- 167 -
and (B). Approximately 1 year later, in May 1996, shortly before
commencement of the evidentiary hearing, the indictment was
dismissed. Mr. Izen testified at the commencement of the
evidentiary hearing that the indictment had been a distraction
that made it difficult for him to prepare for the evidentiary
hearing, but that he had participated in discovery and was ready
to go forward and participate in the evidentiary hearing on
behalf of the test case petitioners.
E. Pretrial Conference (July 1995)
On July 17, 1995, the Court held a pretrial conference on
the record for the purpose of addressing various issues,
including the scheduling of the evidentiary hearing,
identification of the parties who would participate in the
evidentiary hearing, and scheduling of discovery. The Court also
commented at the conference that the Thompson and Cravens
settlements appeared to share some characteristics with so-called
Mary Carter agreements.
Respondent was represented at the conference by Mr. O'Neill
and Mr. Dombrowski. During the conference, Mr. O'Neill
questioned whether Mr. Izen should be disqualified as counsel
because he would probably be called as a witness at the
evidentiary hearing. During the conference, the Court questioned
whether Mr. Dombrowski should represent respondent at the
Page: Previous 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011