1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF BRENDA QUEVEDO CRUZ,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No. 08 M 85

Chicago, Illinois February 12, 2008 10:00 o'clock a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARTIN C. ASHMAN APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: HON. PATRICK FITZGERALD United States Attorney BY: MR. DANIEL W. GILLOGLY MS. SHOSHANA LEAH GILLERS 219 S. Dearborn St., Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60604 HORN, KHALAF, ABUZIR, MITCHELL & SCHMIDT BY: MS. LAUREEN ANDERSON MR. STANLEY HORN 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 630 Chicago, Illinois 60602

For the Defendant:

Court Reporter:

MS. CAROLYN R. COX, CSR, RPR, CRR Official Court Reporter 219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1854-B Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 435-5639

2
10:42:40 10:42:40 10:44:43 10:44:50 10:44:52 10:44:55 10:44:55 10:44:56 10:45:00 10:45:02 10:45:03 10:45:04 10:45:06 10:45:09 10:45:11 10:45:12 10:45:17 10:45:17 10:45:18 10:45:21 10:45:28 10:45:29 10:45:32 10:45:34 10:45:39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(The following proceedings were had in open court:) THE CLERK: 08 M 85, in the matter of extradition of Brenda Quevedo Cruz, evidentiary hearing and motion. MS. GILLERS: Good morning, Judge; Shoshana Gillers and Dan Gillogly for the United States. MR. GILLOGLY: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. ANDERSON: Good morning, your Honor; Laureen Anderson for the respondent. THE COURT: All right. Are we ready to proceed? MS. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, we understand there has been a change in the defendant's witness lineup today. I will defer to Ms. Anderson for details. THE COURT: Okay. MS. ANDERSON: Actually, we just have Ambar Trevino Cruz. THE COURT: That's it? MS. ANDERSON: That's the attorney that represents Brenda Quevedo Cruz in the situation in Mexico, so it's just her defense attorney. THE COURT: What about the gentleman whose testimony we were in the middle of last time? MS. ANDERSON: Mr. Moya has indicated to us that he -- I'm sorry, I didn't realize what you were referring to.

3
10:45:42 10:45:44 10:45:48 10:45:54 10:45:57 10:46:00 10:46:06 10:46:07 10:46:16 10:46:17 10:46:20 10:46:23 10:46:25 10:46:27 10:46:29 10:46:32 10:46:32 10:46:35 10:46:39 10:46:40 10:46:43 10:46:46 10:46:48 10:46:51 10:46:53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I do apologize. Mr. Moya has indicated that he has fear of returning to the United States, that he indicated to persons that were involved in this situation that he was followed upon his return to Mexico and threatened, and that he wants nothing further to do with these matters, and we no longer can get in contact with him. THE COURT: All right. Now, he was not subjected to cross-examination; is that correct? MR. GILLOGLY: Yes, Judge. We got much of the way through it the last time back in October. THE COURT: Was it the middle of cross-examination? MR. GILLOGLY: It was getting toward the end of what we knew at the time, Judge, yes. THE COURT: But your cross-examination was or was not complete? MR. GILLOGLY: Complete for the moment, Judge. And Mr. Horn, I believe, had some intended redirect, and we had to adjourn. THE COURT: Okay. Is Mr. Horn going to be here? MS. ANDERSON: He will be here shortly. He had another hearing that should be finishing up, and he will be here as soon as that is completed. THE COURT: All right. You may proceed. MS. ANDERSON: Okay, your Honor. Thank you.

4
10:46:56 10:46:58 10:47:00 10:47:02 10:47:05 10:47:05 10:47:07 10:47:09 10:47:09 10:47:12 10:47:17 10:47:19 10:47:22 10:47:30 10:47:35 10:47:40 10:47:45 10:47:49 10:47:54 10:47:56 10:47:59 10:48:01 10:48:01 10:48:02 10:48:04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the --

THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. GILLOGLY: Does your Honor want to address that motion first, or do you want to save that for later, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Refresh my recollection on the motion. MR. GILLOGLY: Yes. Well -THE COURT: Does that have to do with the sealing of

MR. GILLOGLY: It did, Judge. And I think we've just had yet another reason why the motion to unseal should be granted, given comments by counsel here. MS. ANDERSON: We are willing to unseal the motion. At this time, it is absolutely obvious that his -- evidently, his identity was recognized, the comments have been -- the contents of his testimony has been leaked to various people, and as I said, he was contacted and followed by persons that were involved in this matter and threatened, so there really is nothing to protect at this time related to his testimony. THE COURT: Well, when you say the contents were leaked, you are not saying that that happened -MS. ANDERSON: I am not making any accusations in regard -THE COURT: -- through the court. MS. ANDERSON: No, not at all. Not at all. I have absolutely no knowledge of how people would have --

5
10:48:07 10:48:10 10:48:13 10:48:15 10:48:19 10:48:22 10:48:24 10:48:24 10:48:24 10:48:47 10:48:48 10:48:57 10:49:00 10:49:19 10:49:19 10:49:21 10:49:22 10:49:22 10:49:22 10:49:25 10:49:26 10:49:29 10:49:35 10:49:35 10:49:41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: According to the documents in front of me, he leaked it. MS. ANDERSON: You know, it could have been any number of ways that people learned of what was stated. THE COURT: All right. The testimony -- the motion to unseal is granted. All right. Defendant. We are having a translator. THE INTERPRETER: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. For the record, your name? THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is Kevin Devaney. (Interpreter sworn.) THE COURT: Would you swear the witness, please. (Witness sworn.) THE COURT: All right. You may proceed. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. - - AMBAR TREVINO PEREZ, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Can you please state your name for the record. A. Ambar Trevino Perez. Q. And Ms. Trevino, you were here at the last hearing,
correct?

A. That's true, yes. Q. And we got through a portion of your testimony?

6
10:49:44 10:49:49 10:49:52 10:49:55 10:50:05 10:50:06 10:50:08 10:50:11 10:50:13 10:50:18 10:50:23 10:50:24 10:50:29 10:50:31 10:50:37 10:50:44 10:50:47 10:50:51 10:51:07 10:51:08 10:51:10 10:51:11 10:51:13 10:51:16 10:51:22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. So since we were interrupted at that time, I'd like to

review some of the information we went over and just kind of refresh the court in terms of that.

A. Okay. Yes. Q. You are an attorney in Mexico? A. Yes. Q. And what law firm are you employed with? A. It's called Trevino and Associates. Q. And do you represent Brenda Quevedo Cruz in her criminal
matter in Mexico?

A. Yes. Q. And when did you start representing her? A. January of 2007. Q. And can you explain what Ms. Cruz is charged with? A. Kidnapping. Q. And what elements of this crime must be proven in court? A. The elements that have to be proven? Q. Yes.
MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor. Objection, your Honor, to the relevance. MS. ANDERSON: It just goes to demonstrate the evidence that needs to be presented in terms of the warrant for certification and just to give us a basis for what exactly we're here for today.

7
10:51:24 10:51:27 10:51:30 10:51:34 10:51:35 10:51:39 10:51:40 10:51:48 10:51:58 10:51:58 10:51:59 10:52:00 10:52:02 10:52:04 10:52:04 10:52:06 10:52:11 10:52:15 10:52:15 10:52:16 10:52:17 10:52:19 10:52:23 10:52:23 10:52:31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, the elements in Mexico are not relevant to the Court's probable cause determination. For the Court's probable cause determination, what's relevant are -- what's necessary here are probable cause standards. THE COURT: The objection is sustained. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Okay. What information has the government presented to

demonstrate probable cause for Ms. Miranda here in the United States? MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: I don't understand the question. MS. ANDERSON: Again, we are -THE COURT: I know what evidence was presented. I was here. MS. ANDERSON: Well, I just was laying a foundation for a question based upon those elements that the Mexican government has presented. If it's unnecessary, I will just move right into it. THE COURT: The objection is sustained. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Do you represent Juana Hilda Gonzalez? A. Yes. Q. What crime has Ms. Gonzalez been charged with?
MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor.

