| Return to Fred Thomas' Homepage |
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH
FEBRUARY TERM, 1994
V.
FREDERICK A. THOMAS
:0989 CAR FIREARMS PUB ST/PL
CARRY FIREARMS W/O LIC.
FIREARM W/O LIC.- AUTO
: 0990 INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
: 0991 MURDER
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
: 0992 P.I.C.
P.I.C.- WEAPON
__ __ __
PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS.
__ __ __
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1995
COURTROOM .513, CITY HALL
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE JUSTICE JUANITA KIDD
STOUT, J.
__ __ __
APPEARANCES:
ROGER KING, ESQUIRE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
JAY S. GOTTLIEB, ESQUIRE
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
__ __ __
MR. KING: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS THE MATTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VERSUS FRED THOMAS. AS THE COURT KNOWS, I JUST FINISHED THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VERSUS BORGELA PHILISTIN.
THE COURT: WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT I KNOW THAT?
MR. KING: YOU PRESIDED.
TEE COURT: OKAY.
MR. KING: YOUR HONOR, IT WAS A RATHER EMOTIONALLY
DRAINING CASE, AND ON THE ADVICE OF A DOCTOR FRIEND OF MINE, I'M GOING
TO ASK THE COURT TO START THE MATTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
VERSUS FRED THOMAS ON WEDNESDAY. RATHER THAN GOING
BACK - TO - BACK, THAT WILL GIVE ME - WITH THE WEEKEND, THAT WOULD GIVE
ME FOUR DAYS ON THE TURNAROUND. I BELIEVE, IF THINGS FOLLOW FOR ME, WE
SHOULD BE ABLE , EVEN STARTING WEDNESDAY WITH JURY SELECTION, HOPEFULLY
WE WILL HAVE A JURY BY FRIDAY AND TESTIMONY WOULD START THE FOLLOWING MONDAY.
THE COURT; THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH ME IF IT'S ALL RIGHT...
MR. GOTTLIEB: NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER, YOUR HONOR
MR. KING: NORMALLY I WOULDN'T MAKE THE REQUEST, BUT THE PERSON OBSERVED AND SAID, FROM AN EMOTIONAL STANDPOINT, TAKE A COUPLE OF DAYS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL DO.
THE COURT: THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH ME.
MR. GOTTLIEB: NO PROBLEM, JUDGE. I
WOULD HAVE TWO BRIEF MOTIONS TO CONSIDER, AND I DON'T WANT TO PRESS MR.
KING.
NUMBER ONE,. YOUR HONOR, THE ISSUE OF THE OUTSTANDING
BENCH WARRANT ON ONE WITNESS ON OCTOBER 19TH, LAST. YOU ISSUED A
BENCH WARRANT FOR SERVICE ON A MARIA FIELDING, WHO IS A MOST NECESSARY
DEFENSE WITNESS. SHE WAS NOT SOMEONE THAT WE BROUGHT INTO THE CASE,
SO TO SPEAK, BUT WAS GIVEN TO US THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DISCOVERY BY THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. SHE WAS THE FIRST EYEWITNESSES INTERVIEWED BY
THE POLICE.
OUR TRIAL WITH YOUR HONOR LAST STARTED ON OCTOBER 11TH,'1994,
AND MY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR SUBPOENAED THIS WOMAN ON ACTUAL SERVICE, HAD
HER SIGN THE SUBPOENA, WHICH I PRESENTED TO THE COURT ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER1
WHICH WAS THE FRIDAY BEFORE TRIAL STARTED.
SHE THEN CALLED ME, AND HER HUSBAND, AT LEAST HE SAID
HE WAS HER HUSBAND, SPOKE TO ME THAT AFTERNOON AND INDICATED THAT SHE WAS
VERY ILL, AND I SENT MY INVESTIGATOR OUT THAT WEEKEND AND THEY HAD PICKED
UP AND MOVED. LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL, OVER THE WEEKEND OF -- THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE 8TH 7TH AND 8TH.OF OCTOBER. WE WERE UNABLE TO
DISCOVER.
I BROUGHT THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AND THE COURT
DID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DEFENSE CASE, WHICH WAS THE 19TH OF OCTOBER,
ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT FOR THIS WOMAN.
