dingle oct. 1, 2014, pretrial transcript

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

LEON DINGLE, JR. and KARINDINGLE,

DEFENDANTS,

))))))))))

12-30098

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSBEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD MILLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OCTOBER 1, 2014

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

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. TIMOTHY A. BASSMR. ERIC I. LONGASST. U.S. ATTORNEYS318 SOUTH SIXTHSPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

FOR DEFENDANT LEON DINGLE: MR. EDWARD M. GENSONMS. BLAIR C. DALTONATTORNEYS AT LAW53 W. JACKSONCHICAGO, ILLINOIS

FOR DEFENDANT KARIN DINGLE: MR. RONALD J. CLARKATTORNEY AT LAW820 W. JACKSON BLVD.CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

COURT REPORTER: KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRROFFICIAL COURT REPORTER600 E. MONROESPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS(217)492-4810

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



2

I N D E X

WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

E X H I B I T S

GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBITNUMBER IDENTIFIED ADMITTED

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITNUMBER IDENTIFIED ADMITTED

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



3

P R O C E E D I N G S

* * * * * * * * * * *

THE COURT: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good

afternoon, everyone.

Well, it's a lovely day out there today, but I

hear we've got bad weather on the way. But it is

ever thus, so we're just glad to be here.

All right. This is cause number 12-30098,

entitled United States of America versus Leon

Dingle, Jr., and Karin Dingle. Both of the

defendants are present in open court in their own

proper persons. And Mr. Dingle is represented by

his counsel of record, Mr. Edward Genson. Nice to

see you again, Mr. Genson.

And also by Blaire Dalton, I believe.

Ms. Dalton, so nice to have you.

And Ronald J. Clark is present on behalf of

Mrs. Dingle.

MR. CLARK: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Clark, nice to see you.

MR. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: And of course both the

defendants are present in their own proper persons.

The Government is represented by Assistant

United States Attorney Timothy A. Bass, Mr. Bass.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



4

And also by Mr. Eric Long. Mr. Long, nice to

have you with us.

We also have present at the Government's table

from the U.S. Postal Department, Inspector, is it

Basil or Basil?

MR. DEMCZAK: Basil.

THE COURT: Demczak?

MR. DEMCZAK: Demczak.

THE COURT: And also Special Agent from the

IRS, Mr. Landon Smith. Very good.

All right. Then I guess those are all of our

players at the moment.

Now, one little housekeeping thing I want to

clear up before we proceed for the final pre-trial

conference. And that is the question of title. We

have references to Mr. Dingle and to Dr. Dingle.

And I would like to get that clarified off the head

end here.

Now, Mr. Genson, what is the title doctor,

either behind or in front of --

MR. GENSON: He has a doctorate degree,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Beg your pardon?

MR. GENSON: A doctorate degree, Your

Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



5

THE COURT: Of what?

MR. GENSON: Public health, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Public health. And where was

that obtained?

MR. GENSON: Union College.

THE COURT: And that is a Doctor of Public

Health.

MR. GENSON: Ph.D.

THE COURT: It's a Ph.D.

MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

All right. Then in that case we may utilize

that title throughout the course of the case and the

trial if that is your desire.

MR. GENSON: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. But I want it to be

clearly understood that the jury is going to be made

aware of what that title is and what it represents,

rather than leave them with the impression that he

is a medical doctor.

MR. GENSON: We understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, fine. Any problem

with that, gentlemen?

MR. BASS: No, Your Honor. We intended to

do that anyway, so...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



6

THE COURT: Well, we'll get that all

cleared out so we don't have any kind of adversarial

situation. We'll just clarify that at the very head

end.

And let me take care of that. I will handle

that matter with the jury. So I do not expect to

have any other discussion about it. All right?


THE COURT: So if you, Mr. Genson, would

prepare me a short biography for Dr. Dingle. It

does not have to be long and elaborate, just a very

short one, so that I will have all of the details

when I begin the jury voir dire.

Okay?


THE COURT: Good. We'll get that settled

right off the beginning.

Now, to our final pre-trial, let's get the

background. The defendants, Leon Dingle and Karin

Dingle, are charged by superseding indictment with a

number of counts, including conspiracy to defraud

the United States in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code

371, mail fraud in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code

1341, and engaging in monetary transactions in

property derived from specified unlawful activity,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



7

money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code

1957(a).

Now, my understanding is that the defendants

Jacquelyn Kilpatrick and Edmond Clemons are planning

to enter guilty pleas prior to trial, while Mr. and

Mrs. Dingle, Dr. Dingle and his wife, intend to

proceed to trial.

Now, in reviewing the docket I see that

Mr. Clemons has a change of plea hearing set for

tomorrow before Judge Schanzle-Haskins. And

Mr. Wise advised my chambers by telephone that

Ms. Kilpatrick intends to proceed in a similar

manner prior to October the 20th, which is the date

we're set to begin.

Now, as I stated, the jury trial is currently

set to begin on March 20, 2014. And because Judge

Schanzle-Haskins will be outside the district that

week, jury selection will begin before me at

9:00 a.m. on that day in this courtroom.

Today this is a motion hearing and slash final

pre-trial conference. There are a few pending

motions.

When we last met there were issues surrounding

the Government's Santiago proffer and alleged

co-conspirator statements. So today would be a good

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



8

time to address any issues regarding admissibility

that remain as to the Santiago proffer.

On August the 25th, 2014, the Government filed

its Santiago proffer wherein it summarizes the

evidence it intends to present, including the

evidence relating to the alleged conspiracy. And

further notes its intent; subject to the Court's

approval, of course; to present a number of alleged

co-conspirator statements of the defendants charged

in this case or statements of third parties alleged

to be part of the conspiracy.

Dr. Dingle's response essentially contends that

the Santiago proffer fails to specifically identify

any co-conspirator statements the Government may

seek to introduce and without that information the

Court cannot make the required findings to determine

the admissibility of the statements.

Now, is that about where we stand at the

moment, Mr. Bass, for the Government?

MR. BASS: That's the state of the record.

I'm not sure what the defense's position is on

continuing in that position and their response. But

you've accurately stated the state of the record

with respect to that proffer.

THE COURT: All right. Then I'll turn to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



9

you, Mr. Genson.

MS. DALTON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ah, thank you, Ms. Dalton.

MS. DALTON: Our filing in response to the

Government's Santiago proffer also went into the

fact that we don't think that the Government has

established by preponderance of the evidence that

specifically Quinn Golden and Roxanne Jackson were

members of the conspiracy and thus their statements

should not be admissible as co-conspirator

statements. In addition to the fact that they

didn't allude to any specific statements so that

Your Honor could make his opinion about whether or

not they've met their burden by a preponderance of

the evidence.

In addition to that, we've been informed that

Ms. Golden will most likely not be testifying on

behalf of the Government.

THE COURT: She will not be?

MS. DALTON: Correct, Your Honor. Other

than that, that's where we rest as far as the

Santiago proffer response is concerned.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Bass.

MR. BASS: Your Honor, do you have the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



10

Government's proffer before you?

THE COURT: I do. I have it here. Just a

second.

Got her.

MR. BASS: Your Honor, what the Government

did in its Santiago proffer is, as you mentioned,

laid out -- attempted to lay out a summary of our

evidence in some detail. And then categorized the

type of co-conspirator statements that we intend to

introduce, with the preface that we don't expect

that there will be a significant amount of

co-conspirator statements because that evidence we

expect to come in for other reasons, such as not for

the truth of the matter asserted or as admissions of

the defendants themselves.

So we expect there to be a limited amount of

co-conspirator statements, primarily coming from

Ms. Kilpatrick, who is going to plead guilty and

testify in this trial. And Ms. Jackson, who has

pled guilty and will testify in this trial. And

Ms. Golden, who will not testify. But we've

summarized the evidence in our proffer of what we

expect to present to establish by a preponderance.

Now, it's not a requirement of the law that the

Government essentially provide a transcript of every

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



11

question that it's going to ask that might elicit a

co-conspirator statement. We've tried, in good

faith, to categorize the type of co-conspirator

statements that we expect to elicit.

In addition, we've provided the interview

reports of every -- and Grand Jury transcript of

every witness that could possibly be -- that the

Government could possibly call in this case on our

witness list.

We've also provided e-mails. And those really

will be with respect to all the three -- all

co-conspirator statements. Several of those

co-conspirator statements will come from e-mails

between Ms. Golden and Ms. Kilpatrick or Mr. Dingle.

We have provided those.

So short of a transcript of what we expect

these witnesses to testify, we have provided to the

defense everything that we expect to present by way

of evidence. And I think in that respect we've

complied with what a proffer is required to do.

So as to the sufficiency of the evidence, Your

Honor, the defendants are charged with conspiracy.

If we don't prove the conspiracy, then obviously

we're gonna have a directed verdict. But I would

submit that the evidence that we've summarized in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



12

the proffer, as well as what was supplemented with

respect to Ms. Golden, and what we're gonna address

here today with respect to the motion in limine;

that being that the Government seeks to admit

evidence regarding Mr. Dingle's relationship with

Ms. Golden and the payment of money to a witness

during the time period of this conspiracy. That

other evidence with respect to Ms. Golden, we

believe, establishes her involvement in the charged

conspiracy.

So I think we've established -- I think we've

done what we're required to do with respect to the

submission of a proffer and I would submit that the

evidence we've summarized more than establishes the

basis for the Court to make a preponderance of the

evidence finding.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you,

Mr. Bass.

MS. DALTON: Your Honor, if I may respond.

THE COURT: Well of course you may. I've

never said no yet. And I doubt that I will, but

there's always a first time.

MS. DALTON: It will be short.

Just based on the Government's response, we'd

ask the Court to defer ruling on this motion on the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



13

Santiago proffer --

THE COURT: To do what?

MS. DALTON: Defer ruling until trial,

until there's an offer of proof with actual

statements presented to the Court.

Yes, the defense has received all the witness

statements and all the e-mails, but the Court

hasn't. And the Court hasn't been able to discern

what statements the Government intends to use to

establish that there was a conspiracy and that this

witness may or may not, in fact, be a

co-conspirator.

So for that reason, we'd ask the Court to defer

ruling until an offer of proof has been made where

the Court can adequately determine whether or not

the Government has established a conspiracy by a

preponderance of the evidence.

MR. BASS: No objection to that, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Beg your pardon?

MR. BASS: No objection to that.

THE COURT: Well, fine, I accept that, but

with a caveat. And that is that we're not going to

try this case twice. And I don't intend to get into

trial and then all of the sudden have a stoppage and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



14

then we have to send the jury out and I'm gonna

start hearing testimony and evidence to see whether

or not we live up to the Government's projection.

Now we're not gonna do that.

But I will certainly defer ruling until

everything comes in and then we'll call it. Because

as the Government's pointed out, if they don't make

it, there's going to be a directed verdict. And

nobody wants that particularly; except perhaps the

defendants. But we're not gonna go that route.

We're gonna do this by the numbers.

So I will defer the ruling until sufficient

evidence comes in to support the Government's

position. And if it doesn't, as Mr. Bass says, it's

all over.

MS. DALTON: Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Very good.

Now, let's see. All right, we'll defer the

ruling on that.

I think most of the pending motions are now

fully briefed. Dr. Dingle has filed a consolidated

motion in limine pertaining to a number of the

issues and the Government has responded. The

responses include a summary of the anticipated

evidence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



15

The Dingles have also filed a reply to the

motion. And the motion in limine seeks the

exclusion, the arguments appealing to jurors as tax

payers, which I believe the Government acknowledges

would be inappropriate. And secondly, any evidence

and arguments referencing former Government Rod

Blagojevich. And three, evidence and arguments

regarding allegations of Dr. Dingle's infidelity.

Now, is there anything we need to address other

than what's already in the briefs?


THE COURT: All right, fine. Ms. Dalton.

MS. DALTON: We've already informed the

Government that we intended to orally amend our

motion in limine, our third motion in limine, as it

relates to certain physical relationships that have

been alleged to have occurred between Dr. Dingle and

a number of witnesses.

Within the responses and replies to that motion

there's discussions about Quinn Golden, as well as

somebody, a witness that's been labeled as MA.

We'd like to amend our motion to include a

couple additional witnesses. The Government came

upon some additional statements from some witnesses,

one of which we'll label as GW for the time being.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



16

THE COURT: E as --

MS. DALTON: G as in --

THE COURT: G as in George. And W as in

Washington?

MS. DALTON: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. GW, thank you.

MS. DALTON: To include this GW witness.

The Government, in prepping for trial,

interviewed that witness again. That witness -- we

haven't seen the statement, but I'm going based on

what Mr. Bass has told me. Apparently GW told

agents that she had a romantic relationship with

Dr. Dingle and that at some point during that

romantic relationship she was paid $700.

It would be the defendant's position that that

implies no evidence one way or the other and is

certainly not relevant to this case. One being the

romantic relationship that she alleges to have

occurred. Two; and I believe this is why the

Government would intend to use it; that at some

point Dr. Dingle gave her $700. There's no evidence

or indication that she believed that $700 was in

exchange for anything else or in response to the

work that she was doing on the grants.

THE COURT: What do you mean anything else?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



17

MS. DALTON: She did not -- we haven't seen

the statement, again, so this is all speculation

based on what we've been told by Mr. Bass. But she

didn't make any indication that she thought the $700

was in exchange for anything. Or a loan. I believe

it was just Dr. Dingle giving her $700. Obviously a

small amount of money.

But I believe that's what the Government

intends to introduce through that witness. We would

object and ask that they not be allowed to do so.

The other witness would be -- the Government

has alleged that -- or has claimed that they intend

to introduce evidence through a witness we'll call

E, as in egg, W as in Washington, and Ms. Golden.

This has nothing to do with Dr. Dingle. Has no

relevance to the case.

Other than that, there's an additional issue

that's outside of that particular motion in limine

that also has to do with witness EW that we can

discuss with the Court after we're finishing with

the motion in limine discussion, if the Court

decides that's the best way to proceed. Otherwise,

I can go into it now.

THE COURT: Well, why don't we go into it

right now. Let's just -- as these matters come up,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



18

if we defer them and put something else in between

then, everything is confused. So I think it would

be best if we just, while we're on it and while

you've made the statement, why don't we pursue that.

MS. DALTON: Okay.

This witness, EW, the Government I think will

be filing a motion or requesting that the Court deem

this witness to be a hostile witness in reference to

this one particular question, whether or not this

witness, EW, did or did not have a sexual

relationship with Quinn Golden.

THE COURT: With who?

MS. DALTON: Quinn Golden.

THE COURT: Quinn Golden. All right.

MS. DALTON: Witness EW in proffer answered

every single question posed to him by the Government

other than the question of whether or not he had, in

fact, this sexual relationship with Quinn Golden.

That is, I believe, why the --

THE COURT: Is that Goldwin or Golden?

MS. DALTON: Golden.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. DALTON: I believe the Government wants

to declare EW as a hostile witness so that the

Government can ask him this question in trial and so

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



19

that he, while under oath, he has to testify to it.

We have received an affidavit from EW's

attorneys affirming that their client, EW, when he

takes the stand, if he's called to take the stand,

will testify truthfully and accurately as to that

question if it is possessed to him. If the

Government -- or if the Court does not object to it.

Or if we object and the Court does not sustain that

objection.

So for that reason, EW is not a hostile

witness, should not be declared a hostile witness,

because he will answer truthfully per the affidavit

of his lawyer.

And that ties into this motion in limine in the

sense that we still do not believe that any sort of

indication or testimony regarding any relationship

between Quinn Golden and EW is relevant to this

case. It has nothing to do with Dr. Dingle or what

Dr. Dingle was charged with and should be precluded

from being introduced into evidence.

THE COURT: All right. We're talking about

EW's attorney making an affidavit?

MS. DALTON: Correct. It was --

THE COURT: How can he make an affidavit

that EW is going to testify truthfully?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



20

MS. DALTON: Well, EW has been asked by the

Government to come back in and continue a proffer

and respond to questions regarding his sexual

relationship with Quinn Golden. His attorney has

advised him, EW, that that type of information is

not necessary as it relates to Dr. Dingle's case and

does not need to come in and just answer questions

about his private sexual relationships to the

Government in a proffer.

However, if he is called to the stand and under

oath is asked those same questions, he will answer

truthfully. He will not refuse to answer questions

to that nature.

THE COURT: Okay. We'll see what Mr. Bass

has to say now.

Did you have anything else, Ms. Dalton? I

didn't mean to cut you off.

MS. DALTON: No. We basically can rest on

what we've already asserted within our motion in

limine. As to Governor Blagojevich, we certainly

rest.

As to the allegations of any romantic

relationships between Dr. Dingle and other

witnesses, we've indicated and briefed it in full;

that we do not think it's relevant, we think it's

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



21

extremely prejudicial to the case. It has nothing

to do with the serious nature of the allegations

that are alleged against Dr. Dingle, will end up

confusing the jury, and leaving the entire

courtroom; the attorneys, the jury; to focus on the

truth and accuracy of these alleged sexual

relationships and will take aware from the serious

nature of the charges against Dr. Dingle.

That would be about it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. DALTON: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Dalton.

All right, Mr. Bass.

MR. BASS: Your Honor, if I -- if you

recall, at the last hearing we asked, or I asked,

because of the importance of the issues raised in

the defendant's motion in limine, that we be able to

address that directly with Your Honor today. And

that's -- that's what we're doing now.

But I just -- if Your Honor will recall that,

that I know you said that they've been briefed, but

because of the importance of these issues to the

Government, thank you for the opportunity to address

Your Honor directly.

THE COURT: Well, sure.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



22

MR. BASS: I think it's important now to go

back and look --

THE COURT: Listen, people, I want it

clearly understood that I would much rather that we

wrangle about these things well in advance of

getting the jury in the box than having these

surprises come up. This is not fun. And we don't

try -- at least I don't try cases by ambush or by

laying in the weeds and then having something come

up that all of the sudden taints the whole problem.

We don't want that.

Now, they're entitled to a fair trial. And

they're gonna get one in this courtroom. And so I

want these things to be brought out and let's get

these out of the way and move on.

So you're not at all inconveniencing me. I

want to make that clear.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Bass.

MR. BASS: So, Your Honor, I'll try to be

brief, but I may not be -- I'll try to be brief, but

because of the -- because of the importance of these

issues and the evidence, I think it's important for

Your Honor -- for the Government to make sure that

Your Honor is aware of the Government's reason for

the admission of this evidence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



23

So we go back to the indictment. Your Honor,

this isn't the first case, this isn't the first

corruption or fraud cause that's based on political

influence, access, money, and personal

relationships, including relationships that are

sexual in nature. This certainly isn't the first or

only or will it be the last.

The Government -- the allegations in the

indictment are that the time period, relevant time

period is 2004 to 2010.

During that time period, Rod Blagojevich was

the Governor. In 2005, he announced an initiative

called BASUAH, Brothers and Sisters United Against

HIV/AIDS; a program designed to address the HIV/AIDS

problems within the minority community.

Governor Blagojevich appointed Eric Whitaker as

his Director of Public Health. Dr. Whitaker

appointed Quinn Golden as his Chief of Staff.

Two years later, in 2007, Governor Blagojevich

announced another initiative, the Faith Based

Initiative Emergency -- Faith Based Emergency

Preparedness Initiative post Katrina; an initiative

designed to educate the minority community on

emergency preparedness.

So there were these two initiatives announced

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



24

by Governor Blagojevich during his term, during

Dr. Whitaker's term, and during Ms. Golden's term as

Dr. Whitaker's Chief of Staff. And those

initiatives were implemented through the Department

of Public Health, of which Dr. Whitaker was the

director and Ms. Golden was the Chief of Staff.

Now, with respect to the motion about excluding

the name Blagojevich; the defense is essentially

asking that the Government go through presenting its

evidence in this case as if to pretend that the

Governor who implemented these initiatives that are

the basis of the case didn't exist. Or we just

refer to him as the Governor.

But the allegations in the indictment and the

evidence in this case, Your Honor, will establish

that Dr. Dingle took advantage of and exploited his

personal relationships with various people,

including Governor Blagojevich. And that Dr. Dingle

bragged about his relationship with Governor

Blagojevich. That he attended a fund-raiser and had

some of his -- the grantees that are the witnesses

in this case attend Governor Blagojevich's

fund-raiser and contribute to Governor Blagojevich.

But again -- and Dr. Dingle had access to not

only Governor Blagojevich, but to his Deputy Chief

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



25

of Staff who was involved with the Department of

Public Health in implementing these initiatives.

So in short, Your Honor, the evidence relating

to Governor Blagojevich and his administration,

going from Governor Blagojevich himself down to

Dr. Whitaker and then his successor, Damon Arnold,

and Ms. Golden, will be that Dr. Dingle had unique

and non-merit-based relationships with each of these

people who were deciding how state money was being

awarded. That's the basis for at -- for referring

to the Governor, Governor Blagojevich, and officials

within his administration.

Now, we don't intend to dwell on the name

Blagojevich or make any allegation that just because

Dr. Dingle was an associate or had access to

Blagojevich and just because Blagojevich is guilty

of some fraud previously that that makes Dr. Dingle

guilty. We don't intend to assert that or imply

that at all.

But we do intend to present evidence that

Dr. Dingle had this unique relationship, unique

access to and influence with the very officials who

were awarding state money. And it's our view that

that is not only relevant, it's directly relevant to

allegations in the indictment as to whether

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



26

Dr. Dingle, on a non-merit-based basis received

state money which he then diverted to his personal

use and that of his wife.

So I don't think, with respect to the motion to

exclude the name Blagojevich, I don't think that we

need to go to the extreme of excluding any reference

to the very -- to the name of the very

administration that authorized these funds that are

alleged to have been stolen by Dr. Dingle to begin

with. That is unnecessary, Your Honor.

And to the extent there's any risk of unfair

prejudice, Your Honor can simply instruct the jury

with a mere association instruction that says merely

associating with persons engaged in criminal

activity does not make the defendant guilty of a

crime. That's a standard pattern instruction of the

7th Circuit that could address any risk by the

mention of the name Blagojevich.

Now, with respect to the balance of the motion,

Your Honor; the motion to exclude evidence relating

to what has been characterized as Dr. Dingle's

alleged infidelity.

We don't intend to introduce evidence of

infidelity for its own sake. What we do intend to

do is to introduce evidence of Dr. Dingle's personal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



27

relationships with people who were in control of

grant money or who received grant money from

Dr. Dingle. Again, to establish that Dr. Dingle's

relationship and -- relationships with these people

and his receipt of grant money was not arm's length,

was not merit-based, but was based on him taking

advantage of or at least exploiting his personal

relationships, unique personal relationships with

these people.

Beginning with Quinn Golden. She's an alleged

conspirator in this -- in the Government's -- not in

the indictment, but the indictment references that

the defendants conspired with others. Well, one of

those others is Quinn Golden as we allege in our

Santiago profer.

Quinn Golden was Eric Whitaker's Chief of

Staff. He's EW, for clarity's sake for Your Honor.

EW is the Eric Whitaker, the Director of Department

of Public Health. Quinn Golden was his Chief of

Staff.

Again, the Government's evidence will establish

that Dr. Dingle had unique access to both

Dr. Whitaker and Quinn Golden during the time that

Dr. Whitaker and Ms. Golden were awarding state

grants to Dr. Dingle.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



28

In fact, one of the pieces of that we're going

to introduce, Your Honor, is that Dr. Dingle

sponsored and paid for awards. One award, called a

Unity Globe Award, to Dr. Whitaker and Ms. Golden.

And then a second award called a Female Ebony

Strength Award for Ms. Golden. Each of whom

received a plaque at a cost of $745, paid for by

Dr. Dingle during the time that Dr. Whitaker and

Ms. Golden were approving state grants that they

knew were going to Dr. Dingle. Again, evidence of

the relationships with the people awarding state

money.

Now, during that very time period that they

were -- that Ms. Golden was awarding state grants to

Dr. Dingle, or organizations that he was associated

with, one of the types of grants that were involved

here was -- were these grants associated with the

Faith Based Initiative, the emergency preparedness

initiative to educate the minority community.

And MA is one of -- who we referenced in our

response to the motion in limine; MA was a person

hired by Dr. Dingle and paid for by Dr. Dingle to

work on that initiative. She's going to testify

that she essentially was largely responsible for

preparing that initiative. Or at least the initial

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



29

stages of it. That she wrote the initiative and

participated closely with Dr. Dingle and Ms. Golden

in implementing it. So she worked closely with the

two of them.

One day she was summoned to Ms. Golden's

office, she will testify. And she walked into

Ms. Golden's office unannounced and there she found

Dr. Dingle and Ms. Golden huddled close together

behind Ms. Golden's desk. And surprising to

Mr. Dingle and Mr. Golden.

And when Ms. Golden turned around to speak with

MA, MA observed; this isn't opinion testimony, this

is what she will testify she observed; Ms. Golden

partially undressed and re-dressing herself from the

waist up. Following which, with Dr. Dingle present,

Ms. Golden said to MA, you're doing such a great

job, we're gonna pay you an additional $10,000. And

we have the checks that show that Dr. Dingle did

just that.

And Ms. Kilpatrick, Dr. Dingle's associate,

whose gonna testify in this case, will testify that

she was told by Dr. Dingle and MA to pay Ms. -- MA

an additional $10,000.

Now, the Government is going to argue that's a

reasonable inference -- that the reasonable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



30

inference to be drawn from that is hush money.

But the evidence relating to Dr. Dingle and

Ms. Golden, what MA saw, is again, Dr. Dingle's

relationship with Ms. Golden, unique relationship,

non-arm's length, non-merit-based, during the time

that Ms. Golden was awarding state grant money that

went to Dr. Dingle's benefit.

Now, that's not infidelity for its own sake.

That's evidence of a personal relationship. And

it's certainly evidence of whether or not Dr. Dingle

and Ms. Golden were in a conspiracy together.

In addition, during that same time period that

Dr. Dingle was receiving money from Ms. Golden,

Ms. Golden directed Roxanne Jackson; who's pled

guilty, along with Ms. Golden, to conspiracy to

commit bribery; Ms. Golden directed Dr. Dingle to

hire Ms. Jackson as part of these grants.

Dr. Dingle did what he was told, he hired

Ms. Jackson. And then he paid her three-quarters of

a million dollars in less than a year in grant

funds, which Ms. Jackson then turned around and

kicked back half of to Ms. Golden. And Ms. Jackson

is going to testify to that.

Again, evidence of the relationship between

Dr. Dingle, Ms. Golden, and Ms. Jackson, all of whom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



31

are alleged in our proffer as co-conspirators. So

that's the basis, the critical basis, for why we

introduce this evidence of the relationship.

Now, it happens to be that the relationship

apparently was sexual in part. But it's the unique,

non-arm's length basis of that relationship that

goes to the core of the allegations in the

indictment.

With respect to the -- other relationships that

we intend to introduce, Your Honor, that are sexual

or romantic in part.

There's another woman who will testify in this

case, and her name is Gwendolyn Woolridge. She was

the -- she was an employee of the Department of

Public Health who reported to Ms. Golden. She was

one of the employees who was instrumental in writing

up one of the grants that were awarded -- that was

awarded to Dr. Dingle.

During the time that she was writing up that

grant, she was in a dating relationship with

Dr. Dingle. He was taking her out to dinner, he was

taking her to the Yacht Club.

And during that time, Ms. Woolridge will

testify that she was experiencing financial

problems. And she told Dr. Dingle about that and he

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



32

provided her with $700 as a loan, which she never

paid back.

What is the relevance of that testimony? That

Dr. Dingle is in a personal relationship with

someone who is making decisions regarding state

money. A unique, non-merit-based relationship. So

that's Gwendolyn Woolridge.

Another woman who's going to testify is Claudia

Johnson. She is CJ in our motion -- our response to

the motion in limine.

The indictment alleges there were three

grantees who received a total of $11 million in

grant funds during this time period which Dr. Dingle

and Mrs. Dingle are alleged to have converted as

much as $3.7 million or more of.

The indictment alleges that Ms. Golden and

others at the Department of Public Health awarded

$11 million in grant funds to these three grantees;

one of which was an organization called AWARE.

Ms. Johnson ran AWARE, so she was one of the

grantees who received state money.

During the time -- prior to the time that she

applied as a grantee for state money, she began --

she and Dr. Dingle began a romantic, dating

relationship. And that relationship continued

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



33

during the time that Ms. Johnson was applying for

$1.8 million in state funds.

She will testify that Dr. Dingle and her were

in this relationship. That Dr. Dingle made all the

decisions. He told her what to do. He told her

what checks to write. When she received the grant

funds, she immediately turned around and provided

the funds, almost all the funds, to Dr. Dingle;

except for the funds that Dr. Dingle directed

Ms. Johnson to write to Roxanne Jackson.

So again, what's the relevance of Claudia

Johnson's testimony? Not that Dr. Dingle was

unfaithful to Mrs. Dingle, but that he was in a

relationship with someone who was getting state

money and he was exploiting that relationship during

the time of that relationship to cause that person,

Ms. Johnson, to give him more than a million

dollars. And that he directed Ms. Johnson to pay

more than $200,000 of state money to Roxanne

Jackson, half of which went back to Ms. Golden.

