Defense Witness, Dr. Ned Siegel, Direct
Defense witness Dr. Ned Seigel - By Defense Attorney, Sara Montoya, Defense Attorney
Judge Baca: Alright, thank you. Please be seated. Alright. The State has rested and the Defense is ready to call a witness. And you call Dr. Seigel?
Ms. Montoya: Your Honor, the Defense calls Dr. Ned Seigel.
Judge Baca: Alright, please come up Dr.
Judge Baca swears in Dr. Seigel
Judge Baca: Please have a seat and state your name for us.
Dr. Seigel: Ned Seigel.
Ms. Montoya: Dr. Seigel, what is your educational background?
Dr. Seigel: Bachelors degree from the University of Texas at Arlington in nineteen sixty-five (1965), Masters Degree from the University of North Texas in nineteen sixty-eight (1968) and a PhD from North Texas in nineteen seventy-two (1972.)
Ms. Montoya: And do you have any licenses?
Dr. Seigel: I’m licensed in the state of New Mexico. That license went from June nineteen seventy-nine (1979.)
Ms. Montoya: Since nineteen seventy-nine (1979) and acquiring your license what have you been doing?
Dr. Seigel: That year I was the Director of the Forensic Hospital in Las Vegas. It’s now part of the State Hospital, although in those days it was administered separately. Beginning in July nineteen eighty (1980), I began private practice and have been doing that ever since.
Ms. Montoya: And what is it that your practice is centered upon?
Dr. Seigel: Basically, on a year-in, year-out basis, it’s about half and half between psychotherapy with families and children and individuals. The other half is given over to a variety of activities. One group would be evaluations for agencies, such as Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. The other major area would be forensic activities. Those could be broken down into two areas. One would be civil, divorce and custody would fall into that area, evaluating families and children for the Court. The other area in the civil side, would be evaluating people for psychological damages following some civil activity, in a loss suit like a car wreck or an employment discrimination issue. The other area of criminal would be... I’m sorry, in the forensic side, would be criminal, sentencing evaluations, rarely these days, whether or not someone is sane or insane. That doesn’t come up too much anymore. And competency is fairly frequent.
Ms. Montoya: And these are done based on certain criteria for assessments?
Dr. Seigel: Yes.
Judge Baca: Ms. Montoya, let me just interject for one second. I got a lot of questions asking the same thing. What were your degrees in? In what area?
Dr. Seigel: The Bachelors Degree was in Psychology, the Masters Degree was in Clinical Psychology and the PhD in Counseling Psychology.
Judge Baca: Alright. Thank you.
Ms. Montoya: Thank you. In the history of your practice, do you evaluate children?
Dr. Seigel: Yes.
Ms. Montoya: And how many...? Have you ever testified in Court before?
Dr. Seigel: Many times.
Ms. Montoya: Do you have a number?
Dr. Seigel: I keep being asked that and I actually looked for just my keeping my case log for the last three years and it’s probably about one and a half times a month, seven to ten. Today, I was reminded that I was in this courtroom twenty-nine years ago. Today’s my son’s birthday and I remember being here and was I going to make it back home in time for him to be born, which was later in the day. You know, I’ve been in every district in New Mexico, but over twenty, however many years it’s been, twenty-eight years, you know, if we say six eight ten times a year, that’s a rough number.
Ms. Montoya: And what professional memberships do you have?
Dr. Seigel: Ah... not much. I don’t really pay my dues for the organizations.
Ms. Montoya: Have you ever been published?
Dr. Seigel: No.
Ms. Montoya: Have you ever had any academic appointments?
Dr. Seigel: I was appointed as associate... I guess it’s a Clinical Professor, the Hershey School of Medicine, Penn State University. I worked in the Family Practice, a residency in a hospital in the section that I was in charge of was called, these days would be called Behavioral Medicine. I was also had academic appointment at Highlands some years ago. I taught a couple classes there. I guess that’s it.
Ms. Montoya: What professional training have you undergone since acquiring your PhD?
Dr. Seigel: Well as Psychologist, we’re required to engage in Clinical Continuing Education on a consistent basis. The most recent focus of interest has been in Psychopharmacology. As you may know in New Mexico Psychologists can prescribe medication and actually several of my colleagues are doing so now. So I started the academic part of that training two years ago and that was pretty constant every month for about two years. And I basically completed that part, but that’s been the focus over the last several years and it’ll probably be the main focus as I move more slowly toward getting into the prescribing area.
