Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Case No. 00-CR-481-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROD SCHULTZ, Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ROD SCHULTZ'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE

The United States, by and through the undersigned counsel, submits this brief in response to Defendant Rod Schultz's Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and this Court's orders of December 19, 2005, and December 23, 2005. This Court should deny the motion. Schultz argues that averments contained in an affidavit of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) attorney Jenifer Grundy demonstrate that the government presented false testimony and argument at trial. Schultz' argument is wholly dependent upon mischaracterizations of Grundy's affidavit and of the government's position at trial. Because the averments are, in fact, fully consistent with the testimony and argument, Schultz has failed to meet his burden of proving either that the newly discovered evidence is material or that it demonstrates prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Schultz has failed to meet his burden of showing that the evidence would probably result in an acquittal if his motion were granted. The government therefore respectfully requests that this Court summarily deny the motion.

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 2 of 16

I. Facts A. The Trial On February 6, 2001, Rod Schultz, Mike LaValle, Robert Verbickas, and four other correctional officers employed in a BOP facility in Florence, Colorado, were charged in a superseding indictment with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights) and nine counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law). The indictment alleged a conspiracy to physically abuse and assault inmates and to conceal the truth about these incidents by filing false reports, lying, and manufacturing evidence. The substantive count for which Schultz was convicted involved the beating of a nonresisting, handcuffed inmate named Pedro Castillo. On April 5, 1996, Castillo was forcibly taken to a holding cell where he was repeatedly beaten by Schultz and LaVallee. The assault was wholly unjustified by any institutional need; instead, it was a premeditated use of excessive force done to retaliate against Castillo for prior misconduct. The existence and whereabouts of a videotape related to the incident became a litigated issue before and during trial. It was BOP policy to use a video camera to record the calculated use of force on inmates. When arranging the assault on Castillo, the conspirators planned to deliberately knock over a camera that had been set up to record the incident. See Testimony of Kenneth Mitchell, Trial Transcript (TT) at 1877-78 (Def. Ex. 4) and TT at 2021 (Def. Ex. 5.). The conspirators also planned to falsely represent that the camera was knocked over accidentally. In accordance with this plan, Schultz created an incident report indicating that, during a legitimate use of force against Castillo, a video camera had accidentally been knocked over when Schultz slipped and fell. See Memorandum of Rod Schultz (Gov. Attachment A).

2

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 3 of 16

The charade of the knocked-over camera was critical to the conspiracy since, by representing that a camera had been used but accidentally knocked down, the conspirators both appeared to act in accordance with BOP policy yet ensured that incriminating evidence was not captured on video. When initially investigating this case, the government sought the videotape that had been contained within the camera during the incident, but it was unable to locate the tape. Prior to trial, the defendants moved for production of the videotape. In response, the government made repeated requests that the BOP search for and locate the tape. See Grundy Affidavit (Gov. Attachment B). Despite these extensive efforts, neither the April 5 videotape nor an April 6 videotape, portraying an encounter with Castillo the day after the beating, was located prior to trial. As part of a lengthy hearing on pretrial motions, defendant Schultz asked this Court to dismiss the count relating to Castillo as a sanction for the government's inability to produce the tape. See December 17, Pretrial Hearing Transcript at 1195-96 (Def. Ex. 1). The government responded that, given that Schultz "intentionally knocked the video camera over so that it would not capture anything," he could not now complain that the tape was missing. See id. at 1197. The government then argued that it should not be held responsible "for preserving a tape that [the defendants] destroyed." (emphasis added). Id. After argument, this Court denied Schultz's motion to dismiss the count. Id. At trial, the government introduced evidence that Schultz knocked over the videotape in accordance with a pre-arranged plan among the conspirators. It also introduced testimony from BOP records custodian Laura Potter. See Examination of Laura Potter, TT, 3333-89 (Gov.

