1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 99-491-CR-KING

 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. MIAMI, FLORIDA

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

SABRETECH, INC., ET. AL. DAY 5

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES LAWRENCE KING,

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VOLUME 1

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

CAROLINE HECK MILLER, A.U.S.A.

GEOFFREY BRIGHAM, A.U.S.A.

J.L.K. FEDERAL JUSTICE BUILDING

99 N.E. 4th Street

MIAMI, FL 33132 - 305/961-9432

SPECIAL AGENT JOHN LONG

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SPECIAL AGENT MIKE CLARK

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SPECIAL AGENT JACQUELINE FRUGE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 

2

 

FOR DEFENDANT SABRETECH:

JANE RASKIN, ESQ.

MARTIN RASKIN, ESQ.

RASKIN & RASKIN, P.A.

2937 S.W. 27th Avenue, Suite 206

Miami, FL 33133 - 305/444-3400

 

 

NORMAN MOSCOWITZ, ESQ.

SULLIVAN RIVERO & MOSCOWITZ, P.A.

Miami Center, Suite 2550

201 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131 - 305/371-7781

 

FOR DEFENDANT FLORENCE:

JANE MOSCOWITZ, ESQ.

MOSCOWITZ STARKMAN & MAGOLNICK

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 3700

Miami, FL 33131 - 305/379-8300

FOR DEFENDANT GONZALEZ:

ROBERT DUNLAP, ESQ.

DUNLAP & SILVERS, P.A.

2601 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 601

Miami, FL 33133 - 305/854-9666

 

 

REPORTED BY:

ROBIN MARIE CARBONELLO

Official Federal Court Reporter

J.L.K. Federal Justice Building

Suite 1127

99 Northeast 4th Street

Miami, FL 33132 - 305/ 523-5108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL ACCESSTM COURTROOM REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION

3

 

INDEX TO WITNESSES

Witnesses: Direct Cross Redirect Recross

John Taber ............................. 4

John Taber ............................ 24

John Taber ............................ 25 26

Tomas Silvers ................ 36 69

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibits Marked for Received

Identification in Evidence

Description Page Line Page Line

Defense Exhibit 3 ..............................19 15

Government Exhibit 77I .........................68 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

4 TABER - Cross

 

MORNING SESSION

COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in

session. The Honorable Judge James Lawrence King

presiding.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury.

[The jury returns to the courtroom].

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Mr. Taber, you've been an AMT mechanic for 14 years,

right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. You've been at several different companies, both at

repair stations and airlines?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. You worked at Eastern, and you worked at American?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Before this accident, you didn't receive hazardous

material training at any of those companies where you worked

as a mechanic?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor, past

practice, irrelevant.

THE COURT: It wouldn't go to his overall

experienced. Certainly, it would, I think. Overruled.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Before this accident, you didn't receive, as a

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

5 TABER - Cross

 

mechanic, hazardous materials training, correct?

A. Not as a mechanic, no.

Q. You had some hazardous material training, right?

A. Some, yes.

Q. At some point in your career, you were a ramp service

agent?

A. Yes.

Q. What is a ramp service agent?

A. Baggage handler.

Q. What does a baggage handler do?

A. Load and unload bags and cargo from the aircraft.

Q. You load cargo and bags onto the aircraft?

A. Yes, ma'am.

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Sir, before 1996, when you were working at SabreTech,

had you ever worked on an oxygen generator system

replacement before?

A. Not oxygen generators, no.

Q. Different sorts of oxygen systems?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. What oxygen systems were those?

A. Those were bottled oxygen systems.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

6 TABER - Cross

 

Q. They operate differently?

A. Yes, they are bottles that are stored below in the

cargo hold. Something like a scuba tank.

Q. About these MD-80s we have been talking about, you had

never removed and replaced oxygen generators before?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Did Mr. Florence come to SabreTech around the same time

you did?

A. I believe he was there before me.

Q. He was on your crew, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. During the time that you and Mr. Florence were there

together and on the same crew, did Mr. Florence get any

hazardous materials training?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained, unless they took it

together or he has personal knowledge.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Do you have personal knowledge?

A. Not while I was there, he did not.

Q. Sir, you testified yesterday that when you began to

take the old generators out, you looked in the maintenance

manual to see how that should be done, correct?

A. Yes, all I looked at, was how the inserts would come

out.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

7 TABER - Cross

 

Q. When you talk about the maintenance manual, you don't

look it up on paper, right?

A. No, it's microfilm.

Q. When you go into the microfilm, you look for the

particular section that you want, and you photocopy that

section, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And that's what you did in this case?

A. Yes, I took a picture of this first page.

Q. So, you go in and look for the page you want, you can

photocopy that page, and take it back to do the work, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. In other words, you're not browsing through a manual?

A. Only looking for what I need to get to.

Q. After you found in February -- it was February 1996,

when you found that some of the oxygen generators on 802

were out of date, right?

A. I'm not sure if it was January or February. I'm not

really sure the dates.

Q. It's around then?

A. Right.

Q. The first thing you did, was take out the inserts,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you packed them in a box temporarily, right?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

8 TABER - Cross

 

A. Yes.

Q. About how many of them were in that box?

A. I packed them in a couple of boxes. I would say almost

70.

Q. In approximately, how many boxes?

A. Two to three.

Q. And spread evenly through those boxes?

A. Some boxes were bigger than the others.

Q. When you came back, you found that a couple of heat

shields had melted, I believe you stated yesterday, a little

bit, right?

A. Yes, they were melted.

Q. Was any fire started as a result of that?

A. No.

Q. You saw that a few had been set off, and you knew it

could get hot, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. You didn't know that they could cause enormous damage,

right?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. You thought the shipping caps that we were talking

about, were to be put on to protect the mechanics while they

worked, correct?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor. What the

witness thought.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

9 TABER - Cross

 

THE COURT: Sustained. He can tell us what he

did and what he saw.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. What was your understanding of the purpose of the

shipping caps?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection. Same grounds.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Did you discuss the purpose of the shipping caps with

anybody?

A. I'm not sure how to answer that.

Q. First answer, yes or no.

A. I believe I did, yes.

Q. With whom?

A. A couple of the mechanics.

Q. And Mr. Florence was one of them?

A. Most likely, since he was working with me.

Q. And you all discussed, did you not, that you thought

the purpose of the shipping --

THE COURT: Let's see now. You are on

cross-examination. Go ahead.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. You discussed, did you not, that the purpose you all

thought, was to protect yourselves while you work, correct?

A. It was to protect us and protect the generator from

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

10 TABER - Cross

 

firing off.

Q. Mr. Taber, you installed generators on the right hand

side of 802, correct?

A. I installed the generators with the PSUs. I installed

the PSUs on the --

Q. First you installed new generators into the PSUs, and

then you installed those PSUs into the right hand side of

the airplane, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. The work on the right hand side of the airplane was

guided by an engineering order, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. In that case, that's because ValuJet wanted a change in

the configuration in the plane, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And they issued an engineering order, that came from

ValuJet?

A. I believe all paperwork came from ValuJet.

Q. That engineering order contained instructions for the

removal and replacement of oxygen generators, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's the paperwork that you, you eventually

signed a portion of the engineering order, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Let me show you.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

11 TABER - Cross

 

Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Let me show you Government Exhibit 25, and turn to this

page and ask you, this is the engineering order, right, or a

portion of it, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Let me show you, if I could, this blow up. Is that a

photographic enlargement of that page that you're looking

at?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And that's the engineering order that contains your

signature?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. That's the engineering order that dealt with the

removal and replacement of generators on the right side of

802, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You signed off at points 12.2, all the points there

about the installation of the units, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Above that at 12.1, is the description of the removal

of the units that's talking about the removal of the old

generators, correct?

A. 12.1.1?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

12 TABER - Cross

 

Q. All of 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, they all deal with the

removal of the old oxygen generators, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And the first one tells you how to take the generator

out. Well, tell us what the first one tells you.

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, objection. The

document speaks for itself.

