SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CRIMINAL DIVISION - MIDDLESEX COUNTY
INDICTMENT NO. I-139-01-98
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
vs. Transcript of Proceedings
Place: Middlesex County Courthouse
One Kennedy Square
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Date: March 25, 1999
B E F O R E:
HONORABLE FREDERICK P. DE VESA, J.S.C., and a Jury
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: Allan Marain, Esq.
A P P E A R A N C E S:
RAYMOND STORCH, ESQ.
Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor
Attorney for the State
ALLAN MARAIN, ESQ.
Attorney for the Defendant
Kathleen Sperduto, C.S.R., R.M.R.
Official Court Reporter
Middlesex County Courthouse
One Kennedy Square
New Brunswick, New Jersey
1 I N D E X
State Witnesses Direct Cross Redirect Recross
5 By Mr. Storch 3
By Mr. Marain 14
9 By Mr. Marain 29
Dixon - Direct 3
1 (The following is an excerpt.)
2 (Ronald Dixon testified as follows.)
3 MR. STORCH: Yes. Lieutenant Ronald Dixon.
5 R O N A L D D I X O N, called as a
6 witness on behalf of the State, being duly sworn,
7 testifies as follows:
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STORCH:
9 Q Good morning, Lieutenant Dixon?
10 A Good morning.
11 Q Mr. Dixon, where are you employed and in what
13 A I'm a county lieutenant with the Middlesex County
14 Prosecutor's Office.
15 Q And how long have you been so employed there?
16 A By the Prosecutor's Office since December 5th of
18 Q I see. Do you have any specialized training
19 in the field of narcotics investigation?
20 A Yes, I do.
21 Q Could you tell us?
22 A Well, in addition to basic police academy and
23 yearly schools put on by the New Jersey Narcotics
24 Enforcement Officers Association I've also attended the
25 twelve week United States Department of Justice Drug
Dixon - Direct 4
1 Enforcement Administration Academy in Washington, D.
2 C., I've attended the fourteen week Federal Bureau of
3 Investigation or the F. B. I. National Academy in
4 Quantico, Virginia. I've attended various seminars put
5 on by members of the Justice Department either
6 in-service training or at various sites throughout the
7 United States.
8 I'm past president of the National Narcotic
9 Enforcement Officers Association and was president for
10 three years and served on the board for approximately
11 eight years, and during that tenure I established,
12 attended and coordinated training seminars throughout
13 the United States for local law enforcement officers in
14 the field of narcotics. I've a member of National --
15 of the New Jersey Narcotics Enforcement Association.
16 I'm a lifetime member currently on the board of
17 directors. I arrange for training, on a bi-monthly basis
18 throughout the United States and one yearly training
20 I'm also a member of the International
21 Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association. I'm
22 currently an OSHA and State as well as government
23 certified clandestine laboratory investigator and hold
24 a position of lab site safety officer and am
25 responsible for the safety of other officers during the
Dixon - Direct 5
1 investigation and dismantling of clandestine
3 I am part of the Justice Department's
4 clandestine laboratory team here in the northeast. I
5 have instructed on behalf of the United States
6 government in Asia, Central America, and I've worked in
7 Europe again for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
8 Of my -- prior to being employed by the
9 Prosecutor's Office I was a detective with the Edison
10 Township Police Department for a period of eight years,
11 which is a total of thirty-one years of law enforcement
12 experience, and of those thirty-one years twenty-nine
13 of it has been strictly with narcotic enforcement.
14 Again, a state certified instructor here in the state
15 of New Jersey. I instruct at all the police academies
16 in all locations throughout New Jersey, and most
17 recently as yesterday afternoon I was conducting a
18 class for a hundred and five officers at our police
19 academy here in Middlesex County.
20 Q Thank you, officer. You participated in
21 narcotics arrests?
22 A Numerous, numerous times. My assignment with the
23 Edison Township Police Department after several years
24 as a patrol officer I was assigned to the Narcotics
25 Bureau. Once I was assigned to the Edison Narcotic
Dixon - Direct 6
1 Bureau they assigned me to the Middlesex County
2 Narcotic Task Force. Eventually I was hired by the
3 Prosecutor's Office, assigned to that Task Force.
4 Middlesex County in turn assigned me to the United
5 States Department of Justice for a period of about
6 thirteen years. I was assigned to the Drug Enforcement
7 Administration's Worldwide Task Force.
8 Q So how many actual investigations?
9 A I've been involved with thousands and thousands of
11 Q Did you ever testify in court as a police
12 drug -- police narcotics expert?
13 A Yes. I have. I have been recognized by Municipal
14 Courts in the state, the State Superior Courts in New
15 Jersey, and I've also testified for the government in
16 federal proceedings both within New Jersey courts and
17 nation-wide courts where the cases have led us to.
18 MR. STORCH: Your Honor, I would ask that
19 Lieutenant Dixon be recognized as a police narcotics
21 THE COURT: Mr. Marain.
22 MR. MARAIN: I think the witness satisfies at
23 least the minimal requirements, your Honor.
25 Q Okay. Lieutenant Dixon, I am going to give
Dixon - Direct 7
1 you a hypothetical. That's all right. The jury --
2 THE COURT: Mr. Storch, I really should rule
3 on the issue.
4 MR. STORCH: Oh, I'm sorry.
5 THE COURT: I'm satisfied from hearing
6 Lieutenant Dixon's credentials and based upon the
7 consent of the defendant that he is qualified to
8 testify here as an expert in the field of narcotics
10 Go ahead, Mr. Storch.
11 MR. STORCH: Sorry, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: That's all right.
13 Q Lieutenant Dixon, we've been told
14 hypothetically that on December 4th, 1997 on a street
15 in New Brunswick which consisted of abandoned buildings
16 about 11:30 in the morning observations were made of
17 about -- there were eight, ten -- ten people there and
18 there were some people were fixing cars. The
19 observation was made that a person named Tanya was seen
20 making a sale to another woman, some kind of a
21 substance and money was passed and Tanya after the sale
22 brought the money to a woman sitting in a car. At that
23 point the woman sitting in the car counted out four
24 what the officer described as narcotic packets and gave
25 it to the woman Tanya.
Dixon - Direct 8
1 The woman Tanya then went back into the
2 street and made another sale. At the time of that sale
3 she took the money but then she went back to the woman
4 in the car and obviously needed some kind of change.
5 The woman in the car tried to get something out of her
6 pocket, got out of the car, took money out of her, gave
7 some money to Tanya and then Tanya went back to the
8 second buyee. Are you with me?
9 A Mm-hmm.
10 Q Police then came into the area. Tanya was
11 arrested with two decks of heroin were found where she
12 dropped it on her feet and one deck was found in her
13 pocket. This second buyee, the man they had to get the
14 change for, the man, he when the police came up spilled
15 the heroin on the ground and they just got a bag. When
16 Tanya was arrested she was brought to headquarters and
17 mirandized and she mentioned that the woman in the car,
18 she was working for the woman in the car selling
20 Now, based on that -- those facts can you
21 form an opinion as to whether the woman sitting in the
22 car possessed narcotics with the intent to distribute?
23 A Yes, I can.
24 Q Okay. What would that be -- what would that
25 opinion be?
Dixon - Direct 9
1 A Well, it would be based on, to begin with, the
2 officer's observations himself and the fact that the
3 individual sitting in the vehicle was observed by the
4 officer providing I believe in the hypothetical four
5 packages of a controlled substance to the individual.
6 That in itself is distribution. If the officer saw A
7 hand to B a quantity of controlled substances that
8 would be distribution just based on that. The fact
9 that the -- one individual I think you referred to as
10 Tanya, we will just say A, lady A, was on the street
11 corner or on the street, people were approaching her
12 and -- or at least two people in this hypothetical
13 approached her and an exchange for product for money
14 took place. Even an exchange of change took place is
15 consistent with drug distribution.
16 I mean the fact that you have drugs for sale
17 looking for people to distribute it to. You -- I've
18 never seen anyone take credit cards. So it is going to
19 be a cash and carry bills. I mean they are going to
20 exchange cash for the product. So not every time you
21 are going to go up with the proper change. A bag, I
22 don't know the weights of the drugs, they were not in
23 the hypothetical, but a common amount or pricing for
24 drugs on the street in New Brunswick is twenty,
25 twenty-five dollars, but again you negotiate that
Dixon - Direct 10
1 price. I may negotiate a twenty dollar purchase down
2 to eighteen dollars. I may-have a twenty dollar bill.
3 Q May I just add one more fact? The woman in
4 the car on arrest had a hundred and twenty-four dollars
5 in her possession also?
6 A So we have again you have drugs and you have money
7 which are two common factors together and you have the
8 observations of the officer.
9 Q Okay?
10 A Another factor that take into position with
11 possession with intent is the actual statement by woman
12 A Tanya that she was working for the second individual
13 in that vehicle. Her own admission was that she was
14 working for. What was described in the hypothetical is
15 common. I mean two people working together
16 distributing drugs on the street. The person would be
17 outside the car is actually taking a lot of the risk if
18 law enforcement should just drive by, a uniform car
19 could stop her, find money on her, whatever. So she is
20 taking more of a risk. But the person in the car would
21 be holding the bulk of the product and the bulk of the
22 money to eliminate any loss that may occur. So it is
23 common for two people to work together. It is not
25 Q Okay. In another hypothetical when -- when
Dixon - Direct 11
1 the second buyer, the man approached Tanya
2 hypothetically she held out product in her hand and --
3 and the man took one of the product and he held it to
4 the sun. Could you tell us what that's all about?
5 A Again, the drug business is an illegal business,
6 not controlled by the Food and Drug Administration,
7 your Better Business Bureau. There is no truth in
8 packaging and there is no truth in advertising. When
9 you're purchasing drugs and there's many people out
10 there that sell counterfeit drugs or false drugs. When
11 you are purchasing drugs it is totally, totally upon
12 you to get the proper weight and what you believe to be
13 the product. If you're looking to buy cocaine cocaine
14 has a certain appearance to it. It's a crystalline
15 substance. It is a white powdery substance. I
16 wouldn't buy something that is purple in color and
17 stuffed into a bag.
18 If I was looking for heroin it could be an
19 off whittle color, a whitish color. It is a finer
20 powder. There is certain characteristics and if you
21 are an abuser of controlled substances you know what
22 the characteristics are. Also the weight of the
23 product, you can look at the weight of it. There is
24 never a true one point three grams in the bag. It
25 doesn't say there that is in control sign. By pick it
Dixon - Direct 12
1 up you are holding it out ot see how much of that
2 product was in that package, how much that bag
3 contained and you are approximating the weight.
4 Again, every bag is not a half a gram or a
5 gram or an ounce. It's the weights fluctuate greatly.
6 For example, an ounce of a substance, a true ounce is
7 28.346 grams, but a street ounce which is totally
8 different and it's not listed in a dictionary is
9 twenty-five grams. So you have discrepancy there. But
10 a street ounce is twenty-five grams. It is just easier
11 to figure that way.
12 Q Also, in the hypothetical the three packets
13 that were recovered from Tanya had markings on it
14 Bloody Money. What does that mean?
15 A Well, sir, to be honest with you in your
16 hypothetical you never said what type of drug we are
17 talking about, but because of what you just said I
18 would assume the type of drug in this hypothetical is
19 heroin because usually heroin, not usually always,
20 heroin has some type of brand name stamped on it. Not
21 that every packet has a brand name, but heroin is
22 usually the only drug that's associated with brand
23 names. The reason for that being really it is
25 We were all raised by our parents if you had
Dixon - Direct 13
1 Del Monte ketchup in your house you probably still buy
2 Del Monte ketchup because you like the taste of it, and
3 you just walk into the store and you don't look at
4 Heinz, Hunts and everybody else, you go to Del Monte
5 and pick it up. As an abuser of heroin, it is an
6 illegal substance. It is a substance that very well
7 could cause death if it's not cut, diluted, packaged
8 properly. So Bloody Mary in this particular case if I
9 want some Bloody Mary heroin and have a good high or a
10 good experience with that that's the type of heroin I
11 am going to go back and look for next time. Bloody
12 Mary. It is a brand name, that is all it is, and
13 usually associated only with heroin.
14 Cocaine in larger amounts, in kilo amounts I
15 have seen names, brand names and insignias and symbols
16 on it usually indicates the chemist that manufactured
17 it in South America or the designee in the United
18 States who is going to get it. But very, very seldom
19 do I see it with other drugs. I have seen P. C. P. on
20 one or two occasions have some type of name or
21 something attached to it. L. S. D. cartoon character,
22 stamps on pieces of paper, yes, that is a brand name
23 too. It indicates something totally different, though.
24 But heroin is a brand name.
25 Q So Bloody Money to you you would think
Dixon - Direct/Cross 14
2 A Heroin right away.
3 MR. STORCH: No further questions at this
5 THE COURT: Mr. Marain.
6 MR. MARAIN: Thank you, your Honor.
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARAIN:
9 Q Good morning, lieutenant.
10 A Good morning.
11 Q Lieutenant, you provided an opinion for the
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q And the opinion that you provided for the
15 jury was based upon the facts in the hypothetical?
16 A Yes. What was in the hypothetical, yes.
17 Q And you considered all of the facts in the
19 A Yes.
20 Q And you based your opinion on the facts as
21 presented? I think I'm repeating myself.
22 A Yes.
23 Q Lieutenant, are you familiar with a term
24 called GIGO, G-I-G-O?
25 A Can't say that I am, sir.
Dixon - Cross 15
1 Q Okay. Are you familiar with a term called
2 garbage in garbage out?
3 A Garbage in garbage out. I'm familiar with what it
4 means to me, yes.
5 Q What does it mean to you, lieutenant?
6 A If you put -- well, it could mean a lot of things.
7 If you don't put much effort into something you are not
8 going to get much effort out of it. If you are not
9 going to put good product in you are not going to put
10 good product out.
11 Q Could it also mean if you are given a
12 hypothetical that contains erroneous facts that you are
13 in danger of coming up with an erroneous conclusion?
14 A My conclusion is only based on the hypothetical.
15 Q Exactly. Okay. Now, lieutenant, you spoke
16 about the method of having a supplier nearby and that
17 being a separate person from the actual seller?
18 A I spoke of two people close by. I don't believe I
19 used the terminology supplier. I said two people
20 working together.
21 Q Okay?
22 A I never gave one more importance than the other.
23 Q And that method of two people working
24 together is just one of the ways in which drugs are
Dixon - Cross 16
1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q And there are obviously many variations?
3 A Yes, there are.
4 Q Often drug sellers work the streets
5 individually as opposed to in teams?
6 A They could, yes, sir, very well. Very likely.
7 Q Often the seller's supplier is not in the
8 immediate area?
9 A At times, yes, sir.
10 Q When you consider hypotheticals again I think
11 this is a repetition but you consider all the facts
12 that are presented to you?
13 A In the hypothetical.
14 Q Correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And if more facts were presented you would
17 consider those additional facts also?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q The absence of facts can also be significant?
20 A If something is not in the hypothetical that I
21 take into consideration it affects that hypothetical,
23 Q In this particular case there was no
24 indication in the hypothetical that heroin was found
25 inside the car?
Dixon - Cross 17
1 A No, sir, not in the hypothetical.
2 Q And if heroin had been found inside the car
3 that would have reinforced your opinion?
4 A Would have been another factor that would have
5 been considered, yes, sir.
6 Q There is no indication in the hypothetical
7 that heroin was found on the person of the individual
8 in the car?
9 A No, sir, there was not.
10 Q And if heroin had been found on the person of
11 the individual inside the car that would have
12 reinforced your opinion?
13 A Again, yes, sir.
14 Q There's no indication that there were any
15 scales or balances found inside the car?
16 A No, sir.
17 Q If scales or balances had been found inside
18 the car that would have reinforced your opinion?
19 A It would have been another thing, another item to
20 consider, yes, sir.
21 Q And it would have reinforced your opinion?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q There is no indication that there were
24 cutting agents inside the car?
25 A No, sir.
Dixon - Cross 18
1 Q If cutting agents had been found inside the
2 car that would have reinforced your opinion?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q The hypothetical contained no suggestion that
5 spoons were found inside the car?
6 A No, sir.
7 Q If spoons had been found inside the car that
8 would have reinforced your opinion?
9 A It is related paraphernalia, yes, sir, it would.
10 Q The hypothetical did not mention that any
11 rubber bands were found inside the car?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q If rubber bands had been found inside the car
14 that would have reinforced your opinion?
15 A To a degree, yes, sir.
16 Q There was nothing in the hypothetical that
17 vials or capsules or balloons were found inside the
19 A No, sir, there was not.
20 Q If you had been told that vials, capsules or
21 balloons had been found inside the car that would have
22 reinforced your opinion?
23 A Related paraphernalia to the drug in question,
24 yes, sir.
25 Q There is nothing in the hypothetical that
Dixon - Cross 19
1 envelopes were found inside the car?
2 A No, sir, there is not.
3 Q If envelopes had been found inside the car
4 that would have reinforced your opinion?
5 A Again related paraphernalia, yes, sir.
6 Q There's nothing in the hypothetical that
7 pipes were found inside the car?
8 A No, sir, there is not.
9 Q If pipes had been found inside the car that
10 would have reinforced your opinion?
11 A Depending on the type of pipes but if it is the
12 type of pipe used to smoke heroin, yes, sir, the drug
13 in question.
14 Q And with regard to all the things that we
15 just talked about that were not in the hypothetical,
16 scales or balances, cutting agents, spoons, rubber
17 bands, vials, capsules, balloons, envelopes, pipes,
18 there is no indication that in the hypothetical that
19 any of these items were found on the person of the
20 individual inside the car?
21 A No, sir, there was not, not in the hypothetical.
22 Q And if any of these items had been found on
23 the person of the individual inside the car that would
24 have reinforced your opinion?
25 A Another factor to consider, yes.
Dixon - Cross 20
1 Q You would not only have considered it but it
2 would have reinforced your opinion?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q You did consider the fact that a hundred and
5 twenty-four dollars was found on the person of the
6 individual inside the car?
7 A Yes, sir, that was in part of the hypothetical.
8 Q And that was something that you considered in
9 coming up with your ultimate opinion?
10 A One of the factors, yes, sir.
11 Q Why, Lieutenant Dixon, in your judgment was
12 the one hundred and twenty-four dollars significant?
13 A Part of the observations of the officer were the
14 two individuals, the young lady outside the car and the
15 young lady inside the car exchange product for money.
16 I would be more surprised if there was no money found
17 in the car because it would not have substantiated the
18 officer's observations.
19 Q A hundred and twenty-four dollars,
20 lieutenant, is not an especially large amount of money
21 relatively speaking?
22 A No, not at all, sir.
23 Q So the fact that the individual had a hundred
24 and twenty-four dollars by itself is not something from
25 which you can come to a conclusion?
Dixon - Cross 21
1 A Just that fact alone bar anything else, no, sir,
2 could not.
3 Q The conclusion that you ultimately reached is
4 based in large measure upon the observations of the
5 surveillance officer?
6 A Based on the observations, yes, sir. I wouldn't
7 way the weight large or not. I would say it's one of
8 the factors, one of the main factors I considered, yes.
9 Q One of the main factors?
10 A One of the main factors.
11 Q If -- I would like you, lieutenant, to assume
12 in my hypothetical that the observations of the
13 surveillance officer are not reliable?
14 A Okay.
15 Q What would that assumption, lieutenant, do to
16 your ultimate conclusion?
17 A Not reliable in what way, sir? He never -- the
18 surveilling officer never made the observations? The
19 surveilling officer thought he saw green items and they
20 turned out to be yellow items? What type? You'd have
21 to explain what he did not see or what's not reliable.
22 Remember, the observations were basically substantiated
23 by what was found.
24 Q Well, you agree in the hypothetical
25 absolutely nothing was found inside the car?
Dixon - Cross 22
1 A Absolutely. Nothing was found, not in the
3 Q Now, not reliable, lieutenant, with regard to
4 the factor of Tanya Burgess obtaining packets from the
5 individual inside the car?
6 A Like if the officer you're saying considered the
7 fact that the officer never saw an exchange between the
8 two young ladies.
9 Q That is exactly what I'm saying.
10 A If he never saw an exchange between two young
11 ladies and there was two, one young lady was on the
12 street distributing controlled substances and one was
13 just sitting in a car with money, I would be changing
14 or altering my opinion, sure, if that was the
16 Q And what would her --
17 THE COURT: Counsel, excuse me, Mr. Marain.
18 Can I see counsel at side-bar?
19 (A discussion was held at side-bar as
21 THE COURT: I apologize for interrupting, Mr.
22 Marain, but I -- I have some concerns about the manner
23 in which Lieutenant Dixon's testimony is proceeding. I
24 tried to make it clear earlier that Lieutenant Dixon
25 can offer opinions with respect to certain facts that
Dixon - Cross 23
1 may or may not exist, and to that extent his opinion is
2 within the law, if you will. I don't think it's a good
3 idea to have Lieutenant Dixon ask questions regarding
4 the observations of the officers because in effect that
5 testimony then has a tendency to either reinforce or
6 not reinforce the testimony of the officers.
7 It's one thing to say assume for the moment
8 that there were two women out there and one of them
9 was, you know, handing heroin to someone else and then
10 went back to the car. It's another thing to say assume
11 that the officer saw this or they didn't see that
12 because that's really -- that then -- you know -- has
13 an impact on the testimony of the officers, and his
14 testimony should not be in any way couched so as to
15 reinforce the testimony of the officers.
16 The way I think that it should be couched is
17 let's take the facts that the officer said they saw,
18 all right. If he said -- if assuming that those facts
19 are accurate what's his opinion? If those facts are
20 not accurate then what's his opinion? I think we
21 should stay away from having him relate to officer
22 testimony because that's not hypothetical any longer.
23 MR. MARAIN: Well, I was attempting to couch
24 my terms in hypothetical terms, to couch my questions
25 in hypothetical terms. I may have strayed from that,
Dixon - Cross 24
1 but in essence I was asking him to change the
2 hypothesis to the effect that the officer's
3 observations are not reliable.
4 THE COURT: Well, see, but that's the part
5 that, in other words, I think the way to do that, Mr.
6 Marain, the way that I would permit it is to simply say
7 your opinion was based upon the fact that the one woman
8 was selling or giving heroin to someone else and then
9 she went back to the cash and she got heroin from
10 somebody else. What if that person -- you know --
11 assume for a moment that that person in the car did not
12 have any heroin on her person or did not hand it -- did
13 not hand money, whatever it is that you want the
14 opinion to be based on, but not to say assume that the
15 officer's testimony is not reliable because that --
16 he's not qualified to do that. And I think it --
17 MR. MARAIN: Okay.
18 THE COURT: See, what it does, the impact is
19 that then you're asking this jury to be helped, if you
20 will, by the expert commenting on the reliability or
21 lack of reliability of the officer's testimony. That's
22 not really what the expert is supposed to be assisting
23 the jury in. The expert is supposed to say assume
24 these facts are correct this is my opinion about
25 something. All right. If these facts are not correct
Dixon - Cross 25
1 then I would maybe modify my opinion. That is how I
2 think this question should proceed.
3 MR. MARAIN: Okay. I will endeavor to -- to
4 ask questions in the form proposed by your Honor, and
5 parenthetically I was very close to finished but . . .
6 THE COURT: All right. I don't mean to -- I
7 think it's just -- frankly, I don't think it's fair to
8 the defendant to have this officer testifying about --
9 you know -- the reliability or lack of reliability of
10 the officer's testimony. It's -- you know there are
11 some facts that he is assuming in his hypothetical. It
12 shouldn't matter whether those facts are based upon the
13 officer's testimony, pulled out of thin air or
14 whatever. If we stress that they're based on the
15 officer's testimony then we are in effect reinforcing
16 the testimony.
17 MR. MARAIN: Okay. I think I can -- I think
18 I can work with that.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
20 (Discussion at side-bar concluded.)
21 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Marain.
22 BY MR. MARAIN:
23 Q Lieutenant, let me ask the question in a
24 slightly different manner. You recall the hypothetical
25 question asked by the prosecutor?
Dixon - Cross 26
1 A Yes, sir, I do.
2 Q If from that hypothetical question you
3 eliminate the part that the seller in the street
4 obtained packets of heroin from the person in the car
5 would you agree that you then can not conclude that the
6 person in the car possessed heroin with intent to
8 A That the only item in that -- in Mr. Storch's
9 hypothetical that you are changing that no heroin was
10 obtained from the young lady in the car?
11 Q Yes, sir.
12 A No, sir, I would still come up with the same
13 conclusion based on the other parts of the hypothetical
14 as presented to me.
15 Q And which other parts might that be, officer?
16 A Statement by the individual that she was working
17 for the other young lady, that she was distributing
18 drugs, the fact that one person on the street has
19 heroin, she's going back and forth getting change --
20 change, not heroin. I didn't say -- exchange hands but
21 the change. Although change is an innocent part of it
22 the statement that she was working for the young lady
23 shows -- shows to me in my opinion the knowledge.
24 Q Okay. You -- we agree that the change in and
25 of itself is an innocent part?
Dixon - Cross 27
1 A It's innocent.
2 Q Now, with regard to the statement of the
3 person on the street selling to the ultimate customer?
4 A Okay. Yes, sir.
5 Q Person on the street selling to the ultimate
6 customer you would agree is from your experience a
7 person of less than great regard for truth?
8 A I don't know how I could even answer that, sir.
9 You mean have I been lied to by street people? Yes.
10 On many occasions. Have I been told the ultimate truth
11 by people on the street? Yes. I'm not going to say
12 someone is a liar because they are street people. I
13 think that's an area that people shouldn't be put into
14 just because they're street people.
15 Q I think we are in complete agreement with
16 that, officer. But when someone who is a street seller
17 says something to you you are not going to accept it
19 A Blindly, no. There would be something to
20 corroborate that.
21 Q You are going to consider who it is that is
22 saying it?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q You are going to consider what they're
Dixon - Cross 28
1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q You are going to consider whether what
3 they're saying might be self-serving?
4 A Yes, sir. I'd consider that.
5 Q In your work in narcotics, lieutenant, you've
6 had occasion, you've had many occasions to work with
8 A Yes, sir, I have.
9 Q A lot of informants that you have worked with
10 are people that were themselves facing charges?
11 A Yes, sir, that's one category, individual
12 cooperates with law enforcement.
13 Q And a person who is himself or herself facing
14 a charge does informing for reasons of self-interest?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q More particularly a person who is facing a
17 charge is going to not uncommonly be an informant in
18 order for the proceedings to go easier on that person?
19 A Again one of the reasons, yes, sir.
20 Q And in point of fact proceedings commonly do
21 go easier on people that are informants that are facing
23 A If the informant or if the cooperating individual
24 is truthful and their information proves useful and it
25 could be substantiated and corroborated, yes, sir, it
Dixon - Cross/ Summation 29
2 Q And the people that are informants by and
3 large are aware that they can make life easier on
4 themselves by being informants?
5 A Can't speak for someone else but I would say
6 that's a fair statement.
7 Q And when a person serves as an informant
8 sometimes the information that they give is not
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Thank you, lieutenant.
12 MR. MARAIN: Nothing further.
13 (The excerpt of Ronald Dixon's testimony
15 (Mr. Marain's summation is as follows.)
16 MR. MARAIN: Thank you. May it please the
17 Court, Judge DeVesa, Mr. Prosecutor, Madame forelady,
18 members of the jury. I have a confession to make. I
19 like Batman. I loved the movies, especially Batman One,
20 and I've been reading Batman comic books for more years
21 than I care to remember. And I remember one particular
22 comic adventure, many years ago where the villain in
23 that particular story had designed and constructed a
24 gigantic chess board. The villain was using as
25 chess pieces human beings, and the villain would just
1 cause these pieces to be moved from one square to
2 another to another on the board using these human
3 beings as pawns. And that brings to mind this case.
4 Patrolman Ewing decides, for whatever reason,
5 that Pamela Williams should be charged with nothing
6 serious. So she isn't and her case disappears.
7 Patrolman Ewing decides, for whatever reason, that Betty
8 Riles should be charged as a drug dealer and she's so
9 charged and here she is. But detective -- excuse me.
10 Patrolman Ewing is no longer moving the pieces.
11 Remember the example I gave in my opening. Cop stops
12 you for speeding but it is not the cop that decides
13 you're guilty or you're innocent.
14 The role of the cop, the role of the cop can
15 perhaps be illustrated by a story that's told about
16 former United States senator Bill Bradley. Bill
17 Bradley was being roasted and the roaster told of an
18 occasion when Bill Bradley was at a banquet and he was
19 seated at the table and there was a waiter that was
20 going from place to place at the table. Each place he
21 would stop and leave a pat of butter and then he would
22 move on to the next place and leave a pat of butter and
23 move on again.
24 Well, the waiter comes to Bill Bradley's
25 place and he leaves a pat of butter and he starts to
1 move on and Bill Bradley says, excuse me, I'd like a
2 second pat and the waiter says, well, each person gets
3 just one pat and Bill Bradley says, well, I understand
4 that, but I would like a second pat, and the waiter
5 says I can only give one pat to each person, and Bill
6 Bradley says maybe you don't know who I am. I'm Bill
7 Bradley former professional basketball player,
8 All-American, Rhodes Scholar, United States Senator. And
9 the waiter says, well, maybe you don't know who I am,
10 and Bill Bradley says, well, a matter of fact I don't.
11 Who are you? And the waiter says I'm the person that's
12 in charge of the butter.
13 Well, Pamela Williams gets a summons. Same
14 kind of document as you get when you get a speeding
15 ticket. The only difference is when you get a speeding
16 ticket you have to come to court to take care of it,
17 and as far as anyone in this case is able to remember
18 Pamela Williams never came to court. Patrolman
19 Williams tells you that he enforces the law. When he
20 sees a crime being committed he does his job. But
21 Patrolman Williams did not do his job with regard to
22 Pamela -- excuse me -- Patrolman Ewing did not do his
23 job with regard to Pamela Williams.
24 He testifies that he saw Pamela Williams in
25 possession of heroin. He saw her purchase it. He saw
1 her carry it to the car. He saw her snort it. And he
2 charges her with loitering and has no knowledge of what
3 happened to even that charge. The point is that a
4 police officer who can make a charge disappear when a
5 crime has been committed, can create a charge when NO
6 crime has been committed. And that, members of the
7 jury, is what happened here.
8 Judge DeVesa has permitted defense exhibit
9 D-2 to be marked into evidence. D-2 is the arrest
10 report with the typed name of Detective Bill Ewing at
11 the bottom for Pamela Williams, and what is the offense
12 that she is charged with? Loitering. Remember
13 Detective Ewing told you that police reports must have
14 all significant events and that it is important that
15 police reports be accurate? Here is an arrest report
16 that has his name on it Detective Bill Ewing, and
17 Detective Bill Ewing, Patrolman Ewing can't tell from
18 this arrest report whether it's even he that made that
20 You remember he agreed with my
21 characterization of share the wealth. Share the
22 wealth. The wealth being the arrests. Distribute the
23 arrests amongst the team so everyone gets equal credit
24 for the number of arrests that are made. What happened
25 to accuracy? Putting whatever they want on these
2 Members of the jury, what is this case all
3 about? Credibility. Ewing says that he can charge
4 Pamela Williams only with loitering because the
5 evidence that he would have needed for a more serious
6 charge was gone. Snorted away. That is hogwash.
7 Because if you accept that then the most that you can
8 charge Betty Riles with is loitering. In point of fact
9 the police can manipulate the charges any way they want
10 to and they do. Betty Riles had already disposed of
11 all of her heroin if you believe what Patrolman Ewing
12 had to say. But that did not stop the police from
13 charging her with possession of heroin, and that did
14 not stop Detective Ewing from charging Betty Riles with
15 possession with intent to distribute.
16 And there is even more evidence that
17 ex-Detective Ewing could have charged Pamela Williams
18 with possession of heroin because detective Craddic did
19 charge Eric Gregory with possession of heroin even
20 though all of Eric Gregory's heroin had fallen to the
21 ground. We look at State's exhibit three for
22 identification. This is the Request for Examination of
23 Evidence that went to the New Jersey State Police lab.
24 You're talking about request to examine for C. D. S.,
25 controlled dangerous substance content, and it lists
1 three packets of heroin stamped Bloody Money.
2 Who are the suspects listed on S-3? S-1,
3 meaning suspect one, Tanya Burgess. S-2, Eric Gregory.
4 S-3, Betty Riles.
5 Detective Bobadilla moves in to make the
6 arrest. He makes the arrest. He makes the arrest of
7 Betty Riles based on information provided by then
8 Detective Ewing. Detective Bobadilla relied on
9 information provided by Detective Ewing and, in fact,
10 the foundation for this entire house of cards is the
11 report provided by Detective Ewing who is not even a
12 detective any more.
13 Now, as Judge DeVesa told you at the
14 beginning, you -- the evidence that comes into this
15 Court is a couple of forms. You can have direct
16 evidence. You can have circumstantial evidence.
17 Direct evidence is evidence which if believed directly
18 proves a fact. Circumstantial evidence is evidence
19 which if believed proves a fact from which a different
20 fact may be inferred. Judge DeVesa told you that you
21 can find, and he'll tell you again, you can find the
22 defendant guilty from direct evidence, from
23 circumstantial evidence, from a combination of direct
24 and circumstantial evidence. You can find a person
25 guilty from circumstantial evidence alone, but you can
1 find a person not guilty on the basis of circumstantial
2 evidence, and there is large circumstantial evidence in
3 this case which, in fact, points affirmatively to
5 For example, Detective Ewing told you that
6 Tanya Burgess made a couple of trips to the car. After
7 one sale you'll recall he said Tanya Burgess comes and
8 gives Betty Riles cash. Betty Riles gives Tanya
9 Burgess more heroin, I believe it was then it was four
10 packs. Then later on Tanya Burgess comes to the car,
11 gives Betty Riles money and is looking for change, but
12 Betty Riles is not able to get change, because everyone
13 agreed Betty Riles told you her jeans were on too tight
14 so she gets out of the car to extract the money from
15 her pocket.
16 Well, everyone is in agreement that Betty
17 Riles was in the car the entire time until that second
18 incident, and yet there was never any difficulty
19 whatsoever according to Patrolman Ewing in Betty Riles
20 that first time pocketing the money that Tanya Burgess
21 had brought or getting out -- bless you -- or getting
22 out the four packs of heroin to give to Tanya Burgess.
23 If Betty Riles's jeans were so tight, and I suggest
24 that they were, how could she have gotten out the money
25 from her pocket the first time without getting out of
1 the car? How could she have gotten the heroin out of
2 her pocket the first time without anybody ever
3 remarking that there was any difficulty whatsoever
4 caused by the tightness of her jeans?
5 Circumstantial evidence establishing
6 innocence. The police searched the car. Betty Riles
7 told you that the police searched the car. She even
8 told you how Schuster searched the car. And even
9 Patrolman Ewing eventually told you that they searched
10 the car. He denied knowing about it at first but the
11 grand jury transcript refreshed his recollection.
12 Schuster searched the front seat and under the front
13 seat and the back seat, and he pulled the back seat
14 out, and searched the glove box, and he searched in the
15 trunk, and he searched under the hood. He was looking
16 for drugs. He was looking for drug paraphernalia and
17 just like they searched that car he searched that car
18 just like in the French Connection. And what does he
19 find? Nothing. Now, maybe the reason that Paul
20 Schuster found nothing was because Betty had already
21 given away the last of her heroin to Tanya Burgess.
22 That's one possibility. But another possibility is
23 that Paul Schuster found nothing because Betty Riles
24 had nothing to begin with.
25 Fingerprints. I asked Patrolman Ewing about
1 fingerprints. Oh, no, I couldn't take prints off this.
2 Well, why not? Well, couldn't take prints because the
3 item was too small. What item are we talking about?
4 Well, we're talking among other things about this piece
5 of what appears to be wax paper. (Indicating.) Is
6 that too small? You can decide that. It was too small
7 or it wasn't too small when you have a chance in the
8 jury room to be looking at State's exhibit two.
9 And then he says, well, we couldn't take
10 fingerprints because too many people handled it. Well,
11 first of all, if too many people had handled it the
12 only person according to Officer Ewing that handled it
13 after Betty Riles handled it was Tanya Burgess.
14 Remember, according to Ewing Burgess gets the four from
15 Riles and then Burgess sells one. There's three left.
16 She comes, Burgess comes back to the car. The police
17 move in. Two of them drop and one of them is found on
18 the person of -- of Tanya Burgess. So, they obviously
19 had not been handled up to that point by too many
21 At most my given packet was handled at that
22 point by only one other person. And if you're worried
23 about or if the detective is worried about the police
24 that handled it, well, they're detectives. They are
25 presumably trained in preservation of evidence. They
1 are presumably trained to not touch things that would
2 contaminate it if they had any intention of taking
3 fingerprints at all. Too many people handled it.
4 Then he says the surface won't hold prints.
5 Well, I did not bring in a fingerprint expert in this
6 case to say the surface will or the surface won't, but
7 you will have those surfaces, those cellophane bags in
8 the jury room with you, and whatever common sense
9 information you have about fingerprints you will be
10 able to decide for yourself that Ewing's excuse was
11 valid, it wouldn't hold prints, or Ewing's excuse was
12 hogwash as I suggest to you that it was. The point is
13 they never even tried. Reasonable doubt, members of
14 the jury, can arise from the evidence itself or from a
15 lack of evidence.
16 Again, what is this case all about? This
17 case is all about credibility. You have Officer Ewing
18 telling you that he's in an abandoned building I
19 believe it was 15 -- what's the street?
20 A JUROR: Henry Street.
21 MR. MARAIN: 15 Henry Street on the second
22 floor with binoculars watching everything that's
23 happening. Is that believable? Let's look at the
25 THE COURT: While you're doing that, Mr.
1 Marain, I don't mean to interrupt in closing argument.
2 Ladies and gentlemen, please do not respond
3 to the attorneys when they are giving their closing
4 arguments. Okay.
5 Go ahead, Mr. Marain.
6 MR. MARAIN: Here is the diagram, members of
7 the jury. Here's the car. Here's 15 Henry Street and
8 here's the vantage point of Officer Ewing, and you
9 remember that Betty Riles was sitting in the passenger
10 seat and Tanya was at the door and this is the
11 situation from which Ewing is saying he could see these
12 transactions. (Indicating.) He could see on the first
13 visit Tanya giving Betty money. Betty giving Tanya
14 four packets of heroin and guess what? He's on the
15 second floor which is, what, maybe ten feet high, and
16 you have Tanya Burgess standing right here between
17 Ewing and between Betty Riles who is sitting in the car
18 so that I was talking about the man before. The only
19 way that Ewing would be able to see what was happening
20 was if he had x-ray vision and I don't think he claims
21 to be Superman. (Indicating.)
22 Circumstantial evidence. Indictment
23 98-01-139 returned on -- in January of 1998. And we
24 have the laboratory machine printout, exhibit D-15 in
25 evidence, and we see from this printout that the
1 material was tested on February 25, 1998 at 1:06 in the
2 morning. A month after the indictment is returned.
3 Betty Riles was charged with possession of heroin a
4 month before the substance was even analyzed.
5 Lieutenant Dixon. You know, if Lieutenant
6 Dixon testified, claimed that he invented the internet
7 I would almost believe him. But the most expert
8 opinion in the world is limited by the accuracy of the
9 information provided to him. Detective Dixon himself
10 agreed garbage in, garbage out. Detective Dixon told
11 you that there was nothing in and of itself noteworthy
12 about the fact that Betty Riles had a hundred and
13 twenty-four dollars on her person. She told -- he told
14 you that an awful important part of his observations,
15 of his conclusion was based on the observations
16 reported by Patrolman Ewing.
17 With regard to statements of informants,
18 which Lieutenant Dixon considered in this case, he told
19 you that he believes the statements of informants true
20 until those statements are proved untrue, and that is a
21 completely appropriate philosophy for a police officer.
22 That is a completely inappropriate philosophy for a
23 jury. Because your function is the exact opposite.
24 Your function is to begin with the presumption of
25 innocence and to keep that presumption unless and until
1 that presumption is overcome beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 We have the hundred and twenty-four dollars.
3 We have the stipulation in this case that Ms. Riles, in
4 fact, received her check the day before, that it was
5 cashed the day before and that -- we have these
6 stipulations from the State.
7 Then we have the letter from Tracey York.
8 "Hi, Betty. I hope you are in the best of health. I
9 know you are surprised to hear from me and I know I'm
10 not your favorite person but I had to write you.
11 Before I go on I want you to know that I am truly sorry
12 for what you are going through behind me or shall I say
13 Tanya. If only I didn't have to get my car fixed that
14 day we wouldn't have had to be there. I often wonder
15 why didn't I go ahead and me and Tanya just do the bags
16 instead of waiting. If we had went ahead and did the
17 dope you wouldn't be in the mess you are in. But I
18 just had to tell her to hold on to them until I talked
19 to the guy about fixing my car. And she just took it
20 upon herself to sell one. As sick as I was after she
21 could -- as sick as I was after she got busted with the
22 dope I could have killed her. I know I'm a drug fiend
23 and I've been doing dope a long time, but I'll be
24 damned if I'll let it make me act as stupid as Tanya.
25 "Anyway, I don't mean to make you relive that
1 terrible day, and it's really too late for all those
2 ifs. If I did that, if I did this. I don't know how
3 much it mean to you, but I truly sorry about all you
4 are going through. I feel real bad about it all and I
5 blame myself. That's why I had to write you. I can't
6 deal with my conscience knowing you may lose your
7 freedom behind something that wasn't yours and you had
8 nothing to do with. On top of that you have young
9 children that need you. I pray all the time that you
10 somehow, some way overcome this. I know you are not
11 going to write me back so I'm asking you to please try
12 to find a way to forgive me. You take care and
13 remember to keep the faith in Jesus Cruz. Sincerely,
14 with much sorrow, Tracey York."
15 The prosecutor suggests to you that Tracey
16 York is lying. Tracey York is lying to cover up for
17 Betty Riles. Why? They had a relationship. Well, if
18 they had not had a relationship then it's likely that
19 Tracey York would not have knocked on Betty Riles's
20 door in the first place to get water for his car. If
21 they had not had a relationship he would not have asked
22 him for a ride first to her sister and then to the Foot
23 Locker. The issue is not did they have a relationship.
24 The issue is whether the statements of Tracey York are
25 credible in context. I suggest to you that they are.
1 The regrets in the letter are regrets of a person who
2 caused harm to another person that he cared about. Is
3 he lying to get her off? I suggest not. That's your
5 Inconsistencies between the statements of
6 Tracey York and the testimony of Betty Riles. Are
7 there any? There are. Betty Riles heard the testimony
8 of -- of Tracey York, and Betty Riles testified and not
9 -- not to simply easily go along with what Tracey York
10 testified to. Excuse me. What the statement of Tracey
11 York was. Betty Riles testified to what she
12 remembered, and much of what Betty testified to is
13 consistent with what's in Tracey York's letter, in
14 Tracey York's statement to Investigator Carla Williams.
15 Not all of it but much of it.
16 And remember too that we're talking here
17 about something that happened over fifteen months ago.
18 Tracey York may also be mistaken about some details.
19 What about the fact that Tracey York drives to New
20 Brunswick and then to the -- to Henry Street even
21 though he's got problems with his car? Is that a
22 problem? Well, we don't really know how bad these
23 problems with his car were. It was a problem that --
24 that he needed water and by the time he got to Betty
25 Riles's house he needed two gallons of water but the
1 water had been put in. We don't know how -- how fast
2 it was leaking out and whether his car was then good
3 for another ten minutes or another half hour or another
4 two hours. There is nothing especially remarkable
5 about that.
6 Now, even if everything that Tracey York was
7 saying in his letter or through Investigator Williams
8 is true Tanya still could have gotten more heroin from
9 Betty Riles and been selling for her. Anything is
10 possible. But possible does not meet the test.
11 Now, another factor in this case. According
12 to Tracey York Tanya Burgess bought two bags for -- for
13 Tracey, and yet we know from this case that there were
14 at least four bags of heroin that Tanya had. Where did
15 the other bags come from? Well, how do we know that
16 Tanya bought just two bags? That may be what Tanya
17 told Tracey York. How do we know that Tanya Burgess
18 had no bags to start with? According to the letter
19 Tanya bought two bags for Tracey, but how many did
20 Tanya buy for herself? How many bags did she buy to
21 sell? Many.
22 Speaking about Patrolman Ewing and I can
23 anticipate the prosecutor saying, gee, I thought the
24 person on trial was supposed to be Betty Riles. Mr.
25 Marain is trying to make this into a trial of Patrolman
1 Ewing. Members of the jury, I've said this two or
2 three times already and I will say it again. What this
3 case is all about is deciding credibility. Whose
4 testimony can you rely on? Whose testimony can you not
5 rely on? We know that cops break the law. We know
6 that cops lie. But the only time that cops come into
7 court and admit that they lie is when there's strong
8 evidence against them like video tape. What about all
9 the times that police lie when there is no video tape?
10 What then? Is their testimony to just be accepted as
11 if it were gospel? Is a person to be found guilty on
12 what is essentially the unsupported testimony of
13 ex-Detective Ewing?
14 Another thing to consider in deciding this
15 case is interest in the outcome of the case. Whether a
16 witness has an interest in the outcome of the case.
17 Does Betty Riles have an interest in the outcome of
18 this case? Of course she does. Her freedom is at
19 stake. Her continued ability to stay with her family
20 is at stake. What -- but what about Patrolman Ewing?
21 Does he have an interest? Let's just suppose for a
22 moment that everything happened exactly the way Betty
23 Riles told you that it happened. Then Patrolman Ewing
24 made false police reports. Patrolman Ewing lied to the
25 grand jury. And can Patrolman Ewing come here now and
1 tell you that he did all those things? He would lose
2 his job. He would be indicted. He would be tried.
3 Patrolman Lewing -- Ewing has as much or more interest
4 in the outcome of this case as Betty Riles. And I
5 think that that is stated most eloquently by Patrolman
6 Ewing himself because he said I like being a law
7 enforcement officer.
8 Well, credibility. What about Betty Riles's
9 credibility? She's been convicted twice for cocaine.
10 One for possession, one for possession with intent to
11 distribute on or near school property. What does that
12 say about her credibility? Members of the jury, you
13 are allowed to consider that as it relates to her
14 credibility, and His Honor will tell you that is the
15 only purpose for which you may consider that
17 When you do consider that information
18 consider also we're talking about convictions, two
19 convictions. One arose from an arrest in March of
20 1990, and the second arose from an arrest in February
21 of 1991. The most recent arrest involved in these two
22 past convictions were more than seven years or
23 approximately seven years before the arrest on December
24 4th, 1997.
25 Is it possible on this evidence that the
1 heroin belonged to Betty Riles? It is. But we do not
2 declare that a person is a criminal on the basis of
3 it's possible. A person can be found to be a criminal
4 only if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
5 So what are the possibilities in this case?
6 What are the choices? What are the options? There's
7 three. Option number one is that you find that Betty
8 Riles was telling the truth, Patrolman Ewing was not.
9 He testified and if you come to that conclusion then
10 you have an obligation to find Betty Riles not guilty.
11 The second possibility is that Betty Riles was telling
12 you the truth and Officer Ewing was not. That Betty
13 Riles was lying and Officer Ewing was testifying
14 truthfully. And if you come to that conclusion then
15 you have an obligation to find Betty Riles guilty. The
16 third possibility is you're not sure who's telling the
17 truth. Members of the jury, that is reasonable doubt,
18 and if you are not sure you have an obligation to find
19 Betty Riles not guilty.
20 This is not a contest between Detective Ewing
21 and Betty Riles. This is a contest between the State
22 of New Jersey and Betty Riles. Has the prosecutor
23 satisfied his burden of proving this case beyond a
24 reasonable doubt? Not guilty is not a statement that
25 you're tolerant of drugs. Not guilty is not a
1 statement that you are anti-police. Not guilty is a
2 statement that you have a reasonable doubt in this
4 Do not judge Betty Riles with sympathy. Do
5 not judge Betty Riles with dislike. Judge her with
6 fairness. Judge her not guilty. You are in charge of
7 the butter.
8 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Marain. Mr.
10 (The summation of Mr. Marain concluded.)
11 (The excerpt concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, KATHLEEN SPERDUTO, C.S.R., License Number
XI01151, an Official Court Reporter in and for the
State of New Jersey, do hereby certify the foregoing to
be prepared in full compliance with the current
Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and is a
true and accurate compressed transcript of my
stenographic notes taken in the above matter to the
best of my knowledge and ability.
Kathleen Sperduto, C.S.R., R.M.R.
Official Court Reporter
Middlesex County Courthouse
One Kennedy Square
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Date: July 27, 2000
NEXT: Jury Verdict