Randall Mark Jacobson - Page 14

                                                 - 14 -                                                    
                  the fact that the accounts for each of the three years, 1993,                            
                  1994 and 1995, contain the same March 11, 1997 date, that the                            
                  date on the transcript is merely a date for respondent’s                                 
                  internal use, such as a disposal code or for control purposes                            
                  (Tr. 36, lines 5-6 and 9-13).                                                            
            The trial transcript shows that, immediately after testifying that                             
            the March 11, 1997, date appears “maybe” for respondent’s internal                             
            use (TR. 36, Lines 5-6), Hartz stated, “I have no--I really can’t                              
            give you a definitive answer because I have not worked there, so I                             
            don’t know.”  (Emphasis added.)  (TR. 36, lines 6-8.)  Also,                                   
            immediately after testifying that the March 11, 1997, date “may”                               
            have been done for control purposes (TR. 36, lines 9-13), Hartz                                
            stated:  “but that’s strictly, you know, speculation on my part.”                              
            (Emphasis added.)  (TR. 36, lines 13-14.)  These were Hartz’                                   
            responses to questions on redirect examination by respondent’s                                 
            counsel, who authored the brief.  Evidently, respondent’s counsel                              
            was not happy with the full responses his witness gave at trial; he                            
            apparently decided to emulate Procrustes by cutting off that part                              
            of Hartz’ testimony that did not fit with the point respondent’s                               
            counsel wanted to make.                                                                        
                  This redirect examination came immediately after the following                           
                         Q  [Petitioner] Okay.  And one other question.  On 16-,                           
                  17- and 18-J, there is something called “return received                                 
                         A  [Hartz] Uh-huh.                                                                
                         Q  --March 11, 1997.”                                                             
                         A  Yes.                                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011