THE COURT: He can read it, and tell the jury, I

guess, what it meant to him just in your own words.

THE WITNESS: This one here is telling us to

locate them, remove them and retain the hardware for

further installation.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. What does the second one say?

THE COURT: Isn't it in evidence?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Yes, it is. Let me just jump

ahead then.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. The final instruction after you have the old oxygen

generator out of the plane, it says, does it not, tag and

restore?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Does it say any place on the engineering order that you

were working from, that there should be shipping caps put on

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

13 TABER - Cross

 

those old generators?

A. Not on this portion, no.

Q. Does it say it any place on the engineering order?

A. I would have to read the whole engineering order.

Q. Do you want to take a second and cruise through it, or

do you think it would take a long time?

A. The whole engineering order?

Q. Yes.

A. It's going to take a while.

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. MOSCOWITZ: The document is in evidence.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Sir, at the time you signed that engineering order,

were you focused on anything having to do with shipping

caps?

A. At this time?

Q. At the time you were doing the signing?

A. No.

Q. You were concerned with the air worthiness of the plane

you were working on, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. With respect to this engineering order, it reflects

that there are these little round stamps in the second

column, not where your signature is, but the column just to

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

14 TABER - Cross

 

the right of that, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. What are those?

A. That's the inspector stickers of the inspectors that

inspect it.

Q. Inspectors inspect a lot of work that you do on the

airplanes, is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. They don't just inspect the paperwork. They get on the

planes. They look to see that the work is done right,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. But inspectors don't inspect used parts taken off

planes?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. You would have to ask the

inspectors about that.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Sir, what, if any, training do you have regarding the

disposal of used parts?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection. Relevancy.

THE COURT: Limited to oxygen canisters. You may

answer.

THE WITNESS: Oxygen canisters or generators.

I've had no training on disposal of them.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

15 TABER - Cross

 

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. By the way, Mr. Taber, you did a lot of other work on

the plane 802, other than working on the oxygen systems,

right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Also, a lot of mechanics worked on the oxygen

generators, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. It wasn't just you, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Florence,

correct? There were a number of people who came in contact

with those generators, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. You told us something about wrapping and tagging the

used generators. There were two different occasions on

which you, together with some other mechanics wrapped

lanyards around the generators and tagged them, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. First, you did it when you were first working on 802,

and I believe you testified that was some time in March,

correct?

A. I believe it was in March. I'm not sure the dates.

Q. That's fine. Sir, at that time, Mr. Florence was

working with you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you all discussed the best way to prevent the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

16 TABER - Cross

 

trigger mechanism from being triggered on these generators,

right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And you and Mr. Florence discussed this together,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you undertook to wrap the lanyards around the

firing mechanism, and then around the body of the generator

and to tape them, right?

A. Yes, I wrapped them mainly around the trigger and just

the ends. I put it around the body just to hold it tight.

Q. So the lanyards wouldn't get lose and be pulled on

something?

A. That's the way the new ones came in. That's the best

way I thought at the time, to wrap them. There were a few

reasons why.

Q. Sir, let me show you Government Exhibit 30A. Do you

think you could hold it up, and give us some idea of what

you all did.

A. I mainly took it, pulled it very taunt here, to bring

it and wrap it around the trigger more, so it would hole the

firing pin in here, which let's the trigger go. I held it

real taunt and I taped the ends on to the body.

Q. Let me ask you again, and you can just show me. What

is the firing pin?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

17 TABER - Cross

 

A. This is the firing pin.

Q. This black thing?

A. Yes. That's like the trigger, the firing mechanism --

Q. When we use the term firing pin?

A. The pin is this part here, that goes through and holds

the trigger up.

Q. Show me again.

A. That little pin right there.

Q. Let me make sure I see it. It's this that is coming

out right there?

A. Yes.

Q. This pin right in here?

Sir, there was a second time, later on, that you

all wrapped the generators, tied the lanyards, and did some

tagging, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And that was at some point, probably later in April or

early in May, you said, right?

A. Probably late April.

Q. At that time, generators were brought to you from other

aircraft including 803, right?

A. Yes.

Q. But Eugene Florence did not participate with you on

tagging on that occasion, right?

A. No.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

18 TABER - Cross

 

Q. What sort of tags did you put on those aircraft?

A. I put the green tag which is a repairable tag.

Q. The repairable tag means that before that part could be

reinstalled on a plane, something else needed to be done

with it, right?

A. Yes, it would have to go back and be overhauled,

inspected or something like that.

Q. What did you write on the tags?

A. I identified the part as oxygen generators, I wrote

down the position, I wrote down the aircraft they came off

of; the aircraft that they come off of, the reason for

removal. I'm not sure, I have to look, but I believe it

asked for the serial number and the manufacturer part

number.

Q. Let me show you, sir, Defendants' Exhibit 3 for

identification, and ask if you recognize that.

A. Yes, that's the tag with my signature on it.

Q. Is that a photograph of one of the actual tags that you

fill out for generators removed from these aircraft?

A. Yes.

Q. It bears your signature?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, I move the admission

of Defendant's Exhibit 3.

MR. BRIGHAM: May I voir dire, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

19 TABER - Cross

 

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Sir, at the bottom of that generator, there appears to

be a plastic item. Do you recognize that?

A. To tell you the truth, I don't see it. Oh, just

sticking out right here?

Q. Yes.

A. If that's a plastic item, I'm not sure that is it or

not. I believe that would be the shipping cap.

Q. Was that item on the generator when you wrote the green

tag?

A. No, sir.

MR. BRIGHAM: To that extent, we do not object.

THE COURT: Defendant Florence Exhibit 3 is

admitted into evidence.

[Defense Exhibit 3 received in evidence].

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, I have a few copies.

May I hand it out to the jury?

THE COURT: I suppose so. Normally, we would

take this exhibit and pass it down. That way, we don't

have exhibits floating around. The big copy may be easier

to look at any way.

MS MOSCOWITZ: You're right.

With the Court's indulgence --

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Can you tell us what that tag says, sir?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

20 TABER - Cross

A. Could I have a copy?

THE COURT: Maybe you should give him the copy

that you passed to the jury.

MS. MOSCOWITZ: I didn't realize that I had taken

it away from him.

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, the photograph speaks

for itself.

THE COURT: What was the question? Let me hear

the question. What is the question, please?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: The question is, what does the

tag say?

THE COURT: They are all looking at it, and

reading it, aren't they? Why don't you ask him, if there

is some confusion?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Just say, "the tag says" and then

tell him.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. The tag says 02 generators at the top, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And then it says --

THE COURT: Well, don't just ask him to read it,

if you have a question about it, ask it.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Are these the generators that you were dealing with

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

21 TABER - Cross

 

that we have been talking about in this case? When it says

02, is that the same generator, is that right?

A. Yes.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. 02 stands for oxygen, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You wrote "out-of-date" at the bottom of the tag?

A. Yes, it says for reason of removal, I put

"out-of-date."

Q. That tag is correct, correct?

A. As far as I'm concerned it is.

Q. As a mechanic, you were not allowed to condemn parts

belonging to customers, right?

A. Under my understanding, I'm not.

Q. This was a part belonging to ValuJet, correct?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you discussed that with Mr. Wiles, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Wiles told you that these generators were

ValuJet property, and they would handle what would happen to

those generators, correct?

A. They said they would be the ones to dispose of them.

Q. You put the generators neatly in a box, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And you were instructed to take them to the ValuJet

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

22 TABER - Cross

 

hold area, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. None of the maintenance records, like the work cards,

went to the ValuJet hold area, right?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Yes, you have to show that he knows

those facts.

MS. MOSCOWITZ: He said, not that he's aware of.

THE COURT: You didn't see what happened to them?

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. The records, but you saw what happened to the

generators, right, Mr. Taber?

A. I know where the generators went.

THE COURT: He told us that he carried one box

over and two others carried two other over. One gentleman

put them down.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Did you go in and talk to anybody at ValuJet, did you

go into the enclosure and talk to somebody in there?