8
10:52:32 10:52:34 10:52:39 10:52:43 10:52:44 10:52:46 10:52:50 10:52:53 10:52:56 10:53:00 10:53:07 10:53:13 10:53:14 10:53:15 10:53:16 10:53:18 10:53:22 10:53:25 10:53:28 10:53:29 10:53:33 10:53:35 10:53:39 10:53:42 10:53:46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: Overruled. That's foundational for something. THE WITNESS: Kidnapping. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. When was Ms. Gonzalez arrested for this crime? A. The end of January 2006. Q. Did Ms. Gonzalez confess to the crime? A. Yes. Q. On what date did Ms. Gonzalez confess to the crime? A. February 8th, 2006. Q. And what time did the police start questioning on that
date? MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection. THE COURT: Pardon? Your objection is? MS. GILLERS: Again, relevance. The Court has previously ruled that the entire issue of Gonzalez Lomeli's confession and the circumstances of that confession are not relevant to the Court's inquiry. THE COURT: What's the relevance? MS. ANDERSON: Your Honor, we are just going over the facts associated with it in order for you to make a determination as to whether or not it is in fact reliable for your probable cause finding. THE COURT: Well, how does her testimony help me decide whether it's reliable? She's an attorney. She

9
10:53:50 10:53:52 10:53:54 10:53:57 10:53:59 10:54:00 10:54:06 10:54:10 10:54:13 10:54:16 10:54:19 10:54:19 10:54:21 10:54:24 10:54:29 10:54:29 10:54:34 10:54:41 10:54:45 10:54:50 10:54:56 10:55:01 10:55:13 10:55:25 10:55:27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

represents a party. MS. ANDERSON: I understand that. THE COURT: You represent the party. You can argue it just as well, can't you? MS. ANDERSON: Absolutely, your Honor. We are just going through what the -- what the Mexican government provided, and we are not in any way, shape, or form conflicting with that information. We are just going over what was provided in the evidence. THE COURT: You're going over what was provided to what end? MS. ANDERSON: Well, we are just reviewing these matters to point out any inconsistencies that might be available in the evidence that was provided by the Mexican government. THE COURT: Those are legal conclusions which you may argue at closing. So that objection is sustained. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Okay. Ms. Gonzalez, there was computer reports in regards

to the case in this -- for Ms. Gonzalez, correct, and Ms. Quevedo Cruz for evidence that the police has presented?

A. That's right. Q. Whose computer did the computer expert investigate? A. Brenda Quevedo's mother. Q. And what did the computer report find?

10
10:55:29 10:55:44 10:55:46 10:55:52 10:55:55 10:56:00 10:56:02 10:56:04 10:56:04 10:56:06 10:56:09 10:56:12 10:56:16 10:56:21 10:56:25 10:56:31 10:56:36 10:56:40 10:56:43 10:56:44 10:56:46 10:56:47 10:56:49 10:56:51 10:56:52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Some texts and some imaging that was illegible. Q. How many computer reports were there? A. Two. Q. Were there multiple experts who reviewed the material? A. Yes.
MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection again as to relevance. I am not quite sure where this is going at this point. THE COURT: Where are you going with this? MS. ANDERSON: Again, your Honor, we will get to the point where we're explaining the evidence that, once again, we believe that there are inconsistencies and that we need some type of questions and answers in order to expose those inconsistencies that it's not just enough to offer that in a closing argument, that there are certain things that she can testify to that explains the evidence that has been provided. And I am laying a foundation in order to get to that point. THE COURT: Then lay the foundation for her as an expert, is that it? MS. ANDERSON: Not as a computer expert, your Honor, but certainly as an -THE COURT: As a legal expert? MS. ANDERSON: Not even that. Perhaps regarding the facts of the situation. THE COURT: Well, she has no personal knowledge of

11
10:56:55 10:56:59 10:57:04 10:57:07 10:57:10 10:57:12 10:57:15 10:57:19 10:57:24 10:57:27 10:57:30 10:57:35 10:57:43 10:57:44 10:57:45 10:57:46 10:57:48 10:58:02 10:58:08 10:58:12 10:58:14 10:58:37 10:58:39 10:58:42 10:58:58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the facts. I know I have allowed hearsay, hearsay is allowable in these things, but this isn't -- this is like quadruple hearsay. She's going to take the evidence, she's going to analyze the evidence for the court? MS. ANDERSON: No, your Honor. She has been provided the evidence, and she's going to state as to what she and the court has been provided to, and simply once I have laid the foundation, offer some additional evidence that has been in regards to the information that the court has been provided. THE COURT: I'll reserve my ruling. You may file a motion or you may make a motion after the point has been made, if it can be made. All right. So you asked a question. MS. ANDERSON: Yes. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Were there multiple experts who reviewed the material? A. Yes, there were experts in photography, and some others
were experts in -- forensic experts in computers.

Q. According to the computer report, what time was Ms. Cruz

to have used her mother's computer?

A. According to the computer, it was at 5:45 a.m. the morning

of July 12, '05.

Q. At what time was the ransom note created, according to the

computer expert? MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor. This is to the

12
10:59:01 10:59:06 10:59:08 10:59:10 10:59:11 10:59:13 10:59:16 10:59:18 10:59:23 10:59:23 10:59:27 10:59:28 10:59:47 10:59:51 10:59:55 10:59:59 11:00:34 11:00:38 11:00:48 11:00:52 11:00:53 11:00:56 11:01:16 11:01:19 11:01:24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

statement that she made in terms of the date, of the time that Quevedo Cruz was supposed to have used the computer. What's the basis for her knowledge of this? MS. ANDERSON: Again, your Honor -THE COURT: The objection is overruled. I am going to reserve ruling on all of this. THE WITNESS: It was done at 9:00 o'clock in the morning July 25th of '05, according to the computer. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. At what time were the photos to have been placed on the

computer, according to the computer expert?

A. According to the computer, it was created at 5:45 in the

morning on June -- July 5th of '05.

Q. What time does the government's evidence speculate

Ms. Cruz to have been disposing the body of Mr. Miranda?

A. The police had stated that Ms. Quevedo Cruz had been in
the apartment of the deceased from 11:00 o'clock in the morning on July 11th, from 11:00 o'clock p.m. -- that was the interpreter's mistake -- on July 11th until 9:30 in the morning on July 12th.

Q. And these events were all on the same day? A. The events started at 11:00 p.m. on July 11th, and they
ended on July 12th at 9:30 in the morning.

Q. On what date did the government confiscate the computer

that belongs to the mother of Brenda Quevedo Cruz?

13
11:01:27 11:01:42 11:01:43 11:01:47 11:01:50 11:02:03 11:02:04 11:02:06 11:02:08 11:02:13 11:02:31 11:02:36 11:02:44 11:02:47 11:02:48 11:02:52 11:02:53 11:03:15 11:03:28 11:03:32 11:03:36 11:03:41 11:03:45 11:03:46 11:03:48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Approximately it was in February of 2006 -- excuse me,

that was in 2007.

Q. How long was the computer in the government's -A. I want to clarify something. Excuse me. There is a
mistake as to the date. The computer they had, 2006, in April of 2006.

Q. How long was -THE COURT: Just a moment. The computer was what in April 2006? I didn't catch that. THE WITNESS: The office of the public prosecutor had the computer for approximately one year and five months, which is when they -- which was when they did the proof after the period of the one year as far as the computer. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Let me clarify. What date did the police confiscate the

computer?

A. The computer was confiscated in 2006, April of 2006, and

the testing was done on November of '07. So all that time, the police did not do any testing on the computer until then.

Q. When did the government release their findings on the

computer? THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, can you repeat, please? BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. When did the government release their findings on the

computer?

14
11:03:48 11:03:54 11:03:59 11:04:03 11:04:15 11:04:15 11:04:16 11:04:29 11:04:41 11:04:44 11:04:49 11:04:55 11:05:00 11:05:14 11:05:17 11:05:20 11:05:34 11:05:35 11:05:39 11:05:40 11:05:58 11:05:59 11:06:06 11:06:06 11:06:23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Not until November of 2007. Q. And let's go back to what the report revealed. You said
that the computer report found words similar to that of the ransom note; is that correct?

A. That's right. Q. How many words? A. 20,000 words were found in the document on the Word
system, and only seven words were the ones that correlated to the notice that was sent to the family of the victim.

Q. So there were 20,000 words total on the computer? A. That's right, of documents that were recovered. Q. And seven words matched what was found in the ransom note? A. That's right. And they were seven words that were not in
chronological order.

Q. There were also photos on the computer as well? A. More than pictures, there were images that were illegible;
you couldn't make them out.

Q. Okay. And according to the government, were these photos

of the alleged victim?

A. According to the government, those images corresponded to

pictures of the victim.

Q. Well, if the photos were illegible, how did they make that
determination?

A. They did a study, a comparative study, with the photograph

which the mother of the victim provided.

