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

{BENCH} CONCERNING WITNESS INTERVIEWS
{BENCH} CONCERNING GOVERNMENT WITNESS MYRTLE POOR BEAR A

VOLUME 5
{703}
 TUESDAY MORNING SESSION
 March 22, 1977
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had and entered of record on Tuesday Morning, March 22, 1977 at 8:40 o'clock, A.M. in chambers:
 MR. CROOKS:  How on earth did that get made public? I understood that that was all going to be sealed, chambers things.
 THE COURT:  It has been sealed now.
 MR. CROOKS:  And I didn't see the report, but what's that about one of the jurors supposedly said she's prejudiced and I --
 THE COURT:  I think somebody by the name of Mr. Trudell of the defense group held a news conference and made a statement to the press that pretty much detailed what had taken place. And Ralph came to me about the middle of the afternoon and said the press wanted to know if I would comment on it. And I told them just informally that I had no comment.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor may be interested in knowing that one reporter approached me and Mr. Lowe and asked us for details. And instead of giving details we denied that the incident occurred.
 We have no knowledge of how that began, but we have refused to acknowledge even a semblance of truth to it, and give a flat denial that there was any such incident.
{704}
 MR. HANSON:  I might mention, Judge. That when I advised the reporter of your no comment the reporter advised me that that's the third no comment that they received on it, implying that the Government has not commented on it and that the defense attorneys had indicated no comment.
 THE COURT:  Well, the jury is sequestered so I'm not particularly concerned. But the public I suppose will have to make up their own mind as to what may or may not have happened.
 MR. CROOKS:  I guess my inquiry was how did anybody find out about it because I understood that that was not to be made public by any party, and all at once here it -- maybe one of the witnesses made it public, I don't know.
 THE COURT:  Obviously somebody did. And as I say I didn't know that I need to go into that at this time because I don't know what would be accomplished.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, the reason why we asked to meet with the Court is that in open court a request was made, I don't remember, Elliot, whether it was late Friday. I think it was Friday, yes because John was not there, that they have an opportunity specifically to interview four individuals by the name of Mike Smith, Mike Anderson, Wilford Draper and James Hardgill. And I indicated yesterday that they were going to, I would have a chance to visit with them last evening, the three that are in Fargo, and that is Mike Smith, Mike Anderson and Wilford Draper James Hardgill, he's under subpoena but he's {705} not here yet. And I indicated that this morning at 8:30 I would make these three individuals available and indicated to counsel, and they are in the witness room down at the end of the hall.
 The small courtroom is locked, and so I got that room. There's a double room, it's an inner office and an outer office so there's two separate rooms in effect. You come in and out of a room and then like in your office, your inner is a second room, it's a separated room, and that's where the witnesses are in each of the three instances.
 THE COURT:  Excuse me. I'm just curious. You say the small courtroom. I don't understand that.
 MR. HULTMAN:  We couldn't get in it, Your Honor, and again this morning it was locked.
 MR. CROOKS:  The room he's referring to, Your Honor, is 212.
 MR. HULTMAN:  On the second floor.
 MR. CROOKS:  Which is down from our office. This is the room that I had mentioned earlier that the ag people had been in.
 MR. HULTMAN:  So now we have a room which is a double room down at the far end which is, is that right, is that the number, 212?
 MR. CROOKS:  Yes.
 MR. HULTMAN:  And it's adequate. As I say there are two separate rooms in it. You walk in the outer room. It would {706} be like coming in your outer office; and then there's a second room with an inner door that. you do to the next room which is totally separate. So I've had those witnesses there, as I indicated to counsel yesterday, since about 8:15 this morning. Each of the three of them has indicated to me that they did not wish, from their determination, to talk to the defendant's counsel.
 In no way do I indicate to the Court or to defense counsel, and I think this is in any way binding because that's, I'm just merely reflecting what it is. And that was certain, without any coaching or anything else. I just plain asked a straight out question this morning, do you or do you not.
 Now, I realize that is in no way binding, but what I am concerned about, Your Honor, is that I want to make absolutely certain, and I think I have a legitimate request to the Court, that once that question is established, and only that question be established first by counsel before getting into any testimony of any kind, because the first level issue is a right of the witness. Do I or do I not wish to be interviewed. And I think that's a free and a fair determination. And counsel --
 MR. TAIKEFF:  We agree.