3

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 4 of 16

Attachment C). Potter testified that (1) BOP had a use-of-force file relating to the April 5 Castillo incident, id. at 3360-61; (2) the file did not contain a video log of the incident, id. at 3357; (3) the file contained both draft and final copies of standard forms relating to the incident, id. at 3353-54; (4) the draft forms mentioned a videotape connected with the incident, including information about a knocked-over camera, id. at 3362-63, 3366-68; and (5) the final copies did not mention a videotape. Id. at 3363-66, 3368-70. The government elicited that Potter was a records custodian who had no personal knowledge about who filled out any of the forms and, in fact, was not even working at the facility at the time of the incident. See id. at 3358, 3360. On cross-examination, Potter agreed that she had "no idea where this tape may have gone between the draft and the final" version of the standard BOP forms. Id. at 3375. No other testimony was presented by the government about what happened to the tape after the camera was knocked over. During the defendants' case, Kenneth Nelson, a communications specialist at BOP, testified that he recalled an incident in which a tape had become wedged in the camera that had been knocked over and that he had removed the tape from the camera and given it to Captain Terry Hines. See Testimony of Kenneth Nelson, TT at 6212 (Gov. Attachment D). During closing arguments, the government directed the jury's attention to testimony which indicated that knocking over of the video camera was "fake." See Government's Closing, TT at 6941 (Def. Ex. 7). It never argued, however, that the defendants destroyed or concealed the tape itself. On the other hand, during closing arguments, the defendants stressed that the government failed to show the jury any tape and implied that the tape would have exonerated the defendants. See LaVallee Closing, TT at 7140 (Gov. Attachment E).

4

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 5 of 16

On June 24, 2003, the jury convicted Schultz on one count of conspiracy and one count of violating § 242. Schultz was acquitted on two other counts. LaVallee and Verbickas were also convicted pursuant to the trial. All filed timely notices of appeal. The government filed a crossappeal of the defendants' sentences, and the matter is currently pending before the Tenth Circuit. B. The Prior Posttrial Motions On June 14, 2004, Schultz filed a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. On September 14, 2004, he filed an amended motion, adding a claim that the government suppressed exculpatory evidence.1 The amended motion was based upon the posttrial discovery of a videotape which recorded events occurring the day after the Castillo beating. Pursuant to a hearing held on October 4, 2004, this Court ordered the government to file affidavits explaining the steps it had taken to locate the video tape. The government produced affidavits from several BOP employees, including Jenifer Grundy, setting forth a detailed explanation of its efforts.2 See Grundy Affidavit (Gov. Attachment B). After a thorough evidentiary hearing, this Court determined that the affidavits were credible and that it would not require the government to set forth additional explanations for its inability to produce the tapes. See Motion Hearing, December 6, 2004, at 138 (Gov. Attachment F). It also held, after viewing the tape and hearing argument, that the April 6 tape was not exculpatory and that failure to produce it prior to trial did not violate Brady. Accordingly, in an

1

Defendant Michael LaVallee joined that part of the motion for a new trial

In addition to Grundy, three other BOP employees submitted affidavits detailing efforts to locate videotapes. These employees were (1) Christopher Synsvoll, a supervisory attorney at USP-Florence, (2) Carmen Diehl, a legal instruments examiner at USP-Florence, and (3) Thomas Storey, a Special Investigative Agent at USP-Florence. 5

2

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 6 of 16

Order dated December 10, 2004, this Court denied all of the pending new trial motions. Schultz's appeal of this decision is pending before the Tenth Circuit. C. The Current New Trial Motion On October 21, 2005, approximately ten months after this Court ruled upon his prior videotape motion, Schultz filed the instant motion for new trial in which he argues that Grundy's affidavit, filed in connection with his prior motion, demonstrates that the government "presented false argument and evidence to the court and jury." Motion at ¶ 10. Schultz also raised this argument in his appeal from the December 10 Order. See Brief for Appellant at 43-59 (May 2, 2005), United States v. Schultz (04-1540). The government responded in its brief that Schultz's argument had not been raised in this Court and therefore was not properly before the Tenth Circuit. Brief for the Appellee at 30-31 (September 14, 2005), United States v. Schultz (041540). The Tenth Circuit has not yet ruled upon the matter. The affidavit at issue explains that use of force tapes are routinely reviewed by BOP officials to ensure that "appropriate procedures are followed by staff during the use of force." See Attachment B (Grundy Affidavit) at ¶ 3. It further states that, once a review is completed, the tapes may be retained for up to two years, after which time they are routinely destroyed. Id. The affidavit also explains that videotapes which portray serious incidents referred for criminal or internal investigation are preserved for a longer period of time. Id. The affidavit explains that, by the time Grundy was first asked to produce the Castillo tapes, she "was advised by SIS staff that they were no longer located in the files, having been destroyed in the ordinary course of business." Id. at ¶ 7. The affidavit indicates that Grundy nonetheless continued to make substantial efforts to look for the tapes after being given this information. Id. at ¶¶ 8-15.