A. Not from ValuJet, no.

Q. Including the supervisor?

A. All I did was spoke to one of the shipping and handler

leads, and asked them where exactly they want it put.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

23 TABER - Cross

 

Q. You asked the shipping and handling guy. You don't

happen to know who he was, do you?

A. Not at this time, no.

Q. You said where do you want these things?

A. Yes, I said where is the ValuJet holding area, and

where exactly do you want me to put them.

Q. He told you?

A. Yes, in the ValuJet holding area which is just a shelf.

Q. Did you do that?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Sir, you did not pack the generators to be shipped, did

you?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. You did not believe that they would be shipped,

correct?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He can tell us what he did and what

he said.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Did you tell anybody to ship them?

A. No, sir, I was told that they would be disposed of.

BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:

Q. Did anyone ever tell you that the used generators would

be shipped?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

24 TABER - Cross

 

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and

answered.

THE COURT: You may answer this question.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Did you have a conversation with anybody where you were

told that these generators were going to be shipped on an

airplane?

A. No, ma'am. I mean, no, sir.

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Nothing, further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Dunlap?

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. DUNLAP:

Q. Mr. Taber, you talked about paperwork, the signing of

paperwork in your testimony?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That's part of the overall job of doing mechanical work

on the aircraft?

A. Yes.

Q. And finishing the paperwork is one of the last steps so

that it can be closed out, so it can be inspected?

A. There are certain parts of the paperwork that you have

to have inspected to do the work. It goes all through the

paperwork inspections.

Q. Certainly completing the paperwork, whether inspected

or not, is an interval part of your job?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

25 TABER - Cross

 

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you described a time where people were signing

paperwork in the booth?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Danny Gonzalez did not ask you to sign paperwork

without reading it, did he?

A. No, sir.

Q. He was just saying, it's time to get the job done to

wrap up the paperwork?

A. That's what I believe, yes.

MR. DUNLAP: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Raskin?

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. RASKIN:

Q. Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, I am Marty

Raskin. I represent SabreTech. I only have a few questions

for you, Mr. Taber.

During the time that you worked at SabreTech, do

you know of any mechanics that took short cuts or pencil

whipped improper paperwork?

MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Not personally, no.

BY MR. RASKIN:

Q. During the time you worked at SabreTech, did anyone

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

26 TABER - Redirect

 

ever ask you to sign for work which wasn't done?

A. No, sir.

Q. During the time you worked at SabreTech, do you know of

any instance where someone prepared any false paperwork?

A. I didn't see any.

Q. During the time that you worked at SabreTech, are you

aware -- do you know of any instance where anyone at

SabreTech lied to or tried to deceive the FAA or any

government agency?

A. Not that I'm aware.

MR. RASKIN: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. When was the last time you had hazardous material

training?

A. Now? I just had some at work.

Q. Before the crash?

A. Before the crash? At American Airlines, on the ramp, I

had some hazardous materials training on loading cargo.

Q. What year was that?

A. 1995.

Q. I believe you said with respect to the engineering

order, the words "shipping cap" are not on it?

A. Not on that one right there.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

27 TABER - Redirect

 

Q. Did you use other paperwork when you were doing the

installation and removal of oxygen generators?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that paperwork?

A. That's the work card.

Q. I would like to direct your attention to Government

Exhibit 25, and specifically, with respect to the Exhibit

802, work card 0069. Could you please take a look at that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the work card you were talking about?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. During your conversations with Mr. Florence about the

wrapping of the oxygen generators, what, if anything, did

you tell him about the availability of shipping caps?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Asked and answered, I

believe.

THE COURT: You may answer the question. Go

ahead.

THE WITNESS: We talked about how we didn't have

any shipping caps.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. With respect to the engineering order, what side of the

airplane does this apply to?

A. That's just the right side of the plane.

Q. With respect to the left side, what application, if

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

28 TABER - Redirect

 

any, does this engineering order have?

A. I don't believe that one right there has any.

Q. With respect to the left side, what effort, if any, was

there with respect to the removal of oxygen generators?

A. On the left side?

Q. Yes.

A. They were removed. I'm not sure what you are asking.

Q. Were they removed?

A. Yes.

Q. Among the people working on the oxygen generators, on

the installation and removal of the oxygen generators, who

was doing most of the work?

A. The removal?

Q. Yes.

A. From the start, I did the removal.

Q. And the installation?

A. Just putting in the heat inserts was myself, Eugene,

and Robert Rodriguez, and another mechanic, which was my

lead some times, Billy Moss.

Q. Approximately how many days did you see Mr. Florence

working on the oxygen generators?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, outside the scope.

It was asked and answered.

MR. BRIGHAM: The question was asked about the

number of individuals involved with this particular work,

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

29 TABER - Redirect

 

Your Honor. I am examining on that area.

THE COURT: "Question: Approximately how many

days did you see persons working on the oxygen

generators?"

He told us that on direct examination. He said

working on them for two weeks, unless I missed something

here.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. After the removal of the oxygen generators, how much

time had passed to the time that you saw Mr. Florence

signing off the paperwork in that booth?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: I think that's all covered. It's in

the record.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Sir, you were asked about pencil whipping. What did

you understand that to mean?

A. Pencil whipping is when somebody is signing something

off without even doing the work.

MR. BRIGHAM: No further questions.

THE COURT: You may step down, thank you. You

are excused.

Next witness, please.

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, we will be calling

Joseph Fernandez.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

30 TABER - Redirect

 

MR. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, could we have a side

bar please?

THE COURT: All right. The jury is excused.

[The jury leaves the courtroom].

THE COURT: Mr. Moscowitz.

MR. MOSCOWITZ: This next witness is Joseph

Fernandez. I believe his testimony has nothing to do with

the issues in this case.

As I understand it, based on the exhibit that we

have for him, he was an auditor for Continental Airlines.

Continental Airlines was considering using SabreTech to

service airplanes.

As Your Honor has already heard, when an airline

is considering using SabreTech or any repair facility,

first they audit that facility to determine whether it's

qualified. This audit was done on May 9 and May 10, 1996,

which was a day before the crash of the ValuJet airline.

Mr. Fernandez came to the audit. Ten days later --

THE COURT: I would like for everyone else,

except the speaker to sit down. You all are hovering

around like a covey of quail. I'd like you all to take

your seats.

Now, Mr. Moscowitz, so this witness went to

SabreTech, and did some sort of an inspection the day

before the crash.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

31 TABER - Redirect

 

MR. MOSCOWITZ: On behalf of Continental

Airlines, to determine whether the facility could be used

by Continental maintenance. I have his report. It has

nothing to do with the issues in this case. There is not a

single mention of oxygen generators.

THE COURT: Let me inquire, what is the

materiality of what the next witness, Mr. Fernandez, is

going to say? For what purpose is he being offered?

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, the importance of this

is that the Continental audit was considered a major

comprehensive contract for SabreTech. As a result, there

was a significant clean up effort in the areas including

the shipping and receiving areas, whereby this time, the

old oxygen generators which were uncapped had been

received. The generators themselves --

THE COURT: Did Mr. Fernandez see that clean up

occurred? That's a yes or no.

MR. BRIGHAM: He did not physically see people

cleaning up, but he was able --

THE COURT: Then how could he prove that point?

That's your point. They were busy cleaning up. Therefore,

they were under pressure. Therefore, they took short cut

steps. But he can't testify to that, he showed up a day

later, or two days, a week later or whenever it was.

MR. BRIGHAM: He actually showed up on the 8th

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

32 TABER - Redirect

 

and was there through the 10th.

THE COURT: Well, what's he going to say about

the cleanup?

MR. BRIGHAM: Nothing.

THE COURT: I guess he would say that the place

is clean, is that it?

MR. BRIGHAM: It would be corroborating an

earlier witness along those lines who had mentioned this

particular audit, and who indicated that -- and the audit

presented a certain pressure.

