RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P031

← Previous page Next page →

THE COURT: We'll take our next witness.

MR. WALCZAK: The plaintiffs call Cindy Sneath.

CYNTHIA SNEATH, called as a witness, having been duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows:

THE CLERK: State your name and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Cynthia Sneath, C-y-n-t-h-i-a, S-n-e-a-t-h.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALCZAK:

Q. Good morning.

A. Hi.

Q. Please state your name.

A. Cynthia Sneath.

Q. And are you a plaintiff in this lawsuit?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And you live in Dover?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Since 1999.

Q. And are you married?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Do you have children?

A. Two.

Q. How old are your children?

A. Seven and four.

Q. Boys or girls?

A. Boys.

Q. Are either of them enrolled in the Dover Area School District?

A. Yeah. My oldest goes to Weiglestown Elementary.

Q. What grade is he in?

A. Second.

Q. And do you have any plans to leave the Dover Area School District?

A. No.

Q. Could you briefly tell us your educational background?

A. Graduated high school, diploma, life lessons, hopefully a dose of common sense.

Q. And are you employed outside the home?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do you do?

A. My husband and I own a small business. I'm vice president.

Q. What kind of business is that?

A. Appliance repair and installations.

Q. And do you have any particular background in science?

A. No.

Q. Do you have a personal interest in science?

A. Not personally, no. You know, I have an interest for my son, who actually shows a great interest in science.

Q. And which child is that?

A. My second-grader, my seven-year-old.

Q. And why do you say he shows a great interest?

A. Many reasons. You know, don't get him started on talking about the NASA space shuttle program. I mean, just everything he does is very science-oriented. It's just something he obviously enjoys.

Q. Prior to October of 2004, had you attended any Dover Area school board meetings?

A. No.

Q. Prior to October, 2004, did you learn that there was discussion about changes to the school district's biology curriculum?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, if you didn't attend school board meetings, how did you learn that?

A. Through the newspaper. I get it delivered daily, the evening paper.

Q. And which paper is that?

A. That's the York Dispatch.

Q. And do you regularly read the newspaper?

A. Yeah, pretty regularly.

Q. And do you recall about when it was that you first realized that there was some controversy over the biology curriculum?

A. Looking back, you know, I'm thinking it was probably over the summer when it really first appeared on my radar screen. But it really didn't become a reality until October and when the policy was passed.

Q. When did you attend your first board meeting?

A. It would have been the very next board meeting.

Q. Very next meaning the one --

A. November. I'm thinking November would have been the next month. You know, they have two meetings a month, so that first one in November.

Q. So you didn't attend the October 18th board meeting?

A. Correct.

Q. It would have been two weeks after?

A. Right.

Q. So the only source of information you had prior to November about what the school district was doing or planning on doing was from news reports?

A. Correct.

Q. And can you tell us what it is that you understood was going on at these school board meetings?

MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Just for the record preserving my hearsay objection on any information that she has no personal knowledge about but is relying on hearsay statements in the newspaper.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, I'm asking her about her state of mind and what it is that she knew or what it is that she understood from whatever source she may have gotten it.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question to be precise as to the source. And you may have been precise, but I didn't hear it exactly that way. So I'll sustain the objection to the extent that you can be more precise. But consistent with my prior rulings, we may permit reference to the newspaper articles to refresh recollection, et cetera. So be a little bit more precise.

BY MR. WALCZAK:

Q. So you had not personally attended any school board meetings?

A. Correct.

Q. Had you framed some understanding, did you have some understanding, whether right or wrong, about what was going on in the Dover School District prior to October?

A. Yes. I mean, you know, what I had been reading and some of the things I've read were outlining the controversy and basically stating that there's a science class and, you know, talk of creationism and religious ideas.

There were science people coming forward. I know the guy from York College had made a statement about it not being science. There was a guy from Kansas that had made a comment about this not being science. There was the word "creationism" being used.

And so, you know, it just seemed to be, you know, the science versus religious thing culminating. And that would have been my perception.

Q. At some point did you --

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I know that we've got a standing objection, and I don't want to vex the questioner or the witness, but, I mean, she has no personal knowledge, so what she's basically testifying to is hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, it doesn't go to the truth, does it?

MR. GILLEN: Well, I agree that if they're not offering it for the truth of the matter and just why she's attending board meetings, that's fine, but to the extent that --

THE COURT: Well, that wasn't the question. The question wasn't why she attended board meetings, the question was what she had heard or knew about with the understanding she hadn't been to a board meeting. And now she's testified, as I understand it, sort of broadly about what she read in the newspaper, although I'm not sure of all the sources. The answer was perhaps a little bit broader than that. That doesn't go to the truth. It does go to the effect prong regardless of truth, doesn't it?

MR. GILLEN: Well, I would say no. As you know, that's an issue that we're going to revisit in connection with the reporters, but, I mean, to say that she's acting based on information she received in the newspapers saying, in effect, that information was true.

THE COURT: Well, we didn't get to that point yet.

MR. GILLEN: Right.

THE COURT: If we get to that point, that's a separate argument.

MR. GILLEN: Okay.

THE COURT: But right now, if you have a hearsay objection based upon the testimony that she just gave --

MR. GILLEN: Which is based on hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, it's not hearsay if it doesn't go to the truth, and it didn't go to the truth yet.

MR. GILLEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Now -- go ahead.

MR. GILLEN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. With that understanding that it's not evidence admissible for the purpose of the truth of the matter she's testifying to, that, you know, if it's what she thought, I can't object to that. I agree. But if it's offered for the truth, then I object based on hearsay.

MR. WALCZAK: It is offered purely to establish her state of mind and what her understanding was based on the sources that were available to her at the time. So this is not offered for the truth of what's in those articles.

MR. GILLEN: Okay.

THE COURT: And we may have a disagreement that we'll endure as to the effect prong under Lemon because I don't think it requires, in every case, that the recipients -- that the information received by the recipient, in this case her, that it be true, does it?

MR. GILLEN: I would think that the effects can only be established by admissible evidence, and that is evidence that is admissible for substantive purposes.

Judge, I mean, I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but, you know, Chicken Little could have said the sky was falling, you know, Foxy-Woxy could have reported it, and Henny-Penny could have read it, thought it was true, but as the story goes, the King knew better.

And you can't convict someone based on hearsay. You can't demonstrate effects except through admissible evidence, and that admissible evidence is non-hearsay. And by any other measure, effects have to be proven by admissible evidence.

THE COURT: But the effect is subjective, isn't it?

MR. GILLEN: No, it's objective, and it's based on admissible evidence. It has to be in a court proceeding, Your Honor. You can't use the effects prong to let in a ton of hearsay. If that was the case, you could prove the whole case through newspaper clippings.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, first of all, you know, I think if you look at Doe versus Santa Fe, certainly if you look at McCreary, I'm pretty sure in Selman -- and Mr. Katskee unfortunately left for the holidays, and he's our real expert on this, but I think in all of those cases, and in Wallace versus Jaffrey, the Court looked at newspaper articles to help gauge the effect on the community.

And this is not offered -- you know, this is not there for hearsay purposes. This is not for the truth of the matter asserted. It is for what the reasonable, average person in the community is seeing or believing. And, you know, as long as I don't have to answer with a countering rhyme, let me just -- which I was duly impressed by that, but this is --

MR. GILLEN: I've got young kids.

MR. WALCZAK: I do, too, but they're older.

MR. GILLEN: And it fits.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, it is the fact that this is out there, right or wrong. And some people are forming an impression about that, again, right or wrong. But the impression here in the community is, based on reading everything that's being published, that this is a religious dispute.

THE COURT: How else do you get effect?

MR. GILLEN: By bringing in evidence of what actually happened and measuring it on the part of witnesses who were actually there.

THE COURT: But the witness who was there, once it hits that witness, it becomes a subjective exercise, whether they're there or whether they read it in the paper.

In other words, you have a dispute about what was said at these school board meetings. You have school board members who deny, as I understand it, that they said certain things that have been attributed to them. So if a witness says that he or she heard something and that's already in dispute, what am I to do with that?

MR. GILLEN: But, Your Honor, from my perspective, that's the point. I mean, the effect of a newspaper article is the effect of a newspaper article. And that newspaper article, if it could be established without speculation, for one thing -- I mean, just look at what you're being asked to do here. Ten thousand people could have read the paper. One could have said, oh, my heavens, this is nonsense. Another could have said, you know, they're at it again. Who knows. Number one, it's pure speculation.

Number two, the effect is the effect of what the reporter said. Look at these things. They look at what one person has said, arguably, in a board meeting and leave out what ten have said. How could the board be responsible for that? It's hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, I think you make it too fine a point. In the milieu and in the array of information available to this average person, and I think the cases are somewhat in -- they're not in conflict, but are we -- who is the recipient?

I think some of them set up a sort of reasonably intelligent person, but I think you're placing too fine a point on it. I think within the broad array of informational sources for measuring the effect prong, in some cases, not all of them, would be a newspaper.

MR. GILLEN: But, Your Honor, to --

THE COURT: And just to finish before you argue.

MR. GILLEN: Sure.

THE COURT: What you're saying is for a newspaper to be that, the veracity of the newspaper article has to be tested. And once it goes through that gate and it passes, then it's all right for the effect prong, if I hear you correctly.

MR. GILLEN: What I'm saying is, if it's not hearsay, then it is evidence and then it's admissible for the purpose of proving liability, but if it's hearsay, it is not. And by any other measure to say that paper clippings are the proof of effect is to say that they're proof of true effect.

THE COURT: So you're saying that if the reporters testify and if I establish that the articles are -- I know you don't want this, but if we get to that point and I say that having tested the veracity of the articles based on the reporters' testimony that the articles are accurate and represent a true account of what they saw and heard at the school board meetings and if I admit that over your objection, understandably, that that -- we're over that hurdle.

MR. GILLEN: I'm saying that you can admit them if you find they are an exception to the hearsay rule. Our position is still that it's not proof of effects because the newspaper article itself is the act of a newspaper reporter and not the board.

And if my clients are believed, what the newspaper reporter chose to do is to create a totally false and misleading impression about the actual board deliberations, and therefore, no, they would not be -- I acknowledge, you are the gatekeeper on evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of the effects because it's the proof of what a newspaper reporter wrote.

THE COURT: Well, I'll close the loop by saying this. I'm going to overrule the objection on that basis. I think what you're left with is not necessarily a technical argument on what is hearsay and what's not. I don't see that. I don't think that the hearsay objection can operate to prevent this type of effect testimony.

However, I don't think that you're then estopped from arguing that the information was so unreliable that it ought not be considered for the effect prong. I would rather err on the side of letting it in at this point. You can argue from a qualitative standpoint that it's just so unreliable that a reasonable person should not have received that for the effect that it's -- as it's being attributed.

MR. GILLEN: As you know, Your Honor, I'll make the arguments you let me make, and I'll deal with the rulings that you make.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GILLEN: That's all I can say.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, let me just make one last point. In McCreary, which is the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on the Lemon test, the Court there -- there was a long discussion, and they set up the reasonably informed observer. It's not the reasonably informed observer who attended those McCreary County board meetings.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. WALCZAK: It's the reasonably informed observer, period. And they don't specify whether, you know, it has to be established as accurate or inaccurate information. And, you know, I mean, Ms. Sneath, to some extent, is a person -- or to every extent is a person who lives in this district, whose information she got, like other people got, through the newspaper, and what she knew as of October 18th came from the newspaper, and she formed an understanding.

THE COURT: Well, I will grant that all of us should go back and look at the cases again, as if we haven't already. We certainly have. But I think you'll agree -- I think you'll agree that the cases are not consistent in terms of McCreary does say -- and that's where the word "reasonable" popped into my head -- sets up a particular test. But the cases are somewhat inconsistent, and I think there's been some confusion judicially with respect to who the recipient is for the effect prong. And I've got to negotiate that at some point.

But for the purpose of this witness, I'm going to err on the side of caution and let it in subject to, as I said, an argument by the defense that, for example, consistent with McCreary, that that reasonable observer should not have accepted that on the effect prong.

I frankly think that's your better argument to make than to stand so clinically on hearsay, because I don't read the cases as saying that you had to make a threshold hearsay determination on the effect prong. So with that --

MR. GILLEN: I'll bear that in mind, Your Honor.

THE COURT: With that extended, complicated academic argument behind us, we'll proceed. Was there a question on the floor?

MR. WALCZAK: Let me ask another question. I'm not sure if there was.

BY MR. WALCZAK:

Q. So was there some point in time where your interest really became focused on what was going on at the school board meetings?

A. Do you mean, like, prior to the October 8th or just anytime?

Q. At any point. As I understand it, you were kind of generally following what was going on through the news media?

A. Yeah. And it was very general. And that would have started probably sometime in the summer, I would think.

Q. But at some point your interest became acute?

A. Yes.

Q. And when was that?

A. The closer it got to October 18th. And then that meeting, you know, that next day in the paper they had passed the curriculum change, and reality set in, you know, this has happened.

