INDICTMENT NO. I-139-01-98



vs. Transcript of Proceedings




Place: Middlesex County Courthouse

One Kennedy Square

New Brunswick, New Jersey

Date: March 25, 1999

B E F O R E:



A P P E A R A N C E S:


Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor

Attorney for the State


Attorney for the Defendant

Kathleen Sperduto, C.S.R., R.M.R.

Official Court Reporter

Middlesex County Courthouse

One Kennedy Square

New Brunswick, New Jersey


1 I N D E X



State Witnesses Direct Cross Redirect Recross



5 By Mr. Storch 3

By Mr. Marain 14




8 Summations

9 By Mr. Marain 29

















Dixon - Direct 3

1 (The following is an excerpt.)

2 (Ronald Dixon testified as follows.)

3 MR. STORCH: Yes. Lieutenant Ronald Dixon.


5 R O N A L D   D I X O N, called as a

6 witness on behalf of the State, being duly sworn,

7 testifies as follows:


9 Q Good morning, Lieutenant Dixon?

10 A Good morning.

11 Q Mr. Dixon, where are you employed and in what

12 capacity?

13 A I'm a county lieutenant with the Middlesex County

14 Prosecutor's Office.

15 Q And how long have you been so employed there?

16 A By the Prosecutor's Office since December 5th of

17 1975.

18 Q I see. Do you have any specialized training

19 in the field of narcotics investigation?

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q Could you tell us?

22 A Well, in addition to basic police academy and

23 yearly schools put on by the New Jersey Narcotics

24 Enforcement Officers Association I've also attended the

25 twelve week United States Department of Justice Drug

Dixon - Direct 4

1 Enforcement Administration Academy in Washington, D.

2 C., I've attended the fourteen week Federal Bureau of

3 Investigation or the F. B. I. National Academy in

4 Quantico, Virginia. I've attended various seminars put

5 on by members of the Justice Department either

6 in-service training or at various sites throughout the

7 United States.

8 I'm past president of the National Narcotic

9 Enforcement Officers Association and was president for

10 three years and served on the board for approximately

11 eight years, and during that tenure I established,

12 attended and coordinated training seminars throughout

13 the United States for local law enforcement officers in

14 the field of narcotics. I've a member of National --

15 of the New Jersey Narcotics Enforcement Association.

16 I'm a lifetime member currently on the board of

17 directors. I arrange for training, on a bi-monthly basis

18 throughout the United States and one yearly training

19 seminar.

20 I'm also a member of the International

21 Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association. I'm

22 currently an OSHA and State as well as government

23 certified clandestine laboratory investigator and hold

24 a position of lab site safety officer and am

25 responsible for the safety of other officers during the

Dixon - Direct 5

1 investigation and dismantling of clandestine

2 laboratories.

3 I am part of the Justice Department's

4 clandestine laboratory team here in the northeast. I

5 have instructed on behalf of the United States

6 government in Asia, Central America, and I've worked in

7 Europe again for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

8 Of my -- prior to being employed by the

9 Prosecutor's Office I was a detective with the Edison

10 Township Police Department for a period of eight years,

11 which is a total of thirty-one years of law enforcement

12 experience, and of those thirty-one years twenty-nine

13 of it has been strictly with narcotic enforcement.

14 Again, a state certified instructor here in the state

15 of New Jersey. I instruct at all the police academies

16 in all locations throughout New Jersey, and most

17 recently as yesterday afternoon I was conducting a

18 class for a hundred and five officers at our police

19 academy here in Middlesex County.

20 Q Thank you, officer. You participated in

21 narcotics arrests?

22 A Numerous, numerous times. My assignment with the

23 Edison Township Police Department after several years

24 as a patrol officer I was assigned to the Narcotics

25 Bureau. Once I was assigned to the Edison Narcotic

Dixon - Direct 6

1 Bureau they assigned me to the Middlesex County

2 Narcotic Task Force. Eventually I was hired by the

3 Prosecutor's Office, assigned to that Task Force.

4 Middlesex County in turn assigned me to the United

5 States Department of Justice for a period of about

6 thirteen years. I was assigned to the Drug Enforcement

7 Administration's Worldwide Task Force.

8 Q So how many actual investigations?

9 A I've been involved with thousands and thousands of

10 investigations.

11 Q Did you ever testify in court as a police

12 drug -- police narcotics expert?

13 A Yes. I have. I have been recognized by Municipal

14 Courts in the state, the State Superior Courts in New

15 Jersey, and I've also testified for the government in

16 federal proceedings both within New Jersey courts and

17 nation-wide courts where the cases have led us to.

18 MR. STORCH: Your Honor, I would ask that

19 Lieutenant Dixon be recognized as a police narcotics

20 expert.

21 THE COURT: Mr. Marain.

22 MR. MARAIN: I think the witness satisfies at

23 least the minimal requirements, your Honor.

24 (Laughter.)

25 Q Okay. Lieutenant Dixon, I am going to give

Dixon - Direct 7

1 you a hypothetical. That's all right. The jury --

2 THE COURT: Mr. Storch, I really should rule

3 on the issue.

4 MR. STORCH: Oh, I'm sorry.

5 THE COURT: I'm satisfied from hearing

6 Lieutenant Dixon's credentials and based upon the

7 consent of the defendant that he is qualified to

8 testify here as an expert in the field of narcotics

9 investigation.

10 Go ahead, Mr. Storch.

11 MR. STORCH: Sorry, your Honor.

12 THE COURT: That's all right.

13 Q Lieutenant Dixon, we've been told

14 hypothetically that on December 4th, 1997 on a street

15 in New Brunswick which consisted of abandoned buildings

16 about 11:30 in the morning observations were made of

17 about -- there were eight, ten -- ten people there and

18 there were some people were fixing cars. The

19 observation was made that a person named Tanya was seen

20 making a sale to another woman, some kind of a

21 substance and money was passed and Tanya after the sale

22 brought the money to a woman sitting in a car. At that

23 point the woman sitting in the car counted out four

24 what the officer described as narcotic packets and gave

25 it to the woman Tanya.

Dixon - Direct 8

1 The woman Tanya then went back into the

2 street and made another sale. At the time of that sale

3 she took the money but then she went back to the woman

4 in the car and obviously needed some kind of change.

5 The woman in the car tried to get something out of her

6 pocket, got out of the car, took money out of her, gave

7 some money to Tanya and then Tanya went back to the

8 second buyee. Are you with me?

