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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vsCHARLES B. ESTELL,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12 CR 416

Chicago, Illinois

August 13, 2013

9:30 a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE GARY FEINERMAN

APPEARANCES:

For the Government: HON. PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: MR. PATRICK J. KING, JR.

MS. CAROL A. BELL

219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500,

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312)353-5300

For the Defendant: LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY T. MITCHELL

BY: MR. GREGORY T. MITCHELL

18141 Dixie Highway

Suite 111

Homewood, Illinois 60430

(708) 799-9325

Court Reporter:

CHARLES R. ZANDI, CSR, RPR, FCRR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2128

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 435-5387

email: Charles_zandi@ilnd.uscourts.gov
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

2

(Proceedings heard in open court:)

THE CLERK: 12 CR 416, USA versus Estell.

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning. Who do we have?

MR. KING: Good morning, your Honor. Patrick King

and Carol Bell on behalf of the United States.

MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, your Honor. Gregory

Mitchell on behalf of Mr. Charles Estell, Judge, who's present

in court.

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning. We're all set for

trial. We're here for a motion, docket No. 63, which is the

defendant's motion to correct the record of proceedings of the

arraignment on the superseding indictment.

And I read the motion. And sometimes -- I appreciate

that the motion was filed. Sometimes, you know, not too

often, but sometimes things get said in court that when you

sit back and consider it, you think that it wasn't as accurate

as it could have been.

So, the question is: What do we do now? Should we

re-arraign Mr. Estell?

MR. MITCHELL: Judge, I think, again, there was two

issues. I know it concerned Mr. Estell, because again, he

wanted to make sure that he was not misrepresenting by saying,

"Yes," and I know the predicament that I put him in. But if

you wouldn't mind simply passing this for just two seconds,

Judge, or five minutes, I will sit here with Mr. Estell.
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

3

We'll go over it again. And I think we can do it at that

point, Judge, just to clarify the record.

THE COURT: Do a re-arraignment at that point?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. Then why don't we do that.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.

(Recess had.)

THE CLERK: 12 CR 416, USA versus Estell.

THE COURT: All right. So, is there any objection

from the government to the motion to correct the record?

MR. KING: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Then I'll grant docket No. 63,

which is the motion to correct the record. The record is

corrected.

And we should go forward with the re-arraignment, is

that correct?

MR. MITCHELL: Judge, Mr. Estell and I have gone over

the superseding indictment, Judge. We've looked at the prior

indictment compared to what the superseding, saw the

difference. And at this point, we would waive reading

publicly, Judge, and enter a plea of not guilty to both

Counts 1 and 2.

THE COURT: All right. And, Mr. Estell, you're on

board with that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
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

4

THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask the government to

advise the defendant of the maximum penalties in this case.

MR. KING: The maximum penalty for Count 1 is

25 years' imprisonment, a fine of $250,000. Count 2 provides

for a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of seven years to

be consecutive with any sentence imposed on Count 1, and a

maximum term of imprisonment of life. Both charges provide

for a statutory fine of $250,000, and with the Count 1, it's

$250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss.

THE COURT: And you understand that, Mr. Estell?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. And we're all set for trial? It's

in September, is that correct?

MR. KING: Yes, Judge.

MR. MITCHELL: September 9th, Judge. I did get a --

just so the Court knows, I did get a stack of documents at the

last court appearance, and I went through it. And, Judge, I

will likely be filing, with the approval of the Court, motions

in limine, a couple, not a lot, based on what I just received.

And it's possible that I'm going to be filing, and

I'm pretty sure I will, Judge, in the next day and a half, a

motion to suppress the vehicle and the documents seized

therein. I just got the search warrant and the statements

with the officers, I think they were Oak Lawn officers who

actually found the search and did some other things, and I got
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

5

those records. But I'll get that on file, Judge, within the

next two days.

MR. KING: We may be able to resolve it prior to the

trial date, Judge. We'll know as soon as we see it.

THE COURT: File the motion and notice it up for

hearing so you'll get on my calendar before September 9th.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. KING: No, your Honor. Thank you.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, your Honor.

(Which were all the proceedings heard.)

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from

the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/Charles R. Zandi August 18, 2014

 

Charles R. Zandi Date

Official Court Reporter