CASE NO. 99-491-CR-KING
vs. MIAMI, FLORIDA
SABRETECH, INC., ET. AL. DAY 5
Defendants.
CAROLINE HECK MILLER, A.U.S.A.
GEOFFREY BRIGHAM, A.U.S.A.
J.L.K. FEDERAL JUSTICE BUILDING
99 N.E. 4th Street
JANE RASKIN, ESQ.
MARTIN RASKIN, ESQ.
RASKIN & RASKIN, P.A.
2937 S.W. 27th Avenue, Suite 206
NORMAN MOSCOWITZ, ESQ.
SULLIVAN RIVERO & MOSCOWITZ, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Blvd.
JANE MOSCOWITZ, ESQ.
100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 3700
ROBERT DUNLAP, ESQ.
DUNLAP & SILVERS, P.A.
2601 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 601
J.L.K. Federal Justice Building
John Taber ............................. 4
John Taber ............................ 24
John Taber ............................ 25 26
Tomas Silvers ................ 36 69
COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in
session. The Honorable Judge James Lawrence King
presiding.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
[The jury returns to the courtroom].
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Mr. Taber, you've been an AMT mechanic for 14 years,
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You've been at several different companies, both at
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You worked at Eastern, and you worked at American?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Before this accident, you didn't receive hazardous
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor, past
practice, irrelevant.
experienced. Certainly, it would, I think. Overruled.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Before this accident, you didn't receive, as a
A. Not as a mechanic, no.
Q. You had some hazardous material training, right?
A. Some, yes.
Q. At some point in your career, you were a ramp service
A. Yes.
Q. What is a ramp service agent?
A. Baggage handler.
Q. What does a baggage handler do?
A. Load and unload bags and cargo from the aircraft.
Q. You load cargo and bags onto the aircraft?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Sir, before 1996, when you were working at SabreTech,
A. Not oxygen generators, no.
Q. Different sorts of oxygen systems?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. What oxygen systems were those?
A. Those were bottled oxygen systems.
Q. They operate differently?
A. Yes, they are bottles that are stored below in the
cargo hold. Something like a scuba tank.
Q. About these MD-80s we have been talking about, you had
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Did Mr. Florence come to SabreTech around the same time
A. I believe he was there before me.
Q. He was on your crew, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. During the time that you and Mr. Florence were there
together and on the same crew, did Mr. Florence get any
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.
together or he has personal knowledge.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Do you have personal knowledge?
A. Not while I was there, he did not.
Q. Sir, you testified yesterday that when you began to
A. Yes, all I looked at, was how the inserts would come
out.
Q. When you talk about the maintenance manual, you don't
A. No, it's microfilm.
Q. When you go into the microfilm, you look for the
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And that's what you did in this case?
A. Yes, I took a picture of this first page.
Q. So, you go in and look for the page you want, you can
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. In other words, you're not browsing through a manual?
A. Only looking for what I need to get to.
Q. After you found in February -- it was February 1996,
A. I'm not sure if it was January or February. I'm not
really sure the dates.
Q. It's around then?
A. Right.
Q. The first thing you did, was take out the inserts,
A. Yes.
Q. And you packed them in a box temporarily, right?
A. Yes.
Q. About how many of them were in that box?
A. I packed them in a couple of boxes. I would say almost
70.
Q. In approximately, how many boxes?
A. Two to three.
Q. And spread evenly through those boxes?
A. Some boxes were bigger than the others.
Q. When you came back, you found that a couple of heat
A. Yes, they were melted.
Q. Was any fire started as a result of that?
A. No.
Q. You saw that a few had been set off, and you knew it
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You didn't know that they could cause enormous damage,
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. You thought the shipping caps that we were talking
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor. What the
witness thought.
THE COURT: Sustained. He can tell us what he
did and what he saw.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. What was your understanding of the purpose of the
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection. Same grounds.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Did you discuss the purpose of the shipping caps with
A. I'm not sure how to answer that.
Q. First answer, yes or no.
A. I believe I did, yes.
Q. With whom?
A. A couple of the mechanics.
Q. And Mr. Florence was one of them?
A. Most likely, since he was working with me.
Q. And you all discussed, did you not, that you thought
THE COURT: Let's see now. You are on
cross-examination. Go ahead.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. You discussed, did you not, that the purpose you all
A. It was to protect us and protect the generator from
firing off.
Q. Mr. Taber, you installed generators on the right hand
A. I installed the generators with the PSUs. I installed
Q. First you installed new generators into the PSUs, and
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. The work on the right hand side of the airplane was
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. In that case, that's because ValuJet wanted a change in
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And they issued an engineering order, that came from
A. I believe all paperwork came from ValuJet.
Q. That engineering order contained instructions for the
A. Yes.
Q. And that's the paperwork that you, you eventually
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Let me show you.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Let me show you Government Exhibit 25, and turn to this
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Let me show you, if I could, this blow up. Is that a
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And that's the engineering order that contains your
A. Yes, it is.
Q. That's the engineering order that dealt with the
A. Yes.
Q. You signed off at points 12.2, all the points there
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Above that at 12.1, is the description of the removal
A. 12.1.1?
Q. All of 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3, they all deal with the
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And the first one tells you how to take the generator
out. Well, tell us what the first one tells you.
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, objection. The
document speaks for itself.
guess, what it meant to him just in your own words.
further installation.
THE COURT: Right.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. What does the second one say?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Yes, it is. Let me just jump
ahead then.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. The final instruction after you have the old oxygen
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Does it say any place on the engineering order that you
A. Not on this portion, no.
Q. Does it say it any place on the engineering order?
A. I would have to read the whole engineering order.
Q. Do you want to take a second and cruise through it, or
A. The whole engineering order?
Q. Yes.
A. It's going to take a while.
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: The document is in evidence.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Sir, at the time you signed that engineering order,
A. At this time?
Q. At the time you were doing the signing?
A. No.
Q. You were concerned with the air worthiness of the plane
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. With respect to this engineering order, it reflects
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. What are those?
A. That's the inspector stickers of the inspectors that
inspect it.
Q. Inspectors inspect a lot of work that you do on the
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. They don't just inspect the paperwork. They get on the
planes. They look to see that the work is done right,
A. Yes.
Q. But inspectors don't inspect used parts taken off
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. You would have to ask the
inspectors about that.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Sir, what, if any, training do you have regarding the
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection. Relevancy.
THE COURT: Limited to oxygen canisters. You may
answer.
THE WITNESS: Oxygen canisters or generators.
I've had no training on disposal of them.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. By the way, Mr. Taber, you did a lot of other work on
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Also, a lot of mechanics worked on the oxygen
A. That is correct.
Q. It wasn't just you, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Florence,
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You told us something about wrapping and tagging the
used generators. There were two different occasions on
A. Yes.
Q. First, you did it when you were first working on 802,
A. I believe it was in March. I'm not sure the dates.
Q. That's fine. Sir, at that time, Mr. Florence was
A. Yes.
Q. And you all discussed the best way to prevent the
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you and Mr. Florence discussed this together,
A. Yes.
Q. And you undertook to wrap the lanyards around the
A. Yes, I wrapped them mainly around the trigger and just
the ends. I put it around the body just to hold it tight.
Q. So the lanyards wouldn't get lose and be pulled on
A. That's the way the new ones came in. That's the best
way I thought at the time, to wrap them. There were a few
reasons why.
