UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

           v.

WILLIAM THOMAS                            CR 87-62
ELLEN THOMAS                              CR 87-64
STEPHEN SEMPLE, AKA                       CR 87-61
SUNRISE

GOVERNMENT'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR SENTENCING TRANSCRIPT

The United States of America, through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, hereby replies to the Defendants' request for a transcript of the sentencing hearing:

This lengthy litigation has spawned various issues. Initially, as this court recalls, the case was dismissed on First Amendment grounds. The transcripts of the relevant hearings leading to the court's action were ordered, and the matter was heard by the Court of Appeals, which reversed this court.

The trial transcripts have thus far been prepared.

In addition, the Docket sheet of codefendant Philip Joseph, case No. 87-63, reflects that this court approved on March 15, 1988, the preparation of the transcript of sentencing proceeding at government expense in his case. This is the transcript which is the subject of defendants' motion.

The undersigned has attempted on Friday, June 3, and Monday, June 6, 1988, to speak to court reporter Frank Rangus to find out whether the transcript of the sentencing has been prepared. The undersigned was unable to contact Mr. Rangus.

1


Typically, the government takes no position as to whether a litigant is entitled to a transcript at taxpayer's expense. This determination is best left to the sound judgement of the trial court. The law is well-established that "the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal." Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971). However, this is not to say that the state is "required to furnish complete transcripts so that defendants and their counsel may conduct 'fishing expeditions' to seek out possible errors at trial." Moore v. Wainwright, 633 F.2d 406, 409 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Hines v. Baker, 422 F.2d 1002 (10th Cir. 1970)). We are in no position to assert whether or not the transcript of the sentencing proceeding has been prepared; whether it has already been provided to codefendant Joseph; or whether Mr. Joseph can be ordered to share or make available said transcript to the instant defendants.

WHEREFORE, despite our best efforts to be of assistance to the court in addressing defendants' motion, we respectfully must take no position on this matter.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

(signed Jay B. Stephens) /mhd
JAY B. STEPHENS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

MARK H. DUBESTER
MARK H. DUBESTER
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has been served by mail upon Ellen Thomas, 1440 N. Street, N.W. #410, Washington, D.C., 20005, this 6th day of June, 1988.

(signed Mark H. Dubester)
MARK H. DUBESTER #339655