Ms. Montoya: And what would you say your primary area of expertise is?
Dr. Seigel: Just being a general clinician. You know in a small town like Santa Fe, we don’t really overly focus on some narrow way as people in larger cities can. So again, as I describe earlier, the practice is about fifty fifty, psychotherapy, and the other are given over to these areas of assessment.
Ms. Montoya: And you’ve been a Clinical Psychologist for how many years?
Dr. Seigel: My first job was in nineteen seventy (1970.)
Ms. Montoya: Thirty eight years?
Dr. Seigel: In a mental health center in Pennsylvania. My first license was in Pennsylvania, maybe nineteen seventy-five, seventy-four (1975-74.) I don’t really recall.
Ms. Montoya: Have you ever been qualified as an expert to testify in a Court of Law?
Dr. Seigel: Many times.
Ms. Montoya: In the State of New Mexico?
Dr. Seigel: Many times.
Ms. Montoya: In the Eighth Judicial District?
Dr. Seigel: Yes. And I’ve sat in this seat many times.
Ms. Montoya: Your Honor, we would move Dr. Ned Seigel in as in expert witness with regard to Clinical Psychology.
Judge Baca: Alright. Any objections by the State?
Tomas Benevidez: No objection your Honor.
Judge Baca: He will be so admitted.
Ms. Montoya: Dr. Seigel, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Elizabeth Dinsmore?
Dr. Seigel: I am.
Ms. Montoya: With regard to the case we are here for today, did you give her, review her work, that she concluded with regards to this case?
Dr. Seigel: I reviewed her report. That’s the only data I had. Perhaps there wasn’t enough time. Typically, when we review somebody else’s work, we actually have the raw data. I didn’t get that. So, really, all I have is her report.
Ms. Montoya: Now when you say raw data, what are you referring to?
Dr. Seigel: The testing data, the results of the tests themselves. We share that information back and forth in these matters.
Ms. Montoya: And with regard to that raw data, the actual test scores were contained in her report, correct?
Dr. Seigel: There are the test scores, but we also like to look at the underlying information to see if we agree with it or if there’s been an error made. Typically, with Dr. Dinsmore there is not. I doubt if I would have challenged that and I accept that she reports the work accurately, as she always does. But ordinarily, we do exchange that technical information.
Ms. Montoya: And in reviewing her report did you have concerns?
Dr. Seigel: I had. I did. And let me hasten to add my concerns are not about her qualifications or skills, but it was really about the information that she received.
Ms. Montoya: And why did you have concerns in that regard?
Dr. Seigel: In time, my first concern... I did not initially have concerns, let me put it that way. What I read that she reported... Again, I had no basis to challenge it, cause I had no contradictory information. And frankly, I anticipated that in the end I would have to tell you that I agreed with her.
Ms. Montoya: And in the end did you tell me that you agreed with her?
Dr. Seigel: No, I didn’t, because I had the... I had contradictory information provided to me by people from this organization, or this church.
Ms. Montoya: Can you explain that?
Dr. Seigel: Well, you had said to me, "There are some people that would like to come talk." And I said, "Ok." Very straightforward.
Ms. Montoya: I’m sorry. So did they clarify some of the information that you had seen in Dr. Dinsmore’s report?
Dr. Seigel: A good deal of it.
Tomas Benevidez: Objection, your Honor. May we approach?
Judge Baca: Yes.
Sidebar discussion regarding Dr. Seigel follows (not heard by the jury) ---
Tomas Benevidez: Your Honor, I believe none of the contradictory information that she’s referencing
has ever been given to the State. So, although experts can testify concerning hearsay, it hasn’t been disclosed to the
State. Tt’s not admissible.
Ms. Montoya: Your Honor, the State had an opportunity to interview Dr. Ned Seigel and they reserved
the right to re-interview him before trial and they did not take up that opportunity to do so.
Tomas Benevidez: We did, your Honor. But he didn’t have any of the information and he told us he
didn’t know what he was going to testify about or any of the witnesses or any evidence.
Judge Baca: Did you guys interview him?