Q. Sir, let me show you Government Exhibit 30A. Do you
you all did.
A. I mainly took it, pulled it very taunt here, to bring
firing pin in here, which let's the trigger go. I held it
real taunt and I taped the ends on to the body.
Q. Let me ask you again, and you can just show me. What
A. This is the firing pin.
Q. This black thing?
A. Yes. That's like the trigger, the firing mechanism --
Q. When we use the term firing pin?
A. The pin is this part here, that goes through and holds
the trigger up.
Q. Show me again.
A. That little pin right there.
Q. Let me make sure I see it. It's this that is coming
A. Yes.
Q. This pin right in here?
tagging, right.
A. Yes.
Q. And that was at some point, probably later in April or
A. Probably late April.
Q. At that time, generators were brought to you from other
A. Yes.
Q. But Eugene Florence did not participate with you on
A. No.
Q. What sort of tags did you put on those aircraft?
A. I put the green tag which is a repairable tag.
Q. The repairable tag means that before that part could be
A. Yes, it would have to go back and be overhauled,
inspected or something like that.
Q. What did you write on the tags?
A. I identified the part as oxygen generators, I wrote
removal. I'm not sure, I have to look, but I believe it
number.
Q. Let me show you, sir, Defendants' Exhibit 3 for
identification, and ask if you recognize that.
A. Yes, that's the tag with my signature on it.
Q. Is that a photograph of one of the actual tags that you
A. Yes.
Q. It bears your signature?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, I move the admission
of Defendant's Exhibit 3.
MR. BRIGHAM: May I voir dire, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Sir, at the bottom of that generator, there appears to
be a plastic item. Do you recognize that?
A. To tell you the truth, I don't see it. Oh, just
Q. Yes.
A. If that's a plastic item, I'm not sure that is it or
not. I believe that would be the shipping cap.
Q. Was that item on the generator when you wrote the green
A. No, sir.
MR. BRIGHAM: To that extent, we do not object.
admitted into evidence.
[Defense Exhibit 3 received in evidence].
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, I have a few copies.
THE COURT: I suppose so. Normally, we would
take this exhibit and pass it down. That way, we don't
have exhibits floating around. The big copy may be easier
to look at any way.
MS MOSCOWITZ: You're right.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Can you tell us what that tag says, sir?
A. Could I have a copy?
THE COURT: Maybe you should give him the copy
that you passed to the jury.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: I didn't realize that I had taken
it away from him.
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, the photograph speaks
for itself.
THE COURT: What was the question? Let me hear
the question. What is the question, please?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: The question is, what does the
tag say?
THE COURT: They are all looking at it, and
reading it, aren't they? Why don't you ask him, if there
is some confusion?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Just say, "the tag says" and then
tell him.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. The tag says 02 generators at the top, correct?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And then it says --
THE COURT: Well, don't just ask him to read it,
if you have a question about it, ask it.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Are these the generators that you were dealing with
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
21 TABER - Cross
that we have been talking about in this case? When it says
02, is that the same generator, is that right?
A. Yes.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. 02 stands for oxygen, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You wrote "out-of-date" at the bottom of the tag?
A. Yes, it says for reason of removal, I put
"out-of-date."
Q. That tag is correct, correct?
A. As far as I'm concerned it is.
Q. As a mechanic, you were not allowed to condemn parts
belonging to customers, right?
A. Under my understanding, I'm not.
Q. This was a part belonging to ValuJet, correct?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And you discussed that with Mr. Wiles, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Wiles told you that these generators were
ValuJet property, and they would handle what would happen to
those generators, correct?
A. They said they would be the ones to dispose of them.
Q. You put the generators neatly in a box, right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you were instructed to take them to the ValuJet
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
22 TABER - Cross
hold area, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. None of the maintenance records, like the work cards,
went to the ValuJet hold area, right?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Yes, you have to show that he knows
those facts.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: He said, not that he's aware of.
THE COURT: You didn't see what happened to them?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. The records, but you saw what happened to the
generators, right, Mr. Taber?
A. I know where the generators went.
THE COURT: He told us that he carried one box
over and two others carried two other over. One gentleman
put them down.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Did you go in and talk to anybody at ValuJet, did you
go into the enclosure and talk to somebody in there?
A. Not from ValuJet, no.
Q. Including the supervisor?
A. All I did was spoke to one of the shipping and handler
leads, and asked them where exactly they want it put.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
23 TABER - Cross
Q. You asked the shipping and handling guy. You don't
happen to know who he was, do you?
A. Not at this time, no.
Q. You said where do you want these things?
A. Yes, I said where is the ValuJet holding area, and
where exactly do you want me to put them.
Q. He told you?
A. Yes, in the ValuJet holding area which is just a shelf.
Q. Did you do that?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Sir, you did not pack the generators to be shipped, did
you?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. You did not believe that they would be shipped,
correct?
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: He can tell us what he did and what
he said.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Did you tell anybody to ship them?
A. No, sir, I was told that they would be disposed of.
BY MS. MOSCOWITZ:
Q. Did anyone ever tell you that the used generators would
be shipped?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
24 TABER - Cross
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and
answered.
THE COURT: You may answer this question.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Did you have a conversation with anybody where you were
told that these generators were going to be shipped on an
airplane?
A. No, ma'am. I mean, no, sir.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Nothing, further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Dunlap?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUNLAP:
Q. Mr. Taber, you talked about paperwork, the signing of
paperwork in your testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's part of the overall job of doing mechanical work
on the aircraft?
A. Yes.
Q. And finishing the paperwork is one of the last steps so
that it can be closed out, so it can be inspected?
A. There are certain parts of the paperwork that you have
to have inspected to do the work. It goes all through the
paperwork inspections.
Q. Certainly completing the paperwork, whether inspected
or not, is an interval part of your job?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
25 TABER - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you described a time where people were signing
paperwork in the booth?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Danny Gonzalez did not ask you to sign paperwork
without reading it, did he?
A. No, sir.
Q. He was just saying, it's time to get the job done to
wrap up the paperwork?
A. That's what I believe, yes.
MR. DUNLAP: That's all I have.
THE COURT: Mr. Raskin?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RASKIN:
Q. Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, I am Marty
Raskin. I represent SabreTech. I only have a few questions
for you, Mr. Taber.
During the time that you worked at SabreTech, do
you know of any mechanics that took short cuts or pencil
whipped improper paperwork?
MR. BRIGHAM: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Not personally, no.
BY MR. RASKIN:
Q. During the time you worked at SabreTech, did anyone
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
26 TABER - Redirect
ever ask you to sign for work which wasn't done?
A. No, sir.
Q. During the time you worked at SabreTech, do you know of
any instance where someone prepared any false paperwork?
A. I didn't see any.
Q. During the time that you worked at SabreTech, are you
aware -- do you know of any instance where anyone at
SabreTech lied to or tried to deceive the FAA or any
government agency?
A. Not that I'm aware.
MR. RASKIN: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Redirect.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. When was the last time you had hazardous material
training?
A. Now? I just had some at work.
Q. Before the crash?
A. Before the crash? At American Airlines, on the ramp, I
had some hazardous materials training on loading cargo.
Q. What year was that?
A. 1995.
Q. I believe you said with respect to the engineering
order, the words "shipping cap" are not on it?
A. Not on that one right there.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
27 TABER - Redirect
Q. Did you use other paperwork when you were doing the
installation and removal of oxygen generators?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that paperwork?
