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

February 6, 1976 the RCMP were advised to check the camp of Chief Small Boy for the presence of Leonard Peltier...someone had reported him there (two of the arresting officers who testified came from motels..not home.  It is not clear whether they had previous knowledge of this pending arrest from the transcript) .  About 3 PM a contingent of RCMP including Dale Robert Parlane, Edward William John Mitchell, Corporal Golden Doll among others descended on the camp.  Leonard was located sitting in a one room school room in the presence of 15 to 20 others.  Subsequently,the RCMP filled out over 20 single spaced reports and supplements on the arrests of Leonard Peltier, Black Horse and Blackman recording what they did, what they found and what statements Leonard had made. This statement made below by the witness was not recorded in ANY of this witness' paperwork written over a year earlier.  Canadian law requires two warnings, the first similar to Miranda, the second essentially a reminder of the first, he was advised he did not need to say anything and could have counsel present.  Leonard said he did not wish to make a statement and requested counsel...this was ignored and all subsequent conversation recorded over the next two days.  Topics ranged from Sundance scars on his chest, spiritual beliefs, discussed on the plane back to Vancouver, BC.
These reports were part of what was available to both government and defense counsel subsequent to paperwork turned over to them under "Brady", a process of discovery from trials of Butler and Robideau...documents of which the government attempted to disavow any knowledge...

The following excerpts are found in Vol 13 of the Trial Transcript of US vs Leonard Peltier April 1, 1977

GOV ATTORNEYS:  LYNN CROOKS, MR. HULTMAN
LEONARD'S ATTORNEY: MR. TAIKEFF
THE "COURT" : THE JUDGE
WITNESS: CORPORAL GOLDEN DOLL, RCMP


VOLUME 13

Q  O.k. Now, you had started to relate the substance of the conversation, and would you relate, first of all, again what the question was that had been raised by the elder?
{2798}
A  The elder had asked him what would have happened had he seen the police, the RCMP coming into the camp as well as to where he was at the schoolhouse.
Q  And what was Mr. Peltier's response?
A  He indicated that he would blow us out of our shoes.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I didn't understand that question. Could I have that read back?
THE COURT:  me reporter will read back the answer.
(Answer was read by the reporter.)
Q  (By Mr. Crooks) And what further conversation was there at that point?
A  There was a response by the elder in the form of another question. He said, "Do you mean that you would open up fire with my grandchildren and children in the immediate vicinity, in the immediate area here?"
Q  And what response, if any, was made to that?
A  He replied, "Well, it is my life."
Q  He replied it was his life?
A  It was his life he was protecting, yes.
THE COURT:  You may step down.
MR. CROOKS:  Can we approach the bench briefly on the {2822} second matter, Your Honor?
THE COURT:  You may.

{THE FOLLOWING IS CALLED A "SIDEBAR"..IT TAKES PLACE OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY AND THE COURTROOM AUDIENCE..REGARDING THE ABOVE TESTIMONY THIS IS WHAT THE JURY NEVER HEARD}


(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the bench.)
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, one, as I indicated to counsel anything that's been said or done about this document has been purely on the basis of whatever representations counsel have made to me.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I understand that, Mr. Hultman.
MR. HULTMAN:  And I think we're in agreement there. One, I have no knowledge of any kind of this document. I've never seen it before and I've never seen in our files before. I think it's incumbent upon the defense, it's their document.
MR. TAIKEFF:  It's the Government's document. It was turned over as Brady material in connection with the last trial.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well --
MR. TAIKEFF:  And that's my understanding. I represent to you that it's my understanding. I wasn't on the last case, so I can't represent that as a fact.
MR. HULTMAN:  I think there has to be a showing of some kind.
THE COURT:  Well, on the basis of the foundation now I sustain the objection.
Now, you are still free to --
{2823}
MR. TAIKEFF:  But, Your Honor, I would like to point out technically Mr. Hultman made the concession. I don't want to hold him to a rigid and unreasonable way. I ask Your Honor to withhold his ruling giving Mr. Hultman an opportunity to check on that document. And as I said I will give him a photocopy of it, or the Clerk can do so. I'm sure when he checks, he will find out that this was a document produced by the Government as Brady material in connection with the Robideau-Butler trial. And then the authenticity of it and its source is not in question.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, first of all the document, I haven't read it. I glanced at it at the sidebar, but I don't see where it has anything to do with the statements that concern --
MR. TAIKEFF:  Be glad to tell you what my opinion is in that regard. We have had a previously unrevealed serious admission testified to and there is on that document a comparable one which is not in Parlane's report, was not testified to by Parlane on his direct examination, and our position is going to be that this is just evidence of the kind of stuff that law enforcement people will do in an effort to convict somebody. And I think --
MR. CROOKS:  Apparently the Mounties are in on the conspiracy, too.
MR. TAIKEFF:  It is too close a call to be just one {2824} of those unbelievable coincidence. Now, I think you may argue against that. You may feel that we're wrong, but surely as to whether or not we should have an opportunity to make that argument to the jury I think there is no doubt. That other statement is essentially the identical statement, but it happens to come out of someone else's mouth in a slightly wrapping.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, then I don't see the problem. I don't see where the duty, there's any duty on me at this particular point. And that's the resistance I'm making at this particular time.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Do you want me to call one of your assistants as a defense witness in the middle of the trial to establish the authenticity of this document, or do you want to make a concession if you find that a concession is warranted.
MR. HULTMAN:  If you will indicate specifically what it is, what involvement, where specifically that you are seeking what the information is I will then be glad --
THE COURT:  Just a minute. To shorten this record this evening I will reserve my ruling on 166.
MR. TAIKEFF:  We thank you.
MR. HULTMAN:  At least give me a copy.
 

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT