0001
01 NO. 93-05258-G
01
02 JOHN DOE I, et al. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
02 )
03 VERSUS ) OF DALLAS COUNTY
03 )
04 REVEREND RUDOLPH KOS, et al. ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
04
05 REPORTER'S RECORD
05 VOLUME____OF____
06
06 APPEARANCES:
07
07 MR. WINDLE TURLEY
08 Attorneys at Law
08 1000 University Tower
09 6440 N. Central Expressway
09 Dallas, Texas 75205
10
10 MS. SYLVIA M. DEMAREST
11 Attorney at Law
11 DEMAREST, SMITH, PRESLAR, JONES & GIUNTA
12 Cedar Maple Plaza
12 2305 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 350
13 Dallas, Texas 75201
13
14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
14 MR. RANDAL MATHIS
15 MR. DENNIS ROOSSIEN
15 Attorneys at Law
16 MUNSCH, HARDT, KOPF, HARR & DINAN, P. C.
16 4000 Fountain Place
17 1455 Ross Avenue
17 Dallas, Texas 75202-2711
18 FOR THE ROMAN
18 CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF
19 DALLAS
19
20 On the 5th day of June 1997 the
21 above-entitled and numbered cause came on for a hearing
22 before the Honorable Anne Ashby, Judge presiding of the
23 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, and
24 a jury, at which time the following proceedings were had:
25
0002
01
02 W-I-T-N-E-S-S:
03
04 PAGE
05
06 MOST REVEREND MONSIGNOR ROBERT REHKEMPER
07
08 Direct Examination (Continued)
09 By Ms. Demarest..........4256
10 Cross Examination
11 By Mr. Turley............4355
12 IN CHAMBERS EXAMINATION
13 By Mr. Turley............4423
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0003
01
02 E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S:
03
04 Marked Offered Admitted
05
06 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 142
07 Letter from Bishop
08 Tschoepe to Robert
09 Peebles, 6-3-85
10 appointing him to
11 St. Augustine's...........4238 4239
12
13 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 152
14 Meeting of Personnel
15 Board, 4-23-80............4240 4240
16
17 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 153
18 Meeting of Personnel
19 Board, 11-20-81...........4240 4240
20
21 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 154
22 Meeting of Personnel
23 Board, 1-29-82............4240 4240
24
25 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 155
0004
01 Meeting of Personnel
02 Board, 5-18-84............4240 4240
03
04 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 156
05 Meeting of Personnel
06 Board, 5-24-85............4240 4240
07
08 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 157
09 Meeting of Personnel
10 Board, 11-21-86...........4240 4240
11
12 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 158
13 Meeting of Personnel
14 Board, 4-3-92.............4241 4244
15
16 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 159
17 Handwritten note from
18 Msgr. Rehkemper's file
19 regarding Rudy Kos.......4240 4244
20
21 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 160
22 Meeting of Personnel
23 Board, 4-10-92...........4241 4244
24
25
0005
01 E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S
02
03 Marked Offered Admitted
04
05 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 161
06 Meeting of Personnel
07 Board, 4-20-92............4241 4244
08
09 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 162
10 Meeting of Personnel
11 Board,5-1-92.............4241 4244
12
13 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 163
14 Meeting of Personnel
15 Board, 5-8-92............4241 4244
16
17 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 164
18 Meeting of Personnel
19 Board, 10-2-92...........4241 4244
20
21 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 165
22 Handwritten notes of
23 Monsignor Rehkemper
24 regarding appointment of
25 Rudy Kos.................4241 4244
0006
01
02 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 166
03 Memorandum dated 5-7-92
04 regarding Kos travel
05 plans to St. Luke's......4241 4244
06
07 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 167
08 Letter dated 5-8-92
09 regarding Kos plans to
10 to go St. Luke's.........4241 4244
11
12 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 168
13 Letter of 5-8-92 confirming
14 arrangements for Rudy
15 Kos to St. Luke's........4241 4244
16
17 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 169
18 Letter of 5-8-92
19 regarding St. Luke's.....4242 4244
20
21 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 170
22 Copy of St. Luke's
23 report of Rudy Kos.......4242 4244
24
25
0007
01
02 E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S:
03
04 Marked Offered Admitted
05
06 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 171
07 Decree of Suspension......4240 4240
08
09 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 172
10 Monsignor Rehkemper's
11 personal file.............4242 4250
12 with limiting
13 instruction............... 4252
14
15 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 173
16 Statement by Monsignor
17 Rehkemper read to
18 All Saints, 5-22 & 23,
19 1993.....................4242 4250
20
21 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 173A
22 Typed version of
23 Plaintiff's No. 173......4242 4250
24
25 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 174
0008
01 Statement read in 1994
02 after Peebles case
03 filed....................4242 4244
04
05 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 175
06 List of faculty at
07 the seminary.............4361 4361
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4221
01
02 June 5, 1997
03
04 (Out of the presence and
05 hearing of the jury)
06 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I have a matter for
07 the Court.
08 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
09 MR. TURLEY: I have a matter for the Court.
10 I'm sorry, I thought you were informed.
11 THE COURT: I did, and I totally forgot, so
12 we --
13 MR. TURLEY: I'm so sorry.
14 THE COURT: That's okay. It's not your
15 fault.
16 MR. TURLEY: Judge, I filed a motion -- do
17 you want us to be seated, or --
18 THE COURT: It doesn't matter.
19 MR. TURLEY: I filed this Motion in Limine
20 regarding Monsignor Rehkemper's testimony, which is
21 hearsay, particularly as to Dr. Jaeckle, but also as to the
22 St. Luke's Institute findings regarding Kos. It's gross
23 hearsay, no question about it, plain hearsay, and I know of
24 no exception under which it can come in.
25 Dr. Jaeckle will testify in this case. He
4222
01 is the one that should be permitted to say what he said,
02 and not have somebody else say what he said. And we
03 anticipate Mr. Mathis may again attempt to get hearsay from
04 this witness about Dr. Jaeckle, and that would be improper.
05 THE COURT: Response.
06 MR. MATHIS: Yes. Your Honor, I have just
07 handed you a brief that I filed just a minute ago. I just
08 got this Motion in Limine, but we've prepared a brief that
09 related to the St. Luke question in anticipation of it
10 coming up, and so it equally applies to this Motion in
11 Limine.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. MATHIS: This really comes up in two
14 places -- well, that's not actually right. There have been
15 any number of places through this lawsuit where evidence
16 has already been admitted, and evidence will be admitted in
17 the future, that's not offered for the truth of the matter,
18 that are statements made that people responded to for one
19 reason or another that have to do with notice questions and
20 similar related matters. That's gone on all through this
21 case, we've had just an enormous amount of testimony.
22 With respect to any conversation or
23 communication between Dr. Jaeckle and Monsignor Rehkemper,
24 or anybody else, for that matter, Dr. Jaeckle will be able
25 to talk about that when he testifies. Monsignor Rehkemper
4223
01 or anyone else that spoke with him will be able to testify,
02 when it gets to the St. Luke's material, the same thing is
03 going to apply to conversations between Bishop Grahmann and
04 the people at St. Luke's.
05 None of that testimony is offered for the
06 truth of the matter. So it's not a matter of whether an
07 exception fits under the Hearsay Rule, all of it is offered
08 on these issues of notice and what people said, and why
09 they reacted, and is in no way offered for the truth of the
10 matter. And so it simply is not hearsay. We have been
11 talking about all of this stuff now for, what, three weeks
12 or four weeks, where we've had various --
13 MR. TURLEY: Don't use that term, "we," you
14 have been talking about it, we haven't.
15 MR. MATHIS: Well, it has been discussed in
16 the trial for three or four weeks now, all of these
17 different aspects. And neither of those points, whether it
18 be concerning Dr. Jaeckle or concerning Dr. Montana and the
19 people at St. Luke's, constitute hearsay, because they are
20 not offered for the truth of the matter.
21 MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor, the only thing --
22 I'm concerned about only one thing here, and that is, taken
23 -- having taken the position they have taken, I don't want
24 to hear an objection to the St. Luke's report, I want to
25 know right now whether that report is coming in.
4224
01 MR. MATHIS: The -- let me see what number
02 that is.
03 MR. TURLEY: That's a different issue.
04 MS. DEMAREST: Well, I -- I've just -- I am
05 just going through it, I don't want to hear an objection to
06 that report if that's taking the position that they want to
07 take. Let's get this squared away right now.