6

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 7 of 16

II. Law and Argument A. Legal Standard

A party may raise a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence within three years of a guilty verdict. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1); United States v. Higgins, 282 F.3d 1261, 1278 (10th Cir. 2002). Under Rule 33, a court may "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." United States v. Quintanilla, 193 F.3d 1139, 1146 (10th Cir. 1999). A pending appeal, however, divests the district court of jurisdiction to grant such a motion, although the court may consider it and "either deny it on the merits or certify to the court of appeals its intention to grant the motion." United States v. Varah, 952 F.2d 1181, 1182-83 (10th Cir. 1991). Motions for new trials are "disfavored" and should be granted "only with great caution." United States v. Mounkes, 204 F.3d 1024, 1027-28 (10th Cir. 2000). When a motion for new trial is based on a claim of newly discovered evidence, this Court applies the following five part test to determine whether the interest of justice requires a new trial: A defendant may win a new trial based on newly discovered evidence only if he shows that: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) the failure to discover the evidence was not caused by the defendant's lack of diligence; (3) the new evidence is not merely impeaching; (4) the new evidence is material to the principal issues involved; and (5) the new evidence would probably produce an acquittal in a new trial. United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1274 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Quintanilla, 193 F.3d at 1147. It is the defendant who bears the burden of proving all five of these prerequisites before a court may grant the new trial motion. See Pearson, 203 F.3d at 1274; see also United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 325 (5th Cir. 2003) ("The defendant must establish all five prerequisites 7

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 8 of 16

in order to prevail."). To prove that the government presented perjured testimony at trial, a defendant must show that (1) a witness did, in fact, testify falsely, (2) the government knew the testimony was false, and (3) the testimony was material. United States v. Caballero, 277 F.3d 1235, 1243 (10th Cir. 2002). B. Argument 1. Schultz's Argument Depends upon Two Faulty Premises

This is the latest in a series of motions, filed both before and after trial, dealing with a missing videotape of the beating of Pedro Castillo. The crux of Schultz's motion is that the government told the jury, through witnesses and argument, that the defendants destroyed the videotape of the Castillo beating, despite the fact that at least one member of the prosecution team knew that the tape had, in fact, been destroyed by the BOP in the ordinary course of business. See Schultz's Motion at ¶ 11. Unfortunately for Schultz, his argument rests on two wholly faulty premises. Once these premises are leveled, it becomes clear that there is no inconsistency between the government's position at trial and the Grundy affidavit. The Grundy affidavit does not demonstrate what, in fact, happened to the April 5, Castillo tape First, focusing on one sentence in a sixteen paragraph affidavit, Schultz assumes that the affidavit demonstrates both that the April 5 tape was, in fact, destroyed during the ordinary course of business and that the government knew of its destruction. Read as a whole, the affidavit stands for no such proposition. The affidavit reflects that the government searched repeatedly for the April 5 tape, was unable to locate it, and is unable to explain, with any certainty, what happened to it. See Grundy Affidavit (Gov. Attachment B).

8

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 9 of 16

In the affidavit, Grundy avers that, when she first requested the tapes be located, she was told they had been routinely destroyed. Id. at ¶ 7. The affidavit does not state that any BOP employee represented that he or she had personally destroyed the tapes or witnessed their destruction. Indeed, if anyone had told Grundy that they had personal knowledge of the tapes' destruction, it would have been a waste of substantial time and resources for Grundy to continue searching for them, as she clearly did. Significantly, paragraph seven of the affidavit indicates that Grundy was told that both the April 5 and April 6 tapes had been subject to routine destruction. Paragraph 15 of the same affidavit, however, indicates that the April 6 affidavit was subsequently located. Thus, it is clear that the information initially provided to Grundy about routine destruction of the tapes was incorrect, at least with respect to the April 6th tape. Simply put, the statement in the affidavit does not conclusively reflect that the Castillo tape was destroyed by BOP or that the government believed that the tapes were destroyed in the routine course of business. It certainly does not stand for the proposition that the government knew that this was what happened to the tapes. The government never introduced evidence or argument that the defendants destroyed the videotape itself

Second, Schultz wholly misstates the government's position at trial. The government's trial theory was that the defendants intentionally knocked over the video camera to ensure that the beating was not captured on videotape. As acknowledged by Schultz, the government presented evidence from Kenneth Mitchell to support this theory. See Motion at ¶ 9; see also TT at 1877, 1880 (Def. Exh. 4), 2011-12 (Def. Exh. 5). The government, however, limited itself to arguing that the defendants had purposely manipulated the images on the videotape. It introduced no

9

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 10 of 16

testimony that Schultz, or any other defendant, subsequently destroyed, stole, or hid the videotape after the camera was knocked over. Schultz, himself, has not directed this Court's attention to any such testimony or evidence in the record. See Motion at ¶ 9. 2. The Evidence Is Not Material to Any Issue Decided by the Jury