Tomas Benevidez: Yes. And what he said was and that’s why we filed our motion in
(unintelligible word), because he did not have any information at the time. We asked him what he was going to testify
about and he said he did not know. And then he went over a litany of typos and other things that were wrong with
Dr. Dinsmore’s report and the consistencies and what information he did or did not have. And then whether, you know what the purpose was, some other things on critiquing on her report. And then I asked him did you talk to any other people and he said, no I haven’t talked to anyone but I may, I intend to maybe talk to the Defendant and other people. And we said well we would like the ability to question those people you talk to and we asked the Defense to make those people available.
Judge Baca: When was that that you interviewed him?
Tomas Benevidez: We interviewed him on... I believe it was last Thursday, was when they made him
available.
Ms. Montoya: Uhm... What occurred was he explained to them that he would be interviewing people from
the land with regard to their testimony and with regard to what he saw in Dr. Elizabeth Dinsmore’s report. He was not
critiquing her typos, he was critiquing concerns about opinions she reached and how she reached them. He told Mr.
Benevidez that he would be interviewing people from the land to clarify some of the things in that report. The people in
the land that he interviewed were among the people that the State also interviewed the week before. So to say that he
didn’t have access to that is wholly untrue, because Amanah Travesser, I’m sorry Aliah Travesser; the one I call Liberty,
which is Misty Renae Sayer...
Judge Baca: When did he interview those people?
Ms. Montoya: The week before.
Judge Baca: Your expert?
Ms. Montoya: On Thursday. Mr. Benevidez interviewed Mr. Seigel on Wednesday, because he was demanding
that the interview take place, which he was perfectly within his rights to demand, but, if it was premature that’s not...
Judge Baca: And you said you wanted to re-interview him is that correct? Did you ask for that?
Tomas Benevidez: Yes.
Ms. Montoya: No, you didn’t.
Judge Baca: When did you ask for that?
Tomas Benevidez: We said, if he talked to any other individuals. At the time we interviewed him, we
said, if he talked to those individuals, we would like to be able to re-interview.
Judge Baca: Did you actually contact Ms. Montoya and request another interview?
Tomas Benevidez: My staff, I believe, called them to see if he was available and she said he wasn’t
going to be available anymore.
Ms. Montoya: Your Honor, (unintelligible) Thursday. Wnd we got a fax from their office saying they
were closed on Thursday. There was no communication that they wanted a re-interview.
Tomas Benevidez: Your Honor, I think the easiest aspect is we just ask for proffer, This contradictory
information outside the hearing of the jury... It’s close to the end of the day, concerning this contradictory
information and if he relied on any letters, any reports that should have been something that she disclosed. We don’t
know what he relied on. So that’s why....
Ms. Montoya: He relied on the same things that Dr. Dinsmore relied on, which they already had. They
disclosed to me, they had it in their possession.
Judge Baca: >(Baca is out of hearing range. Evidently asking, who was the member she was referring to.)
Ms. Montoya: Her name’s Aliah. It’s the grandmother of the two alleged victims. They are here. They
are available, but they were interviewed by the State, independent of the interview with Dr. Seigel. So the State had
opportunity to interview the grandmother. They had the opportunity to interview the aunt, the grandmother of Matt and the
other one.
Tomas Benevidez: Your Honor, the thing is that we interviewed them prior to Dr. Seigel.
Judge Baca: (Out of hearing range.)
Tomas Benevidez: No. But, when we called them and asked them, you know, "Have you spoken to other
people, what are you going to testify about?," they never said, "Were not going to testify about..." They never disclosed
to us that they were going to testify, going to talk to the expert witness and give opinions.
Ms. Montoya: It’s not my fault that they didn’t ask the right questions.
Tomas Benevidez: And then, when we found out that he was going to interview them, we asked that. We
asked to re-interview, after he did that.
Judge Baca: Well, when were you going to do it, if it just happened that you interviewed him last
Wednesday?
Tomas Benevidez: (Unintelligible) Dr. Seigel, on Wednesday.
Judge Baca: Well, this is the way I’m going to resolve this. He’ll be allowed to testify. You provide
them immediately, the names of those people that he interviewed and you guys tonight sometime will have to interview
those people and be prepared to cross examine him on that.
Tomas Benevidez: I’d ask that Dr. Dinsmore be available.
Ms. Montoya: Once the jury has left, I would like to set a time, perhaps we can go to your conference
room... (out of hearing range.)
Conclusion of sidebar. (The jury does not hear any sidebar discussions).
Judge Baca: Alright. Thank you for your patience. You may continue.
Ms. Montoya: Let me back up. What did you have clarified for you?
