Snipes is in the hands of the jury II

[Bud Dickman]

Judge in Snipes trial answers jury's question

STAR-BANNERR
Jurors in the Wesley Snipes tax evasion trial sent a message to Senior U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges' asking that he "further clarify the definition 'conspiracy.'"

The jury foreman included a section of the jury instructions with passages highlighted and marked in red. Hodges responded with the following, over defense objections:

Members of the Jury,

it is difficult to explain in different words the passages of the instructions you highlighted in your message. If you can be more specific about your own area of doubt or uncertainty, I might be able to respond in a more helpful way. In the meantime, perhaps the following will be of some assistance.

The critical core of the instructions on the conspiracy charge (Count One) consists of the enumerated things that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, commonly called the "essential elements of the offense." Those are the single spaced paragraphs designated First, Second, Third and Fourth.

The passages you highlighted are intended to help you understand and apply those specific requirements of proof. Let me suggest, therefore, that you first concentrate one by one upon those essential elements of the conspiracy charge while looking to t he remaining instructions, including those you highlighted, to help in your interpretation and application of each essential element to the facts as you find them from the evidence.

Wm. Terrell Hodges

Hodges sent the message to the jury under objection from Snipes' legal team. Lead counsel Robert Bernhoft sought a message saying "I have received your note. You are hereby instructed to follow the instructions as I have given them to you."

[grixit]

Not helpful.

[Quixote]

Not helpful.

I assume you are referring to Bernhoft's suggestion to leave the jury confused.

Hodges' response was the best he could do. He didn't understand the jury's question. Rather than guessing at what they meant and confusing them further with a response that did not answer their question, he asked them to read his instructions again, concentrate on the main points and, if still confused, clarify their question.

[Demosthenes]

Frankly, I think it is a little ridiculous for people who didn't attend the trial, and have no knowledge as to what has been entered into the evidence other than what the media has told them, to preach to me about the facts.

Unlike you, Bill, I've been to trial every minute of every day so far and have seen 100% of the what the jury has seen. You gonna' throw some insults my way too?

Are you just blowing off steam, or do I really need to spend the time to debunk the nonsense you're posting here?

[Demosthenes]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

[The Observer]

Frankly, I think it is a little ridiculous for people who didn't attend the trial, and have no knowledge as to what has been entered into the evidence other than what the media has told them, to preach to me about the facts.

Unlike you, Bill, I've been to trial every minute of every day so far and have seen 100% of the what the jury has seen. You gonna' throw some insults my way too?

Are you just blowing off steam, or do I really need to spend the time to debunk the nonsense you're posting here?

Up to this point, I have held back commenting on much of Mr. Branscum's previous commentary on the trial specifically because there was no evidence posted that could contradict what he has been claiming. So I am appreciative that someone with impeccable honesty and the qualifications of being a perfect attendee (like Demo) has finally reported in. So here goes:

(1) I think it is ironic, Mr. Branscum, for a person whom I heretofore admired for taking a strong position against the hucksters and conmen out there, that you should be involved with the likes of Mr. Snipes, given the evidence that has come out of this trial. I do realize that you have a living to make and it is entirely in the realm of possibility that you were engaged to investigate and pursue the possible avenues that might show Mr. Snipes was in some way defrauded by the likes of Kahn and Rosile. It also entirely possible that you ethically pursued the investigation in the interest of your client and to secure whatever evidence would benefit him at his trial. However, what I find distasteful is your current posturing that somehow you must champion Mr. Snipes and defend positions that are not defensible by any decent standards - especially on this board where there is a host of talent that isn't going to fall for such posturing. Your task was to find evidence and deliver it to the defense team for their use. But now you have suddenly have turned yourself into a cheerleader for Mr. Snipes; I don't find that to be a proper role for a trained, professional and experienced investigator as yourself.

I don't know what justification you are basing your actions ons and whether it is the fact that you are trying to maximize the windfall in listing Mr. Snipes as one of your success stories or you are just overcome by being involved in a celebrity trial. But I think you have damaged the most valuable commodity that you built your business on: your reputation.

(2) My other complaint is that you have pointed out to a number of people about the fallacy of trying to comment on evidence presented (or not) at a trial which they haven't attended. It's a valid observation and I think you were correct in making that observation. But given Demo's revelation above, does it strike you that perhaps you were being hypocritical and somewhat intellectually dishonest for not admitting that your own view/opinion of the trial was also fallacious since you failed to attend the trial in its entirety? Kettle:pot, mote in your eye, etc.?

[LPC]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

And, from another thread:

Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts.

Branscum later admitted that the "attorney with impeccable credentials" is Ray Pope.

Have Demo and Branscum been watching different trials?

[LPC]

Hodges responded with the following, over defense objections:

Members of the Jury,

it is difficult to explain in different words the passages of the instructions you highlighted in your message. If you can be more specific about your own area of doubt or uncertainty, I might be able to respond in a more helpful way. In the meantime, perhaps the following will be of some assistance.