 MR. HULTMAN:  And the only reason I raise it is because at the last trial, and I'm going to refer to the record, we went through this particular proceeding at that time, and I want to read the first couple of pages of one of these two {707} witnesses, Mr. Draper; that we are referring to the interview that took place because I think one, it was never established -- questions were requested specifically about specific people. The very ultimate issues before there was any determination made as to whether or not anybody was willing or not willing to make a consent interview. That's the threshold issue that I feel there is a right for that determination first.
 And, I would refer to, I don't know the exact -- it's page 1 of the transcript, of the interview in the last proceedings of Wilford Draper. And the first page here, page and a half, reads as follows, and I'd like to dictate it into the record:
"WILFORD DRAPER, taken at 12:45 p.m., June 6, 1976, in the Bankruptcy Courtroom, United States Courthouse, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in the matter of the United States of America versus Robideau and Butler. Present:  John Lowe and William Kunstler, attorneys for defendants. Mr. Dale Williams, United States Marshal.
 "MR. LOWE:  My name is John Lowe and I represent Robideau. This is Bill Kunstler representing Dino Butler. This is Mr. Williams who is the United States Marshal. He is here to make sure everything is safe and secure, and this is Mr. Boudreau, Judge McManus's court reporter. Do they call you Wilford or do you have a nickname?
 "THE WITNESS:  Wishy or Will or anything you want.
{708}
 "MR. LOWE:  Okay. Is Will good enough?
 "THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 "MR. LOWE:  We will call you Will. Judge McManus has indicated that we could have the right to have a consent interview with you. That is, that we could have a right to talk with you if you would be willing to, in order to help us prepare for the trial. You know Bob and Dino are on trial for their lives."
 MR. HULTMAN:  Now, I submit to the Court that that not only is not a statement of the law, it's an improper statement to state to any witness.
 "MR. LOWE:  They can get the death penalty . . . "
 MR. HULTMAN:  Again I say that is clearly not only a misstatement of the law, but it is a clear attempt to in some way influence a witness as to the seriousness of something way beyond; and it gets into a matter which is not a matter of what the law was in that case or in any case.
 "They can get the death penalty out of this," and we simply want to find out what kind of evidence is going to be presented so we can do the best we can to defend them.
 "MR. LOWE:  We feel that the truth is going to help Bob and Dino if we can get the truth out in court, and so we are here today simply to ask you what the truth is as you know it and to ask you what you understand you will be testifying about, in court. We don't know for sure that you will be called {709} to testify but the Government gave us your name on a list. So we have to check all those witnesses out."
 "MR. KUNSLER:  You know Norman Brown?"
 MR. HULTMAN:  We are not getting into the very questions and the matters and the issues with reference to an interview, whether or not, there's been a determination that there was to be one or not to be one.
 "MR. KUNSTLER:  He was in here."
 MR. HULTMAN:  And so it goes and from that point on. Now, all I wanted to make absolutely certain is one, that the threshold issue be determined by counsel with the witness as to one, whether or not they wish and consent to an interview, or whether they don't. And then secondly, we don't get into matters of this kind that are certainly highly prejudicial and a misstatement of law.
 THE COURT:  How do you propose that that would be accomplished?
 MR. HULTMAN:  Well, I have them, Your Honor, in those rooms available, and all I'm concerned about is that the threshold question be asked and determined.
 I would have no objection, and I think it would only be fair for example if the Court made that determination as to whether they do or they don't, because that certainly would be in all fairness without any influence of any kind, any possibility of any misleading statement.
{710}
 I don't think the Government has the right to put somebody in the room to counsel, because counsel has the right to discuss with the witness. That's the only alternative I see to protect all the rights that are involved. For the Government to be present I can see the reason, and I feel without any question that's a legitimate request on the part of counsel.
 But at the same time I feel that the Government has a right that that witness's rights be protected the same as practically every other witness out here has told me either directly or indirectly in the open court that one, not only do I have any right to go to talk to anybody, and particularly I could name certain witnesses, and some of them have in the open courtroom but I'm not going to be able to talk to them without their lawyer being present. And, in addition they're not going to tell me anything if I do ask.
