhibit 35-A. Have you ever seen that weapon before?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And this weapon was turned over to you by Oregon state patrolmen Hanson?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And that particular revolver was turned over to you on November 18th of 1975; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Sergeant Zeller didn't turn that pistol over to you, did he?
A  No, sir.
Q  I'd like to return for the moment to the AR-15 which you found, or which was found in the mobile home and turned over to you by Criminal Investigator Hanson.
{2477}
I believe you testified a few moments ago that you photographed this AR-15?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And I believe you also testified that when you went out to Oregon that you were aware that the FBI was conducting an investigation into the shooting deaths of two FBI agents in Oglala on June 26th, 1975?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  In fact when you saw this AR-15 little bells started going off in your head, didn't you, in connection with that incident?
A  No, sir. I wasn't familiar with the weapon.
Q  Excuse me?
A  I wasn't -- bells didn't go off. It didn't mean anything to me.
Q  Didn't have any special interest to you at all, is that what you are saying?
A  Other than it had an obliterated serial number.
Q  It had an obliterated serial number?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  In fact eight other weapons?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you arrived on November 15th?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Tell me, Agent Hancock, were the weapons which were turned over to you by the Oregon State Police to the FBI lab firearms {2478} division?
A  Yes, sir, they were.
Q  And what was the date that the weapons were sent?
A  I don't recall the date they were sent.
Q  Do you remember the month that they were sent?
A  They were sent the next month.
Q  The next month. In December?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  But yet in November you sent the AR-15 to the FBI lab, didn't you?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Although it didn't arose any particular interest on your part in connection with the shooting deaths of the two FBI agents?
A  Not to me. Until I was informed by another agent that we might be interested in that particular weapon.
Q  All right. That was a few days after you went to Ontario?
A  Yes.
Q  So if you personally did not have an interest, the FBI office in general in Oregon did have an interest?
A  Yes. I became interested upon being informed that it might be pertinent.
Q  That an AR-15 was believed to have been involved in that incident in some way?
A  Yes.
{2479}
Q  Okay. Agent Hanson, what is a 302? I'm sorry, Agent Hancock, what is a 302?
A  It's a report, or a record of an agent's investigation.
Q  all right. Does it reflect activities of an agent?
A  At times, yes.
Q  All right. Doesn't it also reflect the results of interviews by an agent?
A  Yes, it does.
Q  In fact it includes anything that you would like to make a record of?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did you have an interview, or I believe you testified that you had an interview with Sergeant Zeller on November 17th, 1975?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And in fact you dictated a 302 with reference to that interview with Sergeant Zeller?
A  Yes, sir, I did.
Q  What was the purpose of dictating that particular 302 on November 17, 1975?
A  me purpose of that was to record for our information what evidence that he was taking with him and -- not taking with him, not turning over to us, back to his lab for further examination.
{2480}
Q  All right. But at the time you dictated the 302 on November 17, 1975 was it your intention to record all of the information that Sergeant Zeller gave you as accurately as you could?
A  Yes.
Q  How long after the conversation with Sergeant Zeller did you dictate this 302?
A  I don't recall the date it was dictated.
Q  I show you what has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 144 for identification and see if this refreshes your recollection as to the date you dictated the 302.
(Witness examining Defendant's Exhibit 144.)
A  Yes, sir. It was -- the date dictated is indicated at 11/21/75.
Q  All right. And did you dictate that 302 from memory, or did you take notes during the interview?
A  Partially from memory and partially from notes.
Q  Is it fair to say that your recollection of that interview is, was a little clearer and fresher when you dictated this on 11/21/75 than it is today?
A  At that time it would be.
Q  All right. And this 302 was maintained as a record of the FBI, was it not?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Part of the ongoing investigation?
{2481}
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And I believe you've already testified that you read 302's prior to testifying in court?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Did that include this particular 302?
A  Yes, sir, it did.
Q  All right. Defendant's Exhibit 144 which you've just looked at?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Okay. Were there things that you remembered after reviewing this particular 302 which you didn't recall prior to reviewing it?
A  (No response.)
Q  I believe you testified it refreshed your recollection?
A  Yes, sir, it did.
MR. ELLISON:  Your Honor, I would offer Defendant's Exhibit 144 pursuant to Rule 612 that it was a writing used to refresh this witness's recollection prior to his testifying in court, and which he referred to while testifying.
