United States v. Thomas CR 87-0231

160

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN IT?

WILLIAM THOMAS: OK.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: COULD YOU READ THE WORDS IN THE CIRCLED PORTION THERE?

A: CERTAINLY. THE REGULATIONS BANNING THE USE OF PARKS FOR LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS ARE DESIGNED NOT TO STIFLE FIRST AMENDMENT EXPRESSION, BUT TO PROTECT UNDESIGNATED PARKS FROM ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT SUITED AND THE IMPACT OF WHICH THEY CANNOT SUSTAIN. SHORT-TIME CASUAL SLEEPING WHICH DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE CONTEXT OF USING THE PARK FOR LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THESE REGULATIONS.

Q: LET ME ASK, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE COURT PROCESS THAT GREW OUT OF THESE REGULATIONS?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

THE LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THESE REGULATIONS?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OBJECTION SUSTAINED.

WILLIAM THOMAS: I'M SORRY. COULD I ASK THE GROUND?

THE COURT: NO. NEXT QUESTION. IT'S IMMATERIAL, THAT'S WHY.

160

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: ISN'T IT A FACT, MR. ROBBINS, THAT THE PARK SERVICE PRESENTED THAT "ONE'S PARTICIPATION IN A DEMONSTRATION

A SLEEPER BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE CAMPING WHEN IT IS DONE WITHIN ANY TEMPORARY STRUCTURE ERECTED AS PART OF THE DEMONSTRATION"?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT PRECISE LANGUAGE.

Q: WELL, ASSUMING THAT THE PARK SERVICE MADE THAT REPRESENTATION I WOULD THAT -- HAS THERE BEEN ANY SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATIONS TO CHANGE THAT INTERPRETATION OF WHEN ONE'S PARTICIPATION IN A DEMONSTRATION AS A SLEEPER BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE CAMPING?

A: I'M AFRAID I MISSED WHAT YOU READ.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOU READING?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I AM READING FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE V. WATT, 703 F.2D, PAGE 589, WHERE IT SAYS THAT ACCORDING TO THE PARK SERVICE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW REGULATIONS, AND THAT REFERS TO THE SPECIFIC REGULATION THAT MR. ROBBINS HAS, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 4, ACCORDING TO THE PARK SERVICE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW REGULATIONS, ONE'S PARTICIPATION IN A DEMONSTRATION AS A SLEEPER BECOMES IMPERMISSIBLE CAMPING WHEN IT IS DONE WITHIN ANY TEMPORARY STRUCTURE ERECTED AS PART OF THE DEMONSTRATION.

THE COURT: WELL, SO WHAT? THAT'S ONE INSTANCE

161

WHEN IT MAY BE --

WILLIAM THOMAS: THIS IS THE REPRESENTATION. IT ALSO SAYS THAT THE ONLY APPARENT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SLEEPING AND THE VETERANS' DEMONSTRATION AND THE SLEEPING PROPOSED BY CCNV IS THAT THE VETERANS SLEPT ON THE GROUND WITHOUT ANY SHELTER.

THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T SEE WHAT RELEVANCE THIS HAS. YOU ARE QUOTING FROM ISOLATED BITS AND PIECES OF THAT OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

WILLIAM THOMAS: i AM GOING TO TRY AND CONVINCE THE COURT THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE MYSELF TO THIS REGULATION AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY UNDER- STANDING --

THE COURT: YOU ARE NOT HELPING THE COURT BY QUOTING BITS AND PIECES FROM AN OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND I ASKING THE WITNESS HIS OPINION ON THOSE BITS AND PIECES.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION TO THE PENDING QUESTION. ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION. LET'S MOVE ON.

WILLIAM THOMAS: THIS IS BACK TO DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 9.

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: SPECIFICALLY, ON THE ISSUE OF SLEEPING, COULD YOU READ FROM YOUR LETTER, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 9, SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU SAID WITH REFERENCE 10 THE LENGTH OF SLEEPING?

A: THIS LETTER READS -- A PORTION OF THE LETTER READS:

162

HOWEVER, ONCE CASUAL SLEEPING BECOME OVERNIGHT SLEEPING OR SLEEPING FOR LARGE PORTIONS OF THE NIGHT OR DAY OR IS COUPLED WITH OTHER INDICIA OF CAMPING, THEN THAT CONDUCT VIOLATES THE CAMPING REGULATIONS.

Q: NOW, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. ABBEY?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

WILLIAM THOMAS: JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

MR. HURLEY: I HAVE JUST A FEW SHORT QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. HURLEY:

Q: MR. ROBBINS, JUST BRIEFLY, TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE TESTIMONY YOU HAVE GIVEN DURING THE EXAMINATION BY MR. THOMAS, A VIGILER IS ALLOWED TO HAVE A LIMITED QUANTITY OF LITERATURE IN THE PARK?

A: YES.

Q: AND LIMITED QUANTITIES OF WRITING MATERIAL?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT IS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THOSE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND IF IT IS NOT PROHIBITED, THEN IT WOULD BE PERMITTED.

Q: OK. RAINWEAR OR UMBRELLA, IF NEEDED BECAUSE OF INCLEMENT WEATHER?

163

A: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: THERMOSES CONTAINING COFFEE?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE PERMIT CONDITION WITH THE PLURAL OF THERMOSES. I BELIEVE WE WOULD PERMIT A THERMOS AND A SACK LUNCH. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WORDING OF THAT. I JUST DON'T RECALL.

Q: BUT SEEING THE LETTER YOU WROTE TO CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO WOULD REFRESH YOUR MEMORY REGARDING THAT?

WHAT YOU ADVISED THE VIGILERS WAS PROPER AND IMPROPER REGARDING QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED?

A: THAT REGULATION IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. THE IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING ME I ASSUMED YOU MEANT TODAY.

Q: ACTUALLY, I WAS MEANING IN TERMS FROM MARCH 22 TO MARCH 29, THAT RELEVANT PERIOD.

A: THAT REGULATION ADDRESSED IN THE CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO LETTER WAS NOT IN EFFECT DURING THAT PERIOD.

Q: OK. BUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REGULATION THAT IS IN EFFECT, OR WAS IN EFFECT DURING THAT PERIOD WOULD ALLOW FOR, LET'S SAY, A THERMOS CONTAINING COFFEE?

A: YES.

Q: AND OTHER FOOD ITEMS THAT WOULD BE CONSUMED WITHIN A 24-HOUR PERIOD?

A: BY THE ONE PERSON, GENERALLY THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED.

Q: NOW, DURING THAT PERIOD, MARCH 22 TO MARCH 29,

164

IT WASN'T IMPERMISSIBLE TO HAVE A 24-HOUR VIGIL; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND A VIGILER COULD MAINTAIN THAT VIGIL FOR 365 DAYS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YOU ARE TALKING A SINGLE-PERSON VIGILER?

Q: RIGHT, A SINGLE VIGILER.

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD CONCEIVABLY BE POSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE PERSON TO CONDUCT k VIGIL FOR 365 DAYS WITHOUT USING THE PARK AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION.

Q: ASSUMING THE PERSON ONLY HAD TO ENGAGE IN INTERMITTENT SLEEP DURING THE COURSE OF THE 24-HOUR PERIOD, PERHAPS A COUPLE HOURS A NIGHT, WOULD THAT RUN AFOUL OF THE ANTI- CAMPING REGULATION?

A: I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE HYPOTHETICAL YOU ARE WEAVING, BUT --

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, I JUST WANT TO CO TO WHETHER OR NOT IF A PERSON IS MAINTAINING A 24-HOUR VIGIL DURING THE COURSE OF THAT 24 HOURS THEY HAPPEN TO FALL ASLEEP MAYBE AN HOUR HERE, AN HOUR THERE, WOULD THAT CONSTITUTE CAMPING IN TERMS OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REGULATION?

ASSUMING THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY PROBLEMS WITH STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.

A: OR ANY OTHER INDICIA. IT'S DIFFICULT, BECAUSE I AM STILL -- I GUESS IN MY MIND -- SEEING WHAT THE

165

HYPOTHETICAL OF 365 DAYS A YEAR, ONE PERSON, YOU KNOW, STAYING IN THAT PARK AND TO ME THAT MEANS THAT PERSON IS USING IT AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW LITTLE OR GREAT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY SLEEP.

Q: OK. LET'S JUST LOOK AT A ONE-WEEK PERIOD. THEN, LET'S SAY MARCH 22-MARCH 29. IF A PERSON ENGAGED IN INTERMITTENT SLEEP, MAYBE AN HOUR OR TWO AN EVENING WHILE MAINTAINING A 24-HOUR VlGlL WlTHIN THAT ONE-WEEK PERIOD, WOULD THAT RUN AFOUL OF THE ANTI-CAMPING REGULATION?

THE COURT: LET'S SEE IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU ARE ASKING THE WITNESS TO ASSUME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD STAY IN LAFAYETTE PARK FOR A WEEK?

MR. HURLEY: RIGHT, DURING THE COURSE OF THE WEEK.

THE COURT: DURING THE COURSE OF THE WEEK, AND WOULD STAY THERE THE ENTIRE 24-HOUR PERIOD OF EACH DAY DURING THAT WEEK MAINTAINING THIS VIGIL?

MR. HURLEY: RIGHT.

THE COURT: AND WOULD SLEEP OFF AND ON DURING THIS WEEK PERIOD, WOULD HE BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION?

IS THAT THE QUESTION?

MR. HURLEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS LIKELY THAT, YES, DURING A FULL-WEEK PERIOD THAT THAT WOULD BE USING THE PARK FOR

167

A LIVING ACCOMMODATION FOR A FULL WEEK. I MEAN YOU CAN BRING IT ON DOWN 10 A ONE-DAY PERIOD. IT DEPENDS -- YOU KNOW, I HAVE TROUBLE VISUALIZING THE FACT SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE FOR A WEEK PERIOD OR A YEAR PERIOD, YOU KNOW, CERTAlNLY FOR ONE OR TWO DAYS THAT'S EASY TO VISUALIZE AND IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE REGULATIONS WITH NO INDICIA OF CAMPING, BUT FOR A FULL WEEK OR A FULL YEAR OF STAYING IN LAFAYETTE PARK STRAINS MY VISION OF USING THE PARK AS A LIVING ACCOMMODATION.

BY MR. HURLEY:

Q: I GUESS WHAT I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND, 24-HOUR VIGILS ARE NOT IMPERMISSIBLE AND ASSUMING THAT A PERSON HAD THE ENDURANCE AND COULD GO FOR A FULL WEEK WITH ONLY INTERMITTENT SLEEP, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE REGULATION WOULD BE THAT WOULDN'T BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION.

IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT? ASSUMING NO OTHER --

A: ASSUMING THAT NONE OF THE OTHER INDICIA OF CAMPING ONESELF CHANGING CLOTHES, STORING CLOTHES, THAT SORT OF THING, CERTAINLY, YES. HYPOTHETICALLY, YES, THAT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CAMPING REGULATION.

Q: AND DURING THAT PERIOD THEY COULD HAVE, LET'S SAY, CLOTHING ITEMS THAT THEY WOULD EXPECT TO WEAR IN ANY PARTICULAR 24-HOUR PERIOD?

A: NO, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO STORE EXTRA CLOTHES

167

IN THE PARK.

Q: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT STORING EXTRA CLOTHES. LET'S SAY IF THEY ANTICIPATE BEING IN THE PARK OVERNIGHT, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A COAT, LET'S SAY, DURING THAT THAT THEY EXPECTED TO WEAR THAT EVENING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE WEATHER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IF WEATHER CONDITIONS WERE SUCH THAT IT WAS SEVERELY COLD OR FROST OR, LET'S SAY, MAYBE THREAT OF SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS, THEY COULD HAVE A PIECE OF PLASTIC THEY NEEDED TO SHIELD THEM FROM THE ELEMENTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: PLASTIC EQUIVALENT TO A RAINCOAT TYPE OF THING? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

Q: CORRECT.

A: YES.

MR. HURLEY: THE COURT'S INDULGENCE.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

BY MR. MINA:

Q: MR. ROBBINS, YOUR ADVISORY OPINIONS ON THESE REGULATIONS DO NOT CARRY THE FORCE OF LAW; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: MR. ROBBINS, DID THE PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR TESTIMONY ALLOW A PERSON TO HAVE A BICYCLE IN LAFAYETTE PARK, TO STORE A BICYCLE IN LAFAYETTE PARK?

A: NO. BICYCLES MAY NOT BE STORED IN LAFAYETTE PARK.

168

Q: AS LONG AS YOU ARE ANSWERING HYPOTHETICALS, MR. ROBBINS, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SOMEONE WHO IS SOUND ASLEEP UNDER A PLASTIC TARP OR PIECE OF PLASTIC IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, COVERED WITH SLEEPING MATERIALS AND ON TOP OF BEDDING MATERIALS COULD VERY WELL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT SOMEONE CAN BE IN TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATION AND STILL BE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CAMPING REGULATION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. MINA: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR

WILLIAM THOMAS: I HAVE A FEW FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: YOU ARE LIMITED IN YOUR CROSS BY WHAT YOUR OPPONENT BROUGHT OUT ON HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION.

WILLIAM THOMAS: THERE WAS ONE ISSUE THAT I WAS STARTING TO BRING UP ON MY DIRECT AND I SORT OF GOT A LITTLE SIDETRACKED FROM THE QUESTION OF SLEEPING

AND NOW IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP AGAIN ABOUT A CONTINUOUS VIGIL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, ASK YOUR QUESTION.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: THE INTENT OF THE REGULATION IS TO PROTECT THE PARK FROM IMPACTS THAT IT CAN'T SUSTAIN. ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

170
171

THAT IN THE FASHION YOU HAVE DESCRIBED.

Q: WELL, ASSUME -- ASSUMING THAT SOMEONE DOESN'T SLEEP FOR LONGER THAN TWO OR THREE HOURS OVER THE COURSE OF MAYBE TWICE A DAY, SAY, THAT WOULD BE PROTECTED, WOULDN'T IT?

A: THE PROHIBITION IS NOT TO SLEEP, THE PROHIBITION IS USING THE PARK FOR A LIVING ACCOMMODATION. IF THE PERSON FOR A FULL YEAR NEVER LEAVES THE PARK, THEN, IN MY OPINION, THEY ARE LIVING IN THE PARK.

Q: YES, THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF A PERSON, FOR EXAMPLE, CHANGES THEIR CLOTHES OUTSIDE OF THE PARK, GOES TO THE BATHROOM OUT OF THE PARK, TAKES A SHOWER OUT OF THE PARK, STORES THEIR EXTRA CLOTHES OUT OF THE PARK, WASHES THEIR CLOTHES OUT OF THE PARK, TAKES THEIR SHOWERS OUT OF THE PARK, PREPARES THEIR FOOD OUT OF THE PARK, AND YET MAINTAINS A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY, HAVING TO GO OUT OF THE PARK TO PERFORM ALL OF THESE OTHER FUNCTIONS, MAINTAINS k CONTINUOUS PRESENCE BY ONLY ENGAGING IN THE INTERMITTENT SLEEP, WOULD THAT BE MORE CONCEIVABLE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, GIVEN THOSE SITUATIONS, WOULD THAT BE PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

MR. MINA: OBJECTION.

171

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: AS A DEMONSTRATION?

THE COURT: WOULD THAT BE A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS OR --

BY DEFENDANT WILLIAM THOMAS:

Q: WOULD THAT BE A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION?

A: UNDER THE HYPOTHETiCAL YOU DESCRIBE, NO.

Q: IS THERE ANY REGULATION AGAINST HAVING A BICYCLE IN THE PARK?

A: STORING OF ITEMS OF STRUCTURES -- THERE IS A STRUCTURE REGULATION IN LAFAYETTE PARK WHERE BICYCLES ARE ADDRESSED

Q:WE AREN'T CONCERNED WITH THE STORAGE REGULATION AT This POINT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY REGULATION. IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE A BICYCLE IN THE PARK?

A: NOT AS LONG AS IT IS ATTENDED NOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LAFAYETTE PARK, BECAUSE LAFAYETTE PARK HAS SPECIAL REGULATIONS REGARDING STRUCTURES AND BICYCLES ARE ADDRESSED IN THAT STRUCTURES REGULATION.

Q: SO IF SOMEONE IS WITHIN THREE FEET OF A BICYCLE, SAY, A BICYCLE WOULD REASONABLY BE ATTENDED AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL OR A VIOLATION?

A: IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE OUR REGULATIONS REGARDING STRUCTURES.

Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE HYPOTHETICAL OF

172
174

WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE WAS CAMPING?

THE COURT: WAS WHAT? CAMPING?

MR. HURLEY: YES.

THE WITNESS: IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, YES.

BY MR. HURLEY:

Q:WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESENT, IN YOUR OPINION?

A: THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY. I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. A TENT, WITH COOKING FIRES AND BEDDING AND MATERIALS AND FOODSTUFFS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT UNDER AN EXTREME EXAMPLE TYPE OF THING.

MR. HURLEY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER?

MR. MINA: NO, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAI'S ALL.

MR. MINA: MAY THIS WITNESS BE EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

(WITNESS EXCUSED.)

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

THIS RECORD IS CERTIFIED BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO BE THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED EXCERPT FROM TRIAL.

(signed) Gloria H. Horning
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

174

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, IT'S 4 O'CLOCK. THAT'S AS LONG AS I AM GOING THIS EVENING.

HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU HAVE, MR. THOMAS, BY WAY OF PROOF?

WILLIAM THOMAS: I THINK WE HAVE ONLY THREE MORE WITNESS, MYSELF AND ELLEN AND WINIFRED GALLANT.

I THINK THAT MY TESTIMONY AND ELLEN'S TESTIMONY MIGHT RUN A TOTAL OF TWO HOURS OR SO, BUT I THINK THAT IF WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HEAR MS. GALLANT TODAY?

THE COURT: NOT TODAY. I AM THROUGH AT 4 O'CLOCK. I'VE HAD ENOUGH.

WILLIAM THOMAS: OK.

MR. HURLEY: YOUR HONOR, WHAT TIME DO WE START TOMORROW?

THE COURT: I HAVE A MATTER AT 9 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.

MR. MINA: YOUR HONOR,I HAVE A MOTIONS HEARING TOMORROW MORNING IN FRONT OF JUDGE JACKSON.

THE COURT: WELL, SEND WORD UP THERE YOU ARE IN TRIAL

MR. MINA: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU WILL HAVE TO TELL JUDGE JACKSON YOU ARE IN TRIAL.

WHAT KIND OF MOTION?

MR. MINA: OTHER CRIMES MOTION.

THE COURT: HOW LONG IS IT LIKELY TO TAKE?

175

MR. MINA: PROBABLY HALF AN HOUR TO 45 MINUTES. IT'S AT 9:30.

HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE CONCLUDING THAT BY 10:30. WOULD THAT CAUSE A PROBLEM?

THE COURT: IF YOU CAN GUARANTEE YOU CAN BE BACK HERE AT 10:30. BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET TIED UP THERE. WE ARE COMING INTO THE HOLIDAYS.

AS SOON AS I FINISH THIS, I START ANOTHER CRIMINAL TRIAL WEDNESDAY, I HAVE MOTIONS WEDNESDAY, AND I HAVE ANOTHER CRIMINAL TRIAL SET FOR NEXT MONDAY AND THAT IS GOING TO BRING US RIGHT UP TO CHRISTMAS.

MR. MINA: TOMORROW IS THE LAST DAY WE CAN DO THIS?

THE COURT: I WILL HAVE TO FINISH THIS CASE AND ANOTHER ONE.

MR. MINA: I AM IN THE SAME POSTURE. I WILL REPRESENT TO JUDGE JACKSON TOMORROW THAT I AM IN TRIAL AND MUST START NO LATER THAN 10:30.

THE COURT: TELL HIM YOU HAVE TO BE BACK HERE AT 10:30.

MR. MINA: I WILL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WE CAN FINISH THIS CASE TOMORROW; RIGHT

WILLIAM THOMAS: I THINK WE CAN.

THE COURT: YOU ESTIMATE AN HOUR FOR YOURSELF, AN HOUR FOR MRS. THOMAS, CORRECT?

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park