We will be able to elicit from the witness that

there was about a week and a half, two weeks notice with

respect to this. And we submit that, it's important

because it explains why the proper procedures were not

utilized with respect to the oxygen generators that were

packaged in violation of the hazardous materials

regulations.

In addition --

THE COURT: If that's all he is going to say, I

will sustain the objection without prejudice, the right to

call him in rebuttal if you need him. You already have

testimony from the people working in the shop that they

were under pressure to clean up the shop, and to get it

ready because an audit was coming.

There's no dispute over the fact that an audit

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

33 TABER - Redirect

 

was coming. All this man can say is when he showed up out

there, the place was spic and span.

If you are going to get into why Continental

didn't hire SabreTech to do some work, or why they did hire

them, that's totally his opinion and that would be

irrelevant. I suspect the intervening crash would have

played a major part in any decision he would have made.

I'm going to sustain the objection at this time without

prejudice to call the witness in rebuttal.

Who is your next witness?

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, if I may ask. I know

the Court wants to move on. But I want to --

THE COURT: I want to rule on things that are

material, and this is immaterial.

MR. BRIGHAM: There is one other aspect I think

the Court should be apprised --

THE COURT: It's a good idea for you to tell me

all of your secrets at one time. If I hear it piece-meal,

then it breaks up the ruling. What else is he going to say

that is material?

MR. BRIGHAM: He is going to say that when he was

in the shipping and receiving area, he did not see the

oxygen generators that we know established by testimony

were already there. And, in fact, the testimony, had

indicated that there were --

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

34 TABER - Redirect

 

THE COURT: So, you're going to put him on, and

contradict his testimony later?

MR. BRIGHAM: We are going to put him on to show

that no boxes were marked O2 generators. And we feel that

that is significant because of previous testimony that, in

fact, there were six boxes --

THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Excuse

me. The objection is sustained. Who is your next witness?

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, we had originally

intended to call Mr. Tom Silver.

THE COURT: Who is your next witness?

MR. BRIGHAM: We are having a witness problem,

quite frankly. Mr. Silver was supposed to be here. He is

not here.

THE COURT: He is not here. Who is your next

witness?

MR. BRIGHAM: After that, it is Mr. Diaz, and we

are told he will be here in a half hour.

THE COURT: It is a very good idea in a case

estimated six weeks to have at least five or six witnesses

sitting out there ready to go; rather than having 16

jurors, nine lawyers, parties, staff, everybody here,

marshals, about 25 people waiting for 30 minutes.

You multiply that out, and you've got about a

days lost time of all of these people. I think I cautioned

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

35 TABER - Redirect

 

all of you. Let's have these witnesses sitting out there.

If they have to wait a day or two, I'm sorry about that.

Far be it for one person to have to wait all day.

Where is Mr. Diaz coming from?

MR. BRIGHAM: I believe Boca.

THE COURT: Boca?

MR. BRIGHAM: I'm sorry, locally.

THE COURT: When was your last contact with him?

How sure are you that he is going to be here in 30 minutes?

MR. BRIGHAM: We talked to them through his

counsel.

THE COURT: It's 10:00. At 10:30, I'm going to

ask you to call your next witness. This may be a shorter

case than you think it is. Marshal, if those two witnesses

wish to go down for a smoke, they can. You need to go with

them. Thank you.

[There was a short recess].

COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in

session. The Honorable Judge James Lawrence King

presiding.

THE COURT: Thank you. Be seated. We are sorry

about the delay, ladies and gentlemen.

Call your next witness.

MR. BRIGHAM: United States calls Tomas Silvers.

Your Honor, this witness will need an interpreter, and we

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

36 SILVERS - Direct

 

have one present.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Will the interpreter raise her

hand.

Do you solemnly swear that you will translate

from English to Spanish, and from Spanish to English the

proceedings in this case?

INTERPRETER: I do.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: May I have your name, please?

INTERPRETER: Gloria Nichols, N-I-C-H-O-L-S.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right

hand, please.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I will.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: State your name please.

THE WITNESS: Tomas, T-o-m-a-s, Silvers,

S-I-L-V-E-R-S.

TOMAS SILVERS, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Mr. Silvers, you do understand English?

A. Yes.

Q. But you've requested the interpreter?

INTERPRETER: Your Honor, may we request that the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

37 SILVERS - Direct

 

witness, if he is going to be testifying using the

interpreter, testify in Spanish or any way that you want?

THE COURT: The question is a simple one, not to

worry about it. You can translate what I say to him. The

question is a simple one, do you speak some English, but

you are more comfortable speaking in Spanish?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Next question.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Mr. Silvers, what do you do for a living?

A. Aviation mechanic.

Q. Where do you presently work?

A. FNE Company.

Q. Sir, do you hold any type of certificates with respect

to aviation maintenance?

A. The license for power plant in F.L. airframe.

Q. Was there a time when you worked for SabreTech?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that approximately?

A. '95 or '96. I don't remember exactly.

Q. What did you do for SabreTech?

A. I worked on the airplanes that SabreTech had at that

time.

Q. Where was this?

A. At the hangars, at the airport.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

38 SILVERS - Direct

 

Q. Who was your supervisor?

A. Danny Tomking, T-O-M-K-I-N-G.

Q. Is that Danny Tomkins?

A. It could be.

Q. Who was your immediate supervisor, your lead mechanic,

I should say?

A. Danny Tomkins was the supervisor, and Serrano was the

lead man.

Q. What was Mr. Serrano's first name, if you recall?

A. People used to call him Ray, but I don't know if that

was his name.

Q. You say, he was your lead man. What do you mean by

that?

A. He would receive the order from the supervisor, and

then he would distribute the jobs to us.

Q. Mr. Serrano, was he a SabreTech employee?

A. He worked there. I don't know if he was working for

SabreTech or not.

Q. But did he work at the facility?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Danny Tomkins, did he also work at the SabreTech

facility?

MR. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: He would work in the same hangar.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

39 SILVERS - Direct

 

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Who was Mr. Tomkins' boss?

MR. RASKIN: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Yes, I think you can ask Mr. Tomkins

these questions. Let's get to what this man did or said.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Approximately how long did you work at SabreTech?

A. Two or three months.

Q. When did you work there in relationship to the crash,

if you know?

A. I resigned before the accident.

Q. How long before the accident?

A. Weeks.

Q. When you were working at SabreTech, what were your

responsibilities?

BY THE COURT:

Q. What did you do at SabreTech?

A. Maintenance of the airplanes. We did items.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What kind of airplanes did you work on?

A. MD-80s.

Q. What company did those MD-80s belong to?

A. ValuJet.

Q. Did there come a time that you worked with respect to a

Mr. Mauro Valenzuela?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

40 SILVERS - Direct

A. Once.

Q. Approximately when was that in relationship to the

crash?

A. The airplane that we worked on was not involved in an

accident.

Q. No, but when you worked on that airplane when was it in

relationship to the crash?

A. Weeks before, two or three weeks.

Q. What did you do with Mr. Valenzuela when you worked

with him?

A. Could you be a little bit more specific?

Q. Let me approach it from a different way. How many days

did you work with Mr. Valenzuela?

A. We were scheduled to work seven days, and I worked six

days. I would see him there, when we would all arrive to

work. But he would do one type of work, and I would do

another.

Q. Did there ever come a time when you would work on the

same project?

A. Once.

Q. What did you do with him?

A. We had the order from the lead man to install the

generators on the right side.

Q. Who gave you that order?

A. Mr. Serrano.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

41 SILVERS - Direct

 

Q. And what did you do in response to that order?

A. First, we went to storage to see if we had the

material. They didn't have it. We communicated to

Mr. Serrano that they did not have that.

Q. What materials were those?

A. The generators.

Q. What work if any, did you do after that?

A. After that, he told us to inspect the left side, which

had been installed.

Q. Left side of what?

A. Of the aircraft, of the entire aircraft.

Q. What did you do?

A. We began to inspect it. We found oxygen masks that

were dirty. We cleaned the oxygen masks. There were hoses

that were in a clipped position, so we straightened them out

and put them in the appropriate manner. That's all we did.