9 A Mm-hmm.

10 Q Police then came into the area. Tanya was

11 arrested with two decks of heroin were found where she

12 dropped it on her feet and one deck was found in her

13 pocket. This second buyee, the man they had to get the

14 change for, the man, he when the police came up spilled

15 the heroin on the ground and they just got a bag. When

16 Tanya was arrested she was brought to headquarters and

17 mirandized and she mentioned that the woman in the car,

18 she was working for the woman in the car selling

19 heroin.

20 Now, based on that -- those facts can you

21 form an opinion as to whether the woman sitting in the

22 car possessed narcotics with the intent to distribute?

23 A Yes, I can.

24 Q Okay. What would that be -- what would that

25 opinion be?

Dixon - Direct 9

1 A Well, it would be based on, to begin with, the

2 officer's observations himself and the fact that the

3 individual sitting in the vehicle was observed by the

4 officer providing I believe in the hypothetical four

5 packages of a controlled substance to the individual.

6 That in itself is distribution. If the officer saw A

7 hand to B a quantity of controlled substances that

8 would be distribution just based on that. The fact

9 that the -- one individual I think you referred to as

10 Tanya, we will just say A, lady A, was on the street

11 corner or on the street, people were approaching her

12 and -- or at least two people in this hypothetical

13 approached her and an exchange for product for money

14 took place. Even an exchange of change took place is

15 consistent with drug distribution.

16 I mean the fact that you have drugs for sale

17 looking for people to distribute it to. You -- I've

18 never seen anyone take credit cards. So it is going to

19 be a cash and carry bills. I mean they are going to

20 exchange cash for the product. So not every time you

21 are going to go up with the proper change. A bag, I

22 don't know the weights of the drugs, they were not in

23 the hypothetical, but a common amount or pricing for

24 drugs on the street in New Brunswick is twenty,

25 twenty-five dollars, but again you negotiate that

Dixon - Direct 10

1 price. I may negotiate a twenty dollar purchase down

2 to eighteen dollars. I may-have a twenty dollar bill.

3 Q May I just add one more fact? The woman in

4 the car on arrest had a hundred and twenty-four dollars

5 in her possession also?

6 A So we have again you have drugs and you have money

7 which are two common factors together and you have the

8 observations of the officer.

9 Q Okay?

10 A Another factor that take into position with

11 possession with intent is the actual statement by woman

12 A Tanya that she was working for the second individual

13 in that vehicle. Her own admission was that she was

14 working for. What was described in the hypothetical is

15 common. I mean two people working together

16 distributing drugs on the street. The person would be

17 outside the car is actually taking a lot of the risk if

18 law enforcement should just drive by, a uniform car

19 could stop her, find money on her, whatever. So she is

20 taking more of a risk. But the person in the car would

21 be holding the bulk of the product and the bulk of the

22 money to eliminate any loss that may occur. So it is

23 common for two people to work together. It is not

24 uncommon.

25 Q Okay. In another hypothetical when -- when

Dixon - Direct 11

1 the second buyer, the man approached Tanya

2 hypothetically she held out product in her hand and --

3 and the man took one of the product and he held it to

4 the sun. Could you tell us what that's all about?

5 A Again, the drug business is an illegal business,

6 not controlled by the Food and Drug Administration,

7 your Better Business Bureau. There is no truth in

8 packaging and there is no truth in advertising. When

9 you're purchasing drugs and there's many people out

10 there that sell counterfeit drugs or false drugs. When

11 you are purchasing drugs it is totally, totally upon

12 you to get the proper weight and what you believe to be

13 the product. If you're looking to buy cocaine cocaine

14 has a certain appearance to it. It's a crystalline

15 substance. It is a white powdery substance. I

16 wouldn't buy something that is purple in color and

17 stuffed into a bag.

18 If I was looking for heroin it could be an

19 off whittle color, a whitish color. It is a finer

20 powder. There is certain characteristics and if you

21 are an abuser of controlled substances you know what

22 the characteristics are. Also the weight of the

23 product, you can look at the weight of it. There is

24 never a true one point three grams in the bag. It

25 doesn't say there that is in control sign. By pick it

Dixon - Direct 12

1 up you are holding it out ot see how much of that

2 product was in that package, how much that bag

3 contained and you are approximating the weight.

4 Again, every bag is not a half a gram or a

5 gram or an ounce. It's the weights fluctuate greatly.

6 For example, an ounce of a substance, a true ounce is

7 28.346 grams, but a street ounce which is totally

8 different and it's not listed in a dictionary is

9 twenty-five grams. So you have discrepancy there. But

10 a street ounce is twenty-five grams. It is just easier

11 to figure that way.

12 Q Also, in the hypothetical the three packets

13 that were recovered from Tanya had markings on it

14 Bloody Money. What does that mean?

15 A Well, sir, to be honest with you in your

16 hypothetical you never said what type of drug we are

17 talking about, but because of what you just said I

18 would assume the type of drug in this hypothetical is

19 heroin because usually heroin, not usually always,

20 heroin has some type of brand name stamped on it. Not

21 that every packet has a brand name, but heroin is

22 usually the only drug that's associated with brand

23 names. The reason for that being really it is

24 psychological.

25 We were all raised by our parents if you had

Dixon - Direct 13

1 Del Monte ketchup in your house you probably still buy

2 Del Monte ketchup because you like the taste of it, and

3 you just walk into the store and you don't look at

4 Heinz, Hunts and everybody else, you go to Del Monte

5 and pick it up. As an abuser of heroin, it is an

6 illegal substance. It is a substance that very well

7 could cause death if it's not cut, diluted, packaged

8 properly. So Bloody Mary in this particular case if I

9 want some Bloody Mary heroin and have a good high or a

10 good experience with that that's the type of heroin I

11 am going to go back and look for next time. Bloody

12 Mary. It is a brand name, that is all it is, and

13 usually associated only with heroin.

14 Cocaine in larger amounts, in kilo amounts I

15 have seen names, brand names and insignias and symbols

16 on it usually indicates the chemist that manufactured

17 it in South America or the designee in the United

18 States who is going to get it. But very, very seldom


20 one or two occasions have some type of name or

21 something attached to it. L. S. D. cartoon character,

22 stamps on pieces of paper, yes, that is a brand name

23 too. It indicates something totally different, though.

24 But heroin is a brand name.

25 Q So Bloody Money to you you would think

Dixon - Direct/Cross 14

1 heroin?

2 A Heroin right away.

3 MR. STORCH: No further questions at this

4 time.