I SENT MY INVESTIGATOR OUT OVER THE PAST TEN DAYS AND
HE ONLY DISCOVERED, THROUGH WELFARE, WHAT HER ALIAS WAS, WHICH MR. KING
HAD HAD BACK IN OCTOBER, THE OFFICE WHERE SHE WAS RECEIVING WELFARE,
BUT THE FACT THAT HER FILE WAS CLOSED OUT FOR HERSELF AND FOUR CHILDREN
IN JANUARY OF 1995, JUST ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
SHE IS A MOST NECESSARY DEFENSE WITNESS BECAUSE, QUITE
FRANKLY, SHE MENTIONS OR NAMES, CONTRARY TO THE COMMONWEALTHS CONTINUED
POSITION IN THIS CASE, THREE PEOPLE AS PARTICIPATING IN THE KILLING, NAMES
THE SHOOTER, NAMES SOMEONE WHO WAS WITH HIM, WHO IS THE NEPHEW OF ONE OF
THE TWO EYEWITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST MR. THOMAS, AND THEN NAMES A
THIRD PARTY WHO SHE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH BY NAME, BUT DESCRIBES HIM AND
DESCRIBES ALL THREE OF THESE PEOPLE, AND IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM
ARE THEY FRED THOMAS.
FOR THE RECORD I WOULD. HAND UP AND ASK THAT THIS BE
MARKED D-1 OR COURT 1, IF YOU WILL, AT THIS TIME, HER STATEMENT, AND ASK
THAT THAT BENCH WARRANT, WHICH IS STILL OUTSTANDING FROM THE. 19TH
OF OCTOBER, 1994, BE EXECUTED AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. WE DON'T KNOW
WHERE SHE IS, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I IMAGINE THE POLICE MAY HAVE SOME
LEAD TO HER, BUT SHE IS ABSOLUTELY A NECESSARY WITNESS! JUST ON THE
BASIS OF THE FACT SHE NAMES THREE AND SHE NAMES TWO PEOPLE PARTICULARLY
THE SHOOTER, WHO WAS NOT FRED THOMAS..
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THE QUESTION IS, IF SHE'S CLOSED OUT HER WELFARE ACCOUNT --
MR. GOTTLIEB: YES, MA-'AM.
THE COURT: -- WOULD THAT INDICATE MAYBE SHE'S- MOVED- TO SOME OTHER PLACE? DOES THE WELFARE SYSTEM HAVE ANY WAY THEY CAN FIND OUT WHETHER SHE'S IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION?
MR. GOTTLIEB: IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOR'S QUESTION, THEY STILL HAVE HER ON THE WELFARE ROLLS, WHEN THEY CLOSED HER-OUT, AS THE SAME ADDRESS AT WHICH SHE WAS SUBPOENAED AND FROM WHICH SHE AND HER HUSBAND AND FAMILY TOOK OFF, AND THAT WAS 4764 "C" STREET. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE PICKING A JURY STARTING WEDNESDAY, AND PERHAPS IP WE. COULD MAKE USE OF SOME AGENCY OR THE POLICE THEMSELVES, BUT SHE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
THE COURT: WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP US, MR. KING?
MR. KING: WELL, AS I STATED EARLIER, ANYTHING THAT
THE COMMONWEALTH COULD DO TO ASSIST, OF COURSE, WE WILL. BACK IN
OCTOBER1 I BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION THAT, AND WE SHARED THE INFORMATION
WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL: ONE, THAT THIS PERSON WAS ON
WELFARE UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME.
MR. GOTTLIEB: YES, I HAVE THAT.
MR. KING: THUS, THERE IS A REAL BASIS FOR A CHARGE
OF WELFARE FRAUD. WE ACTIVELY LOOKED FOR HER DURING THE VARIOUS TOURS THAT
MY OFFICERS WERE WORKING. I WILL
WHEN I GET BACK TO MY OFFICE, FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
I BELIEVE THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, HAS A FRAUD
DIVISION. I WANT TO KNOW; ONE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT CASE IS ACTIVELY
UNDER INVESTIGATION, TWO, WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND
TERMINATING IT. ONE REASON FOR TERMINATING IT IS
IF, IN FACT, SHE IS KNOWN AS MARIA FIELDING TO US. SHE WAS
RECEIVING BENEFITS UNDER ANOTHER NAME.
MAY I HAVE A BRIEF MOMENT?
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. GOTTLIEB: I HAVE THE NAME
BECAUSE MY INVESTIGATOR GAVE ME THAT IN HIS REPORT.
(PAUSE.)