Q. What, if anything, did you do with respect to the

removal or installation of oxygen generators with

Mr. Valenzuela?

A. Nothing. No, we did not either remove or install any.

Q. What shift were you working on that day?

A. The second shift. It was from 6:00 in the evening

until 6:00 in the morning.

Q. After performing that work, what conversation, if any,

did you have with Mr. Serrano?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

42 SILVERS - Direct

 

MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Mr. Serrano. Who is Mr. Serrano?

BY THE COURT:

Q. Who is Mr. Serrano in relation to you? Who was he?

A. He was the lead man.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. You worked for him?

A. Yes, all the mechanics work for him and for Danny

Tomkins.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the

question about what he said to you, and what you said to

him on this evening shift, two to three weeks before the

crash.

THE WITNESS: Could the question be a little bit

more specific?

THE COURT: Mr. Brigham, establish when, where,

and who was present.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. After you had done the work on the aircraft for

Mr. Valenzuela, did you have a conversation with

Mr. Serrano?

A. When we came back from lunch.

Q. And who was present during that conversation?

A. Mr. Serrano, Mr. Valenzuela and me.

Q. Mr. Valenzuela, who did he work for?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

43 SILVERS - Direct

 

MS. RASKIN: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Well, if you know, you may answer.

If you don't, don't answer.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Mr. Valenzuela, who did he work for?

A. In reference to what? He worked there for SabreTech.

Q. The conversation that you had with Mr. Serrano, where

did it take place?

A. Inside the hangar.

Q. What was said, what, if anything, did Mr. Serrano say

during this conversation?

A. He had some papers that looked like this in front of

me. He said that since we had done the inspection, would we

sign it. And I said, I wasn't going to sign it because I

hadn't done the inspection. So, since we did not install

that, I wasn't going to sign it.

Q. What if anything did Mr. Serrano say to Mr. Valenzuela

in your presence?

A. For about five minutes, we were joking around; you sign

it; you sign it; no, you sign it. And then Mr. Valenzuela

took the papers. I kept on talking to Mr. Serrano, and he

turned, and he gave the whole thing back to Serrano.

Q. What did Mr. Valenzuela do with those papers?

THE COURT: Did someone say something over here?

Did I hear an objection or something? No? Just the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

44 SILVERS - Direct

 

interpreter. I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question?

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What did you see Mr. Valenzuela do with respect to

those papers, if anything?

A. I didn't see anything. My back was turned to him.

Q. What did you see Mr. Valenzuela do? What physical

motions did you see him make with respect to the questions?

MR. RASKIN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What was the reason that Mr. Serrano -- what was the

reason he told you as to why he wanted you to sign those

papers?

MR. RASKIN: Objection.

THE COURT: You may ask him what was said.

Rephrase the question and ask what was said.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What was said with respect to Mr. Serrano, with respect

to you signing those papers?

MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. After you saw Mr. Serrano have this conversation with

Mr. Valenzuela, what, if anything, did you tell

Mr. Valenzuela?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

45 SILVERS - Direct

 

THE COURT: Hasn't he already told us that?

MR. BRIGHAM: I don't believe so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Just about three minutes ago, he said

that he told Mr. Valenzuela that he refused to sign because

he had not done the work, and I think everybody in the

courtroom heard that.

MR. BRIGHAM: My question is what did the

witness, Mr. Silvers say to Mr. Valenzuela after that.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Did you say anything further to either of them after

you told him that you would not sign the papers?

A. I asked him why he did it.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What were you referring to?

A. Because he told Serrano that it was already signed.

Q. When you said why did he do it, what were you talking

about? What was the "it"?

MS. RASKIN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Tell us what you said to Serrano, and what he said to

you, if anything. What Mr. Valenzuela said, if anything.

Tell us the words that were spoken. Not your opinion.

A. By this time Serrano had left. Valenzuela and I were

heading toward a table where we had to fill out the green

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

46 SILVERS - Direct

 

tags for some generators. I asked him why he had done it,

and he said well, it's signed now.

Q. What did you say after that?

A. Nothing more. We ended the conversation there.

Q. That was the end of the conversation about the signing

of these cards, is that right?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Next question.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What if anything, did Mr. Valenzuela say about the work

that he had accomplished?

MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Perhaps, it was unclear in his mind.

He may answer this question.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Was there anything further said about the work that was

done, other than what you told us?

A. No.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Nothing was said?

MS. RASKIN: Objection.

MR. BRIGHAM: I didn't understand, Your Honor.

Did he say, no?

THE COURT: Will the Court Reporter read back the

question and answer, please.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

47 SILVERS - Direct

 

(Thereupon the above referred to question and

answer were read by the court reporter).

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Mr. Silvers, do you remember testifying in front of the

Grand Jury on June 10, 1997?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you testified before the Grand Jury, you were

required to take an oath, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood that oath, is that correct?

MS. RASKIN: Objection. Leading.

MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. During that Grand Jury testimony, do you recall the

question being asked, page 35, line 3.

"Did Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano that he had

not done the work that he was signing off on?"

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Leading.

MS. RASKIN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: It's getting into impeachment of his

own witness. I don't understand what the purpose is.

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection to that, too, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: I don't know what the purpose of

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

48 SILVERS - Direct

 

calling a witness, and then impeaching him. Normally, that

might be a subject for cross-examination.

MR. BRIGHAM: I believe the rules would allow me

to do that, Your Honor. I think this is a circumstance

that would be appropriate.

THE COURT: If you wish to establish that the

jury should not believe him, that's your prerogative, but

that proves purpose and cause.

Go ahead, you may read him the question and

answer that was propounded at the Grand Jury.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

"Question: Did Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano

that he had not done: The work that he was signing off

on?

Answer: Yes, we told him that we had not done the

work on the generators, but he had wanted us to sign it

so that he could get rid of the item."

Do you recall that in your question and answer?

A. Yes.

MR. RASKIN: Your Honor, we would ask that the

rest of that passage be read, because now it's out of

context. The next several lines starting at the top of

page 36 clarifies that issue.

MR. BRIGHAM: I would be happy to do that. Would

the Court like me to do that?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

49 SILVERS - Direct

 

THE COURT: I certainly don't want to leave an

unfair impression with the jury. There's the suggestion

that it was clarified later, then I suppose you have to do

that.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Starting at line 1:

"This occasion, we worked together. The rest of

the time, I worked with other guys --"

Your Honor, if it's going to be read in context,

it needs to be read from the beginning of page 35.

THE COURT: Do you have any other questions of

this witness beyond this?

MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will interrupt your questioning at

this point, and ask Mr. Raskin to read those portions of

the transcript, and ask if the witness gave those answers

to those questions. You may do that.

BY MS. RASKIN:

Q. Mr. Silvers, I represent SabreTech. I'm going to be

asking you about the same Grand Jury proceeding.

THE COURT: Mr. Raskin, you can read it rapidly,

and give it to the interpreter and she'll read it.

BY MR. RASKIN:

"Did you hear Mr. Valenzuela expressly tell

Mr. Serrano that he had not done the work?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

50 SILVERS - Direct

 

Answer: Yes.

Mr. Serrano expressly told Mr. Valenzuela to sign

it any way?

Yes.

Had Mr. Valenzuela inspected it?

Yes. That's what we spent four hours checking to

make sure everything was right.

Question: So Mr. Valenzuela actually looked at

the work that was done?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And that's with respect to what?

Answer: The installation of the C02.

Question: When you say the installation, excuse

me if, I'm repeating, the installation of the two

generators, was that the whole assembly in the aircraft or

was it putting the generators in the assembly?

Answer: Putting the generators into the

assemblies?"

THE COURT: Ask him if he gave that question.

BY MR. RASKIN:

Q. Was that your testimony before the Grand Jury?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other

questions of this witness?

MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

51 SILVERS - Direct

 

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Now, at that time, what, if anything, were you doing

with respect to shipping caps?

A. We were not in charge of that.

Q. Now, after Mr. Valenzuela indicated, you had your

conversation with Mr. Valenzuela, what did you tell him, or

after he had talked to you, what did you tell him?

MS. RASKIN: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. I would like to refer on page 34 of the transcript?

THE COURT: Let me talk to counsel just briefly.

If you folks would step into the jury room, please.

[The jury leaves the courtroom].

THE COURT: It appears that all we are doing here

is reading the Grand Jury testimony to the jury. We are

not getting any testimony from this witness except what he

has testified to previously before the Grand Jury.

The part that I have difficulty with is that the

first phase of series of questions, where you attempted to

impeach him, left the impression with the jury that

Valenzuela had signed off on the work sheets for work that

he had not done on the generator.

Mr. Raskin, when he read the balance of the

questions and answers in sequence that followed that part

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

52 SILVERS - Direct

 

that the government read to the witness, developed and

showed, rather conclusively, that that conversation, a fair

reading of it, a fair understanding of it would be that

Valenzuela and this witness had actually done the work that

Valenzuela signed off on.

Setting up a witness and knocking him over like a

straw man is counter-productive. There's no point in it.

Particularly, no point where, in the testimony he gave,

does not when read in its entirety, bear out the point that

the government is trying to make shown.

I don't want to just sit here and read Grand Jury

material to the jury. And have Mr. Raskin get up and read

something else. That's not a reasonable way to try this

case.

If the witness is not going to say what you

anticipated he was going to say, then don't use him and

move onto somebody who will. The defense may want to call

him, and if he doesn't say what they want him to say, then

they shouldn't call him either.

We are not going to just sit here and read Grand

Jury testimony to the jury. That's not the way we offer

evidence.

What is your next point? This last one was just

totally without consequence, if I understand it. If you

knew that he said Valenzuela had done the work, why bother

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

53 SILVERS - Direct

 

going into it?

MR. BRIGHAM: This witness, and many of the

witnesses, are not friendly witnesses to the government.

They are represented by counsel, and as a result --

THE COURT: So then, don't use them.

MR. BRIGHAM: I may have to use them, because

they may be the only witnesses that the government has.

They may have said certain things to the Grand Jury that

are not being said here.

I would submit, Your Honor, for example, if front

of the Grand Jury, the witness indicated to Mr. Valenzuela,

if I read another excerpt, I asked him later why he signed.

And he said, just to make the lead man happy. I told him

that was bullshit. I'm sorry. The context told to me in

previous interviews, it was that it was nonsense, because

in fact, the work had not been done. Now the witness is

not suggesting that. That is why unfortunately, I have to

resort to impeaching the witness.

THE COURT: He may have told you things in

private interviews, but the person to testify would be you,

or the person he spoke to, not him. That would be hearsay.

If he told the Grand Jury that he and Valenzuela

did the work they were charged with doing, and they did it

properly, and they signed off on it, and you're trying to

use the Grand Jury testimony to show that that's not an

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

54 SILVERS - Direct

 

accurate, truthful statement, you have to have something in

the Grand Jury testimony that will refute what he said.

Again, you are just setting up a witness and

knocking him over. That is not the affirmative proof. At

the end of the day when the dust settles, you don't have

any information from this witness at all.

You've impeached him. You're right back to

ground zero with this witness. I don't think you're going

to be able to get very far in Grand Jury testimony when he

said in one part, "we were kidding around," or "it was

baloney." And then the other part, he says, "yes, we did

what we had to do." Then the jury has to judge his

credibility, and probably the answer is, his credibility is

very limited or nil.

You can't argue to the jury in closing argument

that this witness stands for the proposition that they

signed off on work they didn't do. Because, you know, that

in the record is another place where it says that they did

do the work. So, the best argument you could make, would

be to the jury on this basis is that, well, you heard

Mr. Silver at one time say they didn't do the work.

Another time they said they did do the work.

We say you should believe him when he said they

did do the work. Mr. Raskin gets up and argues to the

jury. You heard Mr. Silver one time they say they did the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

55 SILVERS - Direct

 

work and one time, they said they didn't. We suggest that

you should not believe any of it and disregard it entirely.

That's what the jury is going to do. If you impeach him

sufficiently, they are going to disregard him entirely. I

don't see the point.

It's not criticism, but it's entirely pointless

to bring witnesses on and only read a portion of the Grand

Jury testimony that you think substantiates what you think

is going to prove your point. You have to read the rest of

it. It's going to come out. If there's two points to it,

it's counter-productive. It's really wasting everybody's

time.

When we get to closing argument, you're not going

to be able to argue something that you knew was

deliberately misleading to the jury. I'm not suggesting

that you ever would. If, for some chance you did, they

would get up and argue the other point. So, we just wasted

time with a witness that, at best case scenario, nobody

believes.

What is the next point you wish to bring out, the

point where he used profanity to describe, it's all baloney?

MR. BRIGHAM: I think that the next point that I

want to bring out, is to complete the context, because what

Mr. Raskin has read is, talk about a procedure that was not

in the paperwork. That's brought to bear by the question I

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

56 SILVERS - Direct

 

asked, page 32, line 14.

"But did you hear him, Mr. Valenzuela, tell

Mr. Serrano though, that he had not done the work".

And the response was "right."

THE COURT: What was the next line, Mr. Raskin?

MR. RASKIN: I suggest, Your Honor, there's no

foundation for this. I don't believe this witness even

testified that he knows what that paperwork is. Whether or

not someone worked in conformity with it, is not right at

this point.

THE COURT: The government would have to

establish when and where the conversation took place and

who was present.

MR. RASKIN: May I read a couple of lines?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. RASKIN: Page 42.

"Did Mr. Valenzuela sign off on the paperwork, if

he had not done the installation work step by step?

Answer: I have no idea. He knows."

Did you have any discussion with him about that?

MR. BRIGHAM: Then the question is, Your Honor,

"Did you hear him, Mr. Valenzuela, tell Mr. Serrano

that you had not done the work?

Answer: Right."

THE COURT: You first have to establish where the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

57 SILVERS - Direct

 

conversation took place, who was present, what was said.

And then he's going to bring out all of these other

factors. I don't understand what point the government has,

if you know he has positions in the record where he says he

didn't know anything about the paperwork.

What is your next point beyond that one?

MR. BRIGHAM: The focus of this particular work

was that we have charged, is the failure to place the

shipping caps onto the old oxygen generators.

THE COURT: I know that.

MR. BRIGHAM: Yet, the conversation that

Mr. Raskin refers to, is with respect to the inspection

system in general, which is not the work which is on the

work card itself.

THE COURT: All right, all right. We will bring

the jury back, and we will go on with this and see where it

leads. But you must establish the foundation of prejudice

of any statement that was made. That is, to say who was

present, where was the conversation and when was it. You

must do that without leading. Then you may elicit from him

what was said assuming that you established the predicate.

Mrs. Moscowitz?

MRS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, the portion

Mr. Brigham said he was going to do go to, "did you hear

Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano he had not done the work,"

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

58 SILVERS - Direct

 

and now he is going to refer to something on a different

page is exactly what he read aloud on top of page 36

before. "Did you hear Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano that

he had not done the work? Yes."

So certainly, it was the same information

elicited that brought us to this hearing, Judge.

THE COURT: I think I better read this statement

from the Grand Jury, the testimony, and make an analysis

whether, on a fair basis, where we are simply not

submitting to the jury any conflicting statements, that the

man is all over the map as to what he said to his lead

mechanic chief, and see where this is leading.

Up until now, it would appear that he simply is

taking different positions at different times. It is

confusing to the jury. I will read the document and make a

decision as to whether or not there is any thing in there

that would be of any materiality to this case.

Obviously, it's going to be asking him a question,

if he can establish the time, place and who was present and

elicit a statement from him. Then impeach him with

something from the Grand Jury. Then, of course, the defense

is going to come back and read another portion of the Grand

Jury testimony, where it does not impeach him.