15
11:06:25 11:06:29 11:06:32 11:06:46 11:06:51 11:06:54 11:06:55 11:07:15 11:07:23 11:07:27 11:07:33 11:07:41 11:07:50 11:07:58 11:08:06 11:08:08 11:08:11 11:08:11 11:08:18 11:08:23 11:08:25 11:08:27 11:08:52 11:08:58 11:09:07

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. And do all the computer experts agree that the

photos found on the computer were of the victim?

A. Only one. The others are illegible. They can't be seen. Q. Do all of the experts agree on what type of photos these
were; in other words, were they taken with a camera or any other type of device?

A. No. In fact, there is a discrepancy -- there is a

discrepancy between the experts for the Mexican government because from the study that they did on that photograph which was provided by the victim's mother, they established that it's not possible to determine what camera or how the original image was obtained from that photo. Nevertheless, the forensic experts in computer services, they alleged that the photo came from a cell phone, but they have not made an agreement on that.

Q. How many reports by the computer experts deal with the

photos?

A. Two. Q. And just, once again, to reiterate, how long did the
government have the computer in their possession before the investigations were completed?

A. The computer was from April of 2006 and during all the
proceedings for Juana Hilda Gonzalez, and at the government's request, they carried out the study of the computer up until November of 2007.

16
11:09:08 11:09:14 11:09:15 11:09:18 11:09:20 11:09:24 11:09:25 11:09:28 11:09:30 11:09:32 11:09:35 11:09:39 11:09:42 11:09:45 11:09:50 11:09:52 11:10:05 11:10:06 11:10:11 11:10:15 11:10:16 11:10:22 11:10:27 11:10:27 11:10:40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Thank you. Okay. And on what date did the government -okay. You also represent Juana Hilda Gonzalez?

A. Yes. Q. And the government has provided information regarding the

investigation? MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, I'm not sure if counsel is going to go off of the computer report. THE COURT: Are you going on to a new point? MS. ANDERSON: I am moving off the computer report. We are simply going to review what was found in regards to genetic material in the apartment of Juana Hilda Gonzalez. THE COURT: Well, I'd like to ask the witness: What is the basis of your knowledge of all of these dates and the number of words and the picture? THE WITNESS: From all of the reports that exist in those proceedings. THE COURT: And those are the reports that exist at the police? THE WITNESS: That's right. THE COURT: Are any -- is any of that information contained in what was filed so far in this case by the government? THE WITNESS: All of the documents, including the photographs, are there in the order in which they were taken,

17
11:10:54 11:11:02 11:11:07 11:11:09 11:11:12 11:11:16 11:11:17 11:11:25 11:11:29 11:11:30 11:11:33 11:11:33 11:11:37 11:11:40 11:11:45 11:11:47 11:11:51 11:11:58 11:12:01 11:12:06 11:12:09 11:12:12 11:12:14 11:12:15 11:12:19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

which the government -- the Mexican government requested from Brenda Quevedo Cruz. All of the other documents have been provided by the government also. THE COURT: Well, what I want to know is, if I look at the documents that are in this file, will I see these dates that you testified to? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: All right. That's the basis of her knowledge. All right. Now, you have a motion with regard to relevance? MS. GILLERS: Yes, your Honor. All of the information is already before the Court if she is testifying it's her opinion or her analysis, which is not relevant. THE COURT: Well, she didn't testify as to her opinion. She just testified as to what was already on the record, in the record. So I guess there is no harm. I don't know the point, but maybe we'll reach a point. MS. ANDERSON: Your Honor, it's just -- it's a voluminous amount of information, it allows us to present some important facts to the Court, and it's just -THE COURT: But it's in the record already. MS. ANDERSON: I understand that, your Honor. THE COURT: So you can argue this. MS. ANDERSON: There are additional things that we

18
11:12:21 11:12:21 11:12:23 11:12:25 11:12:28 11:12:33 11:12:36 11:12:40 11:12:42 11:12:47 11:12:52 11:12:52 11:12:53 11:12:55 11:12:56 11:12:56 11:12:59 11:13:00 11:13:04 11:13:04 11:13:07 11:13:13 11:13:16 11:13:21 11:13:26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can argue -THE COURT: There are additional things that this witness testified to that was not already in the record. MS. ANDERSON: Well, for instance, your Honor, I am going to request that she review the alleged victim's birth certificate, and I had some specific questions regarding Mexican law related to that. THE COURT: Let's talk about what this witness already testified to. What did she testify to -- she indicated she testified to only the things that were actually in the record -MS. ANDERSON: Yes. THE COURT: -- of this case here before us in my file, right? MS. ANDERSON: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, why can't you just argue it in final argument? MS. ANDERSON: And we certainly will be doing that. Once again -THE COURT: I don't need a repeat. If this witness can come up with some evidence not merely picking out a piece of evidence here and a piece of evidence there that's already in the record, you can do that. I don't need to have it done twice. I am sure the witness is a very fine attorney in Mexico. You're a fine attorney, and Mr. Horn is a fine

19
11:13:31 11:13:36 11:13:37 11:13:40 11:13:45 11:13:48 11:13:50 11:13:50 11:13:51 11:13:52 11:13:56 11:13:58 11:14:13 11:14:23 11:14:28 11:14:30 11:14:35 11:14:39 11:14:42 11:14:43 11:14:58 11:15:03 11:15:04 11:15:17 11:15:21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

attorney here in Chicago. I only need it once. MS. ANDERSON: Again, your Honor, there are some inconsistencies in the record that we are utilizing her assistance to point out to your Honor. It's just -- you know, if you just bear with us for a moment. THE COURT: All right. I will bear with you for a moment. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. On the date -- on what date did the government search the

apartment of Juana Hilda Gonzalez?

A. The first time was the 13th -- or the 15th of July

of 2005. The second time was the 9th of February 2006.

Q. And was Ms. Gonzalez living at the apartment during the

first investigation?

A. Yes. Q. Did the government find any evidence or take any evidence
at the time they searched the apartment while Ms. Gonzalez was living there?

A. Nothing was found the 15th of July of 2005. Q. Okay. On the visit of February 9th, 2006, was Ms.
Gonzalez living at the apartment?

A. No, she had left. She no longer lived there. Q. How long had she not been living there? A. From June of -- from July of 2005 until February of 2006.

20
11:15:43 11:15:48 11:15:48 11:16:05 11:16:12 11:16:19 11:16:19 11:16:24 11:16:27 11:16:29 11:16:32 11:16:34 11:16:38 11:16:43 11:16:44 11:16:59 11:17:08 11:17:11 11:17:19 11:17:23 11:17:28 11:17:29 11:17:34 11:17:36 11:17:36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Was anyone living at the apartment at the time of the

second investigation?

A. The apartment was empty. Nonetheless, there is testimony

in the file in Mexico, which had been confirmed, that that apartment was rented out, but no knowledge as to the name of the tenant.

Q. What was found at the apartment during the second

investigation? MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection. Again, relevance to this whole line of questioning. THE COURT: I can see the relevance of that. Once again, is this information in the record here, or is this information that you saw in records of the police department in Mexico? THE WITNESS: I was able to verify some of the data that you have, and I know that this information was not sent to you relating to the fact of whether or not the apartment was rented out. I could suppose that that's because it's information dealing with the trial in Mexico. THE COURT: All right. Your objection now? MS. GILLERS: I think at this point, there are two objections. If she's testifying to new information, objection, what's the foundation to the information she's testifying to? THE COURT: She has testified as to new information.

21
11:17:39 11:17:41 11:17:44 11:17:48 11:17:54 11:17:58 11:17:59 11:18:01 11:18:05 11:18:09 11:18:11 11:18:14 11:18:19 11:18:25 11:18:29 11:18:31 11:18:35 11:18:40 11:18:42 11:18:45 11:18:46 11:19:11 11:19:15 11:19:19 11:19:20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. GILLERS: And how does she know that? THE COURT: She said she inspected the records in Mexico, and they are not before the Court. Now, of course, that's hearsay or double hearsay, but I have allowed hearsay in this case. Hearsay is allowed. Your entire case is hearsay. MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, if there are records that she's claiming she's relied on that she's seen in the case in Mexico, can we see them? Does she have them here? THE COURT: Well, if she has them, you will have an opportunity to cross-examine. I don't know whether she can provide them or not. So far she's testified that she's seen this information in the records in Mexico, and that's hearsay. We are not holding a hearsay trial -- we are not holding a non-hearsay trial here. Okay? The objection is overruled. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Let's go back to, at the time of the

second investigation of the apartment, what did the police find?

A. They found a license of the victim and a drop of blood

about one centimeter thick.

Q. Do you know if the driver's license was the alleged

victim's current license?

A. No, in fact, the victim, the license that was found had

22
11:19:38 11:19:46 11:19:54 11:19:55 11:19:58 11:19:59 11:20:03 11:20:05 11:20:06 11:20:12 11:20:16 11:20:18 11:20:22 11:20:27 11:20:45 11:20:49 11:20:54 11:20:56 11:20:56 11:21:00 11:21:03 11:21:14 11:21:22 11:21:30 11:21:43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

expired a year before, and for over a year, the victim had had a new license. Nonetheless, it was found in the apartment of Juana Hilda Gonzalez. MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection again to the foundation and knowledge of that. THE COURT: The objection is overruled at this point. She hasn't finished. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Can you clarify for me? You said it had been expired over
a year. That's at the time of the alleged incident it had been expired for over a year, correct?

A. That's right. Q. And do you know the expiration date? A. It expired in -- well, indeed, it wasn't the current
license that he had. It had been -- it expired a year before.

Q. In addition to the driver's license, you stated genetic

material was found in Ms. Gonzalez' apartment; is that correct? THE COURT: Just a moment. What is the basis of your knowledge of all of these -- this license information? THE WITNESS: They're also among the data that you do not have. We requested a copy. I don't know if that has been presented to you. In the information, what was asked for, in order to demonstrate from Mexico that Hugo Alberto, the victim, was not in that apartment because if the license was

23
11:21:48 11:21:56 11:22:01 11:22:02 11:22:05 11:22:13 11:22:13 11:22:17 11:22:20 11:22:22 11:22:24 11:22:31 11:22:31 11:22:35 11:22:36 11:22:41 11:22:45 11:22:45 11:22:56 11:22:57 11:23:05 11:23:07 11:23:08 11:23:16 11:23:20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

expired, how would it be possible for them not to have found the current one if they found another license that he wasn't using? THE COURT: My question is, where did you get this information from? Did you see it in the records in Mexico City? THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. You stated that genetic material was found in the

apartment as well; is that correct?

A. That's right. Q. And you came by this knowledge regarding -- due to the
police reports, correct?

A. That's right. Q. And what kind of genetic material was found at the
apartment?

A. A centimeter of blood. Q. Was this blood tested? A. That's right. Q. And who performed an examination of the blood found in the
apartment?

A. Forensic experts belonging to the Mexican government. Q. And whose blood did the tests reveal was at the apartment? A. According to the testing, it was the victim's.

24
11:23:32 11:23:37 11:23:37 11:23:49 11:23:54 11:23:54 11:24:09 11:24:15 11:24:20 11:24:23 11:24:28 11:24:39 11:24:44 11:24:46 11:24:58 11:25:01 11:25:08 11:25:11 11:25:14 11:25:15 11:25:17 11:25:21 11:25:23 11:25:25 11:25:26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And how did they identify it as the alleged victim's

blood?

A. Because they requested a sample from the mother's -- from

the victim's mother and the legal father of the victim.

Q. The legal father's name is Jose Wallace Diaz; is that

correct?

A. His name is Jose Enriquez Delsocoro Wallace (phonetic). Q. And Ms. Miranda Wallace is his mother, correct? A. Yes. Q. So they both provided blood samples that could be tested? A. Yes, they were turned over to the Mexican government. Q. So the Mexican government was the entity that monitored
the blood testing?

A. They were the only forensic expert that we have been

allowed during the trial.

Q. As the defense attorney for Juana Hilda Gonzalez, did you

have an opportunity to complete your own tests regarding the blood? MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Just did you have the opportunity? THE WITNESS: No. MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, could I explain what the objection is? THE COURT: Your objection is?

25
11:25:28 11:25:30 11:25:33 11:25:37 11:25:40 11:25:42 11:25:45 11:25:45 11:25:48 11:25:55 11:25:57 11:26:00 11:26:05 11:26:06 11:26:09 11:26:12 11:26:14 11:26:20 11:26:24 11:26:26 11:26:28 11:26:30 11:26:34 11:26:49 11:26:50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor.

MS. GILLERS: Based on the rule of non-inquiry that the Court is not to consider the constitutional or legal process that's afforded a defendant in Mexico, the question of the laws provided or the legal process of the government. THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what the point is, so I'm going to let her go on. The objection is overruled. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Did you request testing of these individuals? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Wallace present himself? A. No. Q. Did Ms. Wallace present herself?
MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection. THE COURT: This has to do with the procedure, the investigative procedures in Mexico? What is your point? MS. ANDERSON: Actually, your Honor, it has to do with the parentage of the alleged victim, so I will -- I just have a couple more questions. I was laying foundation for my final questions regarding this matter. THE COURT: All right. I will reserve the ruling. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Okay. So no additional testing was completed? A. No.

MS. ANDERSON: We have a birth certificate, your

26
11:26:50 11:26:53 11:26:54 11:26:55 11:26:55 11:26:56 11:27:01 11:27:02 11:27:06 11:27:08 11:27:12 11:27:20 11:27:24 11:27:28 11:27:46 11:27:59 11:28:04 11:28:14 11:28:20 11:28:31 11:28:42 11:28:47 11:28:51 11:29:08 11:29:22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: Wait a minute. This still has to do with the parentage? MS. ANDERSON: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Take a look at that. Is this the birth certificate of the

alleged victim?

A. Yes.
MS. ANDERSON: Here you are, your Honor. I provided a copy to the government as well with the translation. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Based upon the birth certificate, can you explain to us in

Mexico what the different types of birth certificates are?

A. Yes. In Mexico, there is what's called initial birth

certificates for which the mother and the father go in to declare that there's been the birth of a minor. And when the minor is only presented by the mother, and later the mother's wife -- I'm sorry, the mother's husband, of course, and he wants to recognize the child as his offspring, a minor child, this can be done afterwards. Those are called certificates of accepting paternity, such as the one you showed me.

Q. Well, how do you know that this one accepts paternity? A. Because the birth certificate of Mr. Hugo Alberto happened
in 1969, and the certificate of parentage, if I'm not mistaken, it says 1975.

27
11:29:23 11:29:27 11:29:33 11:29:37 11:29:43 11:29:44 11:30:02 11:30:06 11:30:14 11:30:17 11:30:18 11:30:32 11:30:39 11:30:40 11:30:44 11:30:44 11:31:02 11:31:05 11:31:09 11:31:10 11:31:30 11:31:31 11:31:36 11:31:44 11:31:50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. It's 1973. A. That was my -- I was mistaken as to the year. Q. So under Mexican law, this birth certificate does not
necessarily state that Mr. Wallace is the father of the alleged victim?

A. That's right. At least the biological father. Q. Is Mr. Wallace originally from Mexico? A. No, he is from Nicaragua. Q. What year did he first enter the country, and how do you
have that information?

A. He was 10 years old when he entered the country of Mexico

for the first time. The information was requested from the trial court in Mexico.

Q. And how old was he when he entered the country the second
time?

A. If I'm not mistaken, he was older, 60 or 50 years old. Q. Is there any documentation that you are aware of that
Mr. Wallace lived in Mexico between his first entry and his second entry?

A. In fact, that document only has the date of entry and exit
and nothing else.

Q. And what year did Mr. Wallace marry Ms. Miranda Wallace? A. It must have been '73, 1973, approximately. Q. And, actually, we have an approximate date of 1989. Would
that be --

28
11:31:56 11:32:12 11:32:15 11:32:17 11:32:19 11:32:19 11:32:22 11:32:23 11:32:26 11:32:32 11:32:50 11:32:53 11:32:59 11:33:01 11:33:01 11:33:05 11:33:10 11:33:20 11:33:24 11:33:32 11:33:46 11:33:48 11:33:54 11:33:56 11:34:01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. In fact, that document is one of the 25 volumes, but

the date is correct on the document. THE COURT: I don't understand that. MS. ANDERSON: I'm going to try to clarify it, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. So based upon the documentation that you have, what is the

date of Mr. Wallace and Ms. Wallace's marriage?

A. Well, the documentation says '89, '89. Q. Okay. And, finally, what year was the alleged victim
born? Well, we have a birth certificate. THE COURT: I need clarification. What's this about the 25 volumes? I don't understand that at all. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. The documentation, the volumes, what is this information

that you're coming by this, you're saying volumes, 25 volumes, documentation?

A. Well, in Mexico, proceedings are done with a lot of

paperwork. And every 1,000 pages makes up a volume. THE COURT: All right. So what did you find in the volumes? I don't understand the entire point of all that. MS. ANDERSON: Your Honor, once again, we are trying to demonstrate that there is a possibility that the blood could not have demonstrated or the testing could not have

29
11:34:05 11:34:09 11:34:13 11:34:15 11:34:20 11:34:23 11:34:23 11:34:26 11:34:29 11:34:31 11:34:36 11:34:40 11:34:43 11:34:45 11:34:46 11:34:50 11:34:51 11:34:55 11:34:55 11:34:56 11:34:58 11:35:03 11:35:07 11:35:11 11:35:13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

demonstrated that the blood belonged to the alleged victim because we had no way of testing it based upon the possibility of the parentage not being correct. THE COURT: So it was not tested -- the only testing was the testing by the Mexican government; is that right? MS. ANDERSON: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. What information was obtained out of these 25 volumes? That's what I don't understand. MS. ANDERSON: My understanding is that the 25 volumes is she obtained the date of the marriage in her documents at the hearing in Mexico. THE COURT: Well, do we have any of those documents here? MS. ANDERSON: We have the information that the Mexican government provided to us, and I can certainly try to locate it. THE COURT: She had documents in her possession? MS. ANDERSON: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Where are they? MS. ANDERSON: Most of those documents have been presented by the government, and limited information has been -- for us to present, we're basing or trying to base our information as an explanation of the information that the Mexican government has provided. THE COURT: She has -- she testified from documents

30
11:35:17 11:35:19 11:35:20 11:35:21 11:35:22 11:35:23 11:35:25 11:35:26 11:35:29 11:35:29 11:35:30 11:35:32 11:35:34 11:35:41 11:35:45 11:35:49 11:35:53 11:35:53 11:36:10 11:36:12 11:36:18 11:36:25 11:36:29 11:36:36 11:36:37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that she has. MS. ANDERSON: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Are they here? MS. ANDERSON: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Where are they? MS. ANDERSON: I would assume that they are in Mexico. THE COURT: So this witness did not bring them; is that the point? MS. ANDERSON: That's correct, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Let's move on. One last item that was presented by the
government that I'd like to ask a few questions about. The government's evidence lists an eyewitness to the incident that allegedly took place at Ms. Gonzalez' apartment. What is her name?

A. That's right. Q. What is her name? A. Vanessa Figueroa. Q. And on what date did the police take a statement from
Ms. Figueroa?

A. There are two statements. The statements were taken in

February of 2006.

Q. Both statements were taken in February of 2006?

31
11:36:41 11:36:46 11:36:50 11:37:01 11:37:12 11:37:16 11:37:19 11:37:25 11:37:27 11:37:35 11:37:36 11:37:38 11:37:40 11:37:40 11:37:42 11:37:49 11:37:53 11:37:55 11:38:08 11:38:10 11:38:12 11:38:13 11:38:19 11:38:21 11:38:22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. In February, yes. Q. What did she say at the time of her first statement? A. That she didn't know why she was being questioned, she had
no information about the case, and although she did know Juana Hilda, she knew nothing of any kidnapping or any other crime.

Q. Is this information in the police report in Mexico? A. That's right. That's correct.
THE COURT: Let me interrupt for just a moment. There was a trial in Mexico; is that right? There was a trial in Mexico? THE WITNESS: There still is an ongoing trial. THE COURT: It's an ongoing trial? THE WITNESS: That's right. THE COURT: Who is on trial? THE WITNESS: Juana Hilda Gonzalez. THE COURT: And is that individual on trial for this kidnapping and this murder? THE WITNESS: Only for the kidnapping. There is no charge of homicide. THE COURT: So this individual is on trial for kidnapping right now? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And you represent this individual? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And do you know when this trial is

32
11:38:28 11:38:29 11:38:39 11:38:41 11:38:44 11:38:53 11:39:05 11:39:12 11:39:19 11:39:21 11:39:25 11:39:26 11:39:31 11:39:35 11:39:48 11:39:52 11:40:00 11:40:02 11:40:20 11:40:30 11:40:42 11:40:44 11:40:47 11:40:56 11:41:01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

scheduled to end? THE WITNESS: Maybe within four months. I don't know. THE COURT: How often does the court meet? THE WITNESS: Proceedings are very different there than here. The time frame down there is still very long. There is yet to be presented the conclusions of the defense, and each party, the defense and the prosecution, each one is granted 30 days. THE COURT: Okay. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Once again, so the information regarding Ms. Figueroa's

first statements was available in the police report in Mexico?

A. Yes. Q. Did Ms. Figueroa make a second statement to the police? A. Yes, in the same month. Q. And what did the second statement consist of? A. The second one had direct accusations. It said that
noises were heard in Ms. Gonzalez' apartment and that she saw when some black bags were taken out, and all this happened the 12th of July of 2005.

Q. And what was -- and when was she questioned? A. She gave her statement in April of 2006. Q. Have you had an opportunity to question Ms. Figueroa about
her statement?

33
11:41:01 11:41:18 11:41:28 11:41:31 11:41:34 11:41:38 11:41:42 11:41:54 11:42:00 11:42:02 11:42:03 11:42:03 11:42:05 11:42:06 11:42:07 11:42:10 11:42:16 11:42:20 11:42:23 11:42:24 11:42:27 11:42:34 11:42:37 11:42:43 11:42:47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. For a year, we were trying to locate her. Summonses were

sent to her, and she never showed up until her mother appeared and said that the woman had left the country.

Q. Ms. Figueroa's mother appeared in court? A. That's right. Q. And what did her mother say in court? A. That Ms. Figueroa was afraid because she had been bothered
by the police and she wanted no more trouble, neither with the police nor with anyone. MS. GILLERS: Objection. THE COURT: Your objection? MS. GILLERS: This objection is similar to our objection -THE COURT: You got to speak up a little. MS. GILLERS: Similar objection about the same attack on the witness statement of Gonzalez Lomeli. It seems that she is now attacking the conditions of this witness' confession, which are not relevant to this proceeding. THE COURT: What's the relevance? MS. ANDERSON: Your Honor, once again, Ms. Figueroa's statement is in the government's documents. The first statement is not in the government's documents, and we just wish to explain the timing and the issues surrounding the statement that was presented. THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

34
11:42:51 11:42:56 11:43:03 11:43:06 11:43:27 11:43:27 11:43:30 11:43:35 11:43:39 11:43:41 11:43:54 11:43:58 11:44:09 11:44:10 11:44:11 11:44:14 11:44:15 11:44:17 11:44:21 11:44:27 11:44:30 11:44:31 11:44:33 11:44:35 11:44:36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Did Ms. Figueroa's mother state who had come to her or who
threatened her to make her afraid to appear in court?

A. She stated that it was the Mexican police and relatives of

the victim.

Q. Does Ms. Figueroa have a son? A. That's right, Eric. Q. Was there any report saying that her son allegedly
witnessed anything in Ms. Gonzalez' apartment?

A. Yes, there is a statement by the victim's mother. Q. What did -- she spoke on behalf of her son? A. No, the mother of the victim said that the minor had
spoken to her.

Q. So Ms. -THE COURT: Just a moment. Did all this happen during the trial? MS. ANDERSON: No, your Honor, I believe, and I can ask the exact date, but my understanding is that this happened before the trial. THE COURT: So it was not brought out in the trial thus far? MS. ANDERSON: It was brought out in the trial in that Ms. Figueroa's -THE COURT: Why don't we get a transcript of the trial?

35
11:44:37 11:44:38 11:44:40 11:44:42 11:44:45 11:44:51 11:44:54 11:44:54 11:44:59 11:45:04 11:45:08 11:45:12 11:45:14 11:45:15 11:45:18 11:45:18 11:45:20 11:45:20 11:45:29 11:45:34 11:45:44 11:45:46 11:45:55 11:46:04 11:46:10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. ANDERSON: We can certainly request that. THE COURT: Why do we have this lady pick and choose what information is in that trial and present it here? MS. ANDERSON: Based upon our belief that it wasn't going to be acceptable evidence, and we were once again trying to explain the evidence that has been presented by the government. THE COURT: So she's picking and choosing, and you are asking her particular parts of the evidence at the trial but not all of the evidence, right? MS. ANDERSON: Well, the evidence that has been presented here, I am asking her to explain it based on her knowledge of the trial. She is available for cross-examination, and we would be more than happy to -- you know, to provide the transcript. THE COURT: All right. Keep going. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. Okay. So let me clarify. Ms. Figueroa's son was to have

spoken to Ms. Miranda Wallace, the victim's mother?

A. That's what the victim's mother said. Q. When did she say this? A. The statements, in several statements by the victim's
mother, she said she spoke with the child, but the minor stated that that was not true and that he never spoke to the victim's mother.

36
11:46:11 11:46:12 11:46:17 11:46:20 11:46:24 11:46:25 11:46:28 11:46:29 11:46:29 11:46:31 11:46:34 11:46:38 11:46:41 11:46:42 11:46:44 11:46:51 11:46:52 11:46:58 11:46:59 11:47:01 11:47:06 11:47:12 11:47:13 11:47:23 11:47:27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. When did he make that statement? A. It was also in February of 2006.

MS. GILLERS: Your Honor, objection as to the relevance of the testimony of the witness' son's testimony. I am just not sure how -MS. ANDERSON: It's in the declaration provided by Ms. Miranda Wallace. THE COURT: Pardon? MS. ANDERSON: It's in the declaration provided by Ms. Miranda Wallace, which is in the information that the Mexican government has provided in these proceedings. THE COURT: So she's explaining -MS. ANDERSON: The declaration. THE COURT: -- or clarifying what that declaration is all about. All right. Overruled. BY MS. ANDERSON:

Q. So he made this statement in February of 2006? A. That's right. Q. That he never spoke to the victim's mother? A. That's right, he never spoke. Q. To date, have you or anyone else been able to locate
Ms. Figueroa and her son?

A. For all intents and purposes, disappeared. Q. And Ms. Figueroa's mother has continued to state that her
daughter is afraid of the police and the family?

37
11:47:30 11:47:39 11:47:41 11:47:42 11:47:45 11:47:49 12:05:22 12:05:24 12:05:26 12:05:28 12:05:54 12:05:58 12:06:04 12:05:25 12:05:25 12:05:25 12:06:11 12:06:14 12:06:23 12:06:26 12:06:27 12:06:36 12:06:38 12:06:48 12:07:00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. That's right.
MS. ANDERSON: At this time, your Honor, I have no further questions. THE COURT: All right. Let's take a five-minute recess, and then we will have cross-examination. (Short break.) THE COURT: You may cross-examine. MS. GILLERS: Thank you. I want to hand defense counsel a copy of what I am going to be handing the witness. This is going to be submitted to the Court later on today in another submission we're submitting under Exhibit 7. I am just giving the court a copy and the witness a copy. - - AMBAR TREVINO PEREZ, CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. GILLERS:

Q. Can you please turn your attention to page 2 of the

Spanish document that I handed you? And that's a copy of the reverse side, the back of Hugo Wallace's birth certificate, isn't it?

A. Yes. Q. And can you please turn your attention to the top portion
of that page? I think it says, and I am not going to get the Spanish right (spoken in Spanish), the top portion again. And the English version, it's translated about the identification.

38
12:07:10 12:07:13 12:07:19 12:07:20 12:07:23 12:07:23 12:07:25 12:07:25 12:07:34 12:07:36 12:07:39 12:07:40 12:07:52 12:07:55 12:07:58 12:08:02 12:08:03 12:08:05 12:08:08 12:08:11 12:08:12 12:08:25 12:08:27 12:08:31 12:08:40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The same page you were just looking at, the top portion of that page.

A. Um-hmm. Q. Now, those lines are all blank, correct? A. Yes. Q. No one filled them out, correct? A. Right. Q. Now, Ms. Trevino Perez, you testified earlier that there
were several documents that you had seen that were part of the proceedings in Mexico that are not currently before this court?

A. That I had seen them, that I had sent them? Q. You testified just a moment ago that you had seen certain
documents that are not currently before this court here in Chicago.

A. Yes. Q. You also testified that you have not provided copies of
the documents that you had seen that are not before this court, you had not provided copies of those documents to this court, correct?

A. None were requested from me directly. Q. Just a yes or no, did you provide them to this court? A. No. Q. You also testified that you currently represent Juana
Hilda Gonzalez Lomeli for the proceedings against her in

39
12:08:42 12:08:43 12:08:49 12:08:55 12:08:57 12:08:57 12:09:03 12:09:05 12:09:15 12:09:15 12:09:19 12:09:23 12:09:28 12:09:37 12:09:38 12:09:39 12:10:00 12:10:02 12:10:15 12:10:15 12:10:15 12:10:16 12:10:20 12:10:24 12:10:26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mexico, correct?

A. That's right. Q. You are vigorously defending your client to the best of
your abilities; isn't that correct?

A. That's right. Q. Now, you've also testified that you represent Brenda
Quevedo Cruz in whatever proceedings are initiated against her in Mexico; is that correct?

A. Yes. Q. Now, if Brenda Quevedo Cruz is returned to Mexico, you

will also represent her vigorously to the best of your abilities; isn't that right?

A. As should be done, yes.

MS. GILLERS: Can I have just a moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. (Brief pause.) MS. GILLERS: No further questions, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Any redirect? - - AMBAR TREVINO PEREZ, REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HORN:

Q. Your clients have been in jail for how long?

THE COURT: Which client? BY MR. HORN:

Q. Juana Hilda.

40
12:10:26 12:10:27 12:10:32 12:10:33 12:10:36 12:10:38 12:10:43 12:10:45 12:10:49 12:10:51 12:10:52 12:10:57 12:10:57 12:11:10 12:11:17 12:11:23 12:11:27 12:11:45 12:11:46 12:11:48 12:11:49 12:11:51 12:11:54 12:11:58 12:11:58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Three years. Q. Three years. And there are also other people involved in
this alleged crime?

A. That's right. Q. How long have they been in custody? A. The same time, three years. Q. And have they been given a bond? A. No.
MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor, this is beyond the scope of the cross. THE COURT: It's beyond the scope, sustained. BY MR. HORN:

Q. You stated that the -- in the extradition warrant, it

stated that she -- it was alleged that Brenda Quevedo Cruz has been charged with the crime of organized crime. Are you aware of any charge in Mexico on the crime -- on the alleged crime of organized crime? MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor. What's the relevance of this question? THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. MS. GILLERS: It's also beyond the scope. THE COURT: Well, it is beyond the scope, but I'm interested in the answer. I think it's important information. THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question, please? MR. HORN: Sure. Could you read the question back,

41
12:12:33 12:12:33 12:12:35 12:12:43 12:12:44 12:12:47 12:12:53 12:12:53 12:13:00 12:13:05 12:13:09 12:13:11 12:13:12 12:13:13 12:13:14 12:13:15 12:13:17 12:13:18 12:13:19 12:13:19 12:13:19 12:13:19 12:13:19 12:13:27 12:13:30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

please? (Record read.) THE WITNESS: There is no legal basis for it. BY MR. HORN:

Q. Now, there is no -- the people who are on trial in Mexico,

there's no crime -- no charge of murder, is there, if you know?

A. None, no. Q. Okay. And the only link between Brenda and all of the
people and the charges is the confession that has been attempted to have been withdrawn? MS. GILLERS: Objection, your Honor. Again, this is beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. HORN: I have no further questions. THE COURT: All right. Anything further? MR. HORN: No. MS. GILLERS: No, your Honor. THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you. (Witness excused.) THE INTERPRETER: Is the interpreter further needed, your Honor? THE COURT: I don't know. Defendant, any other witnesses? MR. HORN: No.

42
12:13:31 12:13:31 12:13:34 12:13:35 12:13:36 12:13:37 12:13:39 12:13:41 12:13:42 12:13:44 12:13:51 12:13:51 12:13:54 12:13:59 12:14:06 12:14:08 12:14:11 12:14:15 12:14:19 12:14:20 12:14:22 12:14:24 12:14:28 12:14:33 12:14:39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: Do you rest? MR. HORN: Yes. THE COURT: Government? MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, we have some evidence to present to the Court. THE COURT: Are you going to have any witnesses that require the interpreter? MR. GILLOGLY: No, your Honor. THE COURT: You are excused. Thank you. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. Have a good day. (Interpreter excused.) MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, I am tendering to your clerk an official document provided from the government of Mexico and then a copy for your Honor's chambers. We tendered a copy to counsel. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GILLOGLY: And if the Court would appreciate it, I can briefly describe to you what's in the documents we have just tendered to you. THE COURT: Okay. That would be good. MR. GILLOGLY: All right. Judge, the document contains -- excuse me, the packet that we have submitted to you is composed of or comprised of an affidavit of counsel for Mexico, Mr. Lopez again, together with a number of exhibits to which he makes reference in the affidavit. Essentially,