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, we object to this. This has gone again and again and again with these 302's, and we object to it and we object to the repetition of it.
Your Honor, there's no showing that this document is in any way inconsistent with the witness's testimony on the stand; and unless used to impeach him or for some other purposes, {2482} it does not come under 612 or any other provisions. Counsel is apparently attempting again to put something into evidence which is cumulative to the witness's oral testimony. The witness's oral testimony is the evidence in this case, not prior statements, and we object to it.
MR. ELLISON:  Your Honor, Rule 612 says nothing about impeachment. Simply states that if a witness uses a writing to refresh his memory for the purpose of testifying, either one, while testifying or, two --
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, excuse me.
MR. ELLISON:  Excuse me, Mr. Crooks. I'd like to finish my argument.
MR. CROOKS:  If you want to argue law --
THE COURT:  You don't need to read the rule. I have the rule here in front of me.
MR. ELLISON:  Very well, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  The objection is sustained.
Q  (By Mr. Ellison) 302's, sir, serve a very important function, don't they?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And as a general rule they are prepared carefully and accurately?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, you did not type what has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 144, did you?
{2483}
A  No, sir, I didn't.
MR. ELLISON:  I'm handing the witness Defendant's Exhibit 144.
Q  (By Mr. Ellison) After a 302 is typed do you generally review the 302 to check its accuracy?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And if the 302 is accurate you initial it; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And did you in fact initial what has been marked Defendant's Exhibit 144?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you reviewed that 302 carefully as to its accuracy before initialing it?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, on direct examination Mr. Crooks went into the fact that on November 17th when you had a conversation with Sergeant Zeller that he was talking to you about a preliminary examination as far as particular items, such as the .44 Ruger, which is before you marked as Government's Exhibit 40-A; is that correct?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And you testified that this was a preliminary examination comparing fingerprints, known fingerprints with those prints which were allegedly found on various items including the .44 Ruger, Government's Exhibit 40-A?
A  Yes, sir.
{2484}
Q  Now, Sergeant Zeller advised you, did he not, that he had compared the latent fingerprints he discovered on a .357 magnum, the one by the road, a .44 magnum, a microphone from the Plymouth station wagon and a microphone from the Dodge motor home, a window on a mobile home, outside prints on the station wagon, were the fingerprints of Leonard Peltier and he determined that they were not identical, is that true?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Now, Sergeant Zeller was retaining various items including the .44 for photographing purposes and for further processing; is that correct?
A  That's right.
Q  He mentioned nothing in this 302 about it that his conclusions that he reached and told you during that interview were of a preliminary nature, did you? You didn't record it in your 302?
A  I don't recall whether he said that or not.
Q  Okay. In fact wasn't Sergeant Zeller instructed to be checking the prints that he found particularly for Leonard Peltier because you believed when you went out to Oregon that Leonard Peltier was in the mobile home?
A  Yes. We asked him if he would.
Q  I just have one final question, Agent Hancock.
If you had no special interest with regard to the AR-15 which was found by Oregon State Police and turned over to {2485} you personally how come that a AR-15 is missing from the group photographs depicted in Government's Exhibit 61-A?
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, I'll object to this. It's been asked and answered and it goes to the same improper inquiry of this witness of what I decided to put into that book.
MR. ELLISON:  No, Your Honor.
MR. CROOKS:  It's an improper and unfair question.
MR. ELLISON:  Your Honor, I'm not referring --
THE COURT:  The objection is sustained. You can ask him if he knows how come it was left out as a foundation to the next question.
Q  (By Mr. Ellison) Id like you to look at page 3 of Government's Exhibit 61-A. Do you see that photograph before you, the photograph --
THE COURT:  For the record would you check the exhibit number.
MR. ELLISON:  Yes. Government's Exhibit 61-A.
THE COURT:  Would the witness check it.
THE WITNESS:  It says 61.
MR. ELLISON:  61. I apologize.
Q  (By Mr. Ellison) Page 3 of Government's Exhibit 61, do you see a number of photographs of weapons?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  It's the middle photograph of what group of photographs, {2486} a group of weapons?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  I ask you again with reference to that particular photograph if you had no special interest in the AR-15 how come it was missing from that group of photographs?
A  It had not been found yet.
Q  When was that AR-15, when was that photograph taken?
A  That was the first day that the OSP conducted their search. That would be the 15th.
Q  Are you aware that the AR-15 was hidden in any particular location in the mobile home?
