26

1

AND MY ATTORNEYS CONTINUED TO TALK. AND WE NEVER RECEIVED A

3

IT WAS MAILED OR NOT, THOSE THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE

4

LEGAL PAPERS. BUT THIS IS YEAR AFTER YEAR.

THERE WAS NEVER A

5

DEFICIENCY NOTED. AND THERE WAS NO HIDING.

6

7

YOUR HONOR, I REALIZE I COULD HAVE BEEN MORE PRECISE

AND MORE CAREFUL IN MY DEALINGS WITH THE COMMITTEE. MAYBE I

8

COULD HAVE PUSHED MORE FOR SOME KIND OF DOCUMENTATION. BUT

-

AND YOU HAVE TO BE THERE, SOMETIMES, TO UNDER

SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF POLITICAL NUANCES THEY PREFER TO

DEAL ON A PERSON-TO-PERSON BASIS AND NOT MAKE A RECORD. AND

APPARENTLY THE SPOUSE DISCLOSURE PROBLEM WAS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES
WHERE THEY WERE AFRAID TO MAKE SOME KIND OF A PUBLIC

PROCLAMATION.

WELL, THIS WHOLE PROBLEM OF NOT GETTING A BETTER PUBLIC RECORD HAS BEEN PAINFULLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE YEARS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE COURT ACTION. AND I DO DEEPLY REGRET THAT

I DID NOT FORESEE THIS AND PROVIDE A CLEARER COURSE OF ACTION.

YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE I CAN SAY TO TELL

THE PROSECUTION THAT THERE IS REMORSE. THERE IS REMORSE, YOUR
HONOR. I AM VERY SORRY FOR THE FACT THAT WE'RE HERE, I'M VERY

SORRY THAT SOMEHOW WE WERE NOT MORE CAREFUL IN WHAT WE DID. BUT

I MUST LEAVE THIS WITH YOU, YOUR HONOR: THERE WAS NO HIDING.

THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF

3

COURT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY

4

AGO TODAY. OF COURSE, THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WERE IN EFFECT

5

TOO:

REHABILITATION, PUNISHMENT, THE EXAMPLE. ANOTHER INTER

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ALIA CONSIDERATION, NOT THE EXCLUSIVE CONSIDERATION, WAS, OF

COURSE, MR. HANSEN'S PRIOR RECORD FOR FAILURE TO FILE REPORTS OF
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES, A PRIOR OFFENSE. HE
WAS IN THAT CASE FINED ON EACH COUNT $1,000, FOR A TOTAL OF
$2,000, AND WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DON'T

NEED RETELLING.

MR. LEWIN REFERS TO THE APPEARANCE OF EVENHANDEDNESS.

WE HAVE BEFORE US AN INDIVIDUAL, A DEFENDANT WHO HAS BEEN

CONVICTED BY A JURY AFTER FULL AND FAIR AND A FIRM TRIAL OF FOUR

SEPARATE COUNTS INVOLVING FOUR SEPARATE YEARS OF DERELICTION.

THE FINES THAT THE COURT IMPOSED GO ONE FINE TO EACH OF THOSE

YEARS.

THE COURT AT THE TIME THAT IT GAVE ITS ORIGINAL

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

CAMPBELL THIS FRIDAY PAST. THE COURT HAS HEARD THE ARGUMENT OF

SENTENCE CONSIDERED ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO
THE COURT THROUGH BOTH COUNSEL, THROUGH MR. HANSEN, THROUGH THE
PRESENTENCE REPORT, THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIAL. THE
COURT HAS CONSIDERED ALL OF THE MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED
BEFORE THE COURT, INCLUDING THE LATEST SUBMISSION BY MR.

28

MR. HANSEN, WILL YOU COME BEFORE THE LECTERN, PLEASE,
YOU MAY BE, OF COURSE,

FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.

ACCOMPANIED, IF YOU WISH, BY YOUR COUNSEL.

SAID,

THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE, MR. HANSEN, AS I HAVE

IN WHICH TO AFFIRM THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE, AND THERE IS NO
PERSUASIVE REASON TO DO OTHERWISE. YOU ARE SENTENCED, AS
BEFORE, IN AN EXACT REPETITION OF WHAT THE SENTENCE WAS BEFORE:

5 TO 15 MONTHS ON EACH COUNT AND A FINE OF $10,000 ON EACH
COUNT, THAT IS, COUNT 1, COUNT 2, COUNT 3, COUNT 4. THE 5- TO
15-MONTH INCARCERATION SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
FINES SHALL BE SEPARATE, ACCUMULATING TO A TOTAL OF $40,000.

