Mark Preble — Direct - Day 38 - 2015 Federal Trial

Levitt completed testimony on extremist literature and the limits of his analysis. Witnesses described Watertown ballistics, fingerprints, scene mapping and the SUV's departure, followed by university and dorm-room evidence. The court restricted inquiry into Officer Donohue's injury and required facial masking for some autopsy photographs.

← Day 37Day 39 →

.transcript-viewer .proc-meta-panel { position: static; } .transcript-viewer .proc-meta-panel .proc-meta-list[hidden] { display: block; position: static; box-shadow: none; } .transcript-viewer .proc-current-row { display: none; } .transcript-viewer .proc-divider-first { height: auto; padding: var(--cd-krt-s8) 0; overflow: visible; }

Admissibility of Handwritten Academic Statements

sidebarsidebarAdmissibility of Handwritten Academic Statements

(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:

MR. BRUCK: Does the government still intend to introduce the handwritten statements?

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yes.

THE COURT: Who's this?

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: This is a witness from UMass Dartmouth. He'll authenticate a variety of records.

MR. BRUCK: The records, we have no objection to most of them. They establish the residence and so forth. But they include two handwritten statements that the defendant apparently wrote, judging by the records, giving somewhat false or exaggerated claims about the reasons why he has not completed his obligations, academic obligations. They include something about his family and -- what was the other?

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: They both relate to family.

MR. BRUCK: They're both related to family. We don't see any relevance. These records were, as I understand it, intended to show his residence and that he was a student at UMass Dartmouth, but these are quite prejudicial indications that he was telling falsehoods in order to get his academic scholarship restored despite his bad grades. We can't see how that has any relevance to any aspects --

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It goes to a few things. I have the records here. This is 1180C and 1180D, I believe.

THE COURT: What's the --

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: There's a few things. So one is, these are statements made by the defendant during the course of the conspiracy in which he cites to, amongst other things, what we allege are false explanations about what his -- what was going on. But more pragmatically, these are dated and signed evidence of the defendant's handwriting. The defendant's handwriting is a key part of the evidence that's in the boat, and this exemplar of his handwriting is perhaps the best evidence. It's near close in time.

And in addition to that, the substance of it itself is also, I would suggest, very relevant to go to show that he has this kind of duality of his existence both in his private world versus what -- and then what he's publicly manifesting in order to get whatever benefits he's going to get.

THE COURT: Is there another one?

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yes, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: This is --

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: August --

MR. BRUCK: There are numerous other exemplars from the dorm room of his handwriting. I think that is not an adequate reason to introduce such prejudicial material. The period alleged in the Indictment of the conspiracy is in 2013. This is -- all predates that. It's really, I think, just a backdoor way of getting in pretty prejudicial stuff.

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: The government's position is it's both relevant to his state of mind. The substance suggests why he's doing poorly in school. We're not proving up that there are falsehoods. So to the extent that it's prejudicial, it's not clear to me what the prejudice is unless, in the penalty phase, it becomes relevant.

THE COURT: Well, what number is this?

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: 1180C.

THE COURT: I think this one is admissible because of the references about paying attention to events in Chechnya, about which there will be some context. This one, I think, less so. It's also less remote in time.

MR. BRUCK: We'd like to emphasize that the period alleged of the conspiracy begins in March of 2013, and this is January 2013.

THE COURT: Conspiracy isn't the only measure of the relevance.

MS. CONRAD: It's also 403, your Honor. I just frankly -- the government -- the Court has taken a pretty strict line in terms of motive evidence with respect to the defense presenting things, and I don't see how just the fact that he uses the word "Chechnya" in there is relevant to anything.

THE COURT: Well, all right. I think it ties up to some of the things we heard this morning about -- I think that one's admissible. The other one I don't think is useful.

ProceduralProc.Return to Open Court Before Preble's Examination

. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)

COURT CLERK: Sir, want to step up here, please? Remain standing. Raise your right hand.

DirectDirectMark Preble — Direct Examination

MARK PREBLE, Sworn

COURT CLERK: State your name. Spell your last name for the record.

MARK PREBLE: Mark Preble, P-r-e-b-l-e.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAKRAVARTY:

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Good afternoon. I'm over here. Mr. Preble, where do you work?

MARK PREBLE: UMass Dartmouth.

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: What is your position there?

MARK PREBLE: I'm the vice chancellor of administration and finance and the chief financial officer.

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Who, if anyone, is above you in the pecking order at UMass Dartmouth?

MARK PREBLE: The chancellor.

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Can you explain what some of your duties are as the vice chancellor?

MARK PREBLE: I have responsibilities -- basically, I'm the chief business officer. My responsibilities cover all of the nonacademic -- generally all the nonacademic areas: finance, human resources, public safety, facilities, construction, those kinds of places.

MR. CHAKRAVARTY: As part of your role, were you asked to authenticate some documents that are going to be presented to the Court?

9.Mark Preble — Direct