- 191 -
1988-123; see also United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 452-
453 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Elwell, 984 F.2d 1289, 1293-
1294 (1st Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, the Court directed
Mr. Sticht to file a report with the Court identifying any of his
witnesses who may have declined to testify at the evidentiary
hearing, including a brief summary of the testimony that such
witnesses were expected to provide, with a view to arriving at an
agreement among the parties to stipulate such testimony or, if
that should not be possible, to having a further hearing to
receive such testimony. The Court further directed the parties
to cooperate in the elimination of the various objections
associated with the fourth and fifth supplemental stipulations of
facts.
Mr. Sticht subsequently filed a report with the Court
identifying Mr. Kersting, Richard B. Rogers (Mr. Rogers), and
JoAnne Rinaldi (Ms. Rinaldi) as persons who were scheduled to,
but did not, testify at the evidentiary hearing and providing a
summary of the testimony expected from each witness. At
approximately the same time, respondent filed a response with the
Court stating that the parties were unable to eliminate many of
the objections raised with respect to the documents attached to
the parties' fourth and fifth supplemental stipulations of facts.
With a view to completing the record in these cases, the
Court ordered a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of
receiving the testimony of Mr. Kersting and Ms. Rinaldi. It was
hoped that Mr. Kersting's testimony would eliminate some or all
Page: Previous 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011