5 THE COURT: Mr. Marain.

6 MR. MARAIN: Thank you, your Honor.



9 Q Good morning, lieutenant.

10 A Good morning.

11 Q Lieutenant, you provided an opinion for the

12 jury?

13 A Yes, sir.

14 Q And the opinion that you provided for the

15 jury was based upon the facts in the hypothetical?

16 A Yes. What was in the hypothetical, yes.

17 Q And you considered all of the facts in the

18 hypothetical?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And you based your opinion on the facts as

21 presented? I think I'm repeating myself.

22 A Yes.

23 Q Lieutenant, are you familiar with a term

24 called GIGO, G-I-G-O?

25 A Can't say that I am, sir.

Dixon - Cross 15

1 Q Okay. Are you familiar with a term called

2 garbage in garbage out?

3 A Garbage in garbage out. I'm familiar with what it

4 means to me, yes.

5 Q What does it mean to you, lieutenant?

6 A If you put -- well, it could mean a lot of things.

7 If you don't put much effort into something you are not

8 going to get much effort out of it. If you are not

9 going to put good product in you are not going to put

10 good product out.

11 Q Could it also mean if you are given a

12 hypothetical that contains erroneous facts that you are

13 in danger of coming up with an erroneous conclusion?

14 A My conclusion is only based on the hypothetical.

15 Q Exactly. Okay. Now, lieutenant, you spoke

16 about the method of having a supplier nearby and that

17 being a separate person from the actual seller?

18 A I spoke of two people close by. I don't believe I

19 used the terminology supplier. I said two people

20 working together.

21 Q Okay?

22 A I never gave one more importance than the other.

23 Q And that method of two people working

24 together is just one of the ways in which drugs are

25 distributed?

Dixon - Cross 16

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q And there are obviously many variations?

3 A Yes, there are.

4 Q Often drug sellers work the streets

5 individually as opposed to in teams?

6 A They could, yes, sir, very well. Very likely.

7 Q Often the seller's supplier is not in the

8 immediate area?

9 A At times, yes, sir.

10 Q When you consider hypotheticals again I think

11 this is a repetition but you consider all the facts

12 that are presented to you?

13 A In the hypothetical.

14 Q Correct?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And if more facts were presented you would

17 consider those additional facts also?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q The absence of facts can also be significant?

20 A If something is not in the hypothetical that I

21 take into consideration it affects that hypothetical,

22 yes.

23 Q In this particular case there was no

24 indication in the hypothetical that heroin was found

25 inside the car?

Dixon - Cross 17

1 A No, sir, not in the hypothetical.

2 Q And if heroin had been found inside the car

3 that would have reinforced your opinion?

4 A Would have been another factor that would have

5 been considered, yes, sir.

6 Q There is no indication in the hypothetical

7 that heroin was found on the person of the individual

8 in the car?

9 A No, sir, there was not.

10 Q And if heroin had been found on the person of

11 the individual inside the car that would have

12 reinforced your opinion?

13 A Again, yes, sir.

14 Q There's no indication that there were any

15 scales or balances found inside the car?

16 A No, sir.

17 Q If scales or balances had been found inside

18 the car that would have reinforced your opinion?

19 A It would have been another thing, another item to

20 consider, yes, sir.

21 Q And it would have reinforced your opinion?

22 A Yes, sir.

23 Q There is no indication that there were

24 cutting agents inside the car?

25 A No, sir.

Dixon - Cross 18

1 Q If cutting agents had been found inside the

2 car that would have reinforced your opinion?

3 A Yes, sir.

4 Q The hypothetical contained no suggestion that

5 spoons were found inside the car?

6 A No, sir.

7 Q If spoons had been found inside the car that

8 would have reinforced your opinion?

9 A It is related paraphernalia, yes, sir, it would.

10 Q The hypothetical did not mention that any

11 rubber bands were found inside the car?

12 A No, sir.

13 Q If rubber bands had been found inside the car

14 that would have reinforced your opinion?

15 A To a degree, yes, sir.

16 Q There was nothing in the hypothetical that

17 vials or capsules or balloons were found inside the

18 car?

19 A No, sir, there was not.

20 Q If you had been told that vials, capsules or

21 balloons had been found inside the car that would have

22 reinforced your opinion?

23 A Related paraphernalia to the drug in question,

24 yes, sir.

25 Q There is nothing in the hypothetical that

Dixon - Cross 19

1 envelopes were found inside the car?

2 A No, sir, there is not.

3 Q If envelopes had been found inside the car

4 that would have reinforced your opinion?

5 A Again related paraphernalia, yes, sir.

6 Q There's nothing in the hypothetical that

7 pipes were found inside the car?

8 A No, sir, there is not.

9 Q If pipes had been found inside the car that

10 would have reinforced your opinion?

11 A Depending on the type of pipes but if it is the

12 type of pipe used to smoke heroin, yes, sir, the drug

13 in question.

14 Q And with regard to all the things that we

15 just talked about that were not in the hypothetical,

16 scales or balances, cutting agents, spoons, rubber

17 bands, vials, capsules, balloons, envelopes, pipes,

18 there is no indication that in the hypothetical that

19 any of these items were found on the person of the

20 individual inside the car?

21 A No, sir, there was not, not in the hypothetical.

22 Q And if any of these items had been found on

23 the person of the individual inside the car that would

24 have reinforced your opinion?

25 A Another factor to consider, yes.

Dixon - Cross 20

1 Q You would not only have considered it but it

2 would have reinforced your opinion?

3 A Yes, sir.

4 Q You did consider the fact that a hundred and

5 twenty-four dollars was found on the person of the

6 individual inside the car?

7 A Yes, sir, that was in part of the hypothetical.

8 Q And that was something that you considered in

9 coming up with your ultimate opinion?

10 A One of the factors, yes, sir.

11 Q Why, Lieutenant Dixon, in your judgment was

12 the one hundred and twenty-four dollars significant?

13 A Part of the observations of the officer were the

14 two individuals, the young lady outside the car and the

15 young lady inside the car exchange product for money.

16 I would be more surprised if there was no money found

17 in the car because it would not have substantiated the

18 officer's observations.

19 Q A hundred and twenty-four dollars,

20 lieutenant, is not an especially large amount of money

21 relatively speaking?

22 A No, not at all, sir.

23 Q So the fact that the individual had a hundred

24 and twenty-four dollars by itself is not something from

25 which you can come to a conclusion?

Dixon - Cross 21

1 A Just that fact alone bar anything else, no, sir,

2 could not.