Q. And was it about that time that you decided that you wanted to find out more about this topic of intelligent design?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do to educate yourself about intelligent design?

A. Well, I had never heard the terminology, so, you know, my inclination is typically to go to the Internet, and that's where I started my research. And there was a lot of information available.

Q. So let me just ask you, obviously you're on the Internet, you're Internet savvy, how did you go about researching intelligent design? Did you go to Google or --

A. Yeah. Oh, yes, I always use Google.

Q. And what did you do?

A. Just type in intelligent design, and you get a lot of hits. There's a lot of information to weed through. There's a lot of just news lists, people discussing it, but then there were more specific places that, you know, gave you more specific information.

Q. And how long did you spend looking at intelligent design?

A. I researched it quite a bit. You know, there was a lot of material to read. A lot of times -- you know, you have small kids, you get interrupted, you have to make dinner, whatever. You know what I mean? But I'd go back in spare time that I had to kind of look into it, because the further you looked into it, the more I realized that this was not just a local Dover issue. I became very aware that this is an issue that is, you know, widespread.

Q. Do you remember some of the Web sites that popped up when you did a search for intelligent design?

A. Panda's Thumb, which led me to the NCSE Web site, which was like a wealth of information. That was really the big one that told me that, you know, this was not just a small little issue here. I mean, there were Web sites that people had done that had been active in what was going on, and they kind of did their own little pages with information that they knew, specifically addressing how -- the method of getting this done by going and appealing to a school board and getting a few sympathetic members, just outlining different things like that. So it was, you know, just a wide variety.

Q. Did you find information in your Internet search about the Wedge?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Did you find information through your Internet search about the Wedge?

A. Yes, yes. And I don't remember specifically what site it was. There was a link to it. And then, yeah, I read the Wedge document, which was kind of a real eye-opener for me.

Q. And based on your own personal Internet research, did you form some opinion as to what intelligent design was?

A. Yeah.

Q. And what was that opinion?

A. It's basically equated to creationism. It's, you know, all the same, you know, ideas with a new name, is really what it appeared to me to be.

Q. Now, you started going to board meetings, I believe it was the first meeting in November?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was because of your concern that you thought they were now teaching creationism?

A. Yeah. What is going on? I mean, it was time to get a firsthand account.

Q. And at some board meeting -- and have you been a regular attendee since November?

A. I went to every board meeting until, I think, over the summer. I just -- you know, you kind of need a break after a while. But up until that point, yeah, every meeting.

Q. And this was purely because of your concern over this issue?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And at one of the November board meetings, do you recall a board member Angie Yingling making some comments?

A. Yeah. She wasn't making comments while she was sitting -- you know, it wasn't during the meeting. I think it was prior to an executive meeting. And she was making comments to a reporter and --

Q. And were you present for these comments?

A. Yeah. I mean, it's a small room. And when the meeting is done, everybody is kind of milling around. You know what I mean? You're all kind of right there. And we happened to be standing there, and she was making the comment that she had regretted her decision and that she had been called an atheist, she had been called un-Christian.

And I felt bad because she had also talked about, at that board meeting, about giving her resignation. Now, she didn't do it at that meeting. It was a long time until she ended up actually -- I think officially stepping down. But that was like the first time she talked about it. And so with her saying that and then making these comments, it kind of like made me feel bad.

And I interjected and I said to her, don't quit. Why should you quit? You know, if you feel strongly about the issue, you've changed your mind, just keep revisiting the issue. And that was really the extent of the conversation.

Q. But you overheard her make comments that other board members had called her an atheist?

A. That's what she was saying as I was standing there. And then, you know, as soon as she was done saying that, I, like, intervened and encouraged her not to quit.

Q. And do you remember the words that she used? Did she use the word "atheist"?

A. Yes. She used the word "atheist," and she used the word "un-Christian."

Q. Now, did you have an opportunity to speak to Ms. Yingling again after that meeting?

A. She -- I can't remember exactly which board meeting, but there was a particular board meeting she had handed me her business card, and she was like, call me, you know, and so I did. And I think I called her -- it had to have been sometime in January. I don't know, you know, exactly when.

Q. And this is January, 2005?

A. Correct. To see what she wanted. And she actually wanted to know if I wanted to run for school board with her, because at that time I think, you know, that she was trying to make future plans. And, you know, I really wasn't interested in doing that. But, you know, the conversation kind of went from there.

