proceedings prior to trial has no impact on his conviction, Defendant never convincingly
articulated that the transcripts referred to by him have any relevance to the proof of his
guilt or to a defense against the charge. All of the transcripts sought by the defendant
relate to post-indictment hearings. The only comments contained on the transcripts are
remarks and arguments made by lawyers, the judge and sometimes the defendant himself.
None of the transcripts contain any witness statements other than arguments made by
defendant. Moreover, the transcripts do not contain any Brady or Giglio information.
There is nothing in the Defense Motions that explains how the transcripts could have any
evidentiary value or relevance to the issues raised at trial. For these reasons, defendant's
motion for a new trial on the basis that he was not given copies of all transcripts of court

proceedings from January to the present, is denied.

Defendant's final motion for dismissal, is based on the proposition that the Court
and the prosecution took advantage of the fact that he is "a Veteran with multi-pains and
disabilities[,]". The record simply does not support this contention. The Court made
substantial efforts to accommodate defendant and to insure that defendant received a full
and fair trial. Defendant was provided with three Court appointed attorneys all of whom
he rejected. In spite of that the Court provided defendant with standby counsel, who was
present throughout the trial. Defendant relied upon and consulted with his stand-by
counsel numerous times during the course of the trial. Also, defendant was able to

conduct cross-examinations as well as the opening and closing statements by himself.


counsel's table throughout the trial and assisted the government in the preparation and
presentation of the case. The defendant was aware that the government intended to call
Special Agent Amann, before the close of the government's case, because his name was on
the witness list handed to defendant and to his stand-by counsel. Defendant never objected
to or sought to prevent agent Amann from sitting at counsel table. When the government
called agent Amann to the witness stand, the defendant did not object. Indeed, at no time
during the course of Amann's testimony, or the trial, was this issue raised. Only after the jury

retumed its verdict of guilty did defendant object to Amann's testimony.

Nor does the law favor the defendant Specifically, under Federal Rule of Evidence
615, a government representative essential to the presentation of the party's cause need
not be excluded. In United States v. Adamo, 882 F.2d 1218 (7'" Cir. 1989) the Seventh
Circuit has determined tha Rule 615 “exempt[s agents] from sequestration." United
States v. Berry, 133 F.3d 1020 also holds that the defendant is not entitled to relief on the
grounds that the goverment's case agent was permitted to testify at the end of trial, after
sitting at counsel's table throughout the trial, given that rules of evidence permitted such
practice and defendant never timely objected to the testimony. For these reasons the Court
denies defendant's motion for dismissal or a new trial on the grounds that agent Amann

testified at trial.

Defendant’s request that the Court provide him with transcripts of the court


Finally, defendant never made any objections to the trial proceedings on the basis of
medical infirmities or other alleged problems none of which were apparent during the
trial. For these reasons, defendant's motion to vacate the conviction on medical grounds,
is denied.

Finally, defendant continues to argue for release from custody. This motion has
been ruled on and denied on at least two prior occasions. The only change since then is
that the defendant now stands convicted of the charges against him.. The motion is
denied.

SO ORDERED ENTERED: November 19, 2003

Ronald A. Guzman
United States Judge


Minute Oder Focm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

x Swans indges
singe Magorate Judge Ronald A. Guzman than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 CR 96-1 DATE 11/19/2003
CASE USA vs. VINCENT TODD
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.}

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qa) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue____

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon set for__ at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_ sat.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor____att

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) qo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at 7

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) OC Local Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

qo) =o (Other docket entry] . ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court denies
defendant’s motions for dismissal or a new trial. Defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction is denied.
Defendant’s motion for dismissal or a new trial on the grounds that agent Amann testified at trial is
denied. Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis that he was not given copies of all transcripts of
court proceedings from January to the present, is denied. Defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction
on medical grounds, is denied. Defendant’s motion for release from custody is denied. [86-1]

al) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. No r\

No notices required.
umber of notices

¥ 25 2003

Gite dockevsd

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. N

v | Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge, =

courtroom aD: “a date mailed notice

cG deputy’s
initials

5h Date/time-received in’ ~
central Clerk’ sOffice mailing deputy intols



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, )

) No. 03 cr 96

Vs. ) Judge Ronald A. Guzman

)
Vincent Todd )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

The Defense Motions appear to ask this Court to vacate his conviction because (1)
the government did not timely provide copies of papers allegedly necessary for his
defense; (2) the case agent, Robert Amann, Jr., who was present at counsel's table
throughout the trial, testified in the government's case even though other witnesses were
excluded from the courtroom during the trial; (3) defendant's "request [for] all transcripts
of court proceedings from January til present," was denied; and (4) the Court and the
prosecution took advantage of the fact that defendant was "a Veteran with multipains and
disabilities." Defendant has also moved for his release from custody on the basis of his
medical needs. For the reasons stated below, we disagree and deny defendant's motions

for dismissal or a new trial.

i


Defendant's claim that he did not receive copies of papers contained in his carry-on
bag is false. Moreover, there is no evidence the papers were necessary for or, indeed, had any
relevance whatsoever to a defense against the crime of conviction. On August 4, 2003, the
government produced to the defense, copies of all "court papers"contained in defendant's
carry-on bag. Further, at the pre-trial conference on October 2, 2003, the defendant again

tequested copies of all papers contained in the carry-on bag. In spite of the fact that
defendant could not establish any connection between the papers and the case at bar
whatsoever, the Court ordered the government to copy and produce every single piece of
paper in defendant's bag. The government copied and produced all of the papers on October
6, 2003. The papers were hand delivered to the defendant at the Metropolitan Correctional
Center and to defendant's stand-by counsel, Gerald Collins. Copies of the papers were also
brought to Court by defendant's stand by counsel on October 8, 2003 and were available for
inspection by the defendant at that time. Moreover, at no time prior to or during the course
of the trial did the defendant claim that he did not receive copies of all papers from his
carry-on bag. The documents were produced on more than one occasion, no relevance to the
case was ever established and defendant failed to object prior to or during the trial. For all

of these reasons the motion to vacate the conviction on this basis is denied.

Defendant also claims that he was prejudiced in some unspecified manner because the
case agent was permitted to sit at counsel's table despite the fact that witnesses were

otherwise excluded. The case agent, Special Agent Robert Amann, Jr., was present at