3 Q The conclusion that you ultimately reached is

4 based in large measure upon the observations of the

5 surveillance officer?

6 A Based on the observations, yes, sir. I wouldn't

7 way the weight large or not. I would say it's one of

8 the factors, one of the main factors I considered, yes.

9 Q One of the main factors?

10 A One of the main factors.

11 Q If -- I would like you, lieutenant, to assume

12 in my hypothetical that the observations of the

13 surveillance officer are not reliable?

14 A Okay.

15 Q What would that assumption, lieutenant, do to

16 your ultimate conclusion?

17 A Not reliable in what way, sir? He never -- the

18 surveilling officer never made the observations? The

19 surveilling officer thought he saw green items and they

20 turned out to be yellow items? What type? You'd have

21 to explain what he did not see or what's not reliable.

22 Remember, the observations were basically substantiated

23 by what was found.

24 Q Well, you agree in the hypothetical

25 absolutely nothing was found inside the car?

Dixon - Cross 22

1 A Absolutely. Nothing was found, not in the

2 hypothetical.

3 Q Now, not reliable, lieutenant, with regard to

4 the factor of Tanya Burgess obtaining packets from the

5 individual inside the car?

6 A Like if the officer you're saying considered the

7 fact that the officer never saw an exchange between the

8 two young ladies.

9 Q That is exactly what I'm saying.

10 A If he never saw an exchange between two young

11 ladies and there was two, one young lady was on the

12 street distributing controlled substances and one was

13 just sitting in a car with money, I would be changing

14 or altering my opinion, sure, if that was the

15 hypothetical.

16 Q And what would her --

17 THE COURT: Counsel, excuse me, Mr. Marain.

18 Can I see counsel at side-bar?

19 (A discussion was held at side-bar as

20 follows.)

21 THE COURT: I apologize for interrupting, Mr.

22 Marain, but I -- I have some concerns about the manner

23 in which Lieutenant Dixon's testimony is proceeding. I

24 tried to make it clear earlier that Lieutenant Dixon

25 can offer opinions with respect to certain facts that

Dixon - Cross 23

1 may or may not exist, and to that extent his opinion is

2 within the law, if you will. I don't think it's a good

3 idea to have Lieutenant Dixon ask questions regarding

4 the observations of the officers because in effect that

5 testimony then has a tendency to either reinforce or

6 not reinforce the testimony of the officers.

7 It's one thing to say assume for the moment

8 that there were two women out there and one of them

9 was, you know, handing heroin to someone else and then

10 went back to the car. It's another thing to say assume

11 that the officer saw this or they didn't see that

12 because that's really -- that then -- you know -- has

13 an impact on the testimony of the officers, and his

14 testimony should not be in any way couched so as to

15 reinforce the testimony of the officers.

16 The way I think that it should be couched is

17 let's take the facts that the officer said they saw,

18 all right. If he said -- if assuming that those facts

19 are accurate what's his opinion? If those facts are

20 not accurate then what's his opinion? I think we

21 should stay away from having him relate to officer

22 testimony because that's not hypothetical any longer.

23 MR. MARAIN: Well, I was attempting to couch

24 my terms in hypothetical terms, to couch my questions

25 in hypothetical terms. I may have strayed from that,

Dixon - Cross 24

1 but in essence I was asking him to change the

2 hypothesis to the effect that the officer's

3 observations are not reliable.

4 THE COURT: Well, see, but that's the part

5 that, in other words, I think the way to do that, Mr.

6 Marain, the way that I would permit it is to simply say

7 your opinion was based upon the fact that the one woman

8 was selling or giving heroin to someone else and then

9 she went back to the cash and she got heroin from

10 somebody else. What if that person -- you know --

11 assume for a moment that that person in the car did not

12 have any heroin on her person or did not hand it -- did

13 not hand money, whatever it is that you want the

14 opinion to be based on, but not to say assume that the

15 officer's testimony is not reliable because that --

16 he's not qualified to do that. And I think it --

17 MR. MARAIN: Okay.

18 THE COURT: See, what it does, the impact is

19 that then you're asking this jury to be helped, if you

20 will, by the expert commenting on the reliability or

21 lack of reliability of the officer's testimony. That's

22 not really what the expert is supposed to be assisting

23 the jury in. The expert is supposed to say assume

24 these facts are correct this is my opinion about

25 something. All right. If these facts are not correct

Dixon - Cross 25

1 then I would maybe modify my opinion. That is how I

2 think this question should proceed.

3 MR. MARAIN: Okay. I will endeavor to -- to

4 ask questions in the form proposed by your Honor, and

5 parenthetically I was very close to finished but . . .

6 THE COURT: All right. I don't mean to -- I

7 think it's just -- frankly, I don't think it's fair to

8 the defendant to have this officer testifying about --

9 you know -- the reliability or lack of reliability of

10 the officer's testimony. It's -- you know there are

11 some facts that he is assuming in his hypothetical. It

12 shouldn't matter whether those facts are based upon the

13 officer's testimony, pulled out of thin air or

14 whatever. If we stress that they're based on the

15 officer's testimony then we are in effect reinforcing

16 the testimony.

17 MR. MARAIN: Okay. I think I can -- I think

18 I can work with that.

19 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

20 (Discussion at side-bar concluded.)

21 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Marain.


23 Q Lieutenant, let me ask the question in a

24 slightly different manner. You recall the hypothetical

25 question asked by the prosecutor?

Dixon - Cross 26

1 A Yes, sir, I do.

2 Q If from that hypothetical question you

3 eliminate the part that the seller in the street

4 obtained packets of heroin from the person in the car

5 would you agree that you then can not conclude that the

6 person in the car possessed heroin with intent to

7 distribute?

8 A That the only item in that -- in Mr. Storch's

9 hypothetical that you are changing that no heroin was

10 obtained from the young lady in the car?

11 Q Yes, sir.

12 A No, sir, I would still come up with the same

13 conclusion based on the other parts of the hypothetical

14 as presented to me.

15 Q And which other parts might that be, officer?

16 A Statement by the individual that she was working

17 for the other young lady, that she was distributing

18 drugs, the fact that one person on the street has

19 heroin, she's going back and forth getting change --

20 change, not heroin. I didn't say -- exchange hands but

21 the change. Although change is an innocent part of it

22 the statement that she was working for the young lady

23 shows -- shows to me in my opinion the knowledge.

24 Q Okay. You -- we agree that the change in and

25 of itself is an innocent part?