A. That's the work card.
Q. I would like to direct your attention to Government
Exhibit 25, and specifically, with respect to the Exhibit
802, work card 0069. Could you please take a look at that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the work card you were talking about?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During your conversations with Mr. Florence about the
wrapping of the oxygen generators, what, if anything, did
you tell him about the availability of shipping caps?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Asked and answered, I
believe.
THE COURT: You may answer the question. Go
ahead.
THE WITNESS: We talked about how we didn't have
any shipping caps.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. With respect to the engineering order, what side of the
airplane does this apply to?
A. That's just the right side of the plane.
Q. With respect to the left side, what application, if
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
28 TABER - Redirect
any, does this engineering order have?
A. I don't believe that one right there has any.
Q. With respect to the left side, what effort, if any, was
there with respect to the removal of oxygen generators?
A. On the left side?
Q. Yes.
A. They were removed. I'm not sure what you are asking.
Q. Were they removed?
A. Yes.
Q. Among the people working on the oxygen generators, on
the installation and removal of the oxygen generators, who
was doing most of the work?
A. The removal?
Q. Yes.
A. From the start, I did the removal.
Q. And the installation?
A. Just putting in the heat inserts was myself, Eugene,
and Robert Rodriguez, and another mechanic, which was my
lead some times, Billy Moss.
Q. Approximately how many days did you see Mr. Florence
working on the oxygen generators?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, outside the scope.
It was asked and answered.
MR. BRIGHAM: The question was asked about the
number of individuals involved with this particular work,
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
29 TABER - Redirect
Your Honor. I am examining on that area.
THE COURT: "Question: Approximately how many
days did you see persons working on the oxygen
generators?"
He told us that on direct examination. He said
working on them for two weeks, unless I missed something
here.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. After the removal of the oxygen generators, how much
time had passed to the time that you saw Mr. Florence
signing off the paperwork in that booth?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: I think that's all covered. It's in
the record.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Sir, you were asked about pencil whipping. What did
you understand that to mean?
A. Pencil whipping is when somebody is signing something
off without even doing the work.
MR. BRIGHAM: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down, thank you. You
are excused.
Next witness, please.
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, we will be calling
Joseph Fernandez.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
30 TABER - Redirect
MR. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, could we have a side
bar please?
THE COURT: All right. The jury is excused.
[The jury leaves the courtroom].
THE COURT: Mr. Moscowitz.
MR. MOSCOWITZ: This next witness is Joseph
Fernandez. I believe his testimony has nothing to do with
the issues in this case.
As I understand it, based on the exhibit that we
have for him, he was an auditor for Continental Airlines.
Continental Airlines was considering using SabreTech to
service airplanes.
As Your Honor has already heard, when an airline
is considering using SabreTech or any repair facility,
first they audit that facility to determine whether it's
qualified. This audit was done on May 9 and May 10, 1996,
which was a day before the crash of the ValuJet airline.
Mr. Fernandez came to the audit. Ten days later --
THE COURT: I would like for everyone else,
except the speaker to sit down. You all are hovering
around like a covey of quail. I'd like you all to take
your seats.
Now, Mr. Moscowitz, so this witness went to
SabreTech, and did some sort of an inspection the day
before the crash.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
31 TABER - Redirect
MR. MOSCOWITZ: On behalf of Continental
Airlines, to determine whether the facility could be used
by Continental maintenance. I have his report. It has
nothing to do with the issues in this case. There is not a
single mention of oxygen generators.
THE COURT: Let me inquire, what is the
materiality of what the next witness, Mr. Fernandez, is
going to say? For what purpose is he being offered?
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, the importance of this
is that the Continental audit was considered a major
comprehensive contract for SabreTech. As a result, there
was a significant clean up effort in the areas including
the shipping and receiving areas, whereby this time, the
old oxygen generators which were uncapped had been
received. The generators themselves --
THE COURT: Did Mr. Fernandez see that clean up
occurred? That's a yes or no.
MR. BRIGHAM: He did not physically see people
cleaning up, but he was able --
THE COURT: Then how could he prove that point?
That's your point. They were busy cleaning up. Therefore,
they were under pressure. Therefore, they took short cut
steps. But he can't testify to that, he showed up a day
later, or two days, a week later or whenever it was.
MR. BRIGHAM: He actually showed up on the 8th
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
32 TABER - Redirect
and was there through the 10th.
THE COURT: Well, what's he going to say about
the cleanup?
MR. BRIGHAM: Nothing.
THE COURT: I guess he would say that the place
is clean, is that it?
MR. BRIGHAM: It would be corroborating an
earlier witness along those lines who had mentioned this
particular audit, and who indicated that -- and the audit
presented a certain pressure.
We will be able to elicit from the witness that
there was about a week and a half, two weeks notice with
respect to this. And we submit that, it's important
because it explains why the proper procedures were not
utilized with respect to the oxygen generators that were
packaged in violation of the hazardous materials
regulations.
In addition --
THE COURT: If that's all he is going to say, I
will sustain the objection without prejudice, the right to
call him in rebuttal if you need him. You already have
testimony from the people working in the shop that they
were under pressure to clean up the shop, and to get it
ready because an audit was coming.
There's no dispute over the fact that an audit
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
33 TABER - Redirect
was coming. All this man can say is when he showed up out
there, the place was spic and span.
If you are going to get into why Continental
didn't hire SabreTech to do some work, or why they did hire
them, that's totally his opinion and that would be
irrelevant. I suspect the intervening crash would have
played a major part in any decision he would have made.
I'm going to sustain the objection at this time without
prejudice to call the witness in rebuttal.
Who is your next witness?
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, if I may ask. I know
the Court wants to move on. But I want to --
THE COURT: I want to rule on things that are
material, and this is immaterial.
MR. BRIGHAM: There is one other aspect I think
the Court should be apprised --
THE COURT: It's a good idea for you to tell me
all of your secrets at one time. If I hear it piece-meal,
then it breaks up the ruling. What else is he going to say
that is material?
MR. BRIGHAM: He is going to say that when he was
in the shipping and receiving area, he did not see the
oxygen generators that we know established by testimony
were already there. And, in fact, the testimony, had
indicated that there were --
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
34 TABER - Redirect
THE COURT: So, you're going to put him on, and
contradict his testimony later?
MR. BRIGHAM: We are going to put him on to show
that no boxes were marked O2 generators. And we feel that
that is significant because of previous testimony that, in
fact, there were six boxes --
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. Excuse
me. The objection is sustained. Who is your next witness?
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, we had originally
intended to call Mr. Tom Silver.
THE COURT: Who is your next witness?
MR. BRIGHAM: We are having a witness problem,
quite frankly. Mr. Silver was supposed to be here. He is
not here.
THE COURT: He is not here. Who is your next
witness?
MR. BRIGHAM: After that, it is Mr. Diaz, and we
are told he will be here in a half hour.
THE COURT: It is a very good idea in a case
estimated six weeks to have at least five or six witnesses
sitting out there ready to go; rather than having 16
jurors, nine lawyers, parties, staff, everybody here,
marshals, about 25 people waiting for 30 minutes.
You multiply that out, and you've got about a
days lost time of all of these people. I think I cautioned
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
35 TABER - Redirect
all of you. Let's have these witnesses sitting out there.
If they have to wait a day or two, I'm sorry about that.