Because there is no inconsistency between the Grundy affidavit and the position the government took at trial, the affidavit is immaterial to any issue decided by the jury. The averment that a BOP employee told Grundy that the tapes had been subject to routine destruction simply does not contradict evidence that Schultz and the other conspirators planned to, and ultimately did, knock over a camera as part of their crime. Significantly, the fact that Schultz knocked over the camera was not even disputed at trial. The only question before the jury was whether Schultz knocked over the camera deliberately, as stated by Mitchell, or accidentally, as Schultz himself reported. What happened to the tape after the camera was knocked over was a tangential issue, at best. "Evidence, newly discovered or otherwise, which touches only on issues tangential to defendant's defense, cannot serve as an adequate foundation for granting a new trial." Quintanilla, 193 F.3d at 1148. 3. The Averments Do Not Demonstrate That Any Witness Committed Perjury

According to Schultz, the Grundy affidavit demonstrates that the government submitted false testimony and argument to the jury. See Motion at ¶¶ 10-11. To prove that he is entitled to a new trial based upon perjured testimony, Schultz must first prove that some witness actually made a false statement. See Caballero, 277 F.3d at 1243 (setting forth requirements for proving government used perjured testimony). Schultz has utterly failed to meet this burden. To support his motion he refers, in cursory fashion, to only two statements made by witnesses in the presence

10

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 11 of 16

of the jury. See Motion at ¶ 9. Both were statements from Mitchell that Schultz's role in the conspiracy was to "destroy" or "take out" the video camera. See Motion at ¶ 9. Schultz does not explain ­ nor is it intuitively apparent ­ why Grundy's averments, which relate to the destruction of the tape after it had been removed from the camera, establish that Mitchell lied when he testified that the conspirators planned to have Schultz knock over the video camera in the first instance. Schultz's motion may be construed to imply that the custodian of records, Potter, provided false testimony. See Motion at ¶ 9 (noting that prosecution was seeking permission for Potter to testify that "videotape never existed."). Potter did not testify that the defendants destroyed the videotape. In fact, when asked, she stated that she did not know what had happened to the tape. See Testimony of Laura Potter, TT at 3375 (Gov. Attachment C). Schultz has, again, failed to meet his burden of establishing that a witness perjured herself. Furthermore, even if Schultz could offer any evidence that, during the course of the trial, someone said something indicating the defendants personally destroyed the videotapes, he cannot prove that government knew such testimony to be false. For the reasons set forth above, the affidavit demonstrates that the government had, and continues to have, no certain knowledge of what has become of the videotape ­ other than that it has not been located after extensive searches. Therefore, Schultz fails to carry show that the government knew the falsity of the statements he alleges were made. See Caballero, 277 F.3d at 1243

4.

The Averments Do Not Demonstrate That Any Government Attorney Made False or Misleading Arguments to the Jury or to this Court

11

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 12 of 16

Schultz also argues that the affidavit illustrates that prosecutors made false or misleading arguments. See Schultz' Motion at ¶ 10. Schultz's motion specifically identifies four allegedly false statements by prosecutors: (1) a statement made during a December 17, 2002, pretrial hearing; (2) a statement made during a February 14, 2003, pretrial hearing; (3) a statement made outside the presence of the jury3 during argument regarding the admissibility of certain business records; and (4) statements made during closing argument characterizing the removal of the video camera as "fake." See Schultz's Motion at ¶¶ 5 and 9. Three of these statements were made outside the presence of the jury, and Shultz does not argue, must less show, how these statements affected the jury's verdict. Reliance upon them as a basis for a new trial therefore borders on the specious. The only statement clearly capable of influencing the jury's verdict was the one made during closing argument, namely, that knocking over the videotape was "fake." That statement, of course, is in no way contradicted by information that, after the tape was initially knocked over, a BOP employee told Grundy that the tape was destroyed during the routine course of business. Allegations that the prosecutors lied to the Court outside the presence of the jury or that a BOP attorney knowingly allowed such false arguments to be made would, if proven, be serious allegations of misconduct. Therefore, despite the fact that they do not properly form the basis for the new trial motion, the government nonetheless addresses these meritless allegations for the record.

