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

Marvin Stoldt, BIA police department testified he was called following morning maneuvers over the radio from Pine Ridge PD sometime between the hours of 11:30 and 12 noon to come out to Jumping Bull's place.  He went straight to Jumping Bull residence and backed outof there.  Then took up a position at Pumpkin Seed's place.  He stated they were under heavy fire.
Agent Coward testified that the witness Marvin Stoldt (BELOW) had identified two of five people running across an open field toward a tree line from Pumpkin Seed's house (Leonard Peltier and Jimmy Eagle) sometime between 2:30 and 4:00 PM, and that he, Agent Coward, also had identified Leonard Peltier using the scope of his rifle from a half mile away.  Attempts to have the jury test out the scope were denied as "theatrics", a sporting good store owner who sold rifles with scopes did an independent test with various scopes and could not make out the features of a well known friend at half a mile under better conditions than had been on Jun 26, 1975.  Below is the exchange resulting from attempts to question Marvin Stoldt's supposed "interview" with Agent Coward on June 28, 1975, and the paper work (302) filed on this "interview".

VOLUME 17

MR. HULTMAN:  Well, Your Honor, counsel has had all kinds of questions about a given document that he's all but offered in front of the jury, and we all know that there's a date 6/28/75 on the face of it. And I'd just like to voir dire to establish that I think anybody looking at it would come to the same conclusion.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Well, that's precisely the point of this {3697} part of this examination and I think I can do it quite well myself.
MR. HULTMAN:  That's the basis why I'd like to voir dire.
MR. TAIKEFF:  May I proceed to the next question?
THE COURT:  You may proceed.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Isn't it a fact, sir, that the date that you referred to of June 28, 1975 in the upper right-hand corner has preceding it the printed word "date of transcription"?
MR. HULTMAN:  If he can read it. Will you ask him that?
MR. TAIKEFF:  No, I will not. And I do not appreciate signals being thrown to the witness.
A  Yeah, I can read it.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) What does it say?
A  "Date of transcription 6/28/75".
Q  What does that mean to you?
A  When that was written, that piece of paper there.
Q  What does that have to do with any day that you saw or didn't see Agent Coward?
A  What does that got to do with it? Because it simply says that I didn't see him on that date.
Q  It says you didn't see him on that date?
A  I'm saying I didn't see him on that date, you know.
Q  Does date of transcription, 6/28/75 mean to you that he {3698} saw you on that date?
A  It's possible he may have seen me on that date, but I didn't see him.
I never talked to him. I never saw him from the 26th of June until sometime in September.
Q  Isn't it a fact, sir, that what you were referring to was in the lower left-hand corner, that someone alerted you to that, said interviewed on 6/28?
MR. HULTMAN:  I object, Your Honor, as that being highly improper.
THE COURT:  The statement "That someone alerted you to" will be disregarded.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Weren't you referring to the fact when you gave your answer about you didn't see him on the 28th, weren't you referring to the fact that in the lower left hand corner it says "interviewed on 6/28/75"?
A  I was looking up at the top and I recall that I never saw him on the 6/28/75.
I saw him the last time on the 26th of June, 1975.
I never saw him for two months later.
Q  Anything else in that document which you found to be actually incorrect?
A  No. I can't see anything else on there.
Q  Then isn't it a fact that you told Agent Coward that with the use of his 7 power binoculars --
{3699}
MR. HULTMAN:  If it please the Court may we approach the bench?
THE COURT:  You may.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the bench:)
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, I haven't objected but very, very seldom. This is direct examination, this isn't cross-examination, and I object on the grounds that counsel is not proceeding properly. But again it's obvious he's setting up a strawman, first of all in trying to destroy. The misleading things that he's just now put before the jury, there's nothing in that document, other matters that he's talked about up to this particular time, that are in any way but to destroy a witness in some way for which he is called.
Now, I further object on the grounds that he's again trying to get information from a 302, reading from it in fact in front of the jury as if it were cross-examination at this particular point, and I object to the procedure.
This witness, we know did not write that 302. This was somebody else's.
MR. TAIKEFF:  But it purports to say that he did, and if he said what's in there, that's inaccurate. And furthermore if you object I'll offer it in evidence.
THE COURT:  Just a moment.
MR HULTMAN:  Are you finished, Counsel? When you're {3700} finished --
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm sorry.
THE COURT:  We might just as well have stayed at the counsel table. All right.
MR. HULTMAN:  My objection, Your Honor, is that it's an improper use, and it's an improper method. This is direct examination and he has no basis in which there's been no showing of any kind that at this particular time that there's anything inconsistent in any way.
He hasn't even elicited what the response is going to be, and he's already set up a strawman assuming that the response is going to be something different than what he's got.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I'm proceeding under 607 under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
THE COURT:  You mean impeaching your own witness?
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's correct.
THE COURT:  Well --
MR. TAIKEFF:  And I am prepared to introduce the entire document if Mr. Hultman thinks it would be fairer.
THE COURT:  Well, the problem is, as I see it, this witness seems to be totally unable to state definitely one way or the other --
MR. TAIKEFF:  But, Your Honor, he read the document and I asked him whether he found any factual mistakes other {3701} than the question of the date. He said there's nothing in there that is factually incorrect.
THE COURT:  He has also testified at least twice that he didn't know what the power was.
MR. TAIKEFF:  And could not possibly tell it to anybody. And now I'm inquiring about how is it possible, if it is possible, if in fact it occurred that he told the agent --
MR. HULTMAN:  That's the strawman.
THE COURT:  He is your witness, and you do have the right under that rule to impeach him. I'm not going to, however, if you're going to offer this exhibit I'm not going to receive this exhibit. You can question him with reference to the statement made at that time.
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's what I started to do, and that's when the objection came.
THE COURT:  Very well.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury:)
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) My question, sir.
A  Yes.
Q  Is:  Did you tell Agent Coward on June 26, 1975 that with the use of your 7 power binoculars you were able to identify somebody in that group of people?
A  As I recall I said I didn't positively make identification.
Q  Put aside the positive identification aspect of it. The {3702} question that I'm focusing on is the possibility of whether or not you told Agent Coward something about your 7 power binoculars.
A  Yeah. It's possible I did.
Q  What would have been the basis of your telling him something about 7 power binoculars?
A  I don't know. Maybe we were discussing binoculars.
Q  You mean just in general?
A  It's possible.
Q  Did you ever say to him that with the use of your 7 power binoculars you focused on those Indian males whom you saw at a distance?
A  It's possible, sir, yes.
Q  Didn't you tell us much earlier that you didn't know what the power of those binoculars were and that they weren't yours?
A  Yes. Told you earlier that they were approximately 735, you know, on up. Zoom binoculars, you generally are, you know.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Does Your Honor want me to conclude at this point?
THE COURT:  Are you about ready to conclude?
MR. TAIKEFF:  Noting Your Honor has closed his book the answer is yes.
THE COURT:  Very well. Are you going to want this witness held?
MR. HULTMAN:  No.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Oh, yes, I'm not finished with my {3703} examination.
THE COURT:  You are not finished with your examination. Very well.
Court is in recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.