Far be it for one person to have to wait all day.
Where is Mr. Diaz coming from?
MR. BRIGHAM: I believe Boca.
THE COURT: Boca?
MR. BRIGHAM: I'm sorry, locally.
THE COURT: When was your last contact with him?
How sure are you that he is going to be here in 30 minutes?
MR. BRIGHAM: We talked to them through his
counsel.
THE COURT: It's 10:00. At 10:30, I'm going to
ask you to call your next witness. This may be a shorter
case than you think it is. Marshal, if those two witnesses
wish to go down for a smoke, they can. You need to go with
them. Thank you.
[There was a short recess].
COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in
session. The Honorable Judge James Lawrence King
presiding.
THE COURT: Thank you. Be seated. We are sorry
about the delay, ladies and gentlemen.
Call your next witness.
MR. BRIGHAM: United States calls Tomas Silvers.
Your Honor, this witness will need an interpreter, and we
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
36 SILVERS - Direct
have one present.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Will the interpreter raise her
hand.
Do you solemnly swear that you will translate
from English to Spanish, and from Spanish to English the
proceedings in this case?
INTERPRETER: I do.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: May I have your name, please?
INTERPRETER: Gloria Nichols, N-I-C-H-O-L-S.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right
hand, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I will.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: State your name please.
THE WITNESS: Tomas, T-o-m-a-s, Silvers,
S-I-L-V-E-R-S.
TOMAS SILVERS, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Mr. Silvers, you do understand English?
A. Yes.
Q. But you've requested the interpreter?
INTERPRETER: Your Honor, may we request that the
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
37 SILVERS - Direct
witness, if he is going to be testifying using the
interpreter, testify in Spanish or any way that you want?
THE COURT: The question is a simple one, not to
worry about it. You can translate what I say to him. The
question is a simple one, do you speak some English, but
you are more comfortable speaking in Spanish?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Next question.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Mr. Silvers, what do you do for a living?
A. Aviation mechanic.
Q. Where do you presently work?
A. FNE Company.
Q. Sir, do you hold any type of certificates with respect
to aviation maintenance?
A. The license for power plant in F.L. airframe.
Q. Was there a time when you worked for SabreTech?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that approximately?
A. '95 or '96. I don't remember exactly.
Q. What did you do for SabreTech?
A. I worked on the airplanes that SabreTech had at that
time.
Q. Where was this?
A. At the hangars, at the airport.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
38 SILVERS - Direct
Q. Who was your supervisor?
A. Danny Tomking, T-O-M-K-I-N-G.
Q. Is that Danny Tomkins?
A. It could be.
Q. Who was your immediate supervisor, your lead mechanic,
I should say?
A. Danny Tomkins was the supervisor, and Serrano was the
lead man.
Q. What was Mr. Serrano's first name, if you recall?
A. People used to call him Ray, but I don't know if that
was his name.
Q. You say, he was your lead man. What do you mean by
that?
A. He would receive the order from the supervisor, and
then he would distribute the jobs to us.
Q. Mr. Serrano, was he a SabreTech employee?
A. He worked there. I don't know if he was working for
SabreTech or not.
Q. But did he work at the facility?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Danny Tomkins, did he also work at the SabreTech
facility?
MR. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
THE WITNESS: He would work in the same hangar.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
39 SILVERS - Direct
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Who was Mr. Tomkins' boss?
MR. RASKIN: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Yes, I think you can ask Mr. Tomkins
these questions. Let's get to what this man did or said.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Approximately how long did you work at SabreTech?
A. Two or three months.
Q. When did you work there in relationship to the crash,
if you know?
A. I resigned before the accident.
Q. How long before the accident?
A. Weeks.
Q. When you were working at SabreTech, what were your
responsibilities?
BY THE COURT:
Q. What did you do at SabreTech?
A. Maintenance of the airplanes. We did items.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What kind of airplanes did you work on?
A. MD-80s.
Q. What company did those MD-80s belong to?
A. ValuJet.
Q. Did there come a time that you worked with respect to a
Mr. Mauro Valenzuela?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
40 SILVERS - Direct
A. Once.
Q. Approximately when was that in relationship to the
crash?
A. The airplane that we worked on was not involved in an
accident.
Q. No, but when you worked on that airplane when was it in
relationship to the crash?
A. Weeks before, two or three weeks.
Q. What did you do with Mr. Valenzuela when you worked
with him?
A. Could you be a little bit more specific?
Q. Let me approach it from a different way. How many days
did you work with Mr. Valenzuela?
A. We were scheduled to work seven days, and I worked six
days. I would see him there, when we would all arrive to
work. But he would do one type of work, and I would do
another.
Q. Did there ever come a time when you would work on the
same project?
A. Once.
Q. What did you do with him?
A. We had the order from the lead man to install the
generators on the right side.
Q. Who gave you that order?
A. Mr. Serrano.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
41 SILVERS - Direct
Q. And what did you do in response to that order?
A. First, we went to storage to see if we had the
material. They didn't have it. We communicated to
Mr. Serrano that they did not have that.
Q. What materials were those?
A. The generators.
Q. What work if any, did you do after that?
A. After that, he told us to inspect the left side, which
had been installed.
Q. Left side of what?
A. Of the aircraft, of the entire aircraft.
Q. What did you do?
A. We began to inspect it. We found oxygen masks that
were dirty. We cleaned the oxygen masks. There were hoses
that were in a clipped position, so we straightened them out
and put them in the appropriate manner. That's all we did.
Q. What, if anything, did you do with respect to the
removal or installation of oxygen generators with
Mr. Valenzuela?
A. Nothing. No, we did not either remove or install any.
Q. What shift were you working on that day?
A. The second shift. It was from 6:00 in the evening
until 6:00 in the morning.
Q. After performing that work, what conversation, if any,
did you have with Mr. Serrano?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
42 SILVERS - Direct
MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Mr. Serrano. Who is Mr. Serrano?
BY THE COURT:
Q. Who is Mr. Serrano in relation to you? Who was he?
A. He was the lead man.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. You worked for him?
A. Yes, all the mechanics work for him and for Danny
Tomkins.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the
question about what he said to you, and what you said to
him on this evening shift, two to three weeks before the
crash.
THE WITNESS: Could the question be a little bit
more specific?
THE COURT: Mr. Brigham, establish when, where,
and who was present.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. After you had done the work on the aircraft for
Mr. Valenzuela, did you have a conversation with
Mr. Serrano?
A. When we came back from lunch.
Q. And who was present during that conversation?
A. Mr. Serrano, Mr. Valenzuela and me.
Q. Mr. Valenzuela, who did he work for?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
43 SILVERS - Direct
MS. RASKIN: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Well, if you know, you may answer.
If you don't, don't answer.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Mr. Valenzuela, who did he work for?
A. In reference to what? He worked there for SabreTech.
Q. The conversation that you had with Mr. Serrano, where
did it take place?
A. Inside the hangar.
Q. What was said, what, if anything, did Mr. Serrano say
during this conversation?
A. He had some papers that looked like this in front of
me. He said that since we had done the inspection, would we
sign it. And I said, I wasn't going to sign it because I
hadn't done the inspection. So, since we did not install
that, I wasn't going to sign it.
Q. What if anything did Mr. Serrano say to Mr. Valenzuela
in your presence?