See Testimony of Laura Potter, TT at 3346 (reflecting that jury left courtroom) to 3353 (reflecting that jury reentered courtroom) (Gov. Attachment C). 12

3

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 13 of 16

First, the statements made during the colloquy regarding the admissibility of business records are fully consistent with the Grundy affidavit. See Testimony of Laura Potter, TT at 3349-51 (Gov. Attachment C). During the colloquy, the prosecutor never stated that the proffered records would indicate that Schultz, or any other defendant, personally destroyed the videotape. Id. Shultz, himself, does not argue that the prosecutor did so. See Motion at ¶ 9. Instead, in support of his motion, Schultz emphasizes that the "lead prosecutor offered argument for the admission of certain business records to allow Laura Potter to testify the April 5th videotape never existed." See Motion at ¶ 9 (emphasis added). As Schultz himself seems to acknowledge in the next sentence, however, the prosecutor did not tell the Court that a videotape never existed, nor did he state that he wished to elicit such evidence from the witness. See id. Instead, the prosecutor urged the Court to admit the business records because those records "document the fact that there was no videotape transmitted through the lieutenants or for purposes of the afteraction review in the Castillo episode." See TT at 3350 (Gov. Attachment C) (emphasis added). The prosecutor also told the Court that the documents reflect that "no videotape exists" (present tense) and explained that he wished to introduce the business records, in part, to explain to the jury why the government was not showing it the videotape. Id. Finally, the prosecutor proffered that one of the documents contained in the file he had just offered into evidence "indicated that the tape existed" but that the tape was unusable because there were "allegations that the tape was knocked over." Id. at 3350-51 (emphasis added). Quite obviously, none of these statements are contradicted by evidence that a BOP employee told Grundy that the videotape had been routinely destroyed.

13

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 14 of 16

Likewise, the representations made to the Court at the December 17, 2002, hearing are fully consistent with the affidavit. See Hearing Transcript at 1196-97 (Def. Ex. 1). Although, at one point during that hearing, the prosecutor stated that the "defendants destroyed the tape," it is clear, in context, that he is referring only to the actions they took to ensure that the video camera would not capture the incident. See id. (referring to defendant's efforts to "ensure that there would be no tape running" and to Schultz's "intentionally knock[ing] over the video camera."). This interpretation is further supported by the prosecutor's statement that the government was not responsible for "preserving" the tape after the defendants engaged in such conduct. Id.4 Finally, Schultz's argument that prosecutors made false statements on February 14, 2003, has no traction. At that hearing, the prosecutor stated that "there is no tape related to Castillo." See Hearing Transcript at 50 (Def. Exh. 3). This statement is, of course, fully consistent with averments that a BOP employee told Grundy that the tape had been routinely destroyed. Indeed, at that stage of the litigation, the defendants had repeatedly asked for the tape, despite the government's continual assurances that the tape was not in its possession. If, as Schultz now claims, the affidavit constitutes concrete evidence that the tape was destroyed, such evidence would have helped the government prove that it truly did not have the tape and that any insinuation that it was purposely withholding the tape was groundless.

The Grundy affidavit makes evident that tapes containing images of possible evidentiary value, such as a wrongful use of force which might lead to a criminal or internal affairs investigation, are not subject to the same retention policy as other, run-of-the-mill videotapes. See Grundy Affidavit at ¶ 3 (Gov. Attachment B). Thus, if the tape was, in fact, subject to routine destruction by the BOP ­ a fact that has not been established by Schultz ­ the destruction would be due, in no small part, to the fact that Schultz knocked over the camera and thereby ensured that it did not contain images of conduct which would warrant more careful preservation. 14

4

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 15 of 16

5.

Schultz Has Not Shown That the Averments Contained in the Affidavit Would Probably Produce an Acquittal in a New Trial

Finally, Schultz has not demonstrated that the averments would probably produce an acquittal in a new trial. Indeed, he has not even addressed this factor, other than to list this as one which this Court must consider in ruling on his motion for new trial and making a conclusory assertion that his request meets the standard. See Motion at ¶¶ 13-14. Because evidence that a BOP employee once told Grundy that the April 5 Castillo tape had been subject to routine destruction is fully consistent with the government's trial position, it is axiomatic that Schultz has not demonstrated that the averments would probably produce an acquittal in a new trial. III. Conclusion For all these reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court summarily deny Schultz's motion. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM J. LEONE United States Attorney

By: s/ Robert E. Mydans ROBERT E. MYDANS Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office 1225 17th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-454-0209 FAX: 303-454-0402 E-mail address: [email protected] Attorney for Government CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 15

Case 1:00-cr-00481-WYD

Document 1668

Filed 01/20/2006

Page 16 of 16

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of January 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ROD SCHULTZ'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address: Neil MacFarlane [email protected]

S/ Charlotte A. Seaton CHARLOTTE A. SEATON Legal Assistant to Robert E. Mydans U.S. Attorney's Office 1225 17th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: 303-454-0224 FAX: 303-454-0402 E-mail address: [email protected]

16