And I think it was an emotional time for her. She was very emotional. She was very upset. She felt she had been treated very badly. And I remember her stating that she was working on her resignation speech. So I know it was before she actually, you know, resigned.

And, again, she kind of reiterated that same thing to me, that, you know, if you're not their kind of Christian or something to that effect and -- you know, she was emotional.

Q. But do you remember those words, "their kind of Christian," being said by her?

A. Yeah.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WALCZAK: Matt, could you put up P127, please.

BY MR. WALCZAK:

Q. Do you recognize what's been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 127?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is it?

A. That I received in the mail. It was a piece pretty much advocating what they had -- the curriculum update that they had -- or the curriculum change that they had passed.

Q. When did you receive this?

A. It's dated February, so I'm assuming, because dates aren't always real good with me.

Q. And how did you receive this?

A. Through the mail.

Q. Through the U.S. mail?

A. Yeah. And I know other people that had gotten it, as well. I, you know, had talked to different people, and it was kind of the buzz of the news going around that everybody had gotten this.

Q. Now, you just characterized this as advocating intelligent design. I mean, why do you say that?

A. Well, that was my perception. Two days after I received this, I got a regular newsletter in the mail. And, you know, this wasn't just telling people this is what we've done, this is, look what we've done, and Senator Rick Santorum agrees in the No Child Left Behind, and, you know, all the -- what I consider propaganda to go behind it.

Q. So you felt like they were trying to convince you that intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution?

A. Not just me, the community. That was my perception.

Q. Now, you indicated that two days later you got a newsletter in the mail. Who did you get a newsletter from?

A. That's the regular Dover newsletter that comes out.

Q. And how often does that newsletter come?

A. That I don't -- four times a year? I'm not sure. But it's like -- it always looks the same. You know, you can tell it's the regular Dover newsletter.

Q. So there is a newsletter that comes during a regular schedule?

A. Yes, periodically.

Q. So is it clear to you that this biology curriculum update was not a regular newsletter?

A. Well, I -- you know, in my mind, again, if you just want to notify people about what you've done or what a school board has done, I think it would have just been reasonable to put it in a regular newsletter. I mean, obviously this was an extra expense to taxpayers. And as a taxpayer, you're concerned about that.

Q. So this is not how you would want your tax dollars spent?

A. No.

Q. Now, you said you have a seven and a four-year-old. Can your four-year-old read this newsletter?

A. No.

Q. Could your -- it sounds like you have a quite inquiring seven-year-old. Could he read this newsletter?

A. He could read a lot of it. A couple words we might have to help him out, but he's a pretty good reader.

Q. Is it your perception that this was geared towards your children?

A. No, no, I would say this is geared towards parents, taxpayers, constituents.

Q. Do you believe you've been harmed by what the Dover Area School District has done in promoting intelligent design?

A. Yeah, I do.

Q. And how have you been harmed?

A. Well, you know, as a parent, you want to be proactive in your child's education. I mean, obviously I'm not an educator. I have no big degrees. I want to be proactive, but I depend on the school district to provide the fundamentals. And I consider evolution to be a fundamental of science.

And I'm quite concerned about a cautionary statement. I am quite concerned about this intelligent design idea. I do think it's confusing. I don't think it adds to his education.

And at the end of the day, I mean, in my mind, intelligent designer, I mean, the word "designer" is a synonym for Creator, and, you know, that takes a leap of faith for me, you know. And I think it's my privilege to guide them in matters of faith, not a science teacher, not an administrator, and not the Dover Area School Board.

MR. WALCZAK: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Walczak. Mr. Gillen, cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. Mrs. Sneath.

A. Hello, Mr. Gillen.

Q. Good afternoon. I met you at your deposition and will ask you a few questions today about your trial testimony. I just want to again make clear now, you didn't attend board meetings until November, 2004. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you didn't speak with any board members prior to November, 2004. Correct?

A. That would be correct.

Q. And you didn't speak with any of the science faculty at the high school prior to that time. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In fact, you've never spoken to the science faculty. Correct?

A. Yeah. No reason.

Q. You say that you -- you've done some personal reading in connection with this dispute about science?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've looked at material on the Internet. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you've looked at material by Discovery Institute. Correct?

A. I did go to the Discovery Institute Web site, but I can't say that there was a whole lot of information there. It's not like they critique their own, you know, ideas, and so, you know, it wasn't that great of a Web site, actually.