Dixon - Cross 27

1 A It's innocent.

2 Q Now, with regard to the statement of the

3 person on the street selling to the ultimate customer?

4 A Okay. Yes, sir.

5 Q Person on the street selling to the ultimate

6 customer you would agree is from your experience a

7 person of less than great regard for truth?

8 A I don't know how I could even answer that, sir.

9 You mean have I been lied to by street people? Yes.

10 On many occasions. Have I been told the ultimate truth

11 by people on the street? Yes. I'm not going to say

12 someone is a liar because they are street people. I

13 think that's an area that people shouldn't be put into

14 just because they're street people.

15 Q I think we are in complete agreement with

16 that, officer. But when someone who is a street seller

17 says something to you you are not going to accept it

18 blindly?

19 A Blindly, no. There would be something to

20 corroborate that.

21 Q You are going to consider who it is that is

22 saying it?

23 A Yes, sir.

24 Q You are going to consider what they're

25 saying?

Dixon - Cross 28

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q You are going to consider whether what

3 they're saying might be self-serving?

4 A Yes, sir. I'd consider that.

5 Q In your work in narcotics, lieutenant, you've

6 had occasion, you've had many occasions to work with

7 informants?

8 A Yes, sir, I have.

9 Q A lot of informants that you have worked with

10 are people that were themselves facing charges?

11 A Yes, sir, that's one category, individual

12 cooperates with law enforcement.

13 Q And a person who is himself or herself facing

14 a charge does informing for reasons of self-interest?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q More particularly a person who is facing a

17 charge is going to not uncommonly be an informant in

18 order for the proceedings to go easier on that person?

19 A Again one of the reasons, yes, sir.

20 Q And in point of fact proceedings commonly do

21 go easier on people that are informants that are facing

22 charges?

23 A If the informant or if the cooperating individual

24 is truthful and their information proves useful and it

25 could be substantiated and corroborated, yes, sir, it

Dixon - Cross/ Summation 29

1 does.

2 Q And the people that are informants by and

3 large are aware that they can make life easier on

4 themselves by being informants?

5 A Can't speak for someone else but I would say

6 that's a fair statement.

7 Q And when a person serves as an informant

8 sometimes the information that they give is not

9 reliable?

10 A Yes, sir.

11 Q Thank you, lieutenant.

12 MR. MARAIN: Nothing further.

13 (The excerpt of Ronald Dixon's testimony

14 concluded.)

15 (Mr. Marain's summation is as follows.)

16 MR. MARAIN: Thank you. May it please the

17 Court, Judge DeVesa, Mr. Prosecutor, Madame forelady,

18 members of the jury. I have a confession to make. I

19 like Batman. I loved the movies, especially Batman One,

20 and I've been reading Batman comic books for more years

21 than I care to remember. And I remember one particular

22 comic adventure, many years ago where the villain in

23 that particular story had designed and constructed a

24 gigantic chess board.  The villain was using as

25 chess pieces human beings, and the villain would just

Summation 30

1 cause these pieces to be moved from one square to

2 another to another on the board using these human

3 beings as pawns. And that brings to mind this case.

4 Patrolman Ewing decides, for whatever reason,

5 that Pamela Williams should be charged with nothing

6 serious. So she isn't and her case disappears.

7 Patrolman Ewing decides, for whatever reason, that Betty

8 Riles should be charged as a drug dealer and she's so

9 charged and here she is. But detective -- excuse me.

10 Patrolman Ewing is no longer moving the pieces.

11 Remember the example I gave in my opening. Cop stops

12 you for speeding but it is not the cop that decides

13 you're guilty or you're innocent.

14 The role of the cop, the role of the cop can

15 perhaps be illustrated by a story that's told about

16 former United States senator Bill Bradley. Bill

17 Bradley was being roasted and the roaster told of an

18 occasion when Bill Bradley was at a banquet and he was

19 seated at the table and there was a waiter that was

20 going from place to place at the table. Each place he

21 would stop and leave a pat of butter and then he would

22 move on to the next place and leave a pat of butter and

23 move on again.

24 Well, the waiter comes to Bill Bradley's

25 place and he leaves a pat of butter and he starts to

Summation 31

1 move on and Bill Bradley says, excuse me, I'd like a

2 second pat and the waiter says, well, each person gets

3 just one pat and Bill Bradley says, well, I understand

4 that, but I would like a second pat, and the waiter

5 says I can only give one pat to each person, and Bill

6 Bradley says maybe you don't know who I am. I'm Bill

7 Bradley former professional basketball player,

8 All-American, Rhodes Scholar, United States Senator. And

9 the waiter says, well, maybe you don't know who I am,

10 and Bill Bradley says, well, a matter of fact I don't.

11 Who are you? And the waiter says I'm the person that's

12 in charge of the butter.

13 Well, Pamela Williams gets a summons. Same

14 kind of document as you get when you get a speeding

15 ticket. The only difference is when you get a speeding

16 ticket you have to come to court to take care of it,

17 and as far as anyone in this case is able to remember

18 Pamela Williams never came to court. Patrolman

19 Williams tells you that he enforces the law. When he

20 sees a crime being committed he does his job. But

21 Patrolman Williams did not do his job with regard to

22 Pamela -- excuse me -- Patrolman Ewing did not do his

23 job with regard to Pamela Williams.

24 He testifies that he saw Pamela Williams in

25 possession of heroin. He saw her purchase it. He saw

Summation 32

1 her carry it to the car. He saw her snort it. And he

2 charges her with loitering and has no knowledge of what

3 happened to even that charge. The point is that a

4 police officer who can make a charge disappear when a

5 crime has been committed, can create a charge when NO

6 crime has been committed. And that, members of the

7 jury, is what happened here.

8 Judge DeVesa has permitted defense exhibit

9 D-2 to be marked into evidence. D-2 is the arrest

10 report with the typed name of Detective Bill Ewing at

11 the bottom for Pamela Williams, and what is the offense

12 that she is charged with? Loitering. Remember

13 Detective Ewing told you that police reports must have

14 all significant events and that it is important that

15 police reports be accurate? Here is an arrest report

16 that has his name on it Detective Bill Ewing, and

17 Detective Bill Ewing, Patrolman Ewing can't tell from

18 this arrest report whether it's even he that made that

19 arrest.

20 You remember he agreed with my

21 characterization of share the wealth. Share the

22 wealth. The wealth being the arrests. Distribute the

23 arrests amongst the team so everyone gets equal credit

24 for the number of arrests that are made. What happened

25 to accuracy? Putting whatever they want on these

Summation 33

1 reports.