To me, that is not the proper way to present

evidence to this jury. It would be very confusing.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

59 SILVERS - Direct

 

Counter-productive. It would be simply setting up a straw

man and knocking him over, if that is the thrust of his

Grand Jury testimony. At this point in time, it's 11:30.

How long is that document? How many pages?

MR. BRIGHAM: I would say, if Mr. Raskin is in

agreement, we can read from 35 to the end. The last page

is 42.

THE COURT: Marshal, would you hand that up to me

and let me read it here quickly.

MR. RASKIN: Could we have a few minutes?

THE COURT: You read it while I'm reading it. If

you can read as fast as I can, fine. It's only 7 pages.

MRS. RASKIN: Your Honor, I point out that

there's another Grand Jury transcript that we would like to

look at.

THE COURT: So you wish to offer or if permitted,

you would try to establish or impeach him at page 35 to the

end. You would read him all of that and ask if he would

make statements to the Grand Jury, if permitted, is that

correct?

MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. At page 42, I have some

difficulty with it. After all the dust settles, the

following questions and answers appear.

"Question: Did Mr. Valenzuela sign off on the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

60 SILVERS - Direct

paperwork, if he had not done the installation work

step by step.

Answer: I have no idea. He knows.

Question: Did you have any discussion with him

about that?

Answer: No.

Question: But did you hear him tell Mr. Serrano,

though, that he had not done the work?

Answer: Right."

When it gets all done, the bottom line, it seems

to be that he never had any conversations with Valenzuela on

at least one of the times about signing off on the work that

he had done, and he doesn't know about Valenzuela. He knows

about himself.

MR. BRIGHAM: But the key, Your Honor, is he heard

Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano that he had not done the

work.

THE COURT: Mr. Moscowitz?

MR. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, first of all, this

testimony was without an interpreter in the Grand Jury. He

testified in English.

THE COURT: Well, he willy-waffles all over the

place any way. What is your point?

MR. MOSCOWITZ: In the second volume of his

appearance, he gave the following testimony. Pages 5 and

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

61 SILVERS - Direct

 

6:

"Had he ever told you that he had, in fact,

installed the generators.

Answer: No.

Did you ever -- did he tell that he had not?

We worked only that day on this paperwork. Next

day, I was assigned to do something else.

I guess my question is, did he make any statements

at all indicating that he had done all the work on the

left hand side, or that he had not done the work?

No.

Did he tell you that he had done all the work?

No, he didn't tell me anything."

THE COURT: Mr. Brigham, I'll let you concur with

Ms. Miller, and the two of you can advise the Court

whether you wish to proceed, knowing that all of this is

ultimately going to be brought out. That is, see if you

can establish that he remembers any of these conversations,

and lay the proper predicate. If you do, then you have the

right to go forward. If you wish to bypass this witness

and save him for rebuttal, if you need him, we can do that.

Whatever you wish to do.

MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, we will move on with

other topics.

THE COURT: You want to go forward?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

62 SILVERS - Direct

 

MR. BRIGHAM: We will go forward, but we will not

address the Grand Jury testimony issue. We do have

additional questions on other topics to address.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury please.

[The jury returns to the courtroom].

THE COURT: Be seated, please.

Mr. Brigham.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Mr. Silvers, after the conversation that you had just

testified about, what did you do?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled. Can you identify it by

date?

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Yes, on the date that you were working with

Mr. Valenzuela, and after a conversation where Mr. Serrano

was present that you testified about, what did you do?

A. With respect to what?

Q. With respect to old oxygen generators?

INTERPRETER: Old?

MR. BRIGHAM: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Serrano told us to write out a

green tag.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What did you do in response?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

63 SILVERS - Direct

 

A. We proceeded to write up a green tag.

Q. What were you using that green tag for?

MS. RASKIN: Objection.

BY THE COURT:

Q. What did you do with the green tag after you wrote it

out?

A. We affixed it to the generators.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. How many generators are you talking about?

A. Approximately 20 or 30.

Q. Were these the new generators or the old generators?

A. The old ones, the ones that they had taken out.

Q. Where did you find these generators?

A. On some tables.

Q. Did you see any safety caps on these generators?

A. No.

Q. What did you physically do with the generators with

respect to the strings or lanyards?

MS. RASKIN: Objection. Leading.

MR. BRIGHAM: Just to direct the witness, Your

Honor.

I will rephrase the question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. What did you do physically with the generators?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

64 SILVERS - Direct

 

A. After we wrote out the green tags, we put them in some

cardboard boxes.

Q. What labels, if any, were on the boxes?

A. None.

Q. What did you do with the boxes?

A. They stayed on top of the tables when we finished our

turns and went home.

Q. What directions, if any, were you given with respect to

the boxes?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. No foundation.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Did you have any conversations with respect to what

should be done with the boxes?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was said, what directions?

MR. DUNLAP: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. No foundation.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Who were you talking to?

A. About what?

Q. With respect to the boxes?

A. I honestly do not understand your question.

Q. Fair enough.

A. If you want me to answer, you have to be more clear

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

65 SILVERS - Direct

 

with your questions.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Silvers, I'll try to be.

You indicated that you put the oxygen generators

in the boxes, is that correct?

A. One box.

Q. Did you have any conversation with anyone about what to

do with that one box?

THE COURT: Just, yes or no.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Did you have a conversation?

A. Yes.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Who was present during that conversation?

A. Valenzuela, Serrano and me.

Q. What was said?

A. After the green tags were put on them, they had to be

taken to shipping and receiving.

Q. What did you do with respect to the box, if anything?

A. As I said before, the box remained on the table.

Q. Who told you you should take the boxes to shipping and

receiving?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: It's not very clear who said what, at

this point, and I don't know when this conversation took

place, but I suppose if it doesn't bother anybody, that's

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

66 SILVERS - Direct

 

fine.

BY THE COURT:

Q. You, Serrano and anybody else present during this

conversation?

A. Valenzuela.

Q. Where was the conversation?

A. Inside the hangar.

Q. Where inside the hangar?

A. Possibly near the airplane where the generators were.

Q. What exactly did Mr. Serrano tell you to do with the

generators, if anything?

A. To write out the green tags, and when we were through

doing that, to take them to shipping and receiving.

Q. Who was present when he said that?

A. Mr. Valenzuela and me.

Q. Did Mr. Valenzuela or you say anything in reply to what

he told you to do?

A. No.

Q. After you finished putting the green tags on the

generators, did you take them to where he told you to take

them?

A. No.

Q. Did your shift end, and you went home?

A. Yes.

Q. Where were the generators when your shift ended, and

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

67 SILVERS - Direct

 

you went home?

A. On top of the table in the box.

Q. In the hangar?

A. In the hangar.

Q. Did you ever see the generators again?

A. No.

Q. When did you come back to work on your next shift?

A. That evening, at 6:00 in the evening.

Q. The next day?

A. No, the same day.

Q. What time did your shift end, when you left the

generators on the table?

A. 6:00 a.m.

Q. When you came back to work, did you come back at 6:00

p.m. the same day?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the generators where you left them when you left

them at 6:00 a.m.?

A. No.

Q. Do you know where they were when you came back at 6:00

p.m., yes or no?

A. No.

THE COURT: Next question.

BY MR. BRIGHAM:

Q. Have you ever received hazardous material training at

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

68 SILVERS - Direct

 

SabreTech? I'm restricting my question to before the crash.

A. No.

Q. What training, if any, had you received on handling

oxygen generators?

A. With what company?

Q. With SabreTech.

A. None.

Q. You are testifying pursuant to a court order of

immunity, is that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. BRIGHAM: I'll show you what's been marked --

THE COURT: Let's see if there's any objection.

MS. RASKIN: No objection.

THE COURT: What exhibit number.

MR. BRIGHAM: Government 77I.

THE COURT: The record will reflect that that's

the immunity agreement entered by the Court on what date?

MR. BRIGHAM: Entered on June 5, 1997.

THE COURT: Pertains to this witness.

MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, Your Honor. Attached to it,

is a letter from the United States Attorney's office.

[Government Exhibit 77I received in evidence].