THE

YOU ARE TO REPORT THIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH OF JUNE,
1986, AT 11:00 A.M. BY VOLUNTARY SURRENDER TO PETERSBURG CAMP IN
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA, A DESIGNATION SELECTED FOR YOU BY MR.
NORMAN CARLSON, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS. I WOULD
ASK THAT YOU AND YOUR COUNSEL TALK TO THE PROBATION OFFICER

FOLLOWING THIS HEARING TODAY TO WORK OUT ALL THE DETAILS AND
RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT, BUT I AM CONFIDENT THAT A VOLUNTARY

SURRENDER IS AN APPROPRIATE SURRENDER IN THIS CASE.

APPEAL.

IT IS MY DUTY TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO

THAT APPEAL MUST BE POSTED WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THIS DATE, AS I'M CONFIDENT YOUR COUNSEL WELL KNOWS, OR YOU WILL

FOREVER FOREGO YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL.

3

29

MR. LEWIN: MIGHT WE AT THIS TIME FILE WITH THE CLERK A

LAST WEEK. WE, OF COURSE, HAVE NOT

14

15

TODAY'S RULING REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE, BUT WE WILL

16

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT YOUR HONOR'S STATEMENT AND DETERMINE WHETHER

TO FILE A SEPARATE NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THOSE.

THE COURT: MAY I SUGGEST THAT IF YOU DO SO DECIDE TO DO, MR. LEWIN, THAT IT BE DONE PROMPTLY SO THAT ALL OF THE

MATTERS COULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER

MR. LEWIN: DEFINITELY, YOUR HONOR.

MR.

LEWIN: WHICH IS A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE RULING

DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY

DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND THE MOTION FOR NEW DISCOVERY CONCERNING

SELECTIVE PROSECUTION.

THAT WAS FOR THE MOTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR RULED UPON SINCE WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE RULING TODAY, DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM

HONOR WAS GOING TO SET A DATE IN TERMS OF SURRENDER, WE HAVE

PREPARED A MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE

30

1

2

PENDING THE APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS FOR A NEW
TRIAL. AND LET ME JUST SAY THAT THAT'S A VERY BRIEF MOTION.

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

AS YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, YOUR HONOR 'S OPINION OF 29
PAGES CONCERNING THOSE MOTIONS GOES INTO SOME DETAIL NOT ONLY IN
THE RECORD, I THINK, OF THIS CASE, BUT RAISES AN IMPORTANT LEGAL
QUESTION, WHICH IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL CONGRESSMAN
IS ABLE TO WAIVE THE SPEECH AND DEBATE PRIVILEGE PROVIDED BY THE

CONSTITUTION.

AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR'S OPINION, IT

ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT AS TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH WE HAVE RAISED

AND THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO US, ONLY, WE SAY, AFTER THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE, THAT THOSE WERE AVAILABLE TO MR. HANSEN AND THAT HE 12 COULD HAVE OBTAINED THEM DURING THE TRIAL AND THAT, CONSE

11

23

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

QUENTLY, THEY ARE NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

OUR VIEW HAS BEEN, AND YOUR HONOR IS AWARE, THAT AT THE

TIME OF THE TRIAL A MOTION BASED ON SPEECH AND DEBATE WAS MADE

BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE. WE DID NOT TAKE A POSITION ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER. IN FACT, I THINK ONE OF YOUR HONOR'S BASES FOR
RULING WAS THAT WE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINE IF IN

FACT THESE MATTERS WERE BEING BROUGHT OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT.
SO, I THINK YOUR HONOR WAS AWARE AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS NOT
SIMPLY THE AVAILABILITY OF EVERY CONGRESSMAN TO GO IN AND TO

22 WAIVE MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE SPEECH AND DEBATE PRIVILEGE.

23

AND THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY YOUR HONOR'S RULING ON THE 24 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL QUESTION. I

2 223

25

THINK THE FACTUAL ISSUES THEMSELVES WOULD WARRANT AN APPEAL.