2 Members of the jury, what is this case all

3 about? Credibility. Ewing says that he can charge

4 Pamela Williams only with loitering because the

5 evidence that he would have needed for a more serious

6 charge was gone. Snorted away. That is hogwash.

7 Because if you accept that then the most that you can

8 charge Betty Riles with is loitering. In point of fact

9 the police can manipulate the charges any way they want

10 to and they do. Betty Riles had already disposed of

11 all of her heroin if you believe what Patrolman Ewing

12 had to say. But that did not stop the police from

13 charging her with possession of heroin, and that did

14 not stop Detective Ewing from charging Betty Riles with

15 possession with intent to distribute.

16 And there is even more evidence that

17 ex-Detective Ewing could have charged Pamela Williams

18 with possession of heroin because detective Craddic did

19 charge Eric Gregory with possession of heroin even

20 though all of Eric Gregory's heroin had fallen to the

21 ground. We look at State's exhibit three for

22 identification. This is the Request for Examination of

23 Evidence that went to the New Jersey State Police lab.

24 You're talking about request to examine for C. D. S.,

25 controlled dangerous substance content, and it lists

Summation 34

1 three packets of heroin stamped Bloody Money.

2 Who are the suspects listed on S-3? S-1,

3 meaning suspect one, Tanya Burgess. S-2, Eric Gregory.

4 S-3, Betty Riles.

5 Detective Bobadilla moves in to make the

6 arrest. He makes the arrest. He makes the arrest of

7 Betty Riles based on information provided by then

8 Detective Ewing. Detective Bobadilla relied on

9 information provided by Detective Ewing and, in fact,

10 the foundation for this entire house of cards is the

11 report provided by Detective Ewing who is not even a

12 detective any more.

13 Now, as Judge DeVesa told you at the

14 beginning, you -- the evidence that comes into this

15 Court is a couple of forms. You can have direct

16 evidence. You can have circumstantial evidence.

17 Direct evidence is evidence which if believed directly

18 proves a fact. Circumstantial evidence is evidence

19 which if believed proves a fact from which a different

20 fact may be inferred. Judge DeVesa told you that you

21 can find, and he'll tell you again, you can find the

22 defendant guilty from direct evidence, from

23 circumstantial evidence, from a combination of direct

24 and circumstantial evidence. You can find a person

25 guilty from circumstantial evidence alone, but you can

Summation 35

1 find a person not guilty on the basis of circumstantial

2 evidence, and there is large circumstantial evidence in

3 this case which, in fact, points affirmatively to

4 innocence.

5 For example, Detective Ewing told you that

6 Tanya Burgess made a couple of trips to the car. After

7 one sale you'll recall he said Tanya Burgess comes and

8 gives Betty Riles cash. Betty Riles gives Tanya

9 Burgess more heroin, I believe it was then it was four

10 packs. Then later on Tanya Burgess comes to the car,

11 gives Betty Riles money and is looking for change, but

12 Betty Riles is not able to get change, because everyone

13 agreed Betty Riles told you her jeans were on too tight

14 so she gets out of the car to extract the money from

15 her pocket.

16 Well, everyone is in agreement that Betty

17 Riles was in the car the entire time until that second

18 incident, and yet there was never any difficulty

19 whatsoever according to Patrolman Ewing in Betty Riles

20 that first time pocketing the money that Tanya Burgess

21 had brought or getting out -- bless you -- or getting

22 out the four packs of heroin to give to Tanya Burgess.

23 If Betty Riles's jeans were so tight, and I suggest

24 that they were, how could she have gotten out the money

25 from her pocket the first time without getting out of

Summation 36

1 the car? How could she have gotten the heroin out of

2 her pocket the first time without anybody ever

3 remarking that there was any difficulty whatsoever

4 caused by the tightness of her jeans?

5 Circumstantial evidence establishing

6 innocence. The police searched the car. Betty Riles

7 told you that the police searched the car. She even

8 told you how Schuster searched the car. And even

9 Patrolman Ewing eventually told you that they searched

10 the car. He denied knowing about it at first but the

11 grand jury transcript refreshed his recollection.

12 Schuster searched the front seat and under the front

13 seat and the back seat, and he pulled the back seat

14 out, and searched the glove box, and he searched in the

15 trunk, and he searched under the hood. He was looking

16 for drugs. He was looking for drug paraphernalia and

17 just like they searched that car he searched that car

18 just like in the French Connection. And what does he

19 find? Nothing. Now, maybe the reason that Paul

20 Schuster found nothing was because Betty had already

21 given away the last of her heroin to Tanya Burgess.

22 That's one possibility. But another possibility is

23 that Paul Schuster found nothing because Betty Riles

24 had nothing to begin with.

25 Fingerprints. I asked Patrolman Ewing about

Summation 37

1 fingerprints. Oh, no, I couldn't take prints off this.

2 Well, why not? Well, couldn't take prints because the

3 item was too small. What item are we talking about?

4 Well, we're talking among other things about this piece

5 of what appears to be wax paper. (Indicating.) Is

6 that too small? You can decide that. It was too small

7 or it wasn't too small when you have a chance in the

8 jury room to be looking at State's exhibit two.

9 And then he says, well, we couldn't take

10 fingerprints because too many people handled it. Well,

11 first of all, if too many people had handled it the

12 only person according to Officer Ewing that handled it

13 after Betty Riles handled it was Tanya Burgess.

14 Remember, according to Ewing Burgess gets the four from

15 Riles and then Burgess sells one. There's three left.

16 She comes, Burgess comes back to the car. The police

17 move in. Two of them drop and one of them is found on

18 the person of -- of Tanya Burgess. So, they obviously

19 had not been handled up to that point by too many

20 people.

21 At most my given packet was handled at that

22 point by only one other person. And if you're worried

23 about or if the detective is worried about the police

24 that handled it, well, they're detectives. They are

25 presumably trained in preservation of evidence. They

Summation 38

1 are presumably trained to not touch things that would

2 contaminate it if they had any intention of taking

3 fingerprints at all. Too many people handled it.

4 Then he says the surface won't hold prints.

5 Well, I did not bring in a fingerprint expert in this

6 case to say the surface will or the surface won't, but

7 you will have those surfaces, those cellophane bags in

8 the jury room with you, and whatever common sense

9 information you have about fingerprints you will be

10 able to decide for yourself that Ewing's excuse was

11 valid, it wouldn't hold prints, or Ewing's excuse was

12 hogwash as I suggest to you that it was. The point is

13 they never even tried. Reasonable doubt, members of

14 the jury, can arise from the evidence itself or from a

15 lack of evidence.