Dr. Seigel: Any number of things. I used Dr. Dinsmore’s report as my guide and simply asked them questions that, that I had concerns about in my initial read through and note taking of her report. So what I did is, when I read through myself, when I received it, I’d just highlight things that raised questions in my mind and then I asked these individuals, who I met with to clarify these various things.
Ms. Montoya: As a psychologist, do you rely on information to generate reports, correct?
Dr. Seigel: We do.
Ms. Montoya: Do psychologists conduct an investigation to find out whether or not the information they’re given is correct?
Dr. Seigel: We do not. Sometimes, we are given enough information, sometimes boxes full, where we have a pretty wide range of information to rely upon, other times less so. And so, as we know, if the information that we get is faulty or incorrect, then our conclusions will likewise be faulty or incorrect.
Ms. Montoya: And so the accuracy of your reports, or that of Dr. Dinsmore, are dependent on their accuracy of the information the psychologist received. Correct?
Dr. Seigel: Yes. And again, let’s draw difference between interview or personal information that we get, not that we get personally, that we get from a person as compared to test data, the kind of information that would be most unreliable would be that coming from an individual.
Ms. Montoya: And the list of information that Dr. Dinsmore had, is it listed in her report? Correct?
Dr. Seigel: Yes.
Ms. Montoya: Did you also have that information available to you?
Dr. Seigel: Most of it, not all of it. There was one or two things that she had provided to her that I didn’t have.
Ms. Montoya: Such as?
Dr. Seigel: There was something about a Strong City info site, which I never had a chance to look at and I believe I was told that it’s off site now anyway, but I never had a chance to look at it. There was some on line news and blog sites, which I didn’t never deal with, records from Children Youth and Family’s. I was not provided those. You, Ms. Montoya, had interviewed each of the young ladies and had a transcript and I didn’t see those. I didn’t see the indictment or the incident report. I did have the Safe Room interview with A.S. and Kat Duff and actually was watching that today when you called me. So I think I have mostly seen A.S. I think that one was winding down when you called. The other one, I haven’t seen. So the handwritten diary I have, the printed email correspondence. Yes, I think we probably have the same, that’s not really specified here, but I think it’s the same. I did look at that video that Dr. Dinsmore references and I didn’t look in this Oxford Dictionary World of Religions. So, most of this stuff, most of the information is, I reviewed as well.
Ms. Montoya: And you had additional information, correct?
Dr. Seigel: I do.
Ms. Montoya: What is that additional information?
Dr. Seigel: Well, primarily, the additional information came through interviews with several people from the church and they also gave me pictures of the Sayer family. I also have it. I left it over there, a DVD from L.S. and there’s another DVD, which I can’t remember what it is but I haven’t had a chance to look at those.
Ms. Montoya: And you did view the documentary?
Dr. Seigel: Yes, I did.
Ms. Montoya: The same documentary that Dr. Dinsmore reviewed?
Dr. Seigel: I’m thinking it’s the same one. I looked it up. It was in fifteen minute segments on line, but I believe it must be the same one.
Ms. Montoya: And with regard to Dr. Dinsmore’s report, did it appear that she was relying on the documentary as a source of correct information?
Dr. Seigel: It did.
Ms. Montoya: And in reviewing that documentary and talking to the people who are involved from Strong City, did you come to the understanding that the documentary was accurate or inaccurate?
Dr. Seigel: Well, let me characterize it this way. It was their statements to me, which was some detail, that the documentarian got it wrong. And there was some discussion of what happens when the media gets something, the idea that if the man is going to produce a documentary, he’s going to have his own message and it may not be what they believe is, should be told. But they did say there was some factual things in there, or maybe there were misunderstandings, where his representation of their beliefs was incorrect, which was the main point.
Ms. Montoya: Did you also discuss with family members of L.S. and A.S., the family dynamic, regarding these two girls?
Dr. Seigel: I did. One of the women present was their actual grandmother.
Ms. Montoya: What conclusions did you come to?
Dr. Seigel: Well, not so much, well, the conclusion was the information that Dr. Dinsmore had gotten wasn’t balanced. The information she got is the information she got, but it would have led her to incorrect conclusions, because it was in some cases, frankly, inaccurate. And I can give you several examples as we go through.
Ms. Montoya: Ok. So yes, why don’t you give the jury some examples of what you believe are inaccurate in her findings?
Dr. Seigel: Oh... I’m just kinda gonna go through these things that I was told were both inaccurate and there’s contradictory evidence. One example, which is I could... discussed about earlier today.
Judge Baca: Wait. Let me understand... What you’re about to tell us are your opinions about problems with Dr. Dinsmore’s report?
Dr. Seigel: Yes.
Judge Baca: Alright. And what you’re telling us specifically, what you’re going to relate now, is information you received from church members about what was wrong with her report.
Dr. Seigel: Well, I told them what she wrote and they said, "Oh, no, this is either right or wrong." And gave me other information.
Judge Baca: Now, you’re not making a judgment about whether or not what they said is correct or incorrect, you’re just relating what you were told?
Dr. Seigel: That is correct.
Judge Baca: And it’s not your opinion that they’re right or wrong?
Dr. Seigel: That is correct.
Judge Baca: I wanted to make sure that’s clear.
Dr. Seigel: That is correct.
Judge Baca: Thank you.
Dr. Seigel: Glad you point that out your Honor.
Ms. Montoya: Would you please proceed?
Dr. Seigel: Ah... again there was a discussion of this when people would walk with Mr. Bent and he would ridicule them, specifically, he would, that Dr. Dinsmore was told by A.S., for example, he would go on a walk and praise people and they followed, the next time he walked and people followed, he would turn on and ridicule them for wanting to walk with him, quote; "Just out of the blue. It was hard, the witnesses were always right and a few others. It was discouraging." The representation that was given to me was, that’s quite inaccurate, that, in fact, he would walk with people that, that was not his characteristic, but when people were rude... would interrupt, say, him having a conversation with someone, he would admonish them.
Ms. Montoya: Admonish them in what way?
Dr. Seigel: To counsel them, if you will, or to teach them or just tell them, "I’m talking to somebody else. Don’t interrupt."
Ms. Montoya: So, it was a discussion of good and bad manners, basically?
Dr. Seigel: Yes, basically. And since this particular event has been discussed both in Dr. Dinsmore’s report and I take it, early in the Court, I did have a question, "Are they talking about this is a common characteristic or are we talking about one event?"
Ms. Montoya: And in discussing this with church members, did you find out it was a common event that it had occurred over and over again?
Dr. Seigel: Well, the walking with was. What I was referring to was this; when this particular event stated in her report, that this young woman may have been talking about one time event. But that the general characteristic was that that’s not his style, to ridicule people.
Ms. Montoya: What else caused you concern after visiting with the church members?
Dr. Seigel: Ah... again let me just, I underlined these things so they are what’s popping out. There was on page five, well, look top of page five, the idea of the ten virgins and I’m sure that’s been talked about here a lot, so I don’t need to go into detail. Two of the people that I spoke with were people that were in that group. I don’t know if you call them messengers or angels or what have you, these young women. And so I asked, "What was the story here? What was the process?" And indeed, there was, I gather... It was an email. And there were the meetings and one of the young women, Liberty, I guess, decided to, how did I characterize it? "Join up," and did follow through with the spiritual experience. But another young woman named Tiara, I recognized her, she was in the court room outside, was also called, but said, "I didn’t want to do it. It wasn’t on my heart." God didn’t tell her to follow through. So that was especially interesting to me, because the idea that he was being characterized as a predatory pedophile, that she would certainly be a young woman, who would be in his target zone, an attractive young woman of, I don’t know how old she is, she must be in her late teens or early twenties and there was apparently, according to her, no pressure to follow through and become one of the select, if you will. Another...
Ms. Montoya: May I ask you...? There was some discussion about grooming. Is that typical of someone who is grooming a group or an age target range for one to be just simply left alone?
Dr. Seigel: Well, let me say this, of that group. Again, groomings become sorta the slang term used in the field to talk about what would otherwise be called seduction. Fixated pedophiles groom. They have a specific target. They have a rap, a routine, sometimes using trickery to get children involved in their activities. It is amazing how fast and effective they are. It’s incredible. One would think that it would take a long time to get children hooked. It doesn’t. It’s astounding how quickly both children and teenagers and adults will get roped in. So, one of the, one of the signals or symptoms, if you want to use, is what the progress of the grooming? You can get a pretty good sense of where it’s going by the speed and intent. Now that’s true of any relationship when men and women get together. That’s called seduction, or dating, whatever you want to call it. And it falls a fairly predictable pattern. If it happens, sometimes too quickly, it’s distressing. And if it happens too slowly, it’s something else. We’re not going to stay dating. We’re not going to get married. We’re not going to get engaged, that sorta thing. As I understand it, this man had access to women in what would be this target range for years, multiple women, and as I understand it there has been no overt, except for what we’re discussing here today in Court, sexual behavior. So, if he is a groomer, he is a really bad one.
