[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
<The following transcript of Craig Neidorf's trial was providedby his legal counsel, to whom we are indebted. The page numberscorrespond to transcript pagination. The document was retyped by CuD,and cross-checked against the original. A spell checker removedspelling errors, and if any of these errors appeared in the original,they too were removed.>********************************************************************IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISIONTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, .Plaintiff, . 90 CR 70..v. . Chicago, Illinois.CRAIG NEIDORF, . Tuesday,Defendant. . July 24, 1990.. 10:10 a.m... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..VOLUME ONETRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGSBEFORE THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS J. BUAAND A JURYPRESENT:For the Government: THE HONORABLE IRA H. RAPHAELSON,United States Attorney, byWILLIAM J. COOKCOLLEEN D. COUGHLINDAVID A. GLOCKNERAssistant United States Attorneys219 South Dearborn StreetFifteenth FloorChicago, Illinois 60604For Defendant: SHELDON T. ZENNERKatten, Muchin and Zavis525 West Monroe StreetSuite 1600Chicago, Illinois 60606Case Agent: TIMOTHY M. FOLEYSpecial AgentUnited States Secret ServiceCourt Reporter: Agnes M. ThorneOfficial Court Reporter- 2 -(Twelve jurors and four alternate jurors sworn to tryissues.)(Following proceedings transpired out of the presence of thejury:)MR. COOK: Judge, we have two short issues to bring up. Thegovernment, obviously, understands the court's rulings on the FirstAmendment mistake of law. We are in a bit of a quandary in terms ofthe best way to argue that or front that with the jury during ouropenings. Does the court anticipate giving an instruction as to thelaw of mistake of law with respect to this either before Mr. Zennertalks or at the conclusion of the case?THE COURT: At the conclusion of the case in written instructionsto the jury.MR. COOK: And that would be along the lines that it is not adefense to this violation mistake of law.THE COURT: That we will decide at the conference on juryinstructions.MR. COOK: All right.THE COURT: Mistake of law is no defense. I think we can agreeto that.MR. ZENNER: No.THE COURT: We can't?MR. ZENNER: Wait. We agreed that the First Amendment is nodefense. Mistake of law is a defense to a specific intent crime.MR. COOK: That's enough. That's enough for me to make my- 3 -Cook -- opening statementopening.THE COURT: Is that enough?Mr. Cook: Yes.THE COURT: Okay. What else?MR. COOK: Also, Mr. Zenner is indicating that he wants toargue about the videotapes or make some presentation about thevideotapes in his opening remarks. Those are irrelevant.THE COURT: What is the nature of those videotapes?MR. ZENNER: It is very simple. On one of the dates chargedin the indictment, the exact date, in fact, the exact date chargedin the indictment in Count Two, the date the scheme was supposed tostart, Mr. Neidorf was surreptitiously videotaped by the SecretService at SummerCon '88, the hacker convention.THE COURT: Okay, now I recall.MR. ZENNER: That is the subject of that. The fact that he is onvideotape for 15 hours on the date he is supposed to have committedthe crime in the midst of a supposed conspiracy with someof the other people who are on videotape I expect to mention,albeit very briefly, probably ten seconds worth in an opening,well, maybe thirty seconds worth in an opening, that he wasvideotaped on that day, a date charged in the indictment, and thatthe worst thing they saw him do or talk about when he was with thesepeople he is supposedly conspiring with is to drink a beer, ordera pizza. I mean, that's it. They have a the videotape in the middleof this scheme with his coschemers.- 4 -Cook -- opening statementTHE COURT: And what's the problem with that?MR. GLOCKNER: Judge, we went through all this before on thediscovery motions. And your Honor agreed with the government that(a) the fact that the defendant is videotaped not committing acrime is not relevant to whether or not on some other occasionhe did.Second, as we argued in the earlier filings with your Honor,he is not charged with holding SummerCon, with participatingin SummerCon...THE COURT: You will object to the entry in evidence of thatvideotape?MR. GLOCKNER: Absolutely.THE COURT: The objection will be sustained.MR. GLOCKNER: Thank you.THE COURT: What else?MR. COOK: Nothing else, Judge.MR. ZENNER: With respect to the videotape, I accept the court'sruling that the videotape will not be introduced, but I cancertainly refer to the fact that he was videotaped, and I can ask theagent that, and I intend to ask the agent who investigated this case:"On a date charged in the indictment..." Mr. Cook is going to showthat. He is going to say, "On July 22, 1988, my client committeda wire fraud". He's going to tell them to convict him of that.On that date, he's on videotape for fifteen hours with the SecretService looking at him, and he doesn't do anything of the sort.He's meeting with his coschemers...he's meeting with hiscoconspirators.- 5 -Cook -- opening statementTHE COURT: And you will seek to introduce the videotape toshow that he couldn't have committed the crime on that date?MR. ZENNER: All I want to be able to do is to cross-examineAgent Foley on that.THE COURT: Well, you might be able to cross the agentdepending on what his direct testimony is. Those issues...MR. ZENNER: It is a date charged in the scheme. I have a hardtime imagining how I can't cross.THE COURT: Mr. Zenner, you can make the opening statements, andif there is an objection, I will sustain it. Okay.MR. ZENNER: All right.THE COURT: What else?MR. COOK: Nothing.THE COURT: Bring in the jury please.(Jury present at 10:20 a.m.)THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.JURORS: Good morning.THE COURT: Please be seated.Mr. Cook, is the government prepared to make its openingstatement?MR. COOK: Yes, Judge.THE COURT: Very well.MR. COOK: Thank you._OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT_MR. COOK: Good Morning, ladies and gentlemen.- 6 -Cook -- opening statementJURORS: Good morning.MR. COOK: My name is Bill Cook. I'm an Assistant United StatesAttorney. I am going to be substantially aided in this prosecutionby Colleen Coughlin, who is an Assistant United States Attorney, andDave Glockner, who is also an Assistant United States Attorney. Wewill be having Special Agent Tim Foley of the United States SecretService working with us. He is sitting at the trial table with us.In 1876, the first telephone communication ever made was:"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you".That was also the very first emergency telephone call ever made.Since that time, the telephone company has, obviously, sophisticatedtheir operation to a large degree so that where we stand today in1990, we are the beneficiaries of what is known as the Enhanced 911system. That system is a life line for every person certainly in theSouthern Bell region of the United States. It's taken for granted.It is an extensively developed system. You're going to hear a greatdeal of information about the development of that system and thearchitecture that that system is based upon. It is built oncomputers from bottom to top.In 1988, a road map to that computer system, that lifeline, was stolen from a computer in Atlanta, Georgia, by a manby the name of Robert Riggs, who is a member of an organizationknown as the Legion of Doom.That document, with its proprietary markings, its warnings- 7 -Cook -- opening statementon it, and the clear indications that it was the property ofBellSouth, was transferred electronically to Mr. Craig Neidorf, thedefendant here, seated right here.Mr. Riggs is a hacker, a person that breaks intocomputers. He answers to no one but his own ability to get intothose computers.We anticipate that the evidence will show that in Februaryof 1989, Mr. Neidorf published that extensive road map to thelife line of the entire hacker community so far as he was able todetermine it and define it.In many respects, I submit to you that this is not goingto be a, "Whodunit", or "What was done?".There are two sets of violations charged in the indictment.Very briefly, they are the interstate transportation of stolenproperty and what is referred to in legal jargon as a wire fraud.With respect to the interstate transportation of stolenproperty, the evidence will show that Mr. Neidorf admitted ... [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]