Opinion ID: 610806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial and the District Court's Decision

Text: 20 Thereafter, a one-day bench trial was held. The parties had stipulated to various facts relating to Cablevision's operations and the court's jurisdiction. The precise facts to which they stipulated are not spelled out in the record, though both sides appeared to agree that both §§ 553 and 605 were applicable, and that the only real issue for trial was the circumstances under which Mr. Sykes came in possession of this box. (Trial Transcript July 20, 1992 (Tr.), at 7 (Statement of Sykes's attorney).) At trial, Cablevision introduced the testimony of Helsel, which largely mirrored her affidavit, the black box she had purchased from Sykes, and the transcript of her conversation with Sykes. The transcript included the following: 21 [SYKES]--Any problems at all, let me know. 22 [HELSEL]--Okay. 23 [SYKES]--Otherwise, like I said I got a thousand of them if I don't have one. 24 [HELSEL]--A thousand? 25 [SYKES]--At least a thousand. 26 [HELSEL]--Wow, so that's like my guarantee? 27 .... 28 [HELSEL]--Thanks alot [sic ]. I'll let you know. I'll come back. Great. If possible, I can get another one? 29 [SYKES]--Yes. I've got 15/20 all the time. 30 (Tape Transcript.) 31 Both Sykes and Reukauf testified at trial and substantially confirmed the representations made in Sykes's affidavit as to why Sykes had obtained a black box for Reukauf in 1987. Reukauf, though stating that the black box in evidence here resembled the one Sykes had given him in 1987, was unable to testify that it was the same box. As to the events of 1990, Reukauf stated that neither he nor any other FBI agent ever authorized Sykes to sell the box and that he had not known Sykes would sell the box. Sykes admitted that neither any FBI agent nor any other government employee had told him to sell the black box. 32 As to Helsel's description of her conversation with Sykes, though his earlier affidavit had disputed Helsel's statement that he had said he had many black boxes for sale, Sykes did not persist in that denial in his testimony at trial. Rather, though claiming not to remember certain of his statements, Sykes did not dispute the accuracy of the transcript. He stated, if you have--if she says it is it's probably true.... [T]here is no need to play the tape. (Tr. 31-32.) 33 Following the trial, the court dismissed the complaint. Stating that there had clearly [been] a misunderstanding between Sykes and the agent, and that Sykes's acquisition of the decoder had actually benefited Cablevision, the court ruled that Cablevision had failed to prove a violation. The court stated that 34 perhaps [Sykes] acted foolishly and maybe not in a businesslike way and sold the device here to the investigator. There is no question about that. But he didn't make any money on it. The best evidence we have is that he paid two hundred and fifty dollars plus some cost of mailing, and that is what he sold--he sold it to the investigator for two hundred and fifty dollars. So if anything he lost some money. So that there is no evidence here that there was any dealing for gain. 35 Now, it is true and the Court does take into consideration the fact that the instruction sheet went along with it. I suppose it would simply be part of the package, part of the box. And then as far as the other tags, that would be something which would indicate his knowledge of the business, but that is why Reukauf went to him in the first place, because he believed that he would know something about how this went on.... The only evidence we have here of his dealing is this one event. Other than that it's pure speculation. If the company believed that he was a serious source of these unlawful decoders they could have very simply sent either this investigator or somebody else to the shop and they would attempt to buy another box. 36 .... I find that under the circumstances that although the box was sold, that it was sold with the innocent purpose of Mr. Sykes in simply recouping his losses. Under the circumstances he should have acted in a different way, but I do not find that plaintiff has made its case that the sale was in violation of the law. 37 (Tr. 75-77.) 38 Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint, and this appeal followed.