(Laughter in the courtroom)
Ms. Montoya: Ok. So would it be typical of someone predisposed to be a pedophile or a predator upon young girls, this would have been built up over time? Or would we have seen it years ago? I mean this is a man who is sixty-seven years old. Would we have seen it if that was the case?
Dr. Seigel: Yes. Again, as we say in our office, there’s never a first time. You know, we’ll hear people say, "Well, this is the first time this ever happened." Never true. If you watch that TV show, "To Catch a Predator," when they catch these guys, they all say that, this was the first time. "I didn’t really mean to do that." That’s never true. People build up these perversions pretty early in life. The only time you would have a sudden shift, especially in someone who’s a bit older would be a neurological deterioration, Alzheimer’s, loss of frontal lobe functioning and you might see acting out in that situation.
Ms. Montoya: In a failure to control, kinda motive?
Dr. Seigel: Yes.
Ms. Montoya: I see.
Dr. Seigel: And it can happen with brain damage after, say, an accident in a younger person or an illness, but otherwise it’s a pattern that is not broken and even though some of these guys are better at hiding it, in a situation like he was in with the close knit community, if he had done it before, somebody would have noticed.
Ms. Montoya: So in your opinion is he a pedophile?
Dr. Seigel: Doesn’t appear to be so.
Ms. Montoya: And getting back to Dr. Dinsmore’s report and conclusions, do you agree with her conclusions?
Dr. Seigel: Which?
Ms. Montoya: With regard to the children, were the children sexually abused?
Judge Baca: I will prohibit that question.
Ms. Montoya: Ok.
Dr. Seigel: Well, I wouldn’t have answered it anyway.
Ms. Montoya: Your Honor, we’ll conclude at this time.
Judge Baca: Alright, it’s a few minutes after five and it is the end of the work day. I will recess this hearing for the day. I’ll let the jury go home and rest and come back tomorrow. Seems like we’re moving right along and so, you are on cross examination. You will return tomorrow. We’ll start tomorrow at nine o’clock sharp. I’ll ask that the jurors to start coming in about ten minutes of, so that we’re ready to go at nine o’clock. I don’t have anything set in the morning, so we can start right at nine and I don’t think there’s any matters that we need to take up at that time. Alright. So please stand for the members of the jury. Jury leaves the Courtroom.
Judge Baca: Alright you may be seated. Alright, Dr. you’re on cross examination, the rule does not allow you to meet with anyone other than the attorneys.
Dr. Seigel: I understand.
Judge Baca: While you’re on cross examination... Alright? If anybody approaches you, other than the attorneys to discuss this matter with you, please report it to me immediately.
Dr. Seigel: I will sir.
Judge Baca: Alright. Does everybody understand the rules? Alright. Anything by the State, before we adjourn for the day?
Tomas Benevidez: Nothing further, your Honor.
Judge Baca: From the Defense?
Ms. Montoya: No, your Honor. The State indicated that they wanted to interview some individuals. I don’t know if Dr. Seigel is among them and I would like that clarified.
Judge Baca: Alright.
Tomas Benevidez: Yes, your Honor.
Judge Baca: You’d like to speak to him tonight?
Tomas Benevidez: Yes, your Honor, since...
Judge Baca: Will he be here tonight?
Dr. Seigel: I’m good.
Judge Baca: Ok.
Ms. Montoya: So, the earlier we do that the better, because my understanding is that he will be driving back to Santa Fe tonight.
Judge Baca: Ok. Let’s take care of him first and then let’s deal with the other individuals after that and you all arrange that and make sure that happens.
Tomas Benevidez: You Honor, we can meet at our office.
Judge Baca: Ok. Alright. Any other issues?
Ms. Montoya: No, your Honor.
Judge Baca: Alright. Then let’s be prepared to start at nine o’clock in the morning. This matter adjourned for the day.
Back to Transcripts menu
To return to the trial "transcripts menu," click the "Trial" tab at the top of this page.