Again, relationships between Dr. Dingle and

people who received -- who were in charge of state

money or who received state money.

Lastly, Your Honor, there is a -- I don't know

whether we'll call this witness. She's the least

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



34

important of the witnesses who will testify to this

personal relationship, is a woman by the name of

Shavonda Fields.

She was hired by Dr. Dingle during the time of

these grants to work on the grant work; whether it

would have been the Faith Based Initiative or the

BASUAH initiative involving HIV and AIDS. And then

there's other programs involving breast and cervical

and prostate cancer. Dr. Dingle was in a

relationship with Ms. Fields during the time that he

was paying her with state money.

Again, all that evidence is merely to show that

Dr. Dingle was in a unique, non-merit-based

relationship with people who were in control of

state money that was eventually awarded to him.

That is, in our view, Your Honor, not only

relevant evidence, but it's critical evidence to the

Government's case. Because how do we present

evidence of fraud and corruption by Dr. Dingle and

exclude any evidence relating to the relationships

with the people from whom he got that state money?

It's difficult to conceive of how we would even

present our case were we excluded from doing that.

So for those reasons, Your Honor, it's relevant

evidence. It is not 404(b) evidence. In the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



35

defendant's first motion in limine, they -- he only

argues that the evidence is not relevant. In our

response we laid out, as I just summarized, why it

is relevant, direct -- directly relevant. We're not

seeking to introduce 404(b) evidence.

The Government is completely aware of the state

of the law in the 7th Circuit regarding 404(b).

Like you, Your Honor, I don't want to try this case

again. I've got another case that we're doing that.

I don't want a second one.

So we are not asking you to admit this evidence

based on Rule 404(b), we're only asking you to admit

it under Rule 401. And the basis for excluding that

would be if it's substantially outweighed by the

danger of unfair prejudice. And I would submit, for

the reasons I've just explained, that evidence, that

relevant evidence, is not substantially outweighed

by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Again, if there's any risk of that, Your Honor

can instruct the jury in some way that this evidence

is not coming in to show that Dr. Dingle is a bad

person or he's an unfaithful husband, it's admitted

for the purpose of what I just said. And I would

defer to defense on whether they would request a

limiting instruction if Your Honor were to allow

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



36

that evidence.

But for those reasons, we'd ask that the motion

in limine with respect to Governor Blagojevich and

the relationships that I just described be denied.

I'm happy to address the other issue that

Ms. Dalton raised regarding Dr. Whitaker, but I

think that's really a separate issue that we can

address separately rather than with the motion in

limine.

THE COURT: I tend to agree with that --

with that statement.

All right. Ms. Dalton, I'll give you one final

bite at the apple here.

MS. DALTON: Thank you, Judge.

Mr. Bass repeated over and over again that the

relevance of introducing this evidence of sexual

relationships and dating relationships were to show

the unique and non-arm's based relationship between

Dr. Dingle and Quinn Golden, Gwen Woolridge, Claudia

Johnson, and Shavonda Fields.

It is absolutely unnecessary for the Government

to introduce evidence of physical, sexual relations

or dating relations in order to show the

relationships period that Dr. Dingle had with all

four of those women.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



37

Starting with Quinn Golden. There's no

question that Dr. Dingle had to have a close

relationship with Quinn Golden. She was in charge

of basically running the Faith Based Initiative

after it had been implemented by Governor

Blagojevich.

And so the grantees who received the grants for

that initiative had to work closely with the

Illinois Department of Public Health, the Chief of

Staff, and other staff members of the Department to

decide what was gonna be done with the grant, decide

what the deliverables are, to decide who was gonna

work on it, to decide which person was gonna do

what.

The fact that he had to speak with her on

numerous occasions, had meetings with her every

week, the Government can introduce that all they

want, there's no objection to that. The -- this

idea that the sexual issue that was allegedly seen

by MA on one occasion in 2007 is necessary and

relevant to establish this unique, non-arm's based

relationship that Dr. Dingle had with Quinn Golden

is ridiculous really.

There are plenty of other ways to show the

relationship that the -- legitimate relationship

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



38

that Dr. Dingle had with Quinn Golden other than to

introduce this very prejudicial statement from MA;

that she ironically didn't tell the Government about

for seven years. Five, six different conversations

she had with agents, it never came up. Only right

before we're set to go to trial, on September 8th, a

week before, does she all of the sudden decide, oh,

yes, I remember now, I saw this thing happen in the

office on one occasion, I had been summoned to the

office by Quinn Golden already. So obviously Quinn

Golden wanted her to come there for something.

Whether it was to tell her that she was gonna get a

bonus for all the hard work she was gonna do, or

something else, had nothing to do with what Marian

Adly, MA, may or may not have seen in that office.

And any testimony to that effect is not

necessary to show a unique, non-arm's based

relationship between Dr. Dingle and Quinn Golden.

There are plenty more legitimate and relevant means

to do that that the defense would have no objection

to.

Going on to --

The Government alluded to this issue between

Quinn Golden and Roxanne Jackson. And that Quinn

Golden had Dr. Dingle hire Roxanne Jackson in order

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



39

for her to work on grants; which she did; and that

whatever grant money was paid to Roxanne Jackson,

half of which went back to Quinn Golden. Everybody

knows that. It's been alleged in numerous different

filings. There's been guilty pleas by Roxanne

Jackson to that effect.

However, it is important to note that Roxanne

Jackson and Quinn Golden have stated in their

statements to agents that Dr. Dingle knew nothing of

that agreement that they had together.

Going to Claudia Johnson; this romantic dating

relationship that the Government wants to introduce

to show that Dr. Dingle exploited her relationship

with her so that she would give him grant money.

Dr. Dingle and Claudia Johnson started working

together in 2004. She -- she has claimed that there

was a romantic and dating relationship that was

going on well up into when she started getting

grants through her organization, AWARE, which

started in 2007.

There was no exploitation of any sort of

relationship. Claudia Johnson has given many

statements to the effect that she decided, it was

her decision to start this organization AWARE,

because she wanted to start doing grants as well.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



40

And it was her statements to agents that she

realized after starting AWARE and starting to get

grants, that she did not have the resources or the

capability to follow through with all the

deliverables that were necessary to complete the

grant as it was written. Therefore, she instituted

bringing in Dr. Dingle, who she had already worked

with on many other grants, to help her with it. And

he got paid for it. And there was nothing illegal

about that.

Any sort of information about a dating

relationship between the two is irrelevant and

unnecessary. There are plenty of means to establish

how they introduced -- how they were introduced to

each other, how long they knew each other, how many

grants they worked on together, how much work they

did for the grants, without getting into any sort of

information about whether or not there was a dating

or sexual relationship between the two of them. It

confuses the issues, it's extremely prejudicial, and

it's unnecessary to establish the background between

the two of them.

Same thing with Shavonda Fields. The fact that

she was hired to work on grant work; the

Government's not claiming that Shavonda Fields

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



41

didn't do grant work. She did, in fact, do an

extremely large amount of grant work for Dr. Dingle

and organizations that Dr. Dingle was working with.

And she was paid for the work that she did. She was

paid a reasonable amount.

The fact that there may or may not have been a

dating relationship between her and Dr. Dingle;

again, completely irrelevant. The fact that she was

doing work and was getting paid for it and was

working with Dr. Dingle, all of that is relevant.