A  I don't know. I didn't search, I didn't locate it.
Q  Isn't it a fact that all of those weapons that were found in the mobile home were laid out in various order, various categories, various groups on that first day and that you took a photograph of that AR-15 on that first day?
A  I don't recall whether it was photographed on the first day or the second day.
Q  But it's not in those photographs, is it?
A  These, the picture here, were these weapons, are all the weapons that we had at that time and that's when that photograph was taken.
Q  And you know how large an AR-15 is?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And it was, it's your testimony that it was hidden and had {2487} not been found yet?
MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, I'll object to this. This is argumentative and repetitious.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MR. ELLISON:  I have no further questions, Your Honor.
 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CROOKS
Q  Do you still have, what, Defense Exhibit 144 in front of you? I believe the 302 form.
A  Yes, sir.
Q  With regard to parts of that, counsel read into the record apparently the last paragraph. With regard to that would you relate the paragraph prior to the paragraph counsel read.
A  "Zeller advised that upon completion of his examination of these items he would make them available to the FBI, Portland Oregon".
MR. CROOKS:  No further questions.
MR. TAIKEFF:  May we approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT:  You may.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the bench:)
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'd like, before this witness is excused, to inquire of the Government whether they know if in giving us the 3500 material they have given us all of the Oregon police reports concerning the search and what was found and when?
{2488}
MR. CROOKS. I don't -- I had understood we did myself. But I understand that I am wrong, that we do not, because we never had them ourselves. We have given everything that the FBI gave us.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Okay. We're sure that if we didn't get it it was because the Government did not have it, and question was not asked.
MR. CROOKS:  We still don't.
MR. TAIKEFF:  The question was not asked to suggest any impropriety.
At this time, Your Honor, we would ask that the witness not be excused and that the Government endeavor to get all of those Oregon State Police reports concerning the search and discovery of the weapons, and we have an opportunity to examine those documents before we indicate whether or not we wish to excuse this witness.
MR. CROOKS:  Well, I'm not sure I concur with that suggestion. I offered the other day, if they wanted a copy of, for instance, Mr. Zeller's notes or Mr. Hanson's, they could have asked for them and gotten them. I don't know, for instance I think Mr. Zeller and some of those guys have gone back and taken their notes with them. I don't have access to those document. The police reports are not our exhibits. We've turned over to the FBI materials which we have and I certainly don't want to assure the Court that we {2489} are somehow responsible for accounting for Oregon State Police internal documents.
MR. TAIKEFF:  We're not asking them to do that.
MR. CROOKS:  I assume they were available to counsel, and if the Oregon people are still here we have no objection to counsel getting copies from them. But I don't know that I should assume any responsibility for that.
MR. TAIKEFF:  This witness has just given us testimony that makes the viewing of those documents important. The Government, we trust, can make an inquiry and get them immediately, either by mail or otherwise. We don't have the power to do that.
MR. CROOKS:  I'm not sure that we're talking about something that comes under 3500 anyway. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for.
MR. TAIKEFF:  The very least, discoverable under Brady, at the very least if it isn't discoverable under 3500.
This witness has Just offered an explanation for the absence of a certain object from a group photograph which would have included that object had it been found at that time. His answer was that that object, namely the AR-15, was discovered at a later time. And you thought it so significant that for the first time in the course of this trial you laughed out loud in this courtroom.
Now, I think that it is pretty clear that the Oregon {2490} papers may tell us when in fact that AR-15 was found relative to the other findings. All we ask the Government to do is to do its duty and make the request. If they don't comply with your request then of course you're not responsible.
But if you have the access to these documents by merely asking for them, and my experience shows that when an assistant United States Attorney under circumstances such as these makes such a request you get the documents immediately.
And then we ask that you turn them over for our examination.
MR. CROOKS:  I'm not sure we've got any obligation to turn this type of document over for your examination in any event. But the witness's testimony was that at the time that photograph was taken the AR-15 was not found. He doesn't know when it was found.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Well, very good. We won't have to find out when it was.
MR. CROOKS:  It's immaterial. What does that have anything to do with him?
MR. TAIKEFF:  It may impeach him and also explain something significant of the absence of that gun from this group photograph.
MR. CROOKS:  Well, our position simply is that counsel had opportunity to get those notes and so forth. If the Court, we'll leave it in the Court's discretion, whatever the Court {2491} wishes to do we will attempt to comply. But I don't think that we have any obligation in this regard.