MR. GOTTLIEB: JUDGE, FOR THE RECORD, IRV MEDNICK IS MY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, WHEN HE CHECKED THROUGH THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE BY USING HER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, SHE USED THE NAME OF GENEVA ANDREWS., AND THEY HAD HER AT THE OLD ADDRESS, WHICH WAS WHERE WE SUBPOENAED HER, AT.4764 "C" STREET. AND PARENTHETICALLY, THE ODD SITUATION IS AFTER THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE RESTED, SHE AND HER HUSBAND CAME INTO CITY HALL, THEY WERE ACTUALLY HERE.
THE COURT: I REMEMBER THAT.
MR. GOTTLIEB: WHEN YOU WERE CHARGING THE JURY HER HUSBAND WAS SITTING IN THE SECOND OR THIRD ROW, AND I TOLD THE FAMILY, MY CLIENT'S FAMILY, GET HIM TO. TAKE YOU TO HER, AND THEN THEY COULDN'T FIND HER, SHE TOOK OFF OUT OF THE HALL, AND THAT WAS THE END OF THAT, IT WAS JUST A WEIRD CIRCUMSTANCE
THE COURT: I DO REMEMBER THAT.
MR. GOTTLIEB: BUT SHE IS VITALLY NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE.
MR. KING: WE'LL USE WHATEVER RESOURCES. HOWEVER,
WITH AN OUTSTANDING BENCH WARRANT, HOPEFULLY THAT BENCH WARRANT IS IN THE
COMPUTER, THAT WOULD
GIVE THE BASIS.
THE COURT DO YOU WANT ANOTHER ONE?
MR. GOTTLIEB: IF WE DO, DO IT WITH A FORTHWITH THERE WAS ONE ISSUED ON THE 19TH.
MR. KING: WELL, WHAT IS HAPPENING, YOUR HONOR, WITH MOST OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, IS EVEN IF THEY PICK THE PERSON UP, THAT PERSON IS JUST GIVEN A DATE TO APPEAR.
MR. GOTTLIEB: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. KING: AND ARE NOT EVEN PROCESSED.
THE COURT: WHAT CAN WE DO TO HOLD HER?
MR. GOTTLIEB; YOU CAN HAVE IT LISTED,"HOLD" OR, "TO BE SEEN OR DELIVERED TO JUSTICE STOUT."
MR. KING THERE ARE TWO OR THREE OPTIONS, SHE COULD BE HELD AS A MATERIAL WITNESS. .
GOTTLIEB: THAT'S DEFINITELY ONE.
MR. KING: AND SHE COULD BE HELD WITH OR WITHOUT BAIL AS A MATERIAL WITNESS BUT THE MAIN THING IS: ONE, TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE BENCH WARRANT IS IN THE COMPUTER, UNDER BOTH NAMES.
THE COURT: 'WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE ANOTHER ONE? FORTHWITH BENCH WARRANT UNDER BOTH NAMES AND HOLD HER WITHOUT BAIL.
MR KING: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
MR GOTTLIEB THERE WAS A SECOND BENCH WARRANT,
WE HAVE THEM RIGHT HERE, WAS .ISSUED FOR BRENDA GREGORY.
NOW, AS I HAD EXPLAINED TO THE, COURT PREPARATORY TO
TRIAL ON OCTOBER 11TH WHEN WE WENT TO SUBPOENA HER AT HER NEW, ADDRESS
AT,. I BELIEVE, 722 NORRIS STREET, THAT WAS hER MOTHER'S ADDRESS, AND THEY
SAID SHE WASN''T THERE, AND THEN WHILE MY NVESTIGATOR,WAS THERE, SHE .MADE
A PHONE CALL FROM WEST PHILLY, TOLD HIM, WHERE TO MEET HER, HE WENT
OUT, SHE WAS GONE, AND HE WAS UNABLE TO GET HER. BUT THE TWO PHYSICAL
BENCH WARRANTS, THE ACTUAL WARRANTS ARE, RIGHT THERE AT THIS PARTICULAR
TIME.
THE COURT: .BRENDA GREGORY, IS THAT ANOTHER NAME FOR HER?
MR. GOTTLIEB:. NO, BRENDA GREGORY IS ANOTHER WITNESS WHO LIVES MAYBE .10 OR 12, HOUSES DOWN, SOUTH ON 9TH STREET, AND HER TE'STIMONY' WOULD BE THAT SHE HEARD THE SHOTS AND HEARD FOOTSTEPS OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON RUNNING.SOUTH ON 9TH STREET IMMEDIATELY RIGHT AFTER THE SHOTS.