All of that, of course, will be introduced at trial,

I'm sure, by the Government. But the fact that

there may or may not have been a dating relationship

is unnecessary for her, just as it is for Claudia

Johnson, just as it is for Gwen Woolridge, just as

it is for Quinn Golden, to establish the background

of how Dr. Dingle knew, how long he knew, and how

often he worked with these women, and what he did as

he was working with them on these grants.

I'm not sure if I got to Gwen Woolridge. I

didn't.

As far as Gwen Woolridge is concerned, the

Government has correctly stated that she was an

employee of the Department of Public Health and that

they want to get into the fact that she went to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



42

dinners with Dr. Dingle and went to Yacht Club, to

his yacht club for lunches with Dr. Dingle. And

that that implies a dating, inappropriate

relationship between Dr. Dingle and Gwen Woolridge

is just not merit-based whatsoever.

Dr. Dingle -- many witnesses will testify on

the Government's behalf; we've seen the statements;

that Dr. Dingle had many of his meetings as far as

discussing grants and keeping up-to-date with other

organizations, keeping up-to-date with other

consultants on what was going on, at his yacht club.

It had nothing to do with any sort of dating

relationship. Implying that it did in order to

tarnish Dr. Dingle's character is unnecessary and

irrelevant.

We'd ask that all testimony regarding any sort

of sexual, physical, dating relationship between

Dr. Dingle and these four women be excluded from

evidence and that the Government be precluded to

only focus on the relevant background of the

relationships; non-sexual, non-physical, non-dating;

between Dr. Dingle and any witness.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Dalton.

All right. Thank you both. And we have all of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



43

this on the record and Madam Reporter has taken done

all of your oral argument here. That will

supplement your motions and your responses.

Now, most recently on September the 20th,

Dr. Dingle filed a motion to modify conditions of

release seeking to sell some assets.

And the doctor is required to obtain

permission, of course, of the Court before selling

assets of greater value than $500. And he seeks

leave of Court to sell about 2,000 shares of stock

in ComCast, in addition to seeking to sell property

that he owns in Savannah, Georgia.

The motion provides that he seeks permission so

that he may pay legal fees and other expenses

associated with trial. I don't believe any response

has been filed by the Government.

Is that right, Mr. Bass?

MR. BASS: No, Your Honor. I spoke with

Mr. Genson about this before the hearing today and

indicated to him I was gonna advise the Court orally

what our position is. I think we're in agreement

with regard to the disposition of that motion, if I

could be heard at some point.

THE COURT: Why sure. Come right ahead. I

really want to clean everything up here today with

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



44

the exception of my written rulings on the motions

that are pending. And I will have those out within

a very short period of time. But I wanted to clean

up everything here today so that we don't have to be

scheduling another session prior to our trial.

That's my intent.

MR. BASS: Fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Genson was going to --

MR. GENSON: We seem to have an agreement,

Your Honor. The agreement is that we can sell the

stock, but we are withdrawing our request with

regard to the house. And that's essentially the

agreement we've reached.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor. That -- the

Government has no objection to selling only those

assets necessary to pay legal fees. That there

should be no dissipation of assets beyond what is

necessary to pay the legal fees.

THE COURT: All right. And I take it

Mr. Genson is saying that the sale of the stock will

be adequate to do that without the necessity of

selling the Savannah, Georgia property?

MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor. At this

point -- at this point in time Mr. Clark is owed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



45

money, we are owed money. There's going to be

substantial expenses regarding an expert witness

that we've retained, in addition to hotels, lodging,

and whatever.

So we're asking relative to those amounts to

sell the stock now. If we need -- if the house

needs to be sold, we'll address it separately, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. That will be fine.

Now, is that agreeable to the Government?

MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And Mr. Clark, any problem with

that?

MR. CLARK: No, I don't, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well then, it seems

to me that that's a reasonable request. And the

Court does grant permission to sell the ComCast

stock. However, that sought for the permission of

the real estate in Savannah has been withdrawn; is

that right?

MR. GENSON: Yes, Your Honor, we withdrawn

that request.

THE COURT: Is that your desire,

Dr. Dingle?

Is that your desire, Dr. Dingle?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



46

DR. DINGLE: Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, Your

Honor, it is.

THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. If the

Government sees no problem, I don't either. So it

seems to me that's pretty good.

Now, since the trial will be down here in

Springfield and not in Chicago, it seems like all of

those other experiences probably would be less down

here than they would be up there.

MR. GENSON: I was asking Mr. Bass if he

would allow us to stay at his house, but he --

THE COURT: Well, I know Mr. Bass is very

hospitable, but I don't know if we'd go to that

extent.

I have a couple of spare rooms in my house,

Mr. Genson, but I don't know that that would be

looked upon --

Well, in any event, okay.

Now, let's see, I believe that all of the

motions -- when we met last month all the motions on

behalf of Mrs. Dingle I think were resolved and that

there were none pending at this time.

MR. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: Is that correct?

MR CLARK: That's correct, Your Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



47

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Clark.

MR. BASS: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BASS: I don't know whether you intend

to allow the motion just by way of a docket entry,

but if your docket entry could just reflect that the

motion, Mr. Genson's motion for amendment of bond

conditions is allowed with the sale of stock for the

payment of attorneys' fees. Just so it's clear that

the motion -- we are -- the Government is

agreeing -- has no objection to the motion to the

extent necessary for the payment of legal fees.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. CLARK: Your Honor, of both Mr. and

Mrs. Dingle.

MR. BASS: Yes.

THE COURT: What?

MR. BASS: For both counsel.

THE COURT: Yes, of course.

Very well. I'll make sure that is in the

written order as well.

MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Government's agreement

to that and for legal fees for both Dr. and

Mrs. Dingle.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



48

MR GENSON: I hate to -- I know we've -- I

think legal fees and costs, because of the costs

that are going to be incurred, not just --

THE COURT: Well, let's use the term legal

costs, I think, which is broader and more inclusive

and I think would be less limiting.

MR. BASS: Fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very good. Everybody in

agreement then on that terminology?

MR. BASS: Yes.

THE COURT: Swell. Very good.

All right. Well, I should expect to have a

ruling on all of the outstanding motions by the end

of next week.

Now let's see, it appears that some of the

pre-trial materials have been filed. Mr. --

Dr. Dingle has filed a witness list, proposed voir

dire, and proposed jury instructions. And due to

its format, Dr. Dingle's exhibit list was stricken

on August the 22nd and he was granted leave to

re-file. I don't believe the amended exhibit list

has been filed.

MS. DALTON: No, Your Honor, it hasn't. We

would ask to the end of business day Friday in order

to file.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



49

THE COURT: You've got to get close to the

mike there.

MS. DALTON: There we go.

THE COURT: That's wonderful. Thank you.

MS. DALTON: If we could have to the end of

the business day on Friday to file that exhibit

list. We recently received some new discovery from

the Government and we just want the opportunity to

go through it and make sure there's not any

additional items that we want to include on our

exhibit list before we file it.

THE COURT: All right, that's fine with the

Court. Unless the Government has any --

MR. BASS: No objection.

THE COURT: Very good. Then that leave is

allowed and that is Friday, did you say?


THE COURT: Close of business Friday.

Fine, excellent. We'll take care of that with your

amended list, exhibit list.

Now, I don't think that any pre-trial -- yes,

Mr. Genson?