Q. Sure. But you did learn that approximately 300 scientists agree with the idea that they were promoting? Well, let me ask you this.

A. I have heard that somewhere, but I don't know if I actually obtained that through their Web site.

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GILLEN: Thank you.

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. Mrs. Sneath, I'd ask you to look at your deposition, which I have just handed you, Page 9.

A. Page 9.

Q. Looking at that, it references that you've heard that 300 scientists agree with this idea?

A. Yeah, I heard it somewhere. I just wasn't -- I thought you might have been asking did I read that from their Web site, and that I did not remember doing. But I have heard that comment that 300 scientists have supported it.

Q. And you've read, you said, somewhere on the Internet about the Wedge strategy?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever read a document called, Wedge Strategy, So What?

A. No.

Q. Now, there was a time in which you believed the board was going to require the teaching of intelligent design with equal time in the classroom. Correct?

A. I think it was my understanding that it could be taught if the teacher wanted to, not necessarily the equal time.

Q. Okay. And that understanding was based on what you read in the paper?

A. Yes, that would have been.

Q. But the board didn't do that. Correct?

A. No, not as it stands now. Is that what you're asking?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

Q. Likewise, you had a belief that the text of Pandas was going to be used in the classroom. Correct?

A. Originally, yes, my understanding was that it was to be placed in the science classroom.

Q. But they did not use it in the classroom. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. It's in the library. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you don't have an objection to that?

A. I don't have an objection to them being in the library. I probably have an objection to, you know, 20 copies being in the library just for the fact that, I mean, libraries don't have much space, and, I mean, 20 books of any one book is kind of a waste of space.

Q. Have you been to the library, Mrs. Sneath?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many books are on the shelf right now?

A. 24, I believe.

Q. So your objection is based on the space?

A. Yeah. A library just has a limited amount of space, and I don't remember seeing 20 of any other book being there. I mean, to me, put a couple out and let's leave some room for some others, perhaps.

Q. You understand it's a reference text. Correct?

A. I understand they call it a reference text, correct.

Q. And you don't?

A. No. I don't really consider it a reference text.

Q. You don't have any science education, do you, Mrs. Sneath?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you've said that you recall Angie Yingling saying something about being called an atheist or un-Christian?

A. That's correct.

Q. You know that Angie Yingling voted for the curriculum change. Correct?

A. Originally she did, that's correct.

Q. But it's also true that you can't necessarily make the connection between her statements and her vote on the curriculum. Is that correct?

A. No, I wouldn't say that I could. I mean, really what I was saying is that she had regretted making that decision to vote for it and made the comments in relationship to that.

Q. But you can't necessarily make a connection between those comments and her vote on the curriculum change, can you?

A. No, I can't.

Q. Now, I understand you believe that intelligent design is not science based on what you've read on the Internet. Correct?

A. Yes, that is my belief.

Q. And based on your reading, also, your personal reading, you have the opinion that intelligent design is creationism. Correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. I want to ask you about the newsletter. Is it your position that the district shouldn't have put out a newsletter addressing this controversy?

A. No, that's not my position. I think the district could have easily advised its constituents in the regular newsletter instead of paying extra money for this newsletter. And to me this was not simply a newsletter, this is what we've done. I mean, this was more than that. This was what we've done, and this is who stands behind it, and this is, you know, what makes it a great thing.

Q. So it's information about intelligent design. Correct?

A. Yes, it's advocating intelligent design.

Q. And it's information about the curriculum change. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that would be additional information you received in addition to your personal reading on the Internet and so on. Correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. Your children are what ages, Mrs. Sneath?

A. Seven and four.

Q. So none of them have had the statement read to them. Correct?

A. No.

Q. You understand that evolutionary theory is the theory that's being taught in classrooms at Dover?

A. That is my understanding.

(Buzzing noise.)

THE COURT: That's a trick we do to try and limit cross-examination.

MR. GILLEN: Judge, I have been a model of brevity.

THE COURT: Just keep your voice up and stay away from the mic.

MR. GILLEN: I'll try and do that.

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. You understand that the biology text that was recommended by the science faculty was, in fact, purchased?

A. Yes, I do understand.

Q. That's the text that's assigned to students. Correct?

A. Yes.

MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You didn't have to take it that seriously. All right. Any redirect by Mr. Walczak?

MR. WALCZAK: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We could take another witness and at least get started if you want to, if you have one.

MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why don't we do that.