16 Again, what is this case all about? This

17 case is all about credibility. You have Officer Ewing

18 telling you that he's in an abandoned building I

19 believe it was 15 -- what's the street?

20 A JUROR: Henry Street.

21 MR. MARAIN: 15 Henry Street on the second

22 floor with binoculars watching everything that's

23 happening. Is that believable? Let's look at the

24 diagram.

25 THE COURT: While you're doing that, Mr.

Summation 39

1 Marain, I don't mean to interrupt in closing argument.

2 Ladies and gentlemen, please do not respond

3 to the attorneys when they are giving their closing

4 arguments. Okay.

5 Go ahead, Mr. Marain.

6 MR. MARAIN: Here is the diagram, members of

7 the jury. Here's the car. Here's 15 Henry Street and

8 here's the vantage point of Officer Ewing, and you

9 remember that Betty Riles was sitting in the passenger

10 seat and Tanya was at the door and this is the

11 situation from which Ewing is saying he could see these

12 transactions. (Indicating.) He could see on the first

13 visit Tanya giving Betty money. Betty giving Tanya

14 four packets of heroin and guess what? He's on the

15 second floor which is, what, maybe ten feet high, and

16 you have Tanya Burgess standing right here between

17 Ewing and between Betty Riles who is sitting in the car

18 so that I was talking about the man before. The only

19 way that Ewing would be able to see what was happening

20 was if he had x-ray vision and I don't think he claims

21 to be Superman. (Indicating.)

22 Circumstantial evidence. Indictment

23 98-01-139 returned on -- in January of 1998. And we

24 have the laboratory machine printout, exhibit D-15 in

25 evidence, and we see from this printout that the

Summation 40

1 material was tested on February 25, 1998 at 1:06 in the

2 morning. A month after the indictment is returned.

3 Betty Riles was charged with possession of heroin a

4 month before the substance was even analyzed.

5 Lieutenant Dixon. You know, if Lieutenant

6 Dixon testified, claimed that he invented the internet

7 I would almost believe him. But the most expert

8 opinion in the world is limited by the accuracy of the

9 information provided to him. Detective Dixon himself

10 agreed garbage in, garbage out. Detective Dixon told

11 you that there was nothing in and of itself noteworthy

12 about the fact that Betty Riles had a hundred and

13 twenty-four dollars on her person. She told -- he told

14 you that an awful important part of his observations,

15 of his conclusion was based on the observations

16 reported by Patrolman Ewing.

17 With regard to statements of informants,

18 which Lieutenant Dixon considered in this case, he told

19 you that he believes the statements of informants true

20 until those statements are proved untrue, and that is a

21 completely appropriate philosophy for a police officer.

22 That is a completely inappropriate philosophy for a

23 jury. Because your function is the exact opposite.

24 Your function is to begin with the presumption of

25 innocence and to keep that presumption unless and until

Summation 41

1 that presumption is overcome beyond a reasonable doubt.

2 We have the hundred and twenty-four dollars.

3 We have the stipulation in this case that Ms. Riles, in

4 fact, received her check the day before, that it was

5 cashed the day before and that -- we have these

6 stipulations from the State.

7 Then we have the letter from Tracey York.

8 "Hi, Betty. I hope you are in the best of health. I

9 know you are surprised to hear from me and I know I'm

10 not your favorite person but I had to write you.

11 Before I go on I want you to know that I am truly sorry

12 for what you are going through behind me or shall I say

13 Tanya. If only I didn't have to get my car fixed that

14 day we wouldn't have had to be there. I often wonder

15 why didn't I go ahead and me and Tanya just do the bags

16 instead of waiting. If we had went ahead and did the

17 dope you wouldn't be in the mess you are in. But I

18 just had to tell her to hold on to them until I talked

19 to the guy about fixing my car. And she just took it

20 upon herself to sell one. As sick as I was after she

21 could -- as sick as I was after she got busted with the

22 dope I could have killed her. I know I'm a drug fiend

23 and I've been doing dope a long time, but I'll be

24 damned if I'll let it make me act as stupid as Tanya.

25 "Anyway, I don't mean to make you relive that

Summation 42

1 terrible day, and it's really too late for all those

2 ifs. If I did that, if I did this. I don't know how

3 much it mean to you, but I truly sorry about all you

4 are going through. I feel real bad about it all and I

5 blame myself. That's why I had to write you. I can't

6 deal with my conscience knowing you may lose your

7 freedom behind something that wasn't yours and you had

8 nothing to do with. On top of that you have young

9 children that need you. I pray all the time that you

10 somehow, some way overcome this. I know you are not

11 going to write me back so I'm asking you to please try

12 to find a way to forgive me. You take care and

13 remember to keep the faith in Jesus Cruz. Sincerely,

14 with much sorrow, Tracey York."

15 The prosecutor suggests to you that Tracey

16 York is lying. Tracey York is lying to cover up for

17 Betty Riles. Why? They had a relationship. Well, if

18 they had not had a relationship then it's likely that

19 Tracey York would not have knocked on Betty Riles's

20 door in the first place to get water for his car. If

21 they had not had a relationship he would not have asked

22 him for a ride first to her sister and then to the Foot

23 Locker. The issue is not did they have a relationship.

24 The issue is whether the statements of Tracey York are

25 credible in context. I suggest to you that they are.

Summation 43

1 The regrets in the letter are regrets of a person who

2 caused harm to another person that he cared about. Is

3 he lying to get her off? I suggest not. That's your

4 call.

5 Inconsistencies between the statements of

6 Tracey York and the testimony of Betty Riles. Are

7 there any? There are. Betty Riles heard the testimony

8 of -- of Tracey York, and Betty Riles testified and not

9 -- not to simply easily go along with what Tracey York

10 testified to. Excuse me. What the statement of Tracey

11 York was. Betty Riles testified to what she

12 remembered, and much of what Betty testified to is

13 consistent with what's in Tracey York's letter, in

14 Tracey York's statement to Investigator Carla Williams.

15 Not all of it but much of it.

16 And remember too that we're talking here

17 about something that happened over fifteen months ago.

18 Tracey York may also be mistaken about some details.

19 What about the fact that Tracey York drives to New

20 Brunswick and then to the -- to Henry Street even

21 though he's got problems with his car? Is that a

22 problem? Well, we don't really know how bad these

23 problems with his car were. It was a problem that --

24 that he needed water and by the time he got to Betty

25 Riles's house he needed two gallons of water but the

Summation 44

1 water had been put in. We don't know how -- how fast

2 it was leaking out and whether his car was then good

3 for another ten minutes or another half hour or another

4 two hours. There is nothing especially remarkable

5 about that.