MR. GENSON: There is one additional

request. We're going to be picking the jury on the

morning of the 20th. None of the -- none of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



50

three lawyers here have tried cases -- well, I've

tried cases, many in Springfield, but not for quite

a long time.

And we've talked, and I've told Mr. Bass this,

Mr. Wykoff is present in court, and he has very

kindly volunteered. If he could sit with us during

jury selection, we would appreciate it. I'd like to

make that motion.

THE COURT: Any problem with that,

Mr. Bass?

MR. BASS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't see any either. I'm

well-acquainted with Mr. Wykoff. I note his

presence in the back of the courtroom today. And we

will be delighted to have him at defense table for

the selection of the jury for the voir dire.

MR. GENSON: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Now, let me think.

I don't think any pre-trial materials have been

filed on behalf of Mrs. Dingle.

Is that correct, Mr. Clark?

MR. CLARK: I do, Your Honor. I don't

anticipate a witness list, but I would ask Your

Honor for about four or five days for any voir dire

that I may have in addition to what Mr. Dingle has

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



51

filed. And any instruction. I'd ask for about

five --

COURT REPORTER: Please move to a

microphone.

THE COURT: See, the microphone, these are

voice activated. And everybody in the courtroom can

hear once we get to a mike.

MR. CLARK: Your Honor, I don't anticipate

a witness list, but I would ask Your Honor if I

could have five days or at least to next Monday or

Tuesday to file any voir dire that I might have in

addition to what Mr. Genson has had. And perhaps

one instruction, if I might.

THE COURT: Any problem with that,

Mr. Bass?

MR. BASS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Clark,

that leave is granted.

MR. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Why don't you -- I'm sure you

do constantly here, as a practical matter, confer --

the two of you confer, along with Ms. Dalton.

Ms. Dalton is going to see to it that we have that

list by the close of business or Friday. Why don't

you confer with her and as much as possible what you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



52

might wish to select could come in close to the same

time or the first of next week.

MR. CLARK: I can. I can do that.

THE COURT: That would be fine.

MR. CLARK: And --

THE COURT: So we don't piecemeal this out

so that we get strung out. And I've always found

that when we do that when we have multiple

defendants, we end up losing something. Something

falls in between the crack if we don't keep on the

same time schedule. That's my problem.

MR. CLARK: Okay, I'll do that. And you're

right, we do confer quite frequently.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. CLARK: So we have a good relationship.

And we'll do fine.

THE COURT: All right. We'll all have a

good relationship here. As we're going to live

together for several days.

MR. CLARK: Several weeks.

THE COURT: Several weeks I'm afraid. But

that's the nature of the game that we play, is it

not?

MR. CLARK: And we've all chosen that

route, so we like it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



53

THE COURT: Well, absolutely.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any other line of work is

pretty dull in our estimation, isn't it?

MR. CLARK: I can't think of any other line

of work that I would rather do.

THE COURT: I agree with you. Aces, spades

and trumps.

Okay. Now, the docket shows that the

Government has filed its exhibit list, proposed jury

instructions, statement of the case, and witness

list. Right, Mr. Bass?

MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor. And we filed

an amended witness list and amended exhibit list

today before the hearing. So the statement of the

case, jury instructions, and witness and exhibit

lists are of record.

THE COURT: Okay, fine.

All right, very good. Well, I think that

bringing us up to snuff. And then I will be ruling

on the motions and those rulings will be out to you

just as soon as we get them taken care of.

And we're all looking toward the 20th, 9:00 in

the morning, in this very courtroom. And we'll have

a venire all ready to go in the jury room back here.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



54

Now, have we missed anything or is there

anything we need to bring up?

Mr. Bass, you look moved to take the podium.

MR. BASS: Your Honor, just to follow-up on

Ms. -- the issue Ms. Dalton raised.

The Government has two witnesses on its witness

list, one of whom is Dr. Whitaker and the other is

Dr. Damon Arnold. They were both directors of the

Department of Public Health during the time period

in the indictment.

We've advised the defense; and Ms. Dalton

alluded to this; that the Government has entered

into proffer or cooperation agreements with both

Dr. Arnold and Dr. Whitaker in which they have

agreed to provide complete and truthful information

to the Government. We did that some time ago.

Dr. Whitaker, following that execution of that

agreement, met with the Government and then refused

to answer certain questions about his relationship

with Ms. Golden. He then represented to the media

that he was fully cooperating with the Government.

And he has, through his counsel in the last few

months -- through his counsel in the last few months

has refused to meet with the Government pursuant to

that agreement. And just recently, through his

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



55

counsel, advised the Government that he expressly

was refusing to meet with the Government.

And I -- and we just learned today; I wasn't

aware of this before Your Honor took the bench; but

apparently Mr. -- Dr. Whitaker's counsel has

provided an affidavit to counsel for Dr. Dingle, but

not the Government.

So I raise all that just because I know Your

Honor does not like to be taken by surprise.

THE COURT: Hm-mm.

MR. BASS: And similarly with respect to

Dr. Arnold, we entered into an agreement with

Dr. Arnold in which he agreed to provide complete

and truthful information to the Government. And we

have attempted over the last several weeks on

numerous occasions to meet with Dr. Arnold pursuant

to that agreement and to date he has refused.

So I advised Ms. Dalton and Mr. Genson and

Mr. Clark that the Government may be filing a motion

with the Court seeking to treat them as hostile

witnesses under Rule 611 of the Rules of Evidence.

Now, we're not asking for a ruling about that

today. It's just something that we may likely do.

And we'll file that -- if we do file it, we will --

if we do decide to do that, we will file it and then

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



56

prior to their testimony or at the time of their

testimony seek to take that issue up with the Court.

So just so Your Honor is aware, since

Ms. Dalton alluded to it, that there is that one

potential pre-trial motion regarding two witnesses

that we may be filing prior to the testimony of

those witnesses. So it may be something that we

would have to take up outside the presence of the

jury.

THE COURT: Well, thank you, Mr. Bass, for

the heads-up. You're absolutely correct. I know of

no Judge who likes surprises. All kinds of problems

arise, as you well know. We have had them before.

But what I would like to caution everyone here

is that I don't want any problems that arise with

either of these two directors or former directors of

Public Health to cause me any problem with that jury

in the box.

Now, we're going to take care of this matter;

these matters, if it means both of them; we're gonna

take care of that separately. But we're not going

to be doing it to cause any problem with this jury.

So let's try to get this all looked into and

give me a heads-up on all of this. Everybody gets

the heads-up, of course. But it's been my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



57

experience that usually counsel know about these

things before I do.

MR. BASS: We'll do that, Your Honor. My

thought was that if -- we would file that motion

before the trial begins. And then if we needed to

take that issue up with Your Honor, we could do it

at the end of the day after the jury is excused, or

even if Your Honor wanted to, we could excuse the

jury early one day, one afternoon.

THE COURT: Sure, we'll take care of that.

We'll take care of that.

Very good. And thank you for the heads-up.

And thank you, counsel, for keeping in mind that I

don't want any problem with the jury. Now, we've

got to do everything possible to take care of that.

Nobody wants to try this case twice. I know that.

MR. BASS: Your Honor, two other

housekeeping matters.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. BASS: I haven't spoken with Mr. --

with counsel about this, but trying cases before

Your Honor in this courtroom before, Your Honor is

well aware of the -- of some of the practical

difficulties.