These notes and so forth were available to counsel when these witnesses testified. I'll leave it at that.
THE COURT:  Specifically what are you requesting?
MR. TAIKEFF:  There were reports written by the Oregon State Police in connection with the search and what was found. We believe those reports will show that the AR-15 was found along with the other weapons. We were not given those materials as part of 3500 and we make no specific complaint about that because the relevance and significance of those documents did not become apparent until this witness gave his testimony on the day following the testimony of the Oregon State Police.
Now, to begin with we should have gotten those documents as part of 3500, but at the time it was of no significance to us. Now it becomes significant. Now we ask for it, either as part of the 3500 material belatedly without any complaints about the Government not giving it to us. But we do want it. And since we're entitled to it we want it now.
Or in the alternative in Brady v. Maryland, because it most likely contains information which will explain that photograph and the testimony that this witness gave about that photograph. He cavalierly explained that that weapon {2492} was found late and we don't believe it's true. We believe they were all found at the same time.
MR. CROOKS:  Well, I certainly accede to counsel's representation that in any event this would be Brady. Certainly if counsel has read the Agurs case, whether that weapon was found at the exact same time or later is completely collateral to any issue in this case. And I don't, I certainly don't think that arises the raising of reasonable doubt as to this man's guilt. That's what counsel is saying by quoting Brady under the Agurs. This isn't a Brady question at all.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, someone apparently has misread that most recent Supreme Court case. That was a case in which no request was made. We're making the request now. And that takes care of the aspect of the Agurs case that you just referred to.
MR. CROOKS. I don't propose to get into an argument.
THE COURT:  What you are asking counsel to do is make an inquiry, is that it?
MR. TAIKEFF:  If it's possible for the Government to obtain those reports, to ask for them whether they're here or they have to be mailed from Oregon so that we may see them. And then in the meantime this witness not be excused.
MR. LOWE:  May I just add something because I think there may be some ambiguity in what Mr. Crooks said. I think {2493} when he said that the Government doesn't have them, I think he said the, you sense that perhaps the FBI has them in their files and maybe amongst some of the information with the FBI has not turned over or screened out.
Now, I'll tell Your Honor that last summer we hit this. Specifically that there were materials that the FBI had which were not placed in the possession of the U.S. Attorney because the FBI did not think it was relevant and may have been justified in making that judgment.
All I'm saying is that the second part would be for them to make inquiry, whether the FBI does have these documents or copies of them in their files, wherever they keep them.
THE COURT:  It seems to me that what you are talking about insofar as retaining this witness, you are talking about rebuttal evidence.
MR. TAIKEFF:  No. It may refresh his recollection, Your Honor. He may change his testimony.
MR. CROOKS:  Somebody else's record?
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, anything may be employed to refresh a person's recollection, even a fragrance of perfume.
THE COURT:  I will ask the Government to make an inquiry to find out if that information can be obtained.
MR. CROOKS:  I assume it would be Mr. Hanson. I think {2494} he's still here, and if he's here and he's got them I will make the inquiry. But if that's the Court's desire --
THE COURT:  I will deny the request to hold this witness beyond today.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Then we want him held as a defense witness in that case, Your Honor.
MR. LOWE:  Subject --
MR. TAIKEFF:  He doesn't have to remain. He has to be available to us.
THE COURT:  Well, I don't think we've turned you down yet, except in one case where you attempted to subpoena the former Attorney General of the United States.
MR. TAIKEFF:  And we acquiesced in that quite readily, Your Honor.
MR. CROOKS:  Well, to that request United States will certainly advise Special Agent Hancock to be available for possible recall by the defendant; and there certainly is no need for a subpoena or anything like that. He'll be available just as any other FBI agent would.
THE COURT:  Very well.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Thank you, Your Honor.
{2495}
(Whereupon, the following proceedings in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury:)
MR. ELLISON:  Is the government finished with his redirect?
MR. CROOKS:  Yes, I am.
MR. ELLISON:  We have no further questions at this time.
THE COURT:  You may step down.
MR. ELLISON:  I'd like to keep Special Agent Hancock here pursuant to the discussion we had.
MR. CROOKS:  Can we approach the bench one more time, Your Honor?
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the bench:)
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, I have no objection and certainly will accommodate Counsel but I'm not going to leave people sitting around for a week at a time.
MR. TAIKEFF:  We don't require he be present. Subject to call.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury: