<The following transcript of Craig Neidorf's trial was provided by his legal counsel, to whom we are indebted. The page numbers correspond to transcript pagination. The document was retyped by CuD, and cross-checked against the original. A spell checker removed spelling errors, and if any of these errors appeared in the original, they too were removed.> ******************************************************************** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . Plaintiff, . 90 CR 70 . . v. . Chicago, Illinois . CRAIG NEIDORF, . Tuesday, Defendant. . July 24, 1990 . . 10:10 a.m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VOLUME ONE TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS J. BUA AND A JURY PRESENT: For the Government: THE HONORABLE IRA H. RAPHAELSON, United States Attorney, by WILLIAM J. COOK COLLEEN D. COUGHLIN DAVID A. GLOCKNER Assistant United States Attorneys 219 South Dearborn Street Fifteenth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60604 For Defendant: SHELDON T. ZENNER Katten, Muchin and Zavis 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Case Agent: TIMOTHY M. FOLEY Special Agent United States Secret Service Court Reporter: Agnes M. Thorne Official Court Reporter - 2 - (Twelve jurors and four alternate jurors sworn to try issues.) (Following proceedings transpired out of the presence of the jury:) MR. COOK: Judge, we have two short issues to bring up. The government, obviously, understands the court's rulings on the First Amendment mistake of law. We are in a bit of a quandary in terms of the best way to argue that or front that with the jury during our openings. Does the court anticipate giving an instruction as to the law of mistake of law with respect to this either before Mr. Zenner talks or at the conclusion of the case? THE COURT: At the conclusion of the case in written instructions to the jury. MR. COOK: And that would be along the lines that it is not a defense to this violation mistake of law. THE COURT: That we will decide at the conference on jury instructions. MR. COOK: All right. THE COURT: Mistake of law is no defense. I think we can agree to that. MR. ZENNER: No. THE COURT: We can't? MR. ZENNER: Wait. We agreed that the First Amendment is no defense. Mistake of law is a defense to a specific intent crime. MR. COOK: That's enough. That's enough for me to make my - 3 - Cook -- opening statement opening. THE COURT: Is that enough? Mr. Cook: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. What else? MR. COOK: Also, Mr. Zenner is indicating that he wants to argue about the videotapes or make some presentation about the videotapes in his opening remarks. Those are irrelevant. THE COURT: What is the nature of those videotapes? MR. ZENNER: It is very simple. On one of the dates charged in the indictment, the exact date, in fact, the exact date charged in the indictment in Count Two, the date the scheme was supposed to start, Mr. Neidorf was surreptitiously videotaped by the Secret Service at SummerCon '88, the hacker convention. THE COURT: Okay, now I recall. MR. ZENNER: That is the subject of that. The fact that he is on videotape for 15 hours on the date he is supposed to have committed the crime in the midst of a supposed conspiracy with some of the other people who are on videotape I expect to mention, albeit very briefly, probably ten seconds worth in an opening, well, maybe thirty seconds worth in an opening, that he was videotaped on that day, a date charged in the indictment, and that the worst thing they saw him do or talk about when he was with these people he is supposedly conspiring with is to drink a beer, order a pizza. I mean, that's it. They have a the videotape in the middle of this scheme with his coschemers. - 4 - Cook -- opening statement THE COURT: And what's the problem with that? MR. GLOCKNER: Judge, we went through all this before on the discovery motions. And your Honor agreed with the government that (a) the fact that the defendant is videotaped not committing a crime is not relevant to whether or not on some other occasion he did. Second, as we argued in the earlier filings with your Honor, he is not charged with holding SummerCon, with participating in SummerCon... THE COURT: You will object to the entry in evidence of that videotape? MR. GLOCKNER: Absolutely. THE COURT: The objection will be sustained. MR. GLOCKNER: Thank you. THE COURT: What else? MR. COOK: Nothing else, Judge. MR. ZENNER: With respect to the videotape, I accept the court's ruling that the videotape will not be introduced, but I can certainly refer to the fact that he was videotaped, and I can ask the agent that, and I intend to ask the agent who investigated this case: "On a date charged in the indictment..." Mr. Cook is going to show that. He is going to say, "On July 22, 1988, my client committed a wire fraud". He's going to tell them to convict him of that. On that date, he's on videotape for fifteen hours with the Secret Service looking at him, and he doesn't do anything of the sort. He's meeting with his coschemers...he's meeting with his coconspirators. - 5 - Cook -- opening statement THE COURT: And you will seek to introduce the videotape to show that he couldn't have committed the crime on that date? MR. ZENNER: All I want to be able to do is to cross-examine Agent Foley on that. THE COURT: Well, you might be able to cross the agent depending on what his direct testimony is. Those issues... MR. ZENNER: It is a date charged in the scheme. I have a hard time imagining how I can't cross. THE COURT: Mr. Zenner, you can make the opening statements, and if there is an objection, I will sustain it. Okay. MR. ZENNER: All right. THE COURT: What else? MR. COOK: Nothing. THE COURT: Bring in the jury please. (Jury present at 10:20 a.m.) THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Good morning. THE COURT: Please be seated. Mr. Cook, is the government prepared to make its opening statement? MR. COOK: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Very well. MR. COOK: Thank you. _OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT_ MR. COOK: Good Morning, ladies and gentlemen. - 6 - Cook -- opening statement JURORS: Good morning. MR. COOK: My name is Bill Cook. I'm an Assistant United States Attorney. I am going to be substantially aided in this prosecution by Colleen Coughlin, who is an Assistant United States Attorney, and Dave Glockner, who is also an Assistant United States Attorney. We will be having Special Agent Tim Foley of the United States Secret Service working with us. He is sitting at the trial table with us. In 1876, the first telephone communication ever made was: "Mr. Watson, come here, I want you". That was also the very first emergency telephone call ever made. Since that time, the telephone company has, obviously, sophisticated their operation to a large degree so that where we stand today in 1990, we are the beneficiaries of what is known as the Enhanced 911 system. That system is a life line for every person certainly in the Southern Bell region of the United States. It's taken for granted. It is an extensively developed system. You're going to hear a great deal of information about the development of that system and the architecture that that system is based upon. It is built on computers from bottom to top. In 1988, a road map to that computer system, that life line, was stolen from a computer in Atlanta, Georgia, by a man by the name of Robert Riggs, who is a member of an organization known as the Legion of Doom. That document, with its proprietary markings, its warnings - 7 - Cook -- opening statement on it, and the clear indications that it was the property of BellSouth, was transferred electronically to Mr. Craig Neidorf, the defendant here, seated right here. Mr. Riggs is a hacker, a person that breaks into computers. He answers to no one but his own ability to get into those computers. We anticipate that the evidence will show that in February of 1989, Mr. Neidorf published that extensive road map to the life line of the entire hacker community so far as he was able to determine it and define it. In many respects, I submit to you that this is not going to be a, "Whodunit", or "What was done?". There are two sets of violations charged in the indictment. Very briefly, they are the interstate transportation of stolen property and what is referred to in legal jargon as a wire fraud. With respect to the interstate transportation of stolen property, the evidence will show that Mr. Neidorf admitted ...
kopia23