A. For about five minutes, we were joking around; you sign
it; you sign it; no, you sign it. And then Mr. Valenzuela
took the papers. I kept on talking to Mr. Serrano, and he
turned, and he gave the whole thing back to Serrano.
Q. What did Mr. Valenzuela do with those papers?
THE COURT: Did someone say something over here?
Did I hear an objection or something? No? Just the
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
44 SILVERS - Direct
interpreter. I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question?
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What did you see Mr. Valenzuela do with respect to
those papers, if anything?
A. I didn't see anything. My back was turned to him.
Q. What did you see Mr. Valenzuela do? What physical
motions did you see him make with respect to the questions?
MR. RASKIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What was the reason that Mr. Serrano -- what was the
reason he told you as to why he wanted you to sign those
papers?
MR. RASKIN: Objection.
THE COURT: You may ask him what was said.
Rephrase the question and ask what was said.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What was said with respect to Mr. Serrano, with respect
to you signing those papers?
MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. After you saw Mr. Serrano have this conversation with
Mr. Valenzuela, what, if anything, did you tell
Mr. Valenzuela?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
45 SILVERS - Direct
THE COURT: Hasn't he already told us that?
MR. BRIGHAM: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Just about three minutes ago, he said
that he told Mr. Valenzuela that he refused to sign because
he had not done the work, and I think everybody in the
courtroom heard that.
MR. BRIGHAM: My question is what did the
witness, Mr. Silvers say to Mr. Valenzuela after that.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Did you say anything further to either of them after
you told him that you would not sign the papers?
A. I asked him why he did it.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What were you referring to?
A. Because he told Serrano that it was already signed.
Q. When you said why did he do it, what were you talking
about? What was the "it"?
MS. RASKIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Tell us what you said to Serrano, and what he said to
you, if anything. What Mr. Valenzuela said, if anything.
Tell us the words that were spoken. Not your opinion.
A. By this time Serrano had left. Valenzuela and I were
heading toward a table where we had to fill out the green
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
46 SILVERS - Direct
tags for some generators. I asked him why he had done it,
and he said well, it's signed now.
Q. What did you say after that?
A. Nothing more. We ended the conversation there.
Q. That was the end of the conversation about the signing
of these cards, is that right?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What if anything, did Mr. Valenzuela say about the work
that he had accomplished?
MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Perhaps, it was unclear in his mind.
He may answer this question.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Was there anything further said about the work that was
done, other than what you told us?
A. No.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Nothing was said?
MS. RASKIN: Objection.
MR. BRIGHAM: I didn't understand, Your Honor.
Did he say, no?
THE COURT: Will the Court Reporter read back the
question and answer, please.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
47 SILVERS - Direct
(Thereupon the above referred to question and
answer were read by the court reporter).
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Mr. Silvers, do you remember testifying in front of the
Grand Jury on June 10, 1997?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you testified before the Grand Jury, you were
required to take an oath, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood that oath, is that correct?
MS. RASKIN: Objection. Leading.
MR. DUNLAP: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. During that Grand Jury testimony, do you recall the
question being asked, page 35, line 3.
"Did Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano that he had
not done the work that he was signing off on?"
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Leading.
MS. RASKIN: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: It's getting into impeachment of his
own witness. I don't understand what the purpose is.
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection to that, too, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know what the purpose of
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
48 SILVERS - Direct
calling a witness, and then impeaching him. Normally, that
might be a subject for cross-examination.
MR. BRIGHAM: I believe the rules would allow me
to do that, Your Honor. I think this is a circumstance
that would be appropriate.
THE COURT: If you wish to establish that the
jury should not believe him, that's your prerogative, but
that proves purpose and cause.
Go ahead, you may read him the question and
answer that was propounded at the Grand Jury.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
"Question: Did Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano
that he had not done: The work that he was signing off
on?
Answer: Yes, we told him that we had not done the
work on the generators, but he had wanted us to sign it
so that he could get rid of the item."
Do you recall that in your question and answer?
A. Yes.
MR. RASKIN: Your Honor, we would ask that the
rest of that passage be read, because now it's out of
context. The next several lines starting at the top of
page 36 clarifies that issue.
MR. BRIGHAM: I would be happy to do that. Would
the Court like me to do that?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
49 SILVERS - Direct
THE COURT: I certainly don't want to leave an
unfair impression with the jury. There's the suggestion
that it was clarified later, then I suppose you have to do
that.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Starting at line 1:
"This occasion, we worked together. The rest of
the time, I worked with other guys --"
Your Honor, if it's going to be read in context,
it needs to be read from the beginning of page 35.
THE COURT: Do you have any other questions of
this witness beyond this?
MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will interrupt your questioning at
this point, and ask Mr. Raskin to read those portions of
the transcript, and ask if the witness gave those answers
to those questions. You may do that.
BY MS. RASKIN:
Q. Mr. Silvers, I represent SabreTech. I'm going to be
asking you about the same Grand Jury proceeding.
THE COURT: Mr. Raskin, you can read it rapidly,
and give it to the interpreter and she'll read it.
BY MR. RASKIN:
"Did you hear Mr. Valenzuela expressly tell
Mr. Serrano that he had not done the work?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
50 SILVERS - Direct
Answer: Yes.
Mr. Serrano expressly told Mr. Valenzuela to sign
it any way?
Yes.
Had Mr. Valenzuela inspected it?
Yes. That's what we spent four hours checking to
make sure everything was right.
Question: So Mr. Valenzuela actually looked at
the work that was done?
Answer: Yes.
Question: And that's with respect to what?
Answer: The installation of the C02.
Question: When you say the installation, excuse
me if, I'm repeating, the installation of the two
generators, was that the whole assembly in the aircraft or
was it putting the generators in the assembly?
Answer: Putting the generators into the
assemblies?"
THE COURT: Ask him if he gave that question.
BY MR. RASKIN:
Q. Was that your testimony before the Grand Jury?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other
questions of this witness?
MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
51 SILVERS - Direct
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Now, at that time, what, if anything, were you doing
with respect to shipping caps?
A. We were not in charge of that.
Q. Now, after Mr. Valenzuela indicated, you had your
conversation with Mr. Valenzuela, what did you tell him, or
after he had talked to you, what did you tell him?
MS. RASKIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. I would like to refer on page 34 of the transcript?
THE COURT: Let me talk to counsel just briefly.
If you folks would step into the jury room, please.
[The jury leaves the courtroom].
THE COURT: It appears that all we are doing here
is reading the Grand Jury testimony to the jury. We are
not getting any testimony from this witness except what he
has testified to previously before the Grand Jury.
The part that I have difficulty with is that the
first phase of series of questions, where you attempted to
impeach him, left the impression with the jury that
Valenzuela had signed off on the work sheets for work that
he had not done on the generator.
Mr. Raskin, when he read the balance of the
questions and answers in sequence that followed that part
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
52 SILVERS - Direct
that the government read to the witness, developed and
showed, rather conclusively, that that conversation, a fair
reading of it, a fair understanding of it would be that
Valenzuela and this witness had actually done the work that
Valenzuela signed off on.
Setting up a witness and knocking him over like a
straw man is counter-productive. There's no point in it.
Particularly, no point where, in the testimony he gave,
does not when read in its entirety, bear out the point that
the government is trying to make shown.
I don't want to just sit here and read Grand Jury
material to the jury. And have Mr. Raskin get up and read
something else. That's not a reasonable way to try this
case.