 And now I just merely say, and if, witnesses have those rights and have already exercised them in this courtroom I think these witnesses have some rights also.
 MR. LOWE:  Well, Judge, I think Mr. Hultman has changed his tune substantially since several days when the shoe was on the other foot and he had some witness who ostensibly, and he argued fervently, that he had the right to try to persuade them by any reasonable and ethical means to talk with him. It wasn't just a matter to have the Court talk to the witness and {711} then announced to the U.S. Attorney. And I'm afraid Mr Hultman is using a double standard here.
 We have the right to confront the witnesses in a proper way. We already indicated that we desire to have the protection for the witnesses and the Court and us having the court reporter present so that the plan -- we did this last year, what we did in the last year, and it is entirely proper and I would add as a footnote it was a capital case. The statute called for capital punishment and Judge McManus has declined to rule that there was no constitutional basis. At this point we were dealing with a capital crime and it's entirely proper for us to suggest to the witness that the matter is an extremely serious case and that is another reason why he ought to in fairness talk with the defense counsel. There's not anything improper in that.
 Mr. Hultman is just trying to justify his position. Now, the double standard is just not fair here. All we ask is an opportunity to have a room. We're willing to use a witness room, we don't even have to do it in our offices, where we can sit down with the court reporter in a proper and ethical setting talk to the witness.
 Now, if we tell them that it's a consent interview and they say we don't want to talk with you, that's fine, and we stop. And that's no problem. But we don't have to just ask them one bald question, have them show reluctance and then pack our {712} tents and move away. It's certainly proper for us in a proper and noncoercive way to try to explain how important it is for us to prepare a defense in an important case like this. And to try to use some persuasion to have them talk with us. It will all be on the record.
 I think Your Honor knows from dealing with Mr. Taikeff and me that we're not going to overreach ourselves in any unethical means. That's all we ask, and I think we're entitled to that.
 THE COURT:  Would they be advised that the decision as to whether or not they wish to talk to you is theirs to make?
 MR. LOWE:  Absolutely.
 In addition if they want to have counsel, I think one or two of them last year did, that's perfectly proper I think Norman Brown had his mother with him last. We have no problem with that.
 Mr. Hultman is acting like we're trying to closet ourselves and coerce them into relying --
 MR. HULTMAN:  I was just asking for procedure and or the record, John, I take total issue with your statement with reference to what the record will show from the last trial as to the status of the case, whether it was or wasn't a capital case, whether or not capital punishment was involved. I don't want to argue it.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm glad because I'd like to be finished {713} with the last trial finally and try this case only.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Well, on the record, Your Honor, could I make a request. there. That I think it has been ruled that in the courtroom we're not going to be referring to the last trial, and I would request of counsel henceforth that we talk about testimony under oath and not testimony under oath at the last trial to bring it to the Court's record.
 I think in all fairness that that is something that by the Court's ruling is the posture that it's in and I would make that formal request at this time on the record. And the use of transcripts from the last trial.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  I think that has to await the occasion for a ruling by the Court. But I will, as far as I'm concerned. I will not make any reference to there having been a separate trial without first approaching the bench and pointing out where I think it's appropriate to do so.
 THE COURT:  At this time there have been at least two or three references to another trial, and it is the ruling of the Court that in references to prior testimony counsel should not refer to the prior trial, refer to prior testimony under oath on or about such and such a date.
 MR. LOWE:  I think that what we're talking about is, I mean we're kidding ourselves because at least one of the jurors during voir dire mentioned it, there were no objections from counsel in front of the other jurors, and if we think that {714} there's a juror that doesn't know there wasn't a trial last summer and doesn't know what the result is, we're just kidding ourselves.
 THE COURT:  One of the jurors mentioned it. Of course, obviously, he had no opportunity to object. The juror simply --
 MR. LOWE:  He could have objected to the whole panel, but it's obvious that there was a trial.
 MR. HULTMAN:  I don't accept that either, John.
 THE COURT:  Well, I think to refer to prior testimony as having been at the last trial just places undue emphasis on that and as Mr. Taikeff says I think we should get away from that.
 MR. LOWE:  As happened in other proceedings in any event, I usually say that.
 THE COURT:  That would be the proper approach on the question. The witness should be interviewed with the court reporter present.
 MR. LOWE:  Thank you, Judge.
 THE COURT:  Should be advised that they have the right to decline to the interview, and I would permit you to, when I say you, counsel for either side in interviewing witnesses, make a statement that, some general statement the effect that because of the importance of the case it is your desire to interview him; and I think with that foundation, or with those preliminary remarks, that the witness should then be {715} asked to state specifically whether they do or do not consent to an interview.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, the Government certainly would accede to that. The Government's witnesses are available now, they are in, as I say, in the area that I referred to. There is a separate room in which that could take place and it would be the request of the Government, Your Honor. I know this is unusual, but the proceeding is unusual to start with. The posture that we are in, I would request of the Court that that determination at least at the threshold be made now, and that they be given an opportunity, because I would like to proceed with the calling of these particular witnesses, and I intend to proceed with the calling of these particular witnesses.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  We have no objection to proceeding that way. Your Honor.
 THE COURT:  Well, what do you mean by "now"?
 MR. HULTMAN:  I would like to at least establish that now, Your Honor, because --
 THE COURT:  All right. Let's say that they consent to an interview. Are you suggesting that we should hold up court for the forenoon to allow these interviews?
 MR. HULTMAN:  Well --
 MR. LOWE:  I think we ought to try and interview then this evening, Judge.
 MR. HULTMAN:  I am prepared to go forward now with the {716} testimony and I think that the Government's got a right to present its case in the order and the method. And I think that once that issue is established I think I have a right to go forward with the testimony.
 I don't want to leave these individuals, Your Honor, and on the record again I'll make it very clear that these individuals are under extreme pressures and to the extent that they are left in the area with other people around to attempt to influence them in any way, I think is not in the interests of justice as far as this case is concerned. And that is why I would like to proceed with these witnesses.
 I saw them last evening, the first time I've seen them. In fact, one of them I've never ever seen before, and I think that from the orderliness of a trial standpoint, that ought to be established right now. They are available, they're all here. Otherwise I think, Your Honor, that we're going to run into --
 THE COURT:  Did these witnesses testify in the last trial?
 MR. HULTMAN:  One of them did. Two of them did not, Your Honor. Two of them did not.
 You see, my problem is they are not under protective custody and they could walk out of this courthouse this afternoon or this morning and I never see them again. And that I've had extreme difficulty to get witnesses, and I think it's imperative, {717} Your Honor, that I be given every opportunity to make sure that I continue to have certain witnesses available and that this jury have an opportunity to hear their testimony.
 THE COURT:  Well, we are still on the cross-examination of Robert Ecoffey.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Yes.
 THE COURT:  Which witness do you intend to call? Do you intend to call one of these witnesses?
 MR. HULTMAN:  I intend to proceed with the calling of these witnesses, that's exactly right, Your Honor. Because I run the risk in another day that one or more might not even be here.
 THE COURT:  How much time do you feel that defendants should have, the defendant should have to interview, counsel should have to interview?
 MR. LOWE:  Well, Judge, that's very difficult to say. We've got three witnesses. I certainly want to go down and make the witnesses comfortable and get the court reporter set up. Give him a little bit of preamble about who we are and what we are doing and why it's important to have an interview. Then explain to them that they have the right not to interview if they choose, if they object, and then attempt to have them interview and get the information that we want. And they're both witnesses that were eye witnesses. It's difficult to say to find out.
{718}
 THE COURT:  Is this going to be done individually or with the three?
 MR. LOWE:  Individually, yes, sir, individually.
 I also feel, Your Honor, that we, when we say no interview, presumably we're talking about the merits of the case, or the substance of their testimony.