THE COURT: THE MAIN PROBLEM RIGHT NOW, IS MARIA FIELDING ALSO KNOWN AS GENEVA ANDREWS?
MR. GOTTLIEB: YES, MA'AM.
THE COURT: LET'S GET A FORTHWITH BENCH WARRANT FOR HER AND HOLD HER AS A MATERIAL WITNESS.
THE CLERK: DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS GOING TO BE SERVING?
MR. KING: NO. WE'LL LOOK FOR HER, BUT WE'RE.NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO SERVE IT.
THE COURT: WHO'S GOING TO SERVE IT?
MR. GOTTLIEB: THE DEFENSE HAS NO POWER TO EXECUTE THAT BENCH WARRANT.
THE COURT: IF SHE'S GOING THE POLICE HAVE TO DO THAT.
MR. KING: YES, MA'AM, ALL I NEED IS A COPY OF THE BENCH WARRANT
THE COURT: DELIVER IT.
MR. KING: WE CAN ONLY LOOK WHERE WE THINK
SHE MAY BE.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT DURING THE COURSE
OF THE TRIAL WE WERE ACTIVELY LOOKING AND WE WERE ACTIVELY CHECKING, I
BELIEVE IT WAS BASED ON MR. GOTTLIEB'S REQUEST THAT WE TURNED OVER ThE
INFORMATION WE DISCOVERED ABOUT THE ASSUMED NAMES., AND I BELIEVE WE SHOWED
UP THE DAY AFTER SHE PICKED UP HER CHECK, OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
MR. GOTTLIEB: YES, AND WE TALKED ABOUT A POSSIBLE CONTINUANCE, AND SHE WASN'T COMING AROUND AGAIN, SUPPOSEDLY, FOR TWO WEEKS.
THE. COURT: I THINK YOU DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET HER NOW AND HOLD HER WHEN WE GET HER.
MR. KING: WE WILL TRY.
MR. GOTTLIEB: AND, JUDGE, ONE OTHER REQUEST I WOULD
MAKE, AND I MAKE IT VERY STRONGLY, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME ADVERSE TELEVISION
REVIEWS OF THIS CASE, AND I THINK WE ACTUALLY HAD THE TAPE FROM CHANNEL
SIX HERE IN THE COURTROOM, AND THEN THERE WAS
SOME OTHER MATERIAL THAT WAS IN VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS, AND
YOUR HONOR REMEMBERS, I CALLED THROUGH THE EMERGENCY JUDGE THE DAY AFTER
WE PICKED THE JURY, BECAUSE THERE WAS THE NEW ARREST THAT WAS..EFFECTED,
AND THAT DIDN'T HIT THE PAPERS IN ANY EVENT, BUT WOULD YOUR HONOR CONSIDER
A SEQUESTERED JURY IN THIS CASE.?
MR. KING: I JOIN IN THAT. WITH THAT FIASCO GOING ON IN LOS ANGELES, YOUR HONOR, RELUCTANTLY I JOIN IN.
THE COURT: IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH ME MR. KING: WITH A CASE. OF THIS MAGNITUDE, WITH THE FACTORS AT PLAY, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE PARTIES IN ANY WAY ATTEMPTED TO EXPLOIT IT.
MR. GOTTLIEB: NO.
MR. KING: MR. MOYER IS WHITE, THE DEFENDANT IS BLACK, AND I WOULD FEEL A HECK OF A LOT BETTER. ALL OF THE NEWS AGENCIES WERE HERE THE LAST TIME.
MR. GOTTLIEB: ABSOLUTELY.
MR. KING: SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS WAS, I BELIEVE AT THE TIME, THE FIRST FEDERAL EXPRESS EMPLOYEE.KILLED ---
MR. GOTTLIEB. THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. KING: -- DURING THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES.
MR. GOTTLIEB: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. KING: AND SO THAT ATTENTION IS STILL THERE, AND AN ADMONITION MAY OR MAY NOT WORK WITH EVERY TIME YOU TURN ON THE NEWS THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THAT ALIEN TRIAL ON THE WEST COAST.
THE COURT: YES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN. ALL. RIGHT, ANYTHING. ELSE?
MR. GOTTLIEB: NO, MA'AM.
MR. KING: NO, MA'AM.
MR. GOTTLIEB THANK YOU JUDGE
THE COURT: YOU'RE WELCOME
OFFICER MICHAEL TRASK-REDIRECT
KNOWN AS?
