US vs LEONARD PELTIER TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS Case Number CR77-3003

TESTIMONY DONALD VAN PELT, CAR SALESMAN

 Q  Mr. Van Pelt, would you again give your full name for the record, please.
 A  Donald Van Pelt.
 Q  And where do you live now, Mr. Van Pelt?
 A  Windsor, Michigan.
 Q  And is that in the Detroit area?
 A  The suburban area of Detroit.
 Q  The suburban area of Detroit.
 Calling your attention back to September, October; September or October of 1975. Where were you living at that time?
 A  In Denver, Colorado.
 Q  And what was your employment during that period of time?
 A  Automobile salesman.
 Q  And who were you working for?
 A  Bill Krouch Chrysler-Plymouth.
 Q  All right. Mr. Van Pelt, I would like to hand you Exhibit No. 40, and this is 40C, and ask if that's a document you can identify?
 A  Yes, it is.
 Q  And what is it?
 A  This is a contract that we normally write up for automobile {934} sales.
 Q  And is it a contract you are personally familiar with from having had a part in the sale?
 A  Yes, it is.
 Q  And I'm not, I don't you to read from a record now, but would you briefly describe the circumstances under which that sale took place.
 A  Well, at the time I was, it was my turn to be up on the floor and for whatever customer that comes in, and at the time this gentleman was the first one to come in.
 I took care of him, showed him what I had as far as an automobile went, and we sat down and tried to discuss price. And we had the price settled, we took the car for a drive, came back and filled out the paperwork on it.
 Q  All right. Now with regard to this Exhibit No. 40C. This would be Bill Krouch Motors' retained copy, the original copy, would it not?
 A  Yes, it is.
 Q  And I have shown you that prior to coming into court today, have I not?
 A  Yes.
 Q  And do you have any problem identifying that as one of the sales records of Bill Krouch Chrysler-Plymouth?
 A  No, I don't.
 MR. CROOKS:  Your Honor, United States would offer {935} Exhibit No. 40C.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, at this time we object because of the lack of any annexus with the case. We don't dispute the authenticity of the document and we don't claim that it doesn't stand for what it says on its face but so far there's no question with the case.
 MR. CROOKS:  Well, perhaps counsel's objection is well taken because this man is out of order. I realize that this series of events has not come through.
 The United States would offer it subject to a representation that it will be tied up by other testimony, Your Honor.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Then on that basis, Your Honor, we'll withdraw the objection.
 THE COURT:  Very well. 40C will be received conditionally and the condition is that it will be, annexus on the case will be established.
 Q  (By Mr. Crooks) All right. With regard to Exhibit No. 40C now, Don. Would you state what was the name given to you by the individual who purchased that automobile?
 A  The one the day of the purchase?
 Q  Yes. He gave you the name as appears on the record?
 A  Yes, he did.
 Q  What is that?
 A  Louis Martinez.
{936}
 Q  All right. And with regard to that sale what type of vehicle was it?
 A  Plymouth station wagon.
 Q  And what year?
 A  '69 I believe. I don't recall exactly.
 Q  Is it on the record there in front of you?
 A  No, it is not. Not that I can see.
 Q  All right.
 A  Yes, 1970.
 Q  1970?
 A  Yeah.
 Q  Plymouth station wagon.
 All right. Insofar as the individual who bought that car from you, using the name Louis Martinez, do you see that individual in the courtroom today?
 A  Yes, I do.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  I object.
 THE COURT:  What is the basis of the objection?
 MR. TAIKEFF:  May I come to the side bar?
 THE COURT:  You may.
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the bench:)
 MR. TAIKEFF:  It's my understanding, Your Honor, that the witness was shown a single photograph of the defendant, and can only assume at this the that if he can make an identifi{937}cation in this courtroom it's based upon seeing that photograph. And I'd like to examine him in that connection in the presence of the jury.
 THE COURT:  In the presence of the jury?
 MR. TAIKEFF:  In the presence.
 MR. CROOKS:  Well, I can state, my understanding that it was not one photograph it was a wanted flier. But there were others shown.
 Now, whether it was more than one other one, but there were others shown.
 I have no objection if counsel wishes to examine.
 THE COURT:  You may voir dire for purposes of objection in establishing a basis for an objection.
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury:)
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Mr. Van Pelt, the transaction that is reflected in that document took place on what date?
 THE WITNESS:  9/9/75.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  That's roughly a year and a half ago?
 THE WITNESS:  Roughly, yes.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Now, when was the last time you saw the individual with whom you dealt in connection with that particular transaction?
 THE WITNESS:  It was on a Friday. Now, the date I can't give, but it was --
{938}
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Was it in the same month and year?
 THE WITNESS:  Yes, it was. It was in the same week, only the Friday.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  So then I would suggest to you that it has been at least a year and a half since the last time you saw the person who bought that particular vehicle?
 THE WITNESS:  True.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  And since that time how many customers have you seen in your business?
 THE WITNESS:  Quite a few.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Did you any time after making that particular sale have a visit from the FBI?
 THE WITNESS:  Yes, I did.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  And did they show you a photograph?
 THE WITNESS:  Yes, they did.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  How many people were depicted, how many different people were depicted in what they showed you on the occasion of their visit?
 THE WITNESS:  What I was shown, they brought two, you know --
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Pieces of paper?
 THE WITNESS:  Yeah, photographs of two different people. And they asked me, you know, which one did I sell an automobile to after they had to explain what they were there for, and I showed them the one that I sold the car to.
{939}
 MR. TAIKEFF:  Were there any names printed on the --
 THE WITNESS:  No, it was not.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  There were none, all right.
 I withdraw my objection, Your Honor.
 THE COURT:  Very well.
 Q  (By Mr. Crooks) I just might ask again before I re-ask you the question, on the occasion that you had met and dealt with this individual, approximately how long a period of time were you with him, either giving him the demonstrator ride or seeing him the next Friday? Basically how long did you have to observe?
 A  Well, when I first had the gentleman, I was with him for I'd say about an hour and a half the first time. The Friday that he came back to pick up his papers I was with him, I'd say probably an hour.
 Q  So a couple of hours that you were with him?
 A  Yes.
 Q  Now, I'll ask you again, do you see the individual in the courtroom?
 A  Yes, I do.
 Q  Who's connected with 40C?
 A  Yes, I do.
 Q  Where is he seated?
 A  Right there (indicating).
 MR. CROOKS:  Let the record reflect that the witness {940} has identified Leonard Peltier, the defendant.
 We have nothing further, Your Honor.
 MR. TAIKEFF:  No questions, Your Honor.
 THE COURT:  You may step down.