2005 | Cited 0 times | D. Rhode Island | October 17, 2005


This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Joint Motion forClarification of the Court's Memorandum and Order denyingdefendants' Motion for New Trial issued on September 27, 2005.The Motion for Clarification is granted in part and denied inpart.

At pp. 4-5 of the Memorandum in Support of the Motion forClarification, defendants state that they "do not know whatportions of the grand jury testimony [of Mark Elliott] the Courtreviewed." The reference is to a statement in footnote 2 of theSeptember 27, 2005, Memorandum and Order. The Court was actuallyreferring to the summary of grand jury testimony set forth indefendants' Motion for New Trial in footnote 8 at p. 6.Defendants, however, have now submitted as Exhibit 1 to theMotion to Clarify a portion of the transcript of Mr. Elliott'stestimony before the grand jury. The Court finds the summary setforth in defendants' Motion for New Trial to be consistent withthe portion of the transcript of Mr. Elliott's testimony beforethe grand jury. Accordingly, there is no need for furtherclarification beyond what is set forth here.

Defendants also request that the Court impound the courtreporter's notes and the tape recording of the prosecutor'srebuttal argument on August 4, 2005. The court reporter's notes and tapes have been preserved and impounded.

In all other respects, the Motion for Clarification is DENIED.


Back to top