A. THE BADLANDS.
MR. KING: THANK YOU.
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RECALL OFFICER TRASK.
THE COURT: YES.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)
MR. KING: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD MOVE FOR THE ADMISSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ITEMS IN EVIDENCE, HERETOFORE MARKED AS COMMONWEALTH'S EXHIBITS 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE.
MR. GOTTLIEB: NO OBJECTION.
MR. KING: MAY I SEE THE COURT AND COUNSEL ON THE RECORD?
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION HELD ON THE RECORD AS FOLLOWS:)
MR. KING: YOUR HONOR, PRIOR TO RESTING, I WOULD
MAKE AVAILABLE ANY AND ALL WITNESSES I
CURRENTLY HAVE UNDER SUBPOENA FOR THE DEFENSE, AND ALL
OF THE WITNESSES WHOSE NAMES WE'VE TURNED OVER AS A RESULT OF DISCOVERY.
I MAKE THE REPRESENTATION THAT THEY'RE EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO
THE DEFENSE AS THEY ARE TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
I MAKE THIS OFFER TO NEGATE ANY NEGATIVE INFERENCE ON
THE PART OF THE.DEFENSE ON THE FAILURE OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO CALL ANY
WITNESS THAT IT TURNED OVER AS IT RELATES TO DISCOVERY.
MR. GOTTLIEB: IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, I DISAGREE
MOST RESPECTFULLY WITH MR. KING. IT'S MY
POSITION, AND I WOULD HOPE TO ARGUE IT BEFORE YOUR HONOR,
THAT THE PARTICULAR WITNESS, MARIA FIELDING, IS MORE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
THAN SHE IS TO
THE DEFENSE.
SHE WAS NOT A WITNESS THAT THE DEFENSE BROUGHT
INTO THE MIX OR THE PICTURE IN THIS CASE, SHE WAS DULY GIVEN NOTICE
TO US BY THE COMMONWEALTH. WE HAD APPROPRIATELY SUBPOENAED
HER THE LAST TIME THIS CASE WAS TRIED, WE HAVE AN OUTSTANDING
BENCH WARRANT FROM OCTOBER OF 1994, AND WE HAVE BENCH WARRANTS
THAT YOUR HONOR ISSUED ON THE - I THINK IT'S THE 13TH OF THIS
MONTH, 10 DAYS AGO.
I THINK WE -- AND I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE
COURT ALLOW US TO GO OUTSIDE THE HEARING OF THE JURY AS TO WHAT EFFORTS
THE POLICE HAVE MADE TO EXECUTE THOSE BENCH WARRANTS SINCE THEY WERE
TURNED OVER TO THEM ON THE 13TH OF OCTOBER, AND SINCE THE COURT
CHARGED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE POLICE TO MAKE EVERY POSSIBLE
EFFORT TO BRING THIS WOMAN IN AS A WITNESS AS SHE IS AN ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY.DEFENSE WITNESS, IN THE SENSE THAT SHE GIVES AN EXCULPATORY
STATEMENT, AND THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND POLICE HAVE
KNOWN ABOUT HER SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THIS CASE, THEY INTERVIEWED HER
WITHIN ONE DAY AFTER THE SHOOTING.
AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT THEY WOULD ALLOW US TO GO OUTSIDE
THE HEARING OF THE JURY TO SEE WHAT EFFORTS WERE MADE, WITH THE POSSIBLE
FURTHER REQUEST THAT EITHER HER STATEMENT BE READ IN BY THE DETECTIVE THAT
INTERVIEWED HER, OR THAT SHE BE TREATED AS A MISSING WITNESS, AND THAT
AN APPROPRIATE CHARGE IN THAT RESPECT BE GIVEN TO THE.JURY
AT A FUTURE TIME.
THE COURT: WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT INSTEAD
CF BEING EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO EACH, SHE'S
EQUALLY UNAVAILABLE TO EACH, BUT I THINK THE EQUAL AVAILABILITY
RULE APPLIES.
MR. GOTTLIEB; WELL, I HAD ONE CASE ON POINT, AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD ASK THAT YOUR. HONOR WOULD WANT TO PUT THE JURY OUT FOR AWHILE SO WE GO THROUGH THE DEMUR STAGE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOTTLIEB: WHICH WOULD BE BRIEF.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOTTLIEB: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR
THE COURT:. SURE.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION CONCLUDED AT THIS TIME.)
| Return to Fred Thomas' Homepage |