THE COURT: It's in evidence, yes.

MR. BRIGHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. No further

questions.

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

69 SILVERS - Cross

 

MS. RASKIN: If we could have one minute, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. RASKIN:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Silvers. I am Marty Raskin. I

represent SabreTech. On direct examination, Mr. Brigham

brought out the fact that indeed, you speak English, is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You are simply testified today with a translator

because you are more comfortable doing that, is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you testify with or without a translator in the

Grand Jury, do you remember?

A. I did not have a translator.

Q. I take it you can also read and write the English

language?

A. Yes.

MR. RASKIN: I have nothing further, thank you.

THE COURT: Any other questions?

MS. MOSCOWITZ: No, sir.

MR. DUNLAP: No, sir.

THE COURT: Any other redirect?

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

70 SILVERS - Cross

 

MR. BRIGHAM: No, sir.

THE COURT: Who is your next witness?

MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Keith Ingram.

THE COURT: How long do you expect his testimony

to take on direct?

MR. BRIGHAM: I would say approximately, a half

hour, maybe less.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to

have to recess for the day. As I told you yesterday, I

have a luncheon. One of them is a Supreme Court Justice,

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She is one of the guests that

are going to be present.

The new judge is being sworn in, Judge Jordan,

Alberto Jordan was a law clerk for Justice O'Connor at the

Supreme Court. He was her law clerk for a year and worked

in her office as a law clerk.

Of course, they are friends and he invited her to

come down and be involved with, and administer the oath to

him and she'll be here. It is a little unusual for us to

have a Supreme Court Justice visiting our Court although

it's not unheard of.

Chief Justice Burger, when he was chief justice of

the Supreme Court, came to visit this court on at least

three occasions that I'm aware of. He always considered the

Southern District of Florida as he put it, as his trial

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

71 SILVERS - Cross

 

court, because we were the biggest and the best. That's a

little bit of puffing on my part, but it is a true quote

from the chief justice. He felt this court did an

extraordinary job in handling the business of the Federal

Courts. He liked to be supportive, and he came several

times to see us.

Chief Justice Renquist also came a few years ago,

when he was making a speech to the University of Miami Law

School, and he spent a day at the court. And Chief Justice

Renquist, when he was simply Justice in 1971, came to the

Court and visited us. There were only seven judges then.

Now we have got judges all over the place. In those days,

we only had seven.

So we have had these people come before, but it is

a little bit historic, and it certainly is very nice and

very pleasant for the person being sworn in. It is an

important day.

You see, I don't get to talk very much in these

trials. And when I get a captive audience, I just ramble.

It has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with your case. The

fact that she is here, has nothing to do with this case.

We are going to be in recess until Monday morning.

So, it is extremely important that you follow the

instruction not to read anything or listen to anything or

watch anything. If anything should be published in the

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

72 SILVERS - Cross

 

newspaper, radio or television.

If anything does appear, my secretary is clipping

this out and we will save it, so that you can read it and

each of you get a copy of it, subject to my violating the

copyright laws, so that you can read it later if you want

to.

You are not to read anything or listen or watch

anything. We will try to fix it that you don't miss

anything and it will be a little momento of your service.

That has nothing to do with your decision in this case.

You folks will have to decide the case at the end. I'm

only telling you because I'm trying to make you understand

that we are thinking of you, and not to let anything come

to your attention except what you hear in the courtroom.

We will resume at 9:00 on Monday morning. I have

all the witnesses arranged, so we can go right through the

day with a short recess in the morning, and then again in

the afternoon. We will recess around 5:30. We thank you

for your patience.

Marshal, if you will see that they get to the

elevator.

[The jury leaves the courtroom].

THE COURT: Is there anything we have to take up

at the conclusion of the hearing? Let me make sure that

the record is quite clear that there have only been two

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

73 SILVERS - Cross

 

exhibits admitted into evidence this morning. One is

Government's Exhibit 77I, which was an immunity agreement.

I believe there's another immunity agreement here which is

what number Mr. Brigham?

MR. DUNLAP: I think it's 77J.

THE COURT: I think there were two. This is 77J.

So Government Exhibit 77I, immunity agreement,

and government 77J, immunity agreement, were each admitted

into evidence. Defendants Florence's exhibit number 3 was

admitted into evidence. Those three exhibits will be

delivered to the courtroom deputy to verify it.

MR. RASKIN: Your Honor, may I inquire for

scheduling purposes, does the Court intend to work a full

day on Wednesday?

THE COURT: What is Wednesday?

MR. DUNLAP: Just the day before Thanksgiving.

THE COURT: I certainly think so unless there is

some problem.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Judge, 77J was yesterday.

THE COURT: It was admitted today, plus

Ms. Moscowitz's Exhibit 3.

MR. DUNLAP: Your Honor, in the final analysis, I

like everybody else, is here to convenience the Court and

happy to do so. But I do have to drive up to, I mentioned

my father lives up in LaBelle. I don't know if you know

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

74 SILVERS - Cross

 

where that is.

I want to go up there on Thursday morning to have

Thanksgiving dinner with him, so I was planning or would

have planned to leave before the morning, so that I'm not

traveling at night with my children. But, again, it's not

that great an imposition. If the Court wants to work

through that day, it would be fine.

THE COURT: What I'm trying to do here, and I ask

all of you to bear in mind, I'm trying to make it possible

for you to be with your children, or for me to be with my

grandchildren on Christmas. I think that is more an

important holiday. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly for

children it is, than Thanksgiving.

I'm just concerned if we don't keep this case

moving, we are going to be sitting here Christmas week. I

have already assured those of you who have prepaid vacation

plans for a certain period of time at Christmas, that we

will honor those, and you will not be expected to be here.

MR. DUNLAP: I'll be happy to be here on

Wednesday.

THE COURT: I have no difficulty, if we are going

to end this case the middle of December. I have no trouble

at all with doing these things. My only concern is I keep

looking toward the end of the case. It was estimated, it

was going to take six to eight weeks to try this case. We

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

75 SILVERS - Cross

 

started on November 15. December 15 would be four weeks.

Right up to Christmas is six weeks.

Then we get into a problem with an extended

recess. If all of you have any better estimate on where we

are going with the case, if you have any feeling that it is

going to be less than six weeks, if you have a feeling that

it is going to be eight weeks, then that would have some

bearing. Would it be better that perhaps we know more by

Tuesday of next week?

MS. MILLER: Your Honor may recall that the

government's estimated trial days was 20 trial days. I

reiterate that I believe that the trial can be tried in 20

trial days, government and defense case. I still believe

that. I know the defense disagrees. I think that is

probably a realistic projection.

THE COURT: I do recall you telling me that was

your estimation.

MR. DUNLAP: Our evaluation is that the case is

moving a lot quicker than we expected. I don't see the

case going six or eight weeks, but I don't know what will

happen next week.

THE COURT: All right, then. It would seem to me

that we have made good progress this week. Of course, it

helps not to work half days.

In any event, we will plan to recess as close to

 

UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99

76

 

3:00 on Wednesday as we can. I don't want to lull anybody

in the sense a security about not having witnesses here.

Please have enough witnesses here to run out the time. See

you Monday morning.

COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Proceedings concluded at 12:00 p.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate

transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11-21-99

______________ _______________________________________

DATE FILED ROBIN CARBONELLO

Official Federal Court Reporter

Federal Justice Building, Ste. 1127

99 Northeast 4th Street

Miami, FL 33132 - 305/523-5108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies

HOME | UPDATES | Airworthiness Implemented | Maintenance Program | Aeronautical Bulletin 7E | CHALLENGES TO AIRWORTHINESS | ValuJet Flight 592 - SabreTech Trial Transcript Day 1 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 2 - a.m. | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 2 - p.m. | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 3 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 4 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 5 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 6 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 7 - a.m. | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 7 - p.m. | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trail Day 8 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 9 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 10 | VJ Fligth 592 - ST Trial Day 11 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 12 | VJ Flight 592 - ST Trial Day 13 - VERDICT