08 MR. MATHIS: Well --
09 THE COURT: Well, You all, it's either going
10 to be hearsay, or it's not. I mean, we can't do a trading
11 off on a document, because we don't want it to be hearsay
12 or --
13 MS. DEMAREST: Well, they have --
14 MR. MATHIS: I think the same -- I think
15 Sylvia is right. I think the same thing applies to the
16 St. Luke's report which is marked as Exhibit 170. That's
17 the one you're talking about, isn't it?
18 MS. DEMAREST: Right.
19 MR. MATHIS: And so I think the same thing
20 equally applies there. So, I mean, I do think that
21 revolves it.
22 MS. DEMAREST: I believe that this
23 information is in front of the jury, and I think the
24 plaintiffs have to have the opportunity to rebut it, and --
25 and Dr. Jaeckle --
4225
01 THE COURT: This information, being what,
02 Sylvia?
03 MS. DEMAREST: Two things. Two -- two
04 hearsay conversations: The first, Monsignor Rehkemper
05 asserts that Dr. Jaeckle told him that Father Kos was not a
06 pedophile sometime in early 1982. Monsignor Rehkemper
07 goes to St. Luke's -- his recollection of that conversation
08 is along the same lines.
09 Bishop Grahmann wants to recount a similar
10 conversation. Obviously, we need to be able to rebut that
11 statement which has already been placed before the jury --
12 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I -- wait a minute.
13 MS. DEMAREST: And -- and --
14 MR. TURLEY: I differ -- I differ with that.
15 MS. DEMAREST: Well, then --
16 MR. TURLEY: Wait just a minute --
17 MR. MATHIS: Notice --
18 MS. DEMAREST: -- differ -- differ with it.
19 MR. MATHIS: Notice is notice.
20 THE COURT: Wait a second. Let Sylvia
21 finish, and then I'll let everybody else talk.
22 MS. DEMAREST: But I want to have the
23 opportunity -- they have already -- they have already --
24 they have already put this in front of the jury. They
25 cannot hide behind the log with regard to the St. Luke's
4226
01 report.
02 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I take a different
03 position than my learned co-counsel here --
04 MS. DEMAREST: Well --
05 MR. TURLEY: -- In this particular matter.
06 THE COURT: Yes.
07 MR. TURLEY: I think it's not in front of
08 the jury yet, I don't think it should be ever in front of
09 the jury, it's gross hearsay. And no matter what Mr.
10 Mathis says, this is the heart and core of their case. He
11 can't come in here now, having said to the jury in opening
12 statement, in voir dire, and he tried to say it for two
13 weeks now, that they were acting on something somebody told
14 them, and that that is their defense in this case, but it's
15 not offered for the truth of the matter; of course, it's
16 offered for the truth of the matter. That's their whole
17 defense in the case. Dr. Jaeckle can come in and testify
18 to what he said.
19 MR. MATHIS: Yes --
20 MR. TURLEY: If they want to dispute it,
21 they can bring somebody to dispute it. Dr. -- I mean,
22 Monsignor Rehkemper or Bishop Grahmann can come and say,
23 no, that's not what he said. That's fine, that's fair, but
24 to have Monsignor Rehkemper sit here and say, "Well, Dr.
25 Jaeckle told me so and so, and such and such," that's gross
4227
01 hearsay, gross hearsay.
02 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you all, that
03 factual report -- and I'll let you all respond -- back to
04 the report -- it's from the St. Luke's report, which is not
05 in yet as I understand.
06 MR. TURLEY: Right. That's right.
07 MS. DEMAREST: Right.
08 THE COURT: I still am unclear as to -- I
09 mean, I understand that there are objections as to hearsay,
10 but was -- how was this provided? Was this provided
11 through the file of the Diocese?
12 MS. DEMAREST: Yes, it was.
13 THE COURT: Or was this provided through the
14 file of Dr. Jaeckle?
15 MR. TURLEY: The report --
16 MS. DEMAREST: No, it's provided through the
17 file of the Diocese.
18 MR. TURLEY: Two different -- two different
19 medical providers.
20 MS. DEMAREST: Two different medical
21 providers.
22 MR. TURLEY: Dr. Jaeckle here in Dallas, St.
23 Luke's from -- report -- in Maryland.
24 MS. DEMAREST: The St. Luke's report -- the
25 St. Luke's comes in, irrespective of what Mr. Turley is
4228
01 talking about. I don't think what Mr. Turley is talking
02 about is related to the St. Luke's report at all. The St.
03 Luke's report comes in --
04 MR. TURLEY: I agree with that.
05 MS. DEMAREST: -- because, number one, it's
06 reliable and a business record of the Diocese, and
07 secondly, it is the best evidence of what the Diocese was
08 told, and therefore is -- is offered as to state of mind if
09 there is no question about authenticity. And I don't
10 believe there is a question about authenticity, because we
11 have stipulated as to business records.
12 So I think the two issues are separate, and
13 maybe Windle and I don't -- don't --
14 MR. TURLEY: I agree with that.
15 MS. DEMAREST: -- don't have a dispute about
16 this, but my dog is in this hunt because I want the St.
17 Luke's report to come in, and that's what I'm standing up
18 here talking about.
19 MR. TURLEY: And I'm not objecting to that,
20 Your Honor. My only motion, and the only thing I'm saying
21 right now is Monsignor Rehkemper who is about to testify
22 should not be permitted to make statements that are gross
23 hearsay.
24 THE COURT: Okay. If the St. Luke's report
25 comes in, this cures all of this.
4229
01 MR. TURLEY: No.
02 MS. DEMAREST: Not as to Dr. Jaeckle.
03 THE COURT: Not as to Dr. Jaeckle.
04 MR. MATHIS: Can I -- can I address it?
05 It does not cure all of that.
06 THE COURT: You're right.
07 MR. MATHIS: The -- there is -- Sylvia is
08 correct, there is no question about authenticity with
09 respect to Exhibit 170, that's the St. Luke's report,
10 that is really not what is in issue here. There may be
11 other hearsay objections to it aside from that, but that's
12 not the question.
13 The question that we are talking about is
14 whether the substance of conversations that may have taken
15 place, or any single conversation between someone like
16 Rehkemper and Dr. Jaeckle, or someone like Bishop Grahmann
17 and Dr. Montana at St. Luke's Institute is admissible --
18 very simple -- whether Rehkemper can say I talked to Dr.
19 Jaeckle on the phone and he said hello. Is hello
20 admissible? If Bishop Grahmann testifies in a few weeks
21 whether or not Dr. Montana said hello when they talked on
22 the phone, is that admissible?
23 THE COURT: Montana is at St. Luke's?
24 MR. MATHIS: At St. Luke's, yes. Those --
25 that is not hearsay, because it's not offered for the truth
4230
01 of the matter. And no one particularly disputes Rudy Kos
02 is a pedophile, (phonetic pronunciation) or pedophile, or
03 whatever name that we put on it. It's not a question of
04 whether what was said in those conversation is in realty
05 true, it's a question of whether statements were made.
06 In other words, what is the conversation?
07 What did Judge Ashby say to me when I talked with her on
08 the telephone.
09 That is -- that is clearly what the rule
10 says. It's not hearsay because it's not offered for the
11 the truth of the matter, it's offered for notice. It's a
12 similar sort of thing in a different way of all of these
13 notice questions that we have talked about here.
14 These are not offered for the truth of the
15 statements, they are merely offered to say, this is what
16 was said to me. The doctor told me I had cancer. It
17 doesn't matter whether I had cancer, that's not what's in
18 dispute. The question is whether the doctor told me that.
19 Dr. Jaeckle will testify as to his
20 recollection of the conversation, Monsignor Rehkemper will,
21 Bishop Grahmann, the same thing. The St. Luke report,
22 they'll argue, contradicts what Bishop Grahmann remembers
23 from the conversation he had with St. Luke's. So none of
24 that is offered for the truth of the matter. For that
25 matter, the St. Luke's report is in realty not offered by
4231
01 the plaintiffs for the truth of the matter, it's just
02 offered to say, this is what the Diocese got, and so this
03 is what you had notice of, whatever is in that report.
04 And then everybody can argue about what the report means.
05 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, the -- the Dr.
06 Montana problem is -- puts it in the correct perspective.
07 The Hearsay Rule is to protect us.
08 THE COURT: Right.
09 MR. TURLEY: Protect any litigant from
10 having somebody come in and say, "Well, I acted on such and
11 such," or, "I did such and such because so and so told me
12 that." When we don't have an opportunity to cross-examine
13 so and so, that's exactly what they're doing here.