If the witness is not going to say what you
anticipated he was going to say, then don't use him and
move onto somebody who will. The defense may want to call
him, and if he doesn't say what they want him to say, then
they shouldn't call him either.
We are not going to just sit here and read Grand
Jury testimony to the jury. That's not the way we offer
evidence.
What is your next point? This last one was just
totally without consequence, if I understand it. If you
knew that he said Valenzuela had done the work, why bother
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
53 SILVERS - Direct
going into it?
MR. BRIGHAM: This witness, and many of the
witnesses, are not friendly witnesses to the government.
They are represented by counsel, and as a result --
THE COURT: So then, don't use them.
MR. BRIGHAM: I may have to use them, because
they may be the only witnesses that the government has.
They may have said certain things to the Grand Jury that
are not being said here.
I would submit, Your Honor, for example, if front
of the Grand Jury, the witness indicated to Mr. Valenzuela,
if I read another excerpt, I asked him later why he signed.
And he said, just to make the lead man happy. I told him
that was bullshit. I'm sorry. The context told to me in
previous interviews, it was that it was nonsense, because
in fact, the work had not been done. Now the witness is
not suggesting that. That is why unfortunately, I have to
resort to impeaching the witness.
THE COURT: He may have told you things in
private interviews, but the person to testify would be you,
or the person he spoke to, not him. That would be hearsay.
If he told the Grand Jury that he and Valenzuela
did the work they were charged with doing, and they did it
properly, and they signed off on it, and you're trying to
use the Grand Jury testimony to show that that's not an
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
54 SILVERS - Direct
accurate, truthful statement, you have to have something in
the Grand Jury testimony that will refute what he said.
Again, you are just setting up a witness and
knocking him over. That is not the affirmative proof. At
the end of the day when the dust settles, you don't have
any information from this witness at all.
You've impeached him. You're right back to
ground zero with this witness. I don't think you're going
to be able to get very far in Grand Jury testimony when he
said in one part, "we were kidding around," or "it was
baloney." And then the other part, he says, "yes, we did
what we had to do." Then the jury has to judge his
credibility, and probably the answer is, his credibility is
very limited or nil.
You can't argue to the jury in closing argument
that this witness stands for the proposition that they
signed off on work they didn't do. Because, you know, that
in the record is another place where it says that they did
do the work. So, the best argument you could make, would
be to the jury on this basis is that, well, you heard
Mr. Silver at one time say they didn't do the work.
Another time they said they did do the work.
We say you should believe him when he said they
did do the work. Mr. Raskin gets up and argues to the
jury. You heard Mr. Silver one time they say they did the
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
55 SILVERS - Direct
work and one time, they said they didn't. We suggest that
you should not believe any of it and disregard it entirely.
That's what the jury is going to do. If you impeach him
sufficiently, they are going to disregard him entirely. I
don't see the point.
It's not criticism, but it's entirely pointless
to bring witnesses on and only read a portion of the Grand
Jury testimony that you think substantiates what you think
is going to prove your point. You have to read the rest of
it. It's going to come out. If there's two points to it,
it's counter-productive. It's really wasting everybody's
time.
When we get to closing argument, you're not going
to be able to argue something that you knew was
deliberately misleading to the jury. I'm not suggesting
that you ever would. If, for some chance you did, they
would get up and argue the other point. So, we just wasted
time with a witness that, at best case scenario, nobody
believes.
What is the next point you wish to bring out, the
point where he used profanity to describe, it's all baloney?
MR. BRIGHAM: I think that the next point that I
want to bring out, is to complete the context, because what
Mr. Raskin has read is, talk about a procedure that was not
in the paperwork. That's brought to bear by the question I
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
56 SILVERS - Direct
asked, page 32, line 14.
"But did you hear him, Mr. Valenzuela, tell
Mr. Serrano though, that he had not done the work".
And the response was "right."
THE COURT: What was the next line, Mr. Raskin?
MR. RASKIN: I suggest, Your Honor, there's no
foundation for this. I don't believe this witness even
testified that he knows what that paperwork is. Whether or
not someone worked in conformity with it, is not right at
this point.
THE COURT: The government would have to
establish when and where the conversation took place and
who was present.
MR. RASKIN: May I read a couple of lines?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. RASKIN: Page 42.
"Did Mr. Valenzuela sign off on the paperwork, if
he had not done the installation work step by step?
Answer: I have no idea. He knows."
Did you have any discussion with him about that?
MR. BRIGHAM: Then the question is, Your Honor,
"Did you hear him, Mr. Valenzuela, tell Mr. Serrano
that you had not done the work?
Answer: Right."
THE COURT: You first have to establish where the
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
57 SILVERS - Direct
conversation took place, who was present, what was said.
And then he's going to bring out all of these other
factors. I don't understand what point the government has,
if you know he has positions in the record where he says he
didn't know anything about the paperwork.
What is your next point beyond that one?
MR. BRIGHAM: The focus of this particular work
was that we have charged, is the failure to place the
shipping caps onto the old oxygen generators.
THE COURT: I know that.
MR. BRIGHAM: Yet, the conversation that
Mr. Raskin refers to, is with respect to the inspection
system in general, which is not the work which is on the
work card itself.
THE COURT: All right, all right. We will bring
the jury back, and we will go on with this and see where it
leads. But you must establish the foundation of prejudice
of any statement that was made. That is, to say who was
present, where was the conversation and when was it. You
must do that without leading. Then you may elicit from him
what was said assuming that you established the predicate.
Mrs. Moscowitz?
MRS. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, the portion
Mr. Brigham said he was going to do go to, "did you hear
Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano he had not done the work,"
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
58 SILVERS - Direct
and now he is going to refer to something on a different
page is exactly what he read aloud on top of page 36
before. "Did you hear Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano that
he had not done the work? Yes."
So certainly, it was the same information
elicited that brought us to this hearing, Judge.
THE COURT: I think I better read this statement
from the Grand Jury, the testimony, and make an analysis
whether, on a fair basis, where we are simply not
submitting to the jury any conflicting statements, that the
man is all over the map as to what he said to his lead
mechanic chief, and see where this is leading.
Up until now, it would appear that he simply is
taking different positions at different times. It is
confusing to the jury. I will read the document and make a
decision as to whether or not there is any thing in there
that would be of any materiality to this case.
Obviously, it's going to be asking him a question,
if he can establish the time, place and who was present and
elicit a statement from him. Then impeach him with
something from the Grand Jury. Then, of course, the defense
is going to come back and read another portion of the Grand
Jury testimony, where it does not impeach him.
To me, that is not the proper way to present
evidence to this jury. It would be very confusing.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
59 SILVERS - Direct
Counter-productive. It would be simply setting up a straw
man and knocking him over, if that is the thrust of his
Grand Jury testimony. At this point in time, it's 11:30.
How long is that document? How many pages?
MR. BRIGHAM: I would say, if Mr. Raskin is in
agreement, we can read from 35 to the end. The last page
is 42.
THE COURT: Marshal, would you hand that up to me
and let me read it here quickly.
MR. RASKIN: Could we have a few minutes?
THE COURT: You read it while I'm reading it. If
you can read as fast as I can, fine. It's only 7 pages.
MRS. RASKIN: Your Honor, I point out that
there's another Grand Jury transcript that we would like to
look at.
THE COURT: So you wish to offer or if permitted,
you would try to establish or impeach him at page 35 to the
end. You would read him all of that and ask if he would
make statements to the Grand Jury, if permitted, is that
correct?
MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. At page 42, I have some
difficulty with it. After all the dust settles, the
following questions and answers appear.
"Question: Did Mr. Valenzuela sign off on the
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
60 SILVERS - Direct
paperwork, if he had not done the installation work
step by step.
Answer: I have no idea. He knows.
Question: Did you have any discussion with him
about that?
Answer: No.
Question: But did you hear him tell Mr. Serrano,
though, that he had not done the work?
Answer: Right."
When it gets all done, the bottom line, it seems
to be that he never had any conversations with Valenzuela on
at least one of the times about signing off on the work that
he had done, and he doesn't know about Valenzuela. He knows
about himself.
MR. BRIGHAM: But the key, Your Honor, is he heard
Mr. Valenzuela tell Mr. Serrano that he had not done the
work.
THE COURT: Mr. Moscowitz?
MR. MOSCOWITZ: Your Honor, first of all, this
testimony was without an interpreter in the Grand Jury. He
testified in English.
THE COURT: Well, he willy-waffles all over the
place any way. What is your point?
MR. MOSCOWITZ: In the second volume of his
appearance, he gave the following testimony. Pages 5 and
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
61 SILVERS - Direct
6:
"Had he ever told you that he had, in fact,
installed the generators.
Answer: No.
Did you ever -- did he tell that he had not?
We worked only that day on this paperwork. Next
day, I was assigned to do something else.
I guess my question is, did he make any statements
at all indicating that he had done all the work on the
left hand side, or that he had not done the work?
No.
Did he tell you that he had done all the work?
No, he didn't tell me anything."
THE COURT: Mr. Brigham, I'll let you concur with
Ms. Miller, and the two of you can advise the Court
whether you wish to proceed, knowing that all of this is
ultimately going to be brought out. That is, see if you
can establish that he remembers any of these conversations,
and lay the proper predicate. If you do, then you have the
right to go forward. If you wish to bypass this witness
and save him for rebuttal, if you need him, we can do that.
Whatever you wish to do.
MR. BRIGHAM: Your Honor, we will move on with
other topics.
THE COURT: You want to go forward?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
62 SILVERS - Direct
MR. BRIGHAM: We will go forward, but we will not
address the Grand Jury testimony issue. We do have
additional questions on other topics to address.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury please.
[The jury returns to the courtroom].
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
Mr. Brigham.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Mr. Silvers, after the conversation that you had just
testified about, what did you do?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled. Can you identify it by
date?
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Yes, on the date that you were working with
Mr. Valenzuela, and after a conversation where Mr. Serrano
was present that you testified about, what did you do?
A. With respect to what?
Q. With respect to old oxygen generators?
INTERPRETER: Old?
MR. BRIGHAM: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Serrano told us to write out a
green tag.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What did you do in response?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
63 SILVERS - Direct
A. We proceeded to write up a green tag.
Q. What were you using that green tag for?
MS. RASKIN: Objection.
BY THE COURT:
Q. What did you do with the green tag after you wrote it
out?
A. We affixed it to the generators.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. How many generators are you talking about?
A. Approximately 20 or 30.
Q. Were these the new generators or the old generators?
A. The old ones, the ones that they had taken out.
Q. Where did you find these generators?
A. On some tables.
Q. Did you see any safety caps on these generators?
A. No.
Q. What did you physically do with the generators with
respect to the strings or lanyards?
MS. RASKIN: Objection. Leading.
MR. BRIGHAM: Just to direct the witness, Your
Honor.
I will rephrase the question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. What did you do physically with the generators?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
64 SILVERS - Direct
A. After we wrote out the green tags, we put them in some
cardboard boxes.
Q. What labels, if any, were on the boxes?
A. None.
Q. What did you do with the boxes?
A. They stayed on top of the tables when we finished our
turns and went home.
Q. What directions, if any, were you given with respect to
the boxes?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. No foundation.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Did you have any conversations with respect to what
should be done with the boxes?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was said, what directions?
MR. DUNLAP: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. No foundation.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Who were you talking to?
A. About what?
Q. With respect to the boxes?
A. I honestly do not understand your question.
Q. Fair enough.
A. If you want me to answer, you have to be more clear
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
65 SILVERS - Direct
with your questions.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Silvers, I'll try to be.
You indicated that you put the oxygen generators
in the boxes, is that correct?
A. One box.
Q. Did you have any conversation with anyone about what to
do with that one box?
THE COURT: Just, yes or no.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Did you have a conversation?
A. Yes.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Who was present during that conversation?
A. Valenzuela, Serrano and me.
Q. What was said?
A. After the green tags were put on them, they had to be
taken to shipping and receiving.
Q. What did you do with respect to the box, if anything?
A. As I said before, the box remained on the table.
Q. Who told you you should take the boxes to shipping and
receiving?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: It's not very clear who said what, at
this point, and I don't know when this conversation took
place, but I suppose if it doesn't bother anybody, that's
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
66 SILVERS - Direct
fine.
BY THE COURT:
Q. You, Serrano and anybody else present during this
conversation?
A. Valenzuela.
Q. Where was the conversation?
A. Inside the hangar.
Q. Where inside the hangar?
A. Possibly near the airplane where the generators were.
Q. What exactly did Mr. Serrano tell you to do with the
generators, if anything?
A. To write out the green tags, and when we were through
doing that, to take them to shipping and receiving.
Q. Who was present when he said that?
A. Mr. Valenzuela and me.
Q. Did Mr. Valenzuela or you say anything in reply to what
he told you to do?
A. No.
Q. After you finished putting the green tags on the
generators, did you take them to where he told you to take
them?
A. No.
Q. Did your shift end, and you went home?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were the generators when your shift ended, and
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
67 SILVERS - Direct
you went home?
A. On top of the table in the box.
Q. In the hangar?
A. In the hangar.
Q. Did you ever see the generators again?
A. No.
Q. When did you come back to work on your next shift?
A. That evening, at 6:00 in the evening.
Q. The next day?
A. No, the same day.
Q. What time did your shift end, when you left the
generators on the table?
A. 6:00 a.m.
Q. When you came back to work, did you come back at 6:00
p.m. the same day?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the generators where you left them when you left
them at 6:00 a.m.?
A. No.
Q. Do you know where they were when you came back at 6:00
p.m., yes or no?
A. No.
THE COURT: Next question.
BY MR. BRIGHAM:
Q. Have you ever received hazardous material training at
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
68 SILVERS - Direct
SabreTech? I'm restricting my question to before the crash.
A. No.
Q. What training, if any, had you received on handling
oxygen generators?
A. With what company?
Q. With SabreTech.
A. None.
Q. You are testifying pursuant to a court order of
immunity, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BRIGHAM: I'll show you what's been marked --
THE COURT: Let's see if there's any objection.
MS. RASKIN: No objection.
THE COURT: What exhibit number.
MR. BRIGHAM: Government 77I.
THE COURT: The record will reflect that that's
the immunity agreement entered by the Court on what date?
MR. BRIGHAM: Entered on June 5, 1997.
THE COURT: Pertains to this witness.
MR. BRIGHAM: Yes, Your Honor. Attached to it,
is a letter from the United States Attorney's office.
[Government Exhibit 77I received in evidence].
THE COURT: It's in evidence, yes.
MR. BRIGHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. No further
questions.