43
12:14:44 12:14:47 12:14:51 12:14:56 12:15:00 12:15:06 12:15:08 12:15:10 12:15:13 12:15:15 12:15:19 12:15:24 12:15:28 12:15:33 12:15:36 12:15:40 12:15:45 12:15:46 12:15:50 12:15:55 12:15:58 12:16:01 12:16:06 12:16:09 12:16:11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Judge, there are about nine topics, if you will, that are addressed in Mr. Lopez' affidavit. The affidavit we are told was actually signed on December 18th of 2008. Apparently, it's the -- not the custom to put a date on the affidavit, but that's the date. For shorthand, I will refer to it as the December Lopez affidavit. That affidavit, your Honor, addresses about nine topics. The first, you will recall your Honor had heard some testimony. Again, while we objected to it, we are addressing it because your Honor I think is still sorting things out, with respect to the -- for lack of a better word, the mug shot of Hugo Wallace, the victim in this case, as well as some information about Mr. Wallace's criminal history. I think it casts some doubt on an exhibit that was submitted by the fugitive. It was her Exhibit No. 2 submitted to this Court on September 25th. It casts some doubt on the authenticity of that exhibit. It also refutes the assertions by Mr. Moya that Mr. Hugo had been, quote, persecuted by the police and that basically he or his mother had bought himself out of some trouble. It also I think refutes Mr. Moya's speculation that Mr. Wallace is engaged in drug dealing and provided him a lot of money that he was supposedly sending to the woman with whom Mr. Moya was living. Again, your Honor, we moved to strike all of that

44
12:16:14 12:16:16 12:16:21 12:16:25 12:16:29 12:16:29 12:16:34 12:16:38 12:16:42 12:16:45 12:16:48 12:16:51 12:16:55 12:16:59 12:17:03 12:17:06 12:17:09 12:17:10 12:17:12 12:17:18 12:17:26 12:17:27 12:17:30 12:17:36 12:17:42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

testimony. We understand your Honor has taken that under advisement. So to the extent that your Honor finds it admissible or helpful, we have submitted into evidence what we think actually tends to refute it or certainly substantially impeaches it. The second topic addressed in Mr. Lopez' December affidavit is some information concerning the New Generation human rights association. Your Honor will recall that in September, the fugitive submitted to your Honor her Exhibit 5, which purported to be a statement of this human rights organization called New Generation. Your Honor has already ruled on the torture aspect of this thing. They did not call the author of that document, although they had brought him to court apparently last September. I think that issue is essentially, for lack of a better word, off the table, so I won't spend any more time on that point, and I will move on instead. The third topic addressed in the December Lopez affidavits are financial records, bank records of Pasiana Cruz Gomez, the mother of the fugitive, Brenda Quevedo Cruz, as well as the financial records of Jacobo Tagle Dobin, Ms. Quevedo Cruz' boyfriend, showing that in July, June and July of 2005, there were substantial transfers of moneys from Ms. Cruz' mother, Pasiana, whom your Honor heard testify, by the way, we realized we never did get a chance to

45
12:17:45 12:17:48 12:17:55 12:18:00 12:18:06 12:18:10 12:18:16 12:18:19 12:18:26 12:18:30 12:18:34 12:18:39 12:18:46 12:18:51 12:18:58 12:19:03 12:19:07 12:19:11 12:19:16 12:19:20 12:19:26 12:19:29 12:19:35 12:19:40 12:19:45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

cross-examine her. There was a transfer of money from her account to Mr. Tagle Dobin's account, specifically 18,275 pesos or dollars on June 30th of 2005, another 15,000, approximately, 417 pesos or dollars on July 15th, 2005. This is in direct contradiction to Ms. Quevedo Cruz' testimony that she had no relationship with Mr. Tagle Dobin in July of 2005. It certainly impeaches her mother's testimony that there was no exchange of funds between her and Mr. Jacobo Tagle Dobin. The fourth topic addressed in Mr. Lopez' December affidavit are records, police records and interview records, regarding the leasing of two residences in 2005. The first relates to the lease for a residence at Pirineos, P-i-r-i-n-e-o-s, Pirineos Street, July 27th of '05. The lessors on that lease are Brenda Quevedo Cruz and Jacobo Tagle Dobin, although, as the interview memorandum reflects, Mr. Jacobo Tagle Dobin was using the false name at the time. Interestingly, Judge, the guarantor of that lease dated July 27th of '05 was fugitive's mother, Pasiana Cruz Gomez. This is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the fugitive that she had no relationship with Jacobo in July of 2005. There is a second lease, your Honor, dated December 20th of 2005, approximately five months later, for an address on Encino (phonetic) 124, also in the Mexico City area. The lessors, once again, were Jacobo using a phony name and Ms. Cruz. And, once again, the guarantor of that lease

46
12:19:48 12:19:53 12:19:57 12:20:02 12:20:06 12:20:09 12:20:13 12:20:17 12:20:24 12:20:29 12:20:32 12:20:38 12:20:41 12:20:45 12:20:49 12:20:52 12:20:57 12:20:59 12:21:03 12:21:08 12:21:11 12:21:18 12:21:20 12:21:24 12:21:27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was the fugitive's mother, Pasiana Cruz Gomez. This is in direct contradiction of Ms. Cruz' -- excuse me, Quevedo Cruz' testimony there was no relationship between her and Dobin in 2005; it also impeaches her testimony that the two of them had just one residence; and it certainly impeaches her testimony that she never lived on Encino No. 124. The fifth topic addressed in the December affidavit of Mr. Lopez is evidence showing that on June 30th of 2006, Pasiana Cruz Gomez, the fugitive's mother, ratified her statements that were given in February and May of 2006 before a judge of the 16th District Court in Mexico. This, your Honor, I think was an issue that I think Mr. Horn raised questioning whether or not the fugitive's mother's statements to the police had been ratified. Indeed, they have been. The next topic addressed in the December Lopez affidavit is information that Graciela Figueroa Martinez, about whom your Honor has just heard testimony, actually ratified her statements of February 2006 by signing both in the margins, and she has never disavowed or recanted them. I will have to add here that contrary to what you heard from Ms. Trevino Perez, Ms. Graciela Figueroa Martinez had first told the police she didn't know anything, and that information was actually provided to your Honor in the package that we submitted back in September of last year. She later recanted that, said that she was frightened, and then proceeded to give

47
12:21:31 12:21:34 12:21:38 12:21:40 12:21:47 12:21:50 12:21:53 12:21:57 12:22:00 12:22:03 12:22:04 12:22:09 12:22:13 12:22:17 12:22:17 12:22:25 12:22:29 12:22:31 12:22:35 12:22:38 12:22:42 12:22:48 12:22:51 12:22:54 12:22:55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

a great deal of detail with which is all laid out in our memorandum. I won't repeat it to your Honor, but it's been corroborated independently in a number of respects. So the notion that Graciela Figueroa Martinez' testimony is not reliable I think is completely belied. And, again, Judge, I don't want to belabor this, we have said it more often than I can count, this evidence, all that we are hearing today, is nothing but contradiction kind of evidence that explains nothing, and it certainly does not obliterate any of the probable cause. The seventh item addressed in Mr. Lopez' December affidavit concerns the -- basically the securing and chain of custody, if you will, on the computer that was seized from the home of Pasiana Cruz Gomez, the fugitive's mother. And your Honor will recall that's the computer on which they found images as well as the text matching significant sections of the ransom note that was delivered to the family after the kidnapping. This affidavit and exhibits attached to Mr. Lopez' affidavits show that that computer was properly maintained and secured by Mexican police authorities, contrary to the suggestion or the insinuations of Ms. Trevino Perez that the computer was not properly concerned or that it had been tampered with or, worse yet, that evidence had been planted in it. The next topic addressed in Mr. Lopez' December

48
12:22:59 12:23:02 12:23:06 12:23:14 12:23:17 12:23:22 12:23:26 12:23:29 12:23:37 12:23:41 12:23:45 12:23:49 12:23:54 12:23:59 12:24:04 12:24:12 12:24:15 12:24:20 12:24:28 12:24:29 12:24:33 12:24:36 12:24:43 12:24:44 12:24:48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

affidavit regards the birth certificate. Your Honor just heard some testimony about that. I think your Honor had before, you will find that Exhibit 7 to Mr. Lopez' affidavit explains how the birth certificate system works in Mexico. Ms. Gillers asked Ms. Trevino Perez about the backside of that birth certificate, which was not provided by Ms. Quevedo Cruz. That, as your Honor heard, is blank, and that is significant because in Mexico, as the affidavit explains, if Jose Enrique Wallace Diaz was simply allowing Hugo to claim him or recognize him as his father when he is, in fact, not the biological father, that section would have been filled in. Instead, as the affidavit explains, the front side, which your Honor has seen, and we provided it, and a very clear English translation, clearly identifies Jose Enrique as the father of Hugo Wallace. So it contradicts both Ms. Trevino Perez' testimony or suggestions here or intonations. It also contradicts Mr. Moya's speculation, because that's what it boils down to, that Jose Enrique Diaz is not the father of Hugo Wallace. The affidavit of Mr. Lopez also, if I can direct your Honor's attention to the genetics testing of the blood, that in fact shows a kinship to both Isabel, the mother, and Jose Enrique as the father. Finally, Judge, the last item addressed in Mr. Lopez' December affidavit is information concerning the search of

49
12:24:53 12:24:58 12:25:03 12:25:07 12:25:11 12:25:14 12:25:17 12:25:20 12:25:24 12:25:26 12:25:30 12:25:32 12:25:35 12:25:40 12:25:44 12:25:48 12:25:53 12:25:56 12:25:57 12:26:01 12:26:05 12:26:08 12:26:12 12:26:18 12:26:19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Juana Hilda Gonzalez Lomeli's apartment on July 15th of 2005, just several days after the kidnapping in that apartment. We heard some suggestions made, both back in September when we had a hearing and I think again sort of raised -- a specter of it raised today, that nothing was found in the apartment on that first search. That is quite true as far as it goes. As the affidavit explains, that search was very cursory, very quick, and for the sole purpose of determining whether or not Mr. Wallace was in the apartment. Essentially, the officers went through it quickly, he wasn't there, they left. Your Honor will see that -- and, again, reading all the papers that have been submitted, that once information started to flow in February of 2006, the investigation moved very quickly, and within days of Ms. Gonzalez Lomeli's confession, a search of the apartment, which she had abandoned and had not lived in, showed, A, the recovery of Mr. Wallace's driver's license as well as the recovery of the blood, which we have already addressed. So the notion that there is some ominous or significant fact that can be inferred from the fact that the police didn't find anything when they went quickly through the apartment on July 15th, 2005, I think is basically shown to be fairly a meaningless assertion given the facts and the context of the case. So we have submitted again that to your Honor. That

50
12:26:21 12:26:24 12:26:28 12:26:32 12:26:35 12:26:38 12:26:41 12:26:43 12:26:45 12:26:49 12:26:54 12:26:58 12:27:02 12:27:05 12:27:05 12:27:07 12:27:08 12:27:10 12:27:13 12:27:15 12:27:18 12:27:21 12:27:24 12:27:29 12:27:33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

will make the sixth package, if you will, as part of the entirety of the extradition packages. If the Court in reviewing the situation finds anything missing or if there is anything that's not legible, please let us know, and we will take care of it. I think we have given you good, clean copies of everything that we have received that we want to submit to the Court in the matter of this case. THE COURT: All right. Now, are you going to present -- just a moment. Are you going to present any witnesses, any further witnesses or further evidence today? MR. GILLOGLY: I don't think so, Judge. I think this record is pretty complete and makes a compelling case for a finding of probable cause. THE COURT: You had some comments on this -MR. HORN: Well, Judge -THE COURT: -- affidavit? MR. HORN: -- first of all, I object to it because we have just been served with this. We have no idea what's relevant, what isn't relevant. I haven't even had an opportunity or our office hasn't had an opportunity to review it to see what's relevant and what isn't relevant. One, we don't know who this gentleman is who signed this affidavit. Two, we were served today. How can we respond to his arguments without having an opportunity to review this? THE COURT: Well, you presented a witness that was

51
12:27:36 12:27:41 12:27:43 12:27:44 12:27:46 12:27:49 12:27:54 12:27:54 12:27:57 12:27:59 12:28:04 12:28:09 12:28:13 12:28:16 12:28:20 12:28:24 12:28:25 12:28:28 12:28:29 12:28:29 12:28:35 12:28:40 12:28:43 12:28:47 12:28:52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

not presented earlier, and how were they supposed to know what this witness was going to say? MR. HORN: That's because there is no discovery in these kinds of proceedings. THE COURT: And that's exactly right. So there's no discovery insofar as you're concerned with this affidavit, is there? MR. HORN: Well, what I'd like to do, then, is to have an opportunity to examine the affidavit and present arguments in rebuttal to what was just said. For example, they say on the affidavit a search dated July 15th, 2005, carried out in the apartment on the address in Mexico, and it said -- then it goes on to say in a different context, it is necessary to specify that on July 15th, 2006, a search was made. There are contradictions in this all the way through, I assume. THE COURT: Well, all right, look, do you have any further evidence today? MR. HORN: No. THE COURT: The proofs are closed. You will have all the opportunity you want, because I am going to have your closing arguments, especially in view of the fact that you have just seen this evidence, and especially in view of the fact that they have just seen this particular witness, I am going to give you each a chance to give written closing

52
12:28:55 12:29:02 12:29:08 12:29:12 12:29:17 12:29:21 12:29:24 12:29:26 12:29:30 12:29:32 12:29:48 12:29:53 12:29:58 12:30:01 12:30:04 12:30:07 12:30:10 12:30:11 12:30:13 12:30:13 12:30:22 12:30:23 12:30:28 12:30:33 12:30:39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

arguments. I ask that the closing arguments be all-inclusive; that is to say, everything that I need to know and need to express in order to either make a finding of probable cause or make a finding of no probable cause. And you each will have -- will be given that opportunity. First, the government. How much time? MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, could we confer for a second because I think Ms. Gillers and I have really horrible schedules the next 45 days or so. THE COURT: Sure. I will be generous with time. MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, this is way out there. I don't want to protract this any longer than we have, but Ms. Gillers has two trials and I have a number of commitments here. We were hoping the second week in April. If we can get it done sooner, we certainly will have it in to your Honor sooner. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GILLOGLY: April 3rd, your Honor? MR. HORN: April what? MR. GILLOGLY: 3rd. THE COURT: Just a moment. April 3 for the government. MR. HORN: We would like 30 days thereafter, Judge. THE COURT: That's fine. That would be May 4. And a reply, if you want a reply, government, how long after that for a reply?

53
12:30:41 12:30:43 12:30:43 12:30:45 12:30:47 12:30:52 12:30:53 12:30:56 12:30:56 12:30:56 12:30:58 12:30:59 12:31:01 12:31:08 12:31:10 12:31:13 12:31:15 12:31:17 12:31:20 12:31:21 12:31:25 12:31:44 12:31:56 12:32:03 12:32:11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
yes.

MR. GILLOGLY: By the 18th, your Honor? THE COURT: Pardon? MR. GILLOGLY: By the 18th of May? THE COURT: Okay. May 18th for a reply. MR. HORN: Are you going to hear oral arguments too, Judge, or just read it? THE COURT: If you want, I will hear oral arguments,

MR. HORN: Yes. THE COURT: Do you want to do that now? MR. HORN: No, after -THE COURT: That's fine. I will set you for oral argument, although the written -- that's going to be really the oral argument. MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, do we really need oral argument on top of all the briefing your Honor has had plus written submissions? MR. HORN: Well, we'll see. At that point, we can waive it if we want to. THE COURT: Let's see how it goes. May 18th. We will have oral argument on June 11th at 2:00 o'clock. June 11 at 2:00 o'clock. Okay. Recess. MR. GILLOGLY: Judge, I'm sorry, counsel is here. I guess maybe your Honor will give us further -- what are we

54
12:32:13 12:32:18 12:32:19 12:32:21 12:32:23 12:32:28 12:32:31 12:32:33 12:32:33 12:32:37 12:32:42 12:32:49 12:32:54 12:32:58 12:32:59 12:33:00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

going to do on oral argument on the 11th? Are we just going to rehash our briefs? THE COURT: Well, if you want to highlight your briefs -- I don't know what you are going to do at oral argument. If you want to highlight what your briefs say, or anything else, but nothing new. MS. GILLERS: That's what we were concerned with, your Honor. THE COURT: I will not take anything new. The proofs are closed, and if an argument is made, it better have been made in the written submissions. Okay? So once they are all done, if you folks -- if either of you folks still want oral argument, I will give you oral argument. You can highlight whatever you want. MR. HORN: Thank you. THE CLERK: The court stands in recess. (Which were all the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause on the day and date aforesaid.) I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. Carolyn R. Cox Official Court Reporter Northern District of Illinois /s/Carolyn R. Cox, CSR, RPR, CRR Date