14 They want to have Bishop Grahmann come and
15 say, "Well, I did what I did, because Dr. Montana told me
16 something." We don't have an opportunity to cross-examine
17 Dr. Montana. The Hearsay Rule affords us protection from
18 that very situation. And that's what we're --
19 MR. MATHIS: If it was offered for the truth
20 of the matter, that would be a valid point, possibly, but
21 it's not offered for truth of the matter. And then I might
22 add, just as far as the motion in limine goes, the door
23 has already been opened on this. Sylvia is right, this has
24 been discussed for days.
25 The motion in limine is not the proper
4232
01 thing, objection at the time is the proper thing, if this
02 is an objection at all. And I don't think it's a valid
03 one. Because I'm saying right here and now, it's not
04 offered for truth of the matter.
05 MR. TURLEY: Well, you're not opening the
06 door with Monsignor Rehkemper, to my knowledge.
07 THE COURT: Well, Jaeckle is is coming;
08 right?
09 MR. TURLEY: Yes, ma'am.
10 MR. MATHIS: Well, he's here, he's sitting
11 in the courtroom.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Dr. -- I'm sorry --
13 MR. TURLEY: He will be here to testify next
14 week.
15 MS. DEMAREST: But we have not been able to
16 get --
17 MR. MATHIS: And he probably needs to go
18 home, or be allowed to go home, if he is not going to be
19 called today.
20 MS. DEMAREST: We have -- we have not
21 however had an opportunity to take Dr. Montana's
22 deposition.
23 MR. TURLEY: That's right.
24 MS. DEMAREST: We do have a deposition from
25 the head of St. Luke's Institute, Dr. Connor, who did make
4233
01 some statements in this regard, so we don't have the
02 opportunity to test the hearsay statement concerning Bishop
03 Grahmann. We do have the opportunity to test the hearsay
04 statement concerning Monsignor Rehkemper, but not Bishop
05 Grahmann with regard to his conversation with Dr. Montana,
06 that's something separate.
07 So that the Court will understand, we're
08 really talking about two separate transactions, one of
09 which occurred with Dr. Jaeckle, and -- and Monsignor
10 Rehkemper, and the other occurred in a telephone
11 conversation with Bishop Grahmann, and Dr. Montana from the
12 St. Luke's Institute. The only testimony we have there is
13 from Stephen Connor, who is head of the Institute. The
14 only other thing that we have is the St. Luke's report.
15 Now, I agree, the St. Luke's report is not
16 being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but
17 being offered in order to demonstrate what -- what was --
18 what the notice was to the Diocese with regard to St.
19 Luke's findings. There is no question about the
20 authenticity of the report, that predicate has been laid.
21 So I believe it comes in irrespective of this -- the
22 balance of this controversy. And I'll sit down.
23 MR. MATHIS: Well, that's my point --
24 MR. TURLEY: And I agree with that, Your
25 Honor.
4234
01 MR. MATHIS: Let me respond to that.
02 That's exactly what I'm saying. Sylvia stands there and
03 says, "The St. Luke's report is -- Exhibit 170 is not
04 offered for the truth of the matter, it's offered for
05 notice." Well, notice is notice. It doesn't matter
06 whether it's truthful or not, it's not hearsay if it's not
07 offered for the truth of the matter, it's just notice.
08 Whether it is good notice or bad notice, or any mixture of
09 the two, it's not hearsay because it's not offered for the
10 truth of the matter.
11 And I might add, the plaintiffs were free to
12 try to depose St. Luke's any time they wanted throughout
13 this case, in addition to what depositions were taken. I
14 will add, though, they probably would have met with the
15 same problem I have, and that is that we have had court
16 proceedings going in Maryland for sometime now, with
17 absolutely no success at trying to depose those people at
18 St. Luke Institute, and we're going to have copies of all
19 that stuff to give to you in a few days, but -- but it's
20 irrelevant, because nothing with respect to any
21 conversation or communication between Dr. Jaeckle and
22 Monsignor Rehkemper is offered for the truth of the matter.
23 And nothing with respect to any conversation between Dr.
24 Montana at St. Luke and Monsignor Rehkemper is offered for
25 the truth of the matter, and, thus, it's not hearsay under
4235
01 the Rule. That's basic.
02 THE COURT: Okay.
03 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, just very briefly.
04 First of all, this is not our hearsay problem, that's why
05 we didn't take the depositions in Maryland, we didn't need
06 to, because it's not our hearsay problem, it's Mr. Mathis'
07 problem.