The critical core of the instructions on the conspiracy charge (Count One) consists of the enumerated things that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, commonly called the "essential elements of the offense." Those are the single spaced paragraphs designated First, Second, Third and Fourth.

The passages you highlighted are intended to help you understand and apply those specific requirements of proof. Let me suggest, therefore, that you first concentrate one by one upon those essential elements of the conspiracy charge while looking to t he remaining instructions, including those you highlighted, to help in your interpretation and application of each essential element to the facts as you find them from the evidence.

Wm. Terrell Hodges

Hodges sent the message to the jury under objection from Snipes' legal team. Lead counsel Robert Bernhoft sought a message saying "I have received your note. You are hereby instructed to follow the instructions as I have given them to you."

I'm not sure I understand how what Hodges wrote is materially different from what Bernhoft wrote.

If anything, the judge's message is more favorable to the defense than what Bernhoft suggested, because it emphasized that each element of the conspiracy count must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only advantage I see to Berhoft's suggested message is that it might annoy the jurors enough for them to turn anti-government and return a non guilty verdict just to vent their collective spleens.

[The Observer]

If Mr. Branscum is being well compensated and the checks are not bouncing, he has a vested interest in defending his client. Mercenary? Perhaps. But, since some of my ancestors were mercenaries and banned from being mercenaries by treaty, I understand.

Mr. Branscum is a private investigator. He would only have a vested interest in protecting his client's privacy and securing evidence that would tend to show his client in a favorable light and proving other evidence against his client as suspect, not advocating for him in a public forum as though he were his defense attorney - which he isn't. The amount of compensation is immaterial; I could could care less what Mr. Snipes is paying for Branscum's services - that is a private matter between the two parties.

But even more to the point, it appears Mr. Branscum has a problem even getting some material facts correct while doing the aforementioned grandstanding. And that causes a question in my mind about his abilities and motivation.

[wserra]

I'm not sure I understand how what Hodges wrote is materially different from what Bernhoft wrote.

To you or me, Dan, it probably wouldn't be. But, if Hodges gave the standard conspiracy charge, the language is fairly clear. He is not sure - understandably so - what the jury's problem in understanding it may be. Hence his "it is difficult to explain in different words the passages of the instructions you highlighted in your message". But he has to try to explain, and it seems to me that his recharge is pretty good.

The only advantage I see to Berhoft's suggested message is that it might annoy the jurors enough for them to turn anti-government and return a non guilty verdict just to vent their collective spleens.

The other consideration is that Bernhoft is probably pretty happy with the jury taking this long, and doesn't really want to clear what may be a logjam. So he's not going to be helpful, even though he knows that the judge can't just say what Bernhoft wants. The problem with this approach is that any good lawyer wants his opinions to have some sway with the court, and judges tend not to listen to lawyers who do not try to help.

[wserra]

Demo - was there a hearing this morning about some sort of juror conduct?

[Bill E. Branscum]

Frankly, I think it is a little ridiculous for people who didn't attend the trial, and have no knowledge as to what has been entered into the evidence other than what the media has told them, to preach to me about the facts.

Unlike you, Bill, I've been to trial every minute of every day so far and have seen 100% of the what the jury has seen. You gonna' throw some insults my way too?

Are you just blowing off steam, or do I really need to spend the time to debunk the nonsense you're posting here?

I really think you should just say whatever you came to say JJ - just be aware, if you want to accuse me of spreading nonsense, I have the transcripts from every day, as well as every exhibit.

So let's not play silly games - if you think I have misstated the facts, tell me what you think was said and let's see. If you think I have misrepresented the evidence, tell me which document and we can look at it.

Fire away JJ

[Bill E. Branscum]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

JJ, love you though I do, don't talk trash, and don't even think about telling me what the evidence was. Although I missed a little bit of the trial testimony putting together potential witnesses, and lining up potential evidence, I am quite sure I know this case better than you do.

To start with, try government Exhibit 87-4, Bates Stamp SW096-03406, the Power of Attorney by Wesley Snipes to Ray Pope.

[Demosthenes]

Demo - was there a hearing this morning about some sort of juror conduct?

The hearing this morning was regarding a question over the definition of the word "conspiracy." Another meeting may have taken place in judge's chambers later in the day but it is not on the daily Minute Entry.

[Bill E. Branscum]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

Pope is mentioned 30 times in the trial transcripts JJ. Here's a quote and another Exhibit.

Q Okay. Directing your attention to Government's Exhibit
87-7, what is this document?
A This is a letter from Ray Pope to the IRS.
Q Okay. And what's the date of it?
A June 29th of 2000.
Q And who is the person named here?
A Ray Pope.
Q I'm sorry. Who is the person within the Internal Revenue
Service named as the addressee?
A Chief Loretta Keegan.
Q Okay. Taking a look back on 87-6, is that the person who
signed the warning letter?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And this, in the upper right-hand corner there, it
gives a subject. What's the subject?
A Implied notice civil penalty.
Q And what years?
A 1996.
Q Okay. And please read the first paragraph of this letter.
A "Dear Director: I have power-of-attorney for Wesley T.
Snipes and am authorized to resolve the instant matter on
behalf of our client with the IRS. I have reviewed my
client's file and have determined that your presentment has
been issued in error due to a lack of authority by the IRS for
its application and lack of authority of collection when


I don't recall ever having ocasion to argue with you before JJ, but this is what I do for a living, and I resent your effort to make me look like a chump.

Do you recall our discussion at the beginning of this trial -- tell me again about the quick conviction on all counts.

[LPC]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

Pope is mentioned 30 times in the trial transcripts JJ. Here's a quote and another Exhibit.

Q Okay. Directing your attention to Government's Exhibit
87-7, what is this document?
A This is a letter from Ray Pope to the IRS.
Q Okay. And what's the date of it?
A June 29th of 2000.
Q And who is the person named here?
A Ray Pope.
Q I'm sorry. Who is the person within the Internal Revenue
Service named as the addressee?
A Chief Loretta Keegan.
Q Okay. Taking a look back on 87-6, is that the person who
signed the warning letter?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And this, in the upper right-hand corner there, it
gives a subject. What's the subject?
A Implied notice civil penalty.
Q And what years?
A 1996.
Q Okay. And please read the first paragraph of this letter.
A "Dear Director: I have power-of-attorney for Wesley T.
Snipes and am authorized to resolve the instant matter on
behalf of our client with the IRS. I have reviewed my
client's file and have determined that your presentment has
been issued in error due to a lack of authority by the IRS for
its application and lack of authority of collection when

Demo didn't say that Ray Pope's name wasn't mentioned, she said that there was no evidence that Snipes ever met or talked with Pope.

And there's nothing in the above transcript that says that Snipes ever met or talked with Pope.

(A power-of-attorney is a document. You can have a power-of-attorney from someone without ever meeting with them or talking with them.)

[Demosthenes]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

JJ, love you though I do, don't talk trash, and don't even think about telling me what the evidence was. Although I missed a little bit of the trial testimony putting together potential witnesses, and lining up potential evidence, I am quite sure I know this case better than you do.

To start with, try government Exhibit 87-4, Bates Stamp SW096-03406, the Power of Attorney by Wesley Snipes to Ray Pope.

You aren't reading what I'm writing, Bill, and you haven't in several days. Seriously, I like you and don't want to fight with you but you need some sleep and you need to calm down. I understand that you care for your client a great deal but your deep and long term involvement in the case is clouding your judgment. This is a public forum, read by a lot of people ad press and I think you're posting some stuff you're going to regret. I strongly recommend that you sit down and breathe.

[Bill E. Branscum]

BTW, there's no evidence in front of the jury that Snipes ever met or talked with Ray Pope (aka, the guy with the great credentials), just as there no evidence in the trial that even after Pope was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 97 months in federal prison, Snipes continued to play tp games.

JJ, love you though I do, don't talk trash, and don't even think about telling me what the evidence was. Although I missed a little bit of the trial testimony putting together potential witnesses, and lining up potential evidence, I am quite sure I know this case better than you do.

To start with, try government Exhibit 87-4, Bates Stamp SW096-03406, the Power of Attorney by Wesley Snipes to Ray Pope.

You aren't reading what I'm writing, Bill, and you haven't in several days. Seriously, I like you and don't want to fight with you but you need some sleep and you need to calm down. I understand that you care for your client a great deal but your deep and long term involvement in the case is clouding your judgment. This is a public forum, read by a lot of people ad press and I think you're posting some stuff you're going to regret. I strongly recommend that you sit down and breathe.

I'm just trying to look out for the best interests of Quatloos - we do have a reputation to uphold as a place to find out what's really going on.

As things were before I started posting, an independent observer would have seen nothing but the instant conviction on all counts rhetoric that has already proven to be wasted bandwidth.

[Demosthenes]

What people who are reading Quatloos have seen are people making humorous comments and someone on the defense team out of control with unprofessional insults.

This is a high profile case. As a member of the defense team you (and Robert Raymond) should be more careful in your rants.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Demo didn't say that Ray Pope's name wasn't mentioned, she said that there was no evidence that Snipes ever met or talked with Pope.

And there's nothing in the above transcript that says that Snipes ever met or talked with Pope.

(A power-of-attorney is a document. You can have a power-of-attorney from someone without ever meeting with them or talking with them.)

I don't know how you do business, but I personally have never had a Client I never met, or talked to - and I have never had a case where an attorney represented someone they never met or talked to either.

You guys can play all the semantics games you like - I made my point. The bottom line is, there is ample evidence before the jury for them to conclude that Snipes was at one time relying upon Attorney Ray Pope, and that was the point that JJ chose to take issue with.

The jury is still out - we'll know what they say soon enough.