 I do feel that we ought to be able to, through proper questioning, not through overreaching with the court reporter present, make some inquiry whether any one of these are hesitant to talk with us to inquiry whether any one has suggested to them that they ought not to talk with us. I think that's reasonable inquiry for us to make and it does not get into what would be called an interview. And I would propose to do that on the record also so that we have some indication because if there has been some attempt by somebody to influence them not to talk with us I think that makes it a different situation, and I think that Your Honor would want to take some action to secure interview for us, or at least to purge the witness of the taint of such coercion.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, assuming that Your Honor is fully aware of how inept lawyers are in estimating time accurately I would say that we need about ten minutes for each of them in order to determine what their position is, and whether any further application to the Court is appropriate. If any one of them should agree to an interview, of {719} course that raises a separate time problem. But just to ascertain I think a fair statement would be ten minutes per prospective witness.
 MR. LOWE:  I would think that would get us into that point.
 Now, we're geared up for today. The Government has given us material for a whole string of witnesses. We have scheduled our day and we would prefer to make this this evening when there is no pressure of time on the witnesses or on us or on the Court. And that's what we would propose.
 God knows the Government has enough witnesses to take us through this day, and I can't examine that one day will make that much difference. We will yield to what you want to do, Judge. But Mr. Taikeff and I cannot of course conduct court proceedings and interview witnesses at the same time.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, could I make a suggestion pursuant to what Mr. Taikeff has said? One, I think the threshold determination could be made, and that might save us all problems from that point on to the extent then that the threshold issue is determined that the individual was willing to have a consent interview and to go into any and all the matters that counsel wants. That would take additional time, and no question about it. And I certainly would agree with counsel. I think what we could do if we had the original proceeding we would, one, they would be able to make that deter{720}mination and could so indicate to the Court. And as it's been indicated there would be a record of it as to what that determination is. To the extent then that an interview has been determined, that the witness is willing and does want to have an interview, then I think that could be scheduled as counsel has indicated here in such a way that it would give them a proper amount of time in order to handle that interview.
 On the other hand if one or more of them would indicate there is none, I see no reason why then at that point I should not be able to accomplish using that witness in going forward to meet the ends, the needs of the Government as well as the needs of the defendant.
{721}
 The ultimate issue is confrontation in the courtroom, and that's what I would hope I get an opportunity to do, and at the soonest time possible to make sure I do have witnesses in the courtroom that I know who are available.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  That sounds reasonable, your Honor.
 THE COURT:  I will delay convening court in order to give counsel an opportunity in the presence of the court reporter to interview those witnesses, and then report back to the Court as to the results of that interview.
 Now, if you interview them on the question as to whether or not they will consent to an interview --
 MR. LOWE:  (Interrupting) If they consented, we could do that this evening after court.
 THE COURT:  Well, we will see what the situation is. The report should be brought back here and I will decide from that point.
 MR. LOWE:  With regard to that, we have an application. We are apparently not able to work something, out with the Government. I would like to make it now.
 The Government advised us yesterday for the first time they have in protective custody -- I believe it was the first time, we knew it anyway -- one of the witnesses named Myrtle Poorbear -- we have desired to have consent interview with Myrtle Poorbear. Since she is in the control and custody of the Government, we asked she be {722} produced here so that we might have the opportunity to have a consent interview. She was one of the witnesses last summer and --
 MR. HULTMAN:  (Interrupting) She was not a witness last summer.
 MR. LOWE:  She was on the witness list.
 MR. HULTMAN:  That's different.
 MR. LOWE:  She did not testify. I did not mean to imply that.
 She was brought to Cedar Rapids by order of Judge McManus, and we had an opportunity to confront her and ask for a consent interview. At that time she did not want to. I think she would be willing to give an interview but we won't know until we ask.
 The Government has her, I guess, hidden away somewhere. That's the way it was last year. We have no way to even approach her except through the Government.
 We would ask that she be brought here for the purpose of a consent interview.
 MR. HULTMAN:  The Government would meet any such request.
 THE COURT:  What is the name of that person?
 MR. LOWE:  Myrtle Poorbear. There are two State Troopers. We have worked that out. When they come in, we will have a chance to talk to them, so I don't think {723} we will have any problem.
 MR. CROOKS:  I might state, Your Honor, we have been informed through the Marshal's Service that Myrtle Poorbear is far from being hidden away. As a matter of fact, we were informed that the father, in the company of a member of the Wounded Knee Legal Offense-Defense Committee, did proceed to California where she is at and did conduct an interview of her within a few days ago.