08 Your Honor, when you offer hearsay that is
09 the critical, pivitol issue of defense in this case, and
10 you say -- and you put it in front of the jury and you say,
11 "But don't pay any attention to it, it's not really offered
12 for the truth of the matter," that is the pivitol thing.
13 It becomes so prejudicial, so powerful and prejudicial,
14 that -- that whatever instruction the Court can give to the
15 jury to disregard it for anything except notice, simply
16 will not work.
17 We've got Dr. Jaeckle here. He is going to
18 testify next week on this subject, let him testify about
19 it, then if they want to bring somebody to contradict him,
20 that's fine.
21 THE COURT: So all we're really talking
22 about right now is the Montana -- is --
23 MR. TURLEY: And Jaeckle.
24 THE COURT: And Jaeckle.
25 MR. MATHIS: Montana and Jaeckle.
4236
01 MR. TURLEY: The oral statements that the
02 Diocese claims these physicians made to them.
03 MR. MATHIS: Everyone is going to testify as
04 to their recollection of conversations, but do you realize
05 the absurdity of this whole argument, when we have sat here
06 for four weeks with evidence of -- of hundreds of other
07 occurrences around the country, and all of this testimony
08 that we have heard from from Doyle, all purportedly offered
09 on the basis of notice?
10 THE COURT: Okay. Let's do this. Your
11 motion in limine is going to be overruled. I'll require
12 that we do a limiting instruction. Let's work real
13 quickly on the limiting instruction.
14 MR. MATHIS: It goes to notice. That's the
15 limiting instruction.
16 THE COURT: Think about it for just a
17 minute. Take just a minute, and let's think about the
18 limiting instruction.
19 MR. TURLEY: All right.
20 THE COURT: What's y'all's temperature in
21 the back of the room? Are y'all okay?
22 (Brief pause)
23 MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I hope you can read
24 my writing. I've switched to printing now.
25 THE COURT: Of course, I can read your
4237
01 writing. I have spent way too much time with you to not be
02 able to read your writing.
03 (Brief pause while the Court
04 reviewed the document)
05 THE COURT: Okay, Randy, do you want me to
06 read it to you?
07 MR. MATHIS: Yes.
08 THE COURT: "Requested instruction: Any
09 testimony from this witness with respect to what Dr.
10 Jaeckle or St. Luke's Institution told him is not offered
11 for the purpose of proving that fact as true, but is
12 admitted only for the purpose of showing the witness' state
13 of mind at that time." Do you want to take a look?
14 MR. MATHIS: State of mind at the time.
15 That's not --
16 MR. TURLEY: You said this was offered for
17 the purpose of state of mind.
18 THE COURT: And/or notice.
19 MR. MATHIS: Notice.
20 MR. TURLEY: What kind of notice? What
21 notice?
22 MR. MATHIS: Notice that he understood the
23 statement made to him.
24 MR. TURLEY: Notice?
25 MR. MATHIS: I mean, what are we arguing
4238
01 here? This is pretty basic. I -- it ought to say notice.
02 MR. TURLEY: I don't think so.
03 MR. MATHIS: If you want to say state of
04 mind --
05 MR. TURLEY: He's offered it for state of
06 mind, that's at all he's offered it for.
07 MR. MATHIS: If the Court wants to say state
08 of mind and notice, that would be fine with me, but not
09 state of mind only. That doesn't make any sense to the
10 jury --
11 THE COURT: I think it's state of mind and
12 notice. Do you disagree?
13 MR. TURLEY: I do agree, but whatever --
14 it's a state of mind exception to the Hearsay Rule.
15 THE COURT: Right, but it's also --
16 MR. MATHIS: It's not offered for the truth
17 of the matter, which makes it never under the Hearsay Rule,
18 in the first place --
19 THE COURT: Okay. When you're ready for the
20 instruction, request it.
21 MR. TURLEY: Okay.
22 MR. MATHIS: Okay. Now --
23 MS. DEMAREST: Wait a minute. Your Honor, I
24 would like to offer into evidence certain exhibits.
25 Exhibit No. 142, which is a letter from Bishop Tschoepe to
4239
01 Robert Peebles dated June the 3rd, 1985, appointing him as
02 Pastor at St. Augustine's.
03 THE COURT: Okay. 142 is yours?
04 MR. MATHIS: Do you want me to object to
05 these -- do you want to read them first, or --
06 MS. DEMAREST: No, I want you to tell me
07 right now so we can go ahead and get