6 Now, even if everything that Tracey York was

7 saying in his letter or through Investigator Williams

8 is true Tanya still could have gotten more heroin from

9 Betty Riles and been selling for her. Anything is

10 possible. But possible does not meet the test.

11 Now, another factor in this case. According

12 to Tracey York Tanya Burgess bought two bags for -- for

13 Tracey, and yet we know from this case that there were

14 at least four bags of heroin that Tanya had. Where did

15 the other bags come from? Well, how do we know that

16 Tanya bought just two bags? That may be what Tanya

17 told Tracey York. How do we know that Tanya Burgess

18 had no bags to start with? According to the letter

19 Tanya bought two bags for Tracey, but how many did

20 Tanya buy for herself? How many bags did she buy to

21 sell? Many.

22 Speaking about Patrolman Ewing and I can

23 anticipate the prosecutor saying, gee, I thought the

24 person on trial was supposed to be Betty Riles. Mr.

25 Marain is trying to make this into a trial of Patrolman

Summation 45

1 Ewing. Members of the jury, I've said this two or

2 three times already and I will say it again. What this

3 case is all about is deciding credibility. Whose

4 testimony can you rely on? Whose testimony can you not

5 rely on? We know that cops break the law. We know

6 that cops lie. But the only time that cops come into

7 court and admit that they lie is when there's strong

8 evidence against them like video tape. What about all

9 the times that police lie when there is no video tape?

10 What then? Is their testimony to just be accepted as

11 if it were gospel? Is a person to be found guilty on

12 what is essentially the unsupported testimony of

13 ex-Detective Ewing?

14 Another thing to consider in deciding this

15 case is interest in the outcome of the case. Whether a

16 witness has an interest in the outcome of the case.

17 Does Betty Riles have an interest in the outcome of

18 this case? Of course she does. Her freedom is at

19 stake. Her continued ability to stay with her family

20 is at stake. What -- but what about Patrolman Ewing?

21 Does he have an interest? Let's just suppose for a

22 moment that everything happened exactly the way Betty

23 Riles told you that it happened. Then Patrolman Ewing

24 made false police reports. Patrolman Ewing lied to the

25 grand jury. And can Patrolman Ewing come here now and

Summation 46

1 tell you that he did all those things? He would lose

2 his job. He would be indicted. He would be tried.

3 Patrolman Lewing -- Ewing has as much or more interest

4 in the outcome of this case as Betty Riles. And I

5 think that that is stated most eloquently by Patrolman

6 Ewing himself because he said I like being a law

7 enforcement officer.

8 Well, credibility. What about Betty Riles's

9 credibility? She's been convicted twice for cocaine.

10 One for possession, one for possession with intent to

11 distribute on or near school property. What does that

12 say about her credibility? Members of the jury, you

13 are allowed to consider that as it relates to her

14 credibility, and His Honor will tell you that is the

15 only purpose for which you may consider that

16 information.

17 When you do consider that information

18 consider also we're talking about convictions, two

19 convictions. One arose from an arrest in March of

20 1990, and the second arose from an arrest in February

21 of 1991. The most recent arrest involved in these two

22 past convictions were more than seven years or

23 approximately seven years before the arrest on December

24 4th, 1997.

25 Is it possible on this evidence that the

Summation 47

1 heroin belonged to Betty Riles? It is. But we do not

2 declare that a person is a criminal on the basis of

3 it's possible. A person can be found to be a criminal

4 only if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

5 So what are the possibilities in this case?

6 What are the choices? What are the options? There's

7 three. Option number one is that you find that Betty

8 Riles was telling the truth, Patrolman Ewing was not.

9 He testified and if you come to that conclusion then

10 you have an obligation to find Betty Riles not guilty.

11 The second possibility is that Betty Riles was telling

12 you the truth and Officer Ewing was not. That Betty

13 Riles was lying and Officer Ewing was testifying

14 truthfully. And if you come to that conclusion then

15 you have an obligation to find Betty Riles guilty. The

16 third possibility is you're not sure who's telling the

17 truth. Members of the jury, that is reasonable doubt,

18 and if you are not sure you have an obligation to find

19 Betty Riles not guilty.

20 This is not a contest between Detective Ewing

21 and Betty Riles. This is a contest between the State

22 of New Jersey and Betty Riles. Has the prosecutor

23 satisfied his burden of proving this case beyond a

24 reasonable doubt? Not guilty is not a statement that

25 you're tolerant of drugs. Not guilty is not a

Summation 48

1 statement that you are anti-police. Not guilty is a

2 statement that you have a reasonable doubt in this

3 case.

4 Do not judge Betty Riles with sympathy. Do

5 not judge Betty Riles with dislike. Judge her with

6 fairness. Judge her not guilty. You are in charge of

7 the butter.

8 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Marain. Mr.

9 Storch.

10 (The summation of Mr. Marain concluded.)

11 (The excerpt concluded.)

















I, KATHLEEN SPERDUTO, C.S.R., License Number

XI01151, an Official Court Reporter in and for the

State of New Jersey, do hereby certify the foregoing to

be prepared in full compliance with the current

Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and is a

true and accurate compressed transcript of my

stenographic notes taken in the above matter to the

best of my knowledge and ability.

Kathleen Sperduto, C.S.R., R.M.R.

Official Court Reporter

Middlesex County Courthouse

One Kennedy Square

New Brunswick, New Jersey

Date: July 27, 2000

NEXT: Jury Verdict
 Trial Transcript  |  Jobs and Internships 

 Eluding  |  Endangering  |  Entrapment  |  Evidence  |  Expungements  |  False Swearing 

 Personal Injury  |  Whistleblowers 

 Case Review  |  Super Links  |  Hat Trick  |  Directions  |  Parking  |  PGP Public Key 

 The Bottom Line 

Law Offices of Allan Marain
100 Bayard Street
P.O. Box 1030
New Brunswick NJ 08903
Phone 732-828-2020
or Toll Free: 877-652-6531
email: Info@MarainLaw.com


Cynthia Roseberry


Criminal Lawyers in New Jersey and MarainLaw.com
Search engine optimization by Rank Magic.
Page last updated 20 August 2017, and displayed Tuesday 22 October 2019, at 09:52:55 EDT.