 MR. ELLISON:  May I inquire as to the name of the person who was on the Offense-Defense Committee who interviewed her?
 MR. CROOKS:  I am not familiar with the name, but the Marshal has it.
 MR. LOWE:  Which Marshal?
 THE COURT:  Well, without getting into that at this point, Myrtle Poor Bear apparently is not here now.
 MR. HULTMAN:  No, no, no.
 THE COURT:  All right. You do intend that she will be brought here for trial?
 MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, a determination has not been made by the Government on that at this particular time.
 THE COURT:  If she is brought in, it would seem that the Defendant should have an opportunity to have his interview.
{724}
 MR. LOWE:  Judge, we may want to call her, No. 1, and No. 2, I think it is unfair for the Government to bring her up the night before and throw her on the witness stand. One of the purposes of interviewing is so you can go out and investigate the information you get in time to use it when she is on the witness stand.
 THE COURT:  When do you intend to make the determination as to whether she will be brought in?
 MR. HULTMAN:  We would know in plenty of time so that there would be an opportunity --
 MR. LOWE:  (Interrupting) A week?
 MR. HULTMAN:  I wouldn't say a week, John. I hope the trial is -- certainly two or three days would be sufficient for you, would it not? You have known her, you have known her, you have interviewed her.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Not interviewed her.
 MR. HULTMAN:  You tried, you had an opportunity to.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I think the point is not whether the Government chooses to call her. I think the point is the Government has her in custody, and we may call her.
 THE COURT:  I understand the point, and the point I am making is that the Government should make a determination as to whether or not they are going to call her. If they are going to call her, then she should be brought {725} here in sufficient time so that the Defendant's counsel will have an opportunity to see whether she will consent to an interview. If the Government is not going to call her, then that should be made known, and then the Defendant's counsel can make the determination as to whether she should be called.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Which, I assume, would include bringing her so we could attempt to interview her before we decide whether we are going to put her on the stand or not.
 MR. LOWE:  We are going to need her in any event, Judge. We have to talk with her in order to make our determination.
 THE COURT:  That's no different than any other witness.
 MR. LOWE:  Exactly. That's why we ask she simply be brought here now. In either event, we will have to talk with her. That will give us more time to prepare and make our judgment on the matter.
 THE COURT:  You know my attitude, counsel can work it out.
 MR. HULTMAN:  I understand, yes.
 THE COURT:  Why don't you make the contact with these three witnesses, do it individually?
 MR. LOWE:  Which court reporter do you want us to use?
 THE COURT:  There's the handiest one.
 MR. LOWE:  The room we are talking about is at the {726} far end?
 MR. HULTMAN:  It is on the far end. We started to walk down there one day, the second floor on the far end, if you go down the hall, on the Marshal's end.
 MR LOWE:  I don't know the three men.
 Mr. HULTMAN:  I will walk down with you, just to walk down and I will leave.
 (Thereupon, at 9:18, the proceedings in chambers were concluded.)
 INTERROGATIONS OF WITNESSES
 Pages 727-743
{744}
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom at 9:55 o'clock, A.M. without the hearing and presence of the jury:)
 THE COURT:  It has been reported to me that two of the witnesses that were mentioned in conference in chambers decline to be interviewed, one is willing to be interviewed and the problem is working out a time when that can be done. We'll not further delay court proceedings.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, I think maybe we could agree with Counsel, visit about that and report a little later in the day.
 THE COURT:  The intention, as I understand it from defendant's point of view, is they would like to make arrangements for that interview sometime this evening.
 MR. HULTMAN:  We'll work with that, with the defendants, and report back to the Court on those guidelines, Your Honor.
 THE COURT:  Very well. May we bring the jury in?
 Mr. TAIKEFF:  Yes, Your Honor.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury:)
 THE COURT:  Are you ready to proceed?
 MR. TAIKEFF:  I am, Your Honor.
{745}
 I believe we need a witness.
 THE COURT:  Maybe we're not ready to proceed.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  I'll get ready over there.
 MR. HULTMAN:  Mr. Ecoffey was still on the stand, I believe.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  May I proceed, Your Honor?
 THE COURT:  You may.