For example, I don't like standing between the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



58

jury and the witness. And so in the past, Your

Honor has allowed the Government -- or allowed

counsel to use one of the lapel microphones and to

stand back to counsel table.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. BASS: I just wanted to raise that

issue with Your Honor --

THE COURT: This is the way we've done it

and we've had to do it because of the configuration

of the high tech stuff that's in here. If it

weren't for that, we would have no difficulty. But

these are not the way I started -- that Mr. Genson

and I started to practice and try cases together.

We didn't have all this.

But we have now. And it speeds things up and

it assists the jury immeasurably to have all of this

on the screen in front of them. The same thing that

you have in front of you on the monitors and I have

up here and the witness has on the witness stand.

And so we have to because of the configuration.

Now, we even have -- this witness box is on

casters and we can actually pull it out further when

we need to do so. And the podium here is on casters

and it can be turned and will be turned to the jury

for addressing the jury both in openings and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



59

closings. But we have to fiddle with things around

a little. Madam Clerk knows everything about all

this stuff. And she will get all that set up.

Yes, Mr. Genson?

MR. GENSON: I have difficulty in standing.

And the Clerk was very nicely furnished me with a

chair that I can place behind the podium.

THE COURT: Surely.

MR. GENSON: Perhaps if I do have a lapel

mike I could do some of my examination from here?

Because standing is not --

THE COURT: We'll work -- we'll definitely

work with you on that so we don't have any -- any

more inconvenience than is absolutely necessary or

disruption of the flow of the trial. I have to keep

both of those things in mind and in balance.

Now, we have these microphones and they're on

the tables. And when you're at the table, please

use the microphones, because they -- they're sound

activated, they pick up everything. And this is

important too for Madam Reporter and Madam Clerk.

Everything we need to have right into the mikes.

Okay?

MR. BASS: The second administrative

matter, housekeeping matter which Your Honor alluded

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



60

to.

Judge, much of the evidence in this case is

document based.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BASS: And as Your Honor knows, unlike

your former courtroom, which has the big screen, we

don't have one of those here. And I just wanted to

advise Your Honor that I anticipate that our -- the

assistant for Mr. Long and myself will be

communicating with Madam Clerk and the court staff

about bringing in a large screen and the placement

of where we would place that; what's best in the

courtroom, what's best viewable for the jury.

But we'll obviously confer with Madam Clerk and

court staff as to how we could do that. But I just

wanted to let Your Honor know that I -- we don't

think that it will be best to present all of this

document evidence based solely on the TV. That we

may need a larger screen to do that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BASS: And all of the evidence that we

will present, or most of it, will be through the

computer, which we, of course, will make available,

our assistant, to defense counsel for their use of

any exhibits as well.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



61

THE COURT: Very good.

All right. Well, you -- first of all, you're

gonna have to figure out what piece of equipment you

intend to bring in. Because the monitor down here

is only a what, a three-by-four, whatever it is, for

the jury.

Now, it seems to normally be adequate for the

jury, the place where it is right now at the end of

the jury box and it's just a turned a little bit.

And everybody seems to be able to see it; all of the

regular members of the jury plus the two alternates

up here. They seem to be able to -- in our trials.

And then of course we all have the monitors in

front of us.

Now, if you have a bigger piece of equipment, I

don't know where you're going to put it other than

at the same place down here at the end.

Now, the only disadvantage to our system here

is that we don't have a viewer for visitors who are

in the spectator section of the courtroom. Now,

that's the only thing that we don't have.

Now, if you can rig up your monitor down at the

end of the jury box just like this one is here, we

could move that one over to this far corner facing

the spectator section.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



62

Would that be feasible, Madam Clerk?

THE CLERK: Your Honor, I will check with

our IT staff.

THE COURT: Good. That's the safe answer.

And a great one. Get Dustin down here and I bet you

we can rig this up so that it's going to fly.

MR. BASS: However, Your Honor, our

thought -- the piece of equipment we're talking

about is just a screen, a portable screen, larger

screen. It's --

THE COURT: How big?

MR. BASS: Five-by-five, six foot by six

foot, something like that. Like a portable screen

that you pull up.

THE COURT: Oh, it's on a tripod?

MR. BASS: On a tripod, yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Then where's the

projector go?

MR. BASS: The projector is -- the Court

has -- it would be the Court system once we plug in.

THE COURT: That we have --

MR. BASS: The computer will plug in. How

we project that, we'll have to talk with staff

about.

THE COURT: All right. I'll let you work

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



63

that out, but I think we can work it out.

MR. BASS: Your Honor, the last thing I

wanted to mention is I know that both the Government

and the defense have filed witness lists.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BASS: And Your Honor -- rather than

Your Honor reading those names to the jurors, it

might be more efficient to -- for the parties to

submit just one list of witnesses with no -- no

format, just a listing of all potential witnesses so

that the Court could hand those out during venire,

if that's acceptable.

THE COURT: You're suggesting printed, in

hard copy form?

MR. BASS: Yes. We'll provide 40 or 50,

whatever the number of venire would be.

THE COURT: Any problem with that, counsel

for the defense?

MR. GENSON: I have no problem, Your Honor.

MR. CLARK: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very good. Then that sounds

very good. Are you going to list them

alphabetically?

MR. BASS: We can, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't know that I want to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



64

call attention to witnesses for the Government

versus witnesses for the defense.

MR. BASS: No, this would just be a

scrambled list of witnesses.

THE COURT: All right, that's fine. As

long as it is not --

MR. BASS: With no labels.

THE COURT: Good, good. We'll have no

trouble, that will be fine.

And I would suggest that we have those passed

out en masse, so that everybody has got them in

advance of calling -- being called to the box.

MR. BASS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BASS: We'll do that and submit that to

the Clerk before the 20th.

THE COURT: That will be swell.

Any problem with that, counsel?

MR. GENSON: No problem, Your Honor.

MR. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: What else do we have for the

good of the order basis?

MR. BASS: That's all we have.

MR. GENSON: Nothing on behalf of

Mr. Dingle, Your Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



65

MR. CLARK: Nothing on behalf of

Mrs. Dingle, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you very much,

counsel. All right.

Well, I will have the rulings on the pending

motions then very shortly. Then we ought to be able

to take right off on the 20th. Okay.


THE COURT: All right. Now, if you run

into any problems, any difficulties, any

insurmountable problems that affect the timing of

the trial and the progress of the trial, please let

me know in advance. We're a telephone call away.

So if anything comes up that's gonna cause us a

glitch, because we've got a lot of people involved

here, got a lot of witnesses, we've got a lot of

jurors, we've got a lot of folk. So I don't want

any last-minute surprises.

And if anything reeks to me that it's a

surprise that could be avoided, will not go good.

So let's don't fiddle around. We are on track, we

want to go through, we want to get the case taken

care. Okay?

Good. Any final questions, problems?

MR. BASS: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



66

THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, thank you,

very, very much. And you'll hear from us. Thank

you much.

We'll stand in recess.

(Court was recess in this case.)

I, KATHY J. SULLIVAN, CSR, RPR, CRR, Official Court

Reporter, certify that the foregoing is a correct

transcript from the record of proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

This transcripts contains the

digital signature of:

Kathy J. Sullivan, CSR, RPR, CRR

License #084-002768

dingle oct. 1, 2014, pretrial transcript

Documents

open court

crrofficial court reporter1in

crrofficial court reporter600

crrofficial court reporter4and

edward genson

n c e s

nice tohave

nice tosee