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
69 SILVERS - Cross
MS. RASKIN: If we could have one minute, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RASKIN:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Silvers. I am Marty Raskin. I
represent SabreTech. On direct examination, Mr. Brigham
brought out the fact that indeed, you speak English, is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You are simply testified today with a translator
because you are more comfortable doing that, is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you testify with or without a translator in the
Grand Jury, do you remember?
A. I did not have a translator.
Q. I take it you can also read and write the English
language?
A. Yes.
MR. RASKIN: I have nothing further, thank you.
THE COURT: Any other questions?
MS. MOSCOWITZ: No, sir.
MR. DUNLAP: No, sir.
THE COURT: Any other redirect?
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
70 SILVERS - Cross
MR. BRIGHAM: No, sir.
THE COURT: Who is your next witness?
MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Keith Ingram.
THE COURT: How long do you expect his testimony
to take on direct?
MR. BRIGHAM: I would say approximately, a half
hour, maybe less.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to
have to recess for the day. As I told you yesterday, I
have a luncheon. One of them is a Supreme Court Justice,
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She is one of the guests that
are going to be present.
The new judge is being sworn in, Judge Jordan,
Alberto Jordan was a law clerk for Justice O'Connor at the
Supreme Court. He was her law clerk for a year and worked
in her office as a law clerk.
Of course, they are friends and he invited her to
come down and be involved with, and administer the oath to
him and she'll be here. It is a little unusual for us to
have a Supreme Court Justice visiting our Court although
it's not unheard of.
Chief Justice Burger, when he was chief justice of
the Supreme Court, came to visit this court on at least
three occasions that I'm aware of. He always considered the
Southern District of Florida as he put it, as his trial
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
71 SILVERS - Cross
court, because we were the biggest and the best. That's a
little bit of puffing on my part, but it is a true quote
from the chief justice. He felt this court did an
extraordinary job in handling the business of the Federal
Courts. He liked to be supportive, and he came several
times to see us.
Chief Justice Renquist also came a few years ago,
when he was making a speech to the University of Miami Law
School, and he spent a day at the court. And Chief Justice
Renquist, when he was simply Justice in 1971, came to the
Court and visited us. There were only seven judges then.
Now we have got judges all over the place. In those days,
we only had seven.
So we have had these people come before, but it is
a little bit historic, and it certainly is very nice and
very pleasant for the person being sworn in. It is an
important day.
You see, I don't get to talk very much in these
trials. And when I get a captive audience, I just ramble.
It has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with your case. The
fact that she is here, has nothing to do with this case.
We are going to be in recess until Monday morning.
So, it is extremely important that you follow the
instruction not to read anything or listen to anything or
watch anything. If anything should be published in the
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
72 SILVERS - Cross
newspaper, radio or television.
If anything does appear, my secretary is clipping
this out and we will save it, so that you can read it and
each of you get a copy of it, subject to my violating the
copyright laws, so that you can read it later if you want
to.
You are not to read anything or listen or watch
anything. We will try to fix it that you don't miss
anything and it will be a little momento of your service.
That has nothing to do with your decision in this case.
You folks will have to decide the case at the end. I'm
only telling you because I'm trying to make you understand
that we are thinking of you, and not to let anything come
to your attention except what you hear in the courtroom.
We will resume at 9:00 on Monday morning. I have
all the witnesses arranged, so we can go right through the
day with a short recess in the morning, and then again in
the afternoon. We will recess around 5:30. We thank you
for your patience.
Marshal, if you will see that they get to the
elevator.
[The jury leaves the courtroom].
THE COURT: Is there anything we have to take up
at the conclusion of the hearing? Let me make sure that
the record is quite clear that there have only been two
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
73 SILVERS - Cross
exhibits admitted into evidence this morning. One is
Government's Exhibit 77I, which was an immunity agreement.
I believe there's another immunity agreement here which is
what number Mr. Brigham?
MR. DUNLAP: I think it's 77J.
THE COURT: I think there were two. This is 77J.
So Government Exhibit 77I, immunity agreement,
and government 77J, immunity agreement, were each admitted
into evidence. Defendants Florence's exhibit number 3 was
admitted into evidence. Those three exhibits will be
delivered to the courtroom deputy to verify it.
MR. RASKIN: Your Honor, may I inquire for
scheduling purposes, does the Court intend to work a full
day on Wednesday?
THE COURT: What is Wednesday?
MR. DUNLAP: Just the day before Thanksgiving.
THE COURT: I certainly think so unless there is
some problem.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Judge, 77J was yesterday.
THE COURT: It was admitted today, plus
Ms. Moscowitz's Exhibit 3.
MR. DUNLAP: Your Honor, in the final analysis, I
like everybody else, is here to convenience the Court and
happy to do so. But I do have to drive up to, I mentioned
my father lives up in LaBelle. I don't know if you know
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
74 SILVERS - Cross
where that is.
I want to go up there on Thursday morning to have
Thanksgiving dinner with him, so I was planning or would
have planned to leave before the morning, so that I'm not
traveling at night with my children. But, again, it's not
that great an imposition. If the Court wants to work
through that day, it would be fine.
THE COURT: What I'm trying to do here, and I ask
all of you to bear in mind, I'm trying to make it possible
for you to be with your children, or for me to be with my
grandchildren on Christmas. I think that is more an
important holiday. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly for
children it is, than Thanksgiving.
I'm just concerned if we don't keep this case
moving, we are going to be sitting here Christmas week. I
have already assured those of you who have prepaid vacation
plans for a certain period of time at Christmas, that we
will honor those, and you will not be expected to be here.
MR. DUNLAP: I'll be happy to be here on
Wednesday.
THE COURT: I have no difficulty, if we are going
to end this case the middle of December. I have no trouble
at all with doing these things. My only concern is I keep
looking toward the end of the case. It was estimated, it
was going to take six to eight weeks to try this case. We
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
75 SILVERS - Cross
started on November 15. December 15 would be four weeks.
Right up to Christmas is six weeks.
Then we get into a problem with an extended
recess. If all of you have any better estimate on where we
are going with the case, if you have any feeling that it is
going to be less than six weeks, if you have a feeling that
it is going to be eight weeks, then that would have some
bearing. Would it be better that perhaps we know more by
Tuesday of next week?
MS. MILLER: Your Honor may recall that the
government's estimated trial days was 20 trial days. I
reiterate that I believe that the trial can be tried in 20
trial days, government and defense case. I still believe
that. I know the defense disagrees. I think that is
probably a realistic projection.
THE COURT: I do recall you telling me that was
your estimation.
MR. DUNLAP: Our evaluation is that the case is
moving a lot quicker than we expected. I don't see the
case going six or eight weeks, but I don't know what will
happen next week.
THE COURT: All right, then. It would seem to me
that we have made good progress this week. Of course, it
helps not to work half days.
In any event, we will plan to recess as close to
UNITES STATES vs SABRETECH ET AL - 11-19-99
76
3:00 on Wednesday as we can. I don't want to lull anybody
in the sense a security about not having witnesses here.
Please have enough witnesses here to run out the time. See
you Monday morning.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.
(Proceedings concluded at 12:00 p.m.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate
transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
11-21-99
______________ _______________________________________
DATE FILED ROBIN CARBONELLO
Official Federal Court Reporter
Federal Justice Building, Ste. 1127
99 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132 - 305/523-5108
Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies
