RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P018

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct of Jeff Brown

Section 1 MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, the Plaintiffs call to the stand, Jeff Brown. Whereupon, JEFFREY ALLEN BROWN having been duly sworn, testified as follows: THE WITNESS: Jeffrey A. Brown, or Jeffrey Allen, whichever you prefer. J-E-F-F-R-E-Y. A-L-L-E-N. B-R-O-W-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mr. Brown, I was going to ask you your name, but then I realized you just said it. Are you married? A. Yes. Q. Please tell us the name of your wife? A. Carol H. Brown. Q. And Mr. Brown, did you ever serve as a member of the board of directors in the Dover Area School District? A. Yes. Q. Approximately what years? A. From 1999 to 2004. Q. And do you remember the date in 2004 when you resigned from the board? A. October 18th.	Section 1 notes
Section 2 Q. Who was the president of the board of the Dover Area School District on October the 18th, 2004? A. Alan Bonsell. Q. Do you remember when Mr. Bonsell ran for the board? A. Yes. Q. What year was that? A. That would have been 2001. Q. Did you run with him? A. No. Q. Do you recall a conversation with him when he was running for the board about what he wanted to do as a board member? A. Yes. Q. Please tell. A. Sorry?	Section 2 notes
Section 3 Q. Please tell us what you can remember he told you what he wanted to do as a board member? A. He wanted to -- he did not believe in evolution. He wanted creationism taught side-by-side with evolution in our biology classes. He felt that taking school prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake and he wanted to see it reinstated at Dover. Q. When was this conversation? A. During the summer of 2001. Q. Do you remember where that took place? A. At his house. Q. Do you remember why you were there? A. Yes. My wife was running with Mr. Bonsell and two other people, Mrs. Harkins and Mrs. Yingling, as a slate of candidates, and I was involved in the campaign. Q. Do you recall, did the board of directors ever have retreats? A. Yes.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 Q. Do you recall a retreat in January of 2002? A. Yes. Q. How is it that you recall that retreat? A. The other day, Eric Rothschild showed us some documents from those retreats and it jogged my memory. I had forgotten them prior to that. Q. And do you remember what Mr. Bonsell said at that retreat? A. The -- we were asked as board members what were our areas of major concern, what would we like to see the board do. And Mr. Bonsell mentioned the teaching of creationism and Bible reading as two of the areas of his concern. Those were not the only ones. He also mentioned American history and school uniforms, as I recall. Q. Mr. Brown, are you -- do you remember him saying that or are you just telling us what you saw in the documents? A. No, I remember him saying those things. I had -- again, seeing it brought it back.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 Q. Now do you remember a retreat of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors in March of 2003? A. Yes. Q. And can you tell us how is it that you remember that retreat? A. Again, the same thing, the documents. It triggered it. It brought it back. And, yeah, I remember that. Q. Do you remember what Mr. Bonsell said at that retreat? A. He mentioned, again mentioned creationism. He felt it belonged in biology class alongside evolution. Q. Do you recall an occasion when you were inside Dover Area High School with a man named Larry Reeser, another man named Noel Weinrich, and Mr. Bonsell? A. Yes. Q. And do you remember that you had a conversation in there about a piece of art? A. Yes.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 Q. And can you tell us, what was the piece of art that you had the conversation about? A. It was a series of panels. It was painted on plywood, four-by-eight sheets of plywood. And it comprised a mural, a very large mural, obviously, that many sheets of plywood. And it depicted an ape at one end and a very recognizeable modern day man at the other and a series of evolutionary stages in between. Q. Now do you remember when that happened? A. It would have been -- it would have been in 2003, during, I believe it was during the summer, but I'm not positive. Q. And do you remember the conversation that you had -- A. Yes. Q. -- on the subject? Can you tell us what you can remember of that conversation? A. Mr. Reeser gave the opinion that he felt the picture was offensive because it was -- it depicted male nudity. And all of us agreed with him, that it could certainly be taken as that. I didn't have a problem agreeing with him on that. And then Mr. Bonsell, I remember -- I can't remember his exact words, but I do remember him literally like snorting through his nostrils and commenting on the subject matter, as Larry Reeser had said, the -- I don't think kids should be exposed to this kind of thing. And then Alan volunteered the opinion, he didn't think they should be exposed to this kind of indication that this is where we came from, that sort of thing. I can't remember his exact words, but that was the gist of it.	Section 6 notes
Section 7 Q. Who was the president of -- well, you already told us that Mr. Bonsell was the president of the board in 2004. Can you tell us, who was the head of the curriculum committee that year? A. In 2004? Q. Yeah. A. William Buckingham. Q. How did Mr. Buckingham get to be head of the curriculum committee? A. The heads of committees are always appointed by the president, so Alan Bonsell would have appointed him. Q. Do you recall a conversation with Superintendent Nilsen about the rotating nature of the presidency of the board of directors? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you can recall about that conversation? A. Well, it began with his complaint that we had instituted, beginning in actually December of 2001, we had instituted a policy where a person would serve one year as president, step down, and a new president would be elected. It was not set in stone that the vice president would automatically become the president, but that was pretty much the way it was understood. The board always had the right to elect someone else. And Dr. Nilsen said that he found it very difficult to deal with, because each incoming -- each year, he had to deal with a new set of priorities. And he mentioned that my wife's priorities had been all-day kindergarten, world languages; Mr. Weinrich, who had succeeded her as president, his concerns had been the building project; and that Mr. Bonsell's concerns had been American history and creationism.	Section 7 notes
Section 8 Q. Do you know what Mr. Bonsell's view on evolution is? A. He regards it as fiction. Q. How do you know that? A. Because he told me. Q. And do you remember when he told you that? A. I can't give you an exact date, but it would have been -- I can't give you an exact date, no.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 Q. Do you know what Mr. Buckingham's views on evolution are? A. They're essentially the same. I think he described it as atheist propaganda. Q. And how do you know that? A. Because he said it in my presence. Q. And can you remember when that happened? A. It was an executive session. There were other people present when Mr. Buckingham made his statement. Now what Alan said to me was said in a more private conversation. It was at a board meeting, but I cannot remember when it was.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 Q. In 2003, Mr. Bonsell was the head of the curriculum committee, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Bonsell about why he wanted to be the head of the curriculum committee? A. He had stated that, actually when he was still running for the board, he hadn't said he wanted to be the head of the curriculum committee -- well, maybe he did. At any rate, I remember him saying he wanted to be on the curriculum committee because he had concerns about the teaching of evolution and he wanted to see some changes in that area. I am not positive he was more specific than that, but he had other statement -- it runs together in my mind literally.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 Q. Do you ever remember a conversation regarding Heather Geesey and Mr. Bonsell and Jane Cleaver and Mr. Buckingham where they were talking about taking prayer out of school? A. Yes. Q. When was that conversation, if you recall? A. That would have been in 2004, either in August or September. Q. Tell me what you can recall of that conversation? A. The -- they were talking among themselves. And I was only standing a few feet away. And we were stating -- it began with one of them -- it may have been Mr. -- I'm not certain who started the conversation. I know that the conversation concerned -- it began with the premise that taking prayer and Bible reading out of school had been a mistake and had caused a great number of problems. And I cannot state which -- who said what. They were all part of the conversation. And they were nodding heads during the conversation. I came away with the feeling that they all agreed with the things being expressed. And there was no real concrete endeavor to, you know, they didn't discuss how they could put it back in, but they were all very much of the opinion that these changes had been a mistake. That was the word that was used, mistake.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 Q. Do you recall a conversation in or around June of 2004 with Mr. Weinrich and Mr. Bonsell about the subject of intelligent design? A. Intelligent design? No. Q. Well, do you recall -- let me ask you another question. Do you recall a conversation with Mr. Bonsell and Mr. Weinrich in or around June 2004 about the origins of life? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you can recall of that conversation? A. They were addressing a -- I can't remember the fella's name, but it was a community member, and he had spoken -- Mr. Buckingham had objected to the book Biology as being laced with Darwinism. And this person, this member of the community, whose name escapes me, was defending Darwin's theory. And Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Bonsell, and Mr. Weinrich were all addressing him during the public comment section. And -- Q. Let me just ask you. A. Yes, you'll have to be more specific here. Q. I'm not asking you about a board meeting. A. You're not asking about a board meeting, all right.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 Q. I'm asking if you can recall a conversation outside of a board meeting with Mr. Weinrich and Mr. Bonsell about the subject of origins of life? A. Yeah, I can recall a conversation with them, but I'm not sure what specific one you're referring to. I'm sorry. Q. Do you remember having a conversation with them outside the administration building in Dover? A. Thank you. That's much more helpful. Yes. Q. Tell us what you can -- when was this conversation? A. It was, I believe it was the same day that we had toured the building. I believe it was later in that same day. Q. And when was that? A. Again, I'm not certain. It was -- it was in 2003, but -- and I believe it was in the summertime, but I can't be more specific than. Q. Okay. Let's put that aside for now. A. I'm sorry.	Section 13 notes
Section 14 Q. Do you recall a meeting of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors on June the 7th of 2004? A. Yes. Q. And did you attend that meeting? A. Yes. Q. And do you remember Barrie Callahan speaking at that meeting? A. Yes, I do. Q. And do you remember what Barrie Callahan said? A. Not word for word, but she was questioning the status of the book, Biology; what was happening, why hadn't it been approved, things of that nature. Q. Had Mrs. Callahan raised this before? A. Yes, she had. Q. And had anybody on the board offered support for her previously? A. The previous -- I believe it was at the previous meeting, she had brought up the subject, and Mr. Buckingham had responded that the book is currently under review. And that was pretty much the end of it.	Section 14 notes
Section 15 Q. And how many times before this meeting on June the 7th had she raised this subject of the Biology textbook? A. Now that, I can't answer. It was probably more than that one time, but I can't be sure about that. Q. Do you recall what was said by anyone on the board to Mrs. Callahan on June the 7th, 2004, when she raised the subject of the Biology text? A. Vividly. Mr. Buckingham told her that he objected to the book and would not recommend it because it was, quote, laced with Darwinism, unquote. Q. And do you remember anything else that Mr. Buckingham said in that conversation in response to Mrs. Callahan? A. Nothing so vividly as that one. That one really sunk in. Q. Do you remember any other members of the board speaking to Mrs. Callahan in response to her question? A. On that particular instance? No, not off the top of my head. Q. Do you remember a student named Max Pell speaking at that meeting? A. That's the one. That's the person -- that's the community member whose name I could not remember, yes.	Section 15 notes
Section 16 Q. Do you remember what Mr. Pell said on that occasion? A. Not word for word, but the gist was, he was very supportive of Darwin's theory, and he didn't understand the objections to it. And Mr. Weinrich and Mr. Bonsell and Mr. Buckingham literally took turns arguing with him. The arguments took various forms depending who was speaking. I remember Mr. Weinrich stating that, when you teach one theory, you're, in essence, teaching -- when you teach only one theory, you are, in essence, teaching it as fact. I remember him making that statement. But all three of them were supporting the addition or at least the possibility of the addition of creationism into the biology curriculum. Q. Do you remember anyone discussing intelligent design at that meeting? A. I'm not positive it was that meeting or not. There was one mention of the board, and I made it. But it may have been at the succeeding meeting. I'm not positive. There was no discussion of intelligent design, no. Q. When was the mention of intelligent design that you have in mind? A. At one point, Mr. Buckingham used the word creationism, and I suggested intelligent design. And I better explain that. At that point, I knew very little about it. I had seen the word in the newspaper article, Newsweek. I'm not sure where I saw it. But I was aware of the term. And my concerns at that time -- and you're going to make me give some background here -- I was very concerned that --	Section 16 notes
Section 17 Q. Let me ask you a question. What was your concern at that time? A. Thank you. My concern, as far as the opinions that were being given, was that we might be stating in our biology classes -- in fact, I was getting the opinion, impression from the board members opposed to teaching evolution that we were literally telling our students, evolution occurs without any form of plan, pattern. There's no -- it's all accident. It's purely, that we're essentially talking about a universe with no greater purpose. And I felt, if that was indeed the case, then we were tramping on people's toes, because the fact of the matter is, whether there's a greater purpose or not is beyond the purview of science. It is -- we're in the realm of philosophy or theology, if you will. And I was concerned, if we were doing that, and I had read this term phrase, intelligent design, and I interpreted that as meaning simply a counter point. And I wanted to -- I didn't have a problem with the phrase intelligent design inasmuch as if it meant only that there is a body of opinion out there that feels this may not have all been blind chance. If we were going to tell them one, I felt we were within our rights to tell them both. And I suggested that phrase to Mr. Buckingham. And Mr. Bonsell echoed it. Now this may have been the June 7th meeting. It may have been the June 14th. I cannot recall which one. That was the first time intelligent design was ever mentioned at a Dover board meeting, and there was nothing further said about it. It was just my mentioning the phrase. Alan repeating what I had said, intelligent design. And that was it. It didn't come up again at that meeting.	Section 17 notes
Section 18 Q. Do you recall a meeting of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors on June the 14th of that same year? A. Yes. Q. And did the subject of the Biology textbook come up? A. Yes. Q. Did the subject of creationism come up? A. Yes. Q. Tell us, if you can remember, how the subject of creationism came up? A. It actually came up during the public comment section of the meeting, which is actually the first part of our meeting. Before we go into our regular agenda, we have public comment. And Mr. Buckingham's wife spoke for 15 minutes, which is 10 minutes longer than we normally give members of the public to speak, but there was no attempt from the chair to cut her off. For 15 minutes, she essentially evangelized and stated that it was our duty, our responsibility to include creationism into the classrooms. I believe, but I'm not -- it seems to me she also mentioned Bible reading and prayer, but I can't be certain of that. I think she said it. I'm not positive. But she definitely was speaking in favor of including creationism in our biology curriculum. And the public comment section actually spilled over into the board members got involved in it. And I began arguing that we can't teach creationism. And Mr. Buckingham became very upset with me, and said, 2000 years ago, someone died on a cross for us. Isn't it time we take a stand for him?	Section 18 notes
Section 19 Q. Now I'd like to change the subject for just a second and talk about the textbook of Pandas. Have you ever heard of that? A. Yes. Q. When did you first learn about Of Pandas and People? A. It would have been the Thursday before Mr. Buckingham proposed votes -- our meetings were always on Monday. The Thursday prior to that Monday -- this is very complicated, but I don't know the date off the top of my head. At any rate, on a Thursday, my wife got a phone call from Mr. Baksa, the assistant superintendent, who told her that Mr. Buckingham had this book, Of Pandas and People, that he was recommending the district buy as a supplemental biology text. Q. Let me stop you right there and see if we can clarify the date of this before you continue. There was a meeting of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors on August the 2nd, 2004, at which there was a discussion of approval of a biology textbook. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Now where was this telephone call that you were just relating in relation to that August the 2nd meeting? A. That was the Thursday prior to that date.	Section 19 notes
Section 20 Q. Okay. Now tell us how you learned on the Thursday prior to the August 2nd meeting about the textbook, Of Pandas and People? A. From my wife. She took the call. She relayed it to me. I came home from work. I don't think she had the car that day. And she asked me if I would go to the administration building and pick up a copy, because she was livid. She was on the curriculum committee. And Mr. Buckingham was proposing buying a book to add to the curriculum and not even consulted with her. Q. Was this what she told you on that occasion? A. That's what she told me, yes. Q. And then what did you do? A. I went to the administration building to see Mr. Baksa, and he said, I don't have a copy. I think Dr. Nilsen does. I went to Dr. Nilsen's office. He said, no, I gave my copy to Sheila Harkins. Q. Then after Mr. Nilsen told you that, what did you do? A. Dr. Nilsen called Sheila. She was at home. He asked her, could I come over and pick up the book. She said, yes. So I went to her house.	Section 20 notes
Section 21 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mrs. Harkins at her house? A. Yes. Q. And did you discuss the subject Of Pandas and People? A. Well, I couldn't really discuss it -- well, okay. Only in the sense that they wanted to buy the book. I hadn't read it yet, obviously. Q. Do you remember what she said to you in that conversation? A. I remember that conversation pretty vividly. The first thing I said -- she said -- the first thing she said to me was, I think we should buy this book. I looked at her. I said, Sheila, you don't even want to buy the books that we're supposed to buy, why do you want to buy this book that we don't even need and the state is not requiring us to buy. She said, read the book. I said, fine, I plan to read it, but why are you so in favor of buying this book? She said, just read the book. And I told her at that point, I said, I can't support buying a book that is not required by the state, because we had just, to get our budget passed, we had just cut our library funding in half. We had -- we were discussing and later passed a motion whereby volunteers for the district would be required to pay $10.00 a head toward the costs of defraying the costs of the background checks that were required, due by law. I said, you can't stand there and cut library books in half and make people pay $10.00 a head to work for the district for free, and then buy a textbook that you don't even need. I said, if we do this, we're likely to get sued. Initially my argument was, misuse of tax payer funds. She started going on about how this book was such an eye opening thing of what's wrong with evolution and so on and so forth. I told her, I said, Sheila, we can't touch that subject. I said, with all the statements that Bill has made that have been in the press and have actually gone wire service, I said, if we even touch this subject, we're going to end up in court. And she remained adamant. She was in favor of buying the book. I took it home, and I got to the second paragraph --	Section 21 notes
Section 22 Q. Well, let's stop right there. You took the book home with you, is that your testimony? A. Yes. Q. Did you read it when you got home? A. Yes. Q. And how long did it take you to read it? A. All weekend. Casey and I traded back and forth. Q. Did you discuss it? A. Yes.	Section 22 notes
Section 23 Q. Tell me, what was your reaction to the book? A. By the second paragraph, I felt they were calling me an atheist because I believe in evolution. And that made me furious. I remember talking to Casey and, you know, she made the comment, it's bad science and worse theology. And I said, absolutely. That was pretty much our take on it. Q. Now was the board -- excuse me, was the book discussed at the next meeting of the board on August the 2nd? A. Yes. Q. And do you remember if Mr. Buckingham took a position on that book? A. Oh, yes. Q. And can you tell us, what was his position? A. All right. Mr. Buckingham introduced the motion to buy the textbook, Biology, which was on our agenda. And we only had eight members there. Mrs. Cleaver was not present. The -- we took the vote. Four members, Mr. Buckingham, Mrs. Harkins, Mrs. Yingling and Mrs. Geesey all voted, no, they would not buy the book. Mr. Bonsell, myself, Mrs. Brown, and Mr. Weinrich all voted, yes. The motion failed. It was a four, four tie. At that point, Mr. Buckingham stated that he had five votes to buy the book, Of Pandas and People, as a supplemental text, but because the administration had refused to recommend it under state law, it would require six votes. And he didn't have the sixth vote. And what he said -- and he said this in a public meeting -- I will bring this up at a future meeting. I will first introduce a motion to buy the book Of Pandas and People. He was very explicit about this. If it gets the necessary six votes, I will then introduce the motion to buy the book, Biology, by Prentice Hall. And I will release my votes to vote for it. If, however, it fails to get six votes, I will not release my votes for the book, Biology. And at that point, I got extremely angry and we engaged in -- I demanded to know what would happen if I were to read this book and feel it was not worth the tax payer's money. And he looked me right in the eye and said, then you don't get your book. And he said, and I quote, either I get my book or you don't get yours.	Section 23 notes
Section 24 Q. Did the book, approval of the Biology textbook came -- was it approved at that meeting? A. Eventually, yes. Mrs. Yingling changed her vote. Q. Now do you recall, moving away from that meeting, do you recall an executive session -- first of all, tell us, what is an executive session of the board of directors? A. All right. We are allowed to call -- under the Sunshine Act of Pennsylvania, we must conduct our meetings in public, in the sunshine. But there are specific exemptions. If we are discussing legal matters or personnel issues or contractual matters or discipline for minors, we go into what's called executive session. The board, the superintendent, sometimes other administrators, if needed, will be present. But it's not -- there are no reporters present. The public is not. It's essentially out of the sunshine, to use the legal term. Q. Do you recall an executive session of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors where it was a donation of Of Pandas and People to the School District was discussed? A. Yes.	Section 24 notes
Section 25 Q. Tell us what you can remember about that discussion? A. I believe this was in September of 2004. By this time, Bill was resigned to not getting his books through the school board. And Mr. Buckingham stated in this executive session, and I'm pretty certain it was in September, that he was soliciting donations to buy the books to be donated to the school to be placed in the classrooms. And I told him, you might have a problem with that. I said, if you want to put it in the library, no problem. We have a standing policy for, you know, accepting donations to the library. I said, but there's no policy on donating books directly to the classroom. And he looked me right in the eye and said, I am not asking people to contribute money for these books if they're just going into the library. I want them in the classroom. I said, well, I'm just telling you what the policy is. And I dropped the subject because by that time, relations between Mr. Buckingham and I were pretty poisonous anyway and I didn't need to get into it any further. And at that point, Mrs. Cleaver and Mr. Bonsell both said that he should put them down for a donation. Q. Did you later learn that the Pandas had been donated to the school district? A. Yes. Q. When did you learn that? A. I believe it was the first meeting in October of 2004. Dr. Nilsen made a statement to the board during our public meeting that the books had been accepted and that the teachers have -- I believe he used the phrase have no problem with their being placed in the biology classrooms as reference books.	Section 25 notes
Section 26 Q. Now did you attend the meeting of the board on October the 18th of 2004? A. Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Harvey, if you're going to get into a new line of questions, why don't we take this opportunity to take our afternoon break. And we'll break for about 20 minutes at this juncture, and then we'll return. And I would remind you that, if it works well, counsel, I would intend to go to 5:00, or as close to 5 as we can get this afternoon. So we'll recess for about 20 minutes. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 2:57 p.m. and proceedings reconvened at 3:25 p.m.)	Section 26 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct (continued) of Jeff Brown

Section 27 THE COURT: As a matter of housekeeping, before Mr. Harvey commences again his direct examination, we'll note that we may not need to go to 5 today, but we'll go no later than 5 today, depending on the witnesses presented by the Plaintiff. Tomorrow, we will start our session at 12:30 p.m., by agreement with counsel, and it is not anticipated, for everybody's benefit, I will say, it is not anticipated that that will be a long session. It will be a rather abbreviated session tomorrow afternoon. Likely, it will not last more than several hours. Counsel, is that a fair statement, at best? It may be shorter than that. MR. GILLEN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Then we'll be in recess Monday and Tuesday of next week, and we'll reconvene on Wednesday of next week. So with that, Mr. Harvey, you may continue. DIRECT EXAMINATION ( CONTINUED) BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Do you recall an executive session of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors prior to its meeting on October the 18th of 2004? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall what Mr. Buckingham said during that executive session? A. I recall at least some of the things he said. Immediately before we adjourned to go to our regular meeting, just prior to that, Dr. Nilsen had handed out two alternate -- our executive session was called for a non-related matter, but while we were in there, he handed out an appended version from the teachers -- the teachers had learned about three and a half hours prior to our meeting that we were to vote on this curriculum change that night. And they had, the science department had put together a motion that they felt they could live with, a compromise resolution, if you want to call it that. The administration had also put together a compromise resolution on their own. He handed us copies of both those. Now we had in our board packets a compromise resolution from the administration that had been composed the week before. So we had two compromised resolutions from the administration, one from the science department at the high school, and, of course, then we had the motion that Mr. Buckingham read. And as Dr. Nilsen -- Dr. Nilsen handed these to us. And we were starting out the door, and Mr. Buckingham said, let's get this thing done. We know what we've got to do. This is taking too long already. Words to that effect. I'm not absolutely certain of the wording. But that was the gist of it. And I looked at him. I said, well, see you on the other side, Bill, and we went out the door.	Section 27 notes
Section 28 Q. Now at the board meeting, do you recall there being a public comment section, portion of the meeting? A. Prior to the meeting? There always was. I don't recall it. Q. I'm talking about at the October 18th board meeting, do you recall the public comments section? A. Well, okay, we have on the agenda a section listed for public comment. I don't recall what occurred during that. I had also known that during discussion on agenda items, the public is allowed to join in the discussion. That, I remember very vividly. But I don't recall the public comment section at the beginning. I know we had one. We always did. But I don't recall it. Q. So you recall members of the public speaking up? A. Yes, during the discussion on the intelligent design motion, yes. Q. Approximately how many members of the public spoke up? A. I couldn't tell you. I know for a fact that Bertha Spahr and Jennifer Miller both spoke several times. Q. Were they science teachers at the high school? A. Yes, yes, they were science teachers at the high school.	Section 28 notes
Section 29 Q. Of the people that spoke up, were -- could you say most were in favor or against or could you approximate? A. The ones I recall were against. I can't say -- I really haven't given this a -- this part of it a great he'll deal of thought. I remember the science teachers very vividly because they were making points that I felt needed to be made. I'm not going to say that no one from the public didn't come up and -- I can't remember. Q. Now did any of the board members who supported the proposed change to the biology curriculum explain their reasons for supporting the proposed change at that meeting on October 18th? A. Not to my recollection, no. Q. Do you know if any of the members who supported the proposed change explained their reasons for supporting it at any other meetings? A. Absolutely not. Of that, I'm absolutely certain.	Section 29 notes
Section 30 Q. Who made the motion to introduce to change the biology curriculum? A. Mr. Buckingham. Q. And tell us happened to that motion? A. He made the motion. It was seconded. And Mr. Weinrich immediately proposed to amend the motion. And under parliamentary procedure, the most recent motion must always be voted on first. So we immediately went to voting on Mr. Weinrich's proposal, which was to table Mr. Buckingham's motion for further study. And during that discussion period, I proposed that we form a committee of teachers, administrators, members of the public, and I volunteered to be on the committee, you know, to look into this, because I viewed this as a radical change with long-term ramifications, and I felt we were being way too hasty. We had, in fact, violated about every policy we had on this issue. Q. Tell us happened to that motion to table? A. It was voted down, 6 to 3. Q. Were there any other motions other than the motion that had been made by Mr. Buckingham? A. There were at least a dozen, possibly more than that. Mr. Weinrich proposed one amendment to the motion after another. He began by introducing -- I believe the first he introduced was the teachers' compromise resolution. That was voted down, 6-3. He brought in both the administrations. They were both voted down, 6-3. He proposed motions of his own. But all of his motions, while they essentially said, everything that was in Mr. -- the motion that Mr. Buckingham had read, the critical difference was, and this was true of all the compromises, none of them mentioned the words intelligent design. And Mr. Weinrich, I could tell what he was doing. He was essentially composing their resolution as word-for-word as he could without using those two words. And they were all voted down 6 to 3.	Section 30 notes
Section 31 Q. Did any of the motions introduced that evening ultimately pass? A. Two of them. Q. Explain that. A. I introduced -- at one point, the teachers were arguing -- Mrs. Shaberlig or Mrs. Miller, I can't remember which, were arguing that, by placing mention of intelligent design in the instructional curriculum, which is what they were doing, they felt -- past precedent was, anything in the instructional curriculum, it was reserved strictly for subjects that are to be taught. And their objection to these words was, you're putting it in the instructional curriculum. We feel that this obligates us to teach it. And Mrs. Geesey and, I believe, Mr. Buckingham also both said, that's not what we -- we're not asking you to teach it. But they would not take it out of the instructional curriculum either. So I lifted a phrase from the teachers' resolution, the last -- I forget the rest of the resolution. But the last words were, note: Origins of life will not be taught. And I proposed a motion that these words be lifted from the teachers' and drafted onto Mr. Buckingham's, and that passed. Q. And can you tell us who voted in favor of that and who voted against? A. No, I can't. I only know that it passed. It may very well have been unanimous. I don't know. But it certainly passed. Q. But, I mean, the ultimate resolution to approve Mr. Buckingham's motion? A. The only other resolution that passed was the amended -- it was Mr. Buckingham's resolution plus the note: Origins of life will not be taught. And Mr. Bonsell, Mr. Buckingham, Mrs. Cleaver, Mrs. Geesey, Mrs. Yingling, and Mrs. Harkins all voted for it. And Mr. Weinrich, Mrs. Brown, and myself, voted against it. Q. Now you're referring to the ultimate motion? A. The ultimate motion, yeah. That's the other motion that passed that night.	Section 31 notes
Section 32 Q. Your wife resigned at that meeting? A. That was the very next order of business. She asked for the permission to speak from the chair, and she read her letter of resignation. Q. Did you resign as well? A. The moment she was finished, I also asked for permission to speak from the chair, and I resigned as well. Q. And can you tell us why you resigned? A. Yes. I felt that the board had vastly overstepped any promises it had ever made to the voters of the district. They had never run on this issue. This had never been a campaign issue. I felt that they had violated their own precedent. We had never ever passed anything without going over the possible financial costs in great and excruciating detail on that board. And I'm talking about things as small as selling the right to hang signs on our high school football field. That occasioned about a two and a half hour -- no, it wasn't that long. It seemed like it -- a very long debate over what was a couple hundred dollars. This board watched every nickel like a hawk. And on this one occasion, they did not want to hear any talk about possible costs, because I brought up the possibility, I said, if we are sued, and if we lose, we will have to pay the other side's legal costs. Have you thought about that? And Mr. Buckingham looked at me and said, it's a good thing you weren't around during the American Revolution, Mr. Brown, or we'd still have a queen. And --	Section 32 notes
Section 33 Q. And that was said at the meeting on October the 18th? A. Yes, it was. Q. Following the meeting on October the 18th, did you have a conversation with Mr. Bonsell, this is after the meeting on October 18th, about the curriculum change that actually had been passed? A. Yes. It was, I believe, in November. Q. Where did it take place? A. At one of the -- at one of their meetings. Q. Can you tell us what he said to you on that occasion? A. We got to discussing what had happened, why I had resigned. And he was not very happy with me. And I accepted that. I wasn't real happy either. And he stated to me that, you know, I know -- how did he put that? I know part of this by heart, and then that leads into it -- I know Bill made a lot of stupid statements, he said, but I thought you were on board with us. MR. HARVEY: No further questions.	Section 33 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Cross of Jeff Brown

Section 34 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Cross examination, Mr. Gillen. MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Brown. A. Good afternoon. Q. Mr. Brown, Pat Gillen. I took your deposition. I'm an attorney for the Defendants. I'm going to ask you a few questions about your testimony here today, if I can get organized? A. Do I have to wait? I guess I do. THE COURT: Sadly for you, you do. BY MR. GILLEN: Q. I believe at the beginning of your testimony, you recounted a conversation that you had with Mr. -- or you had with Mr. Bonsell when he was running with your wife for office, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And your recollection is that this conversation took place, and he expressed an interest in getting the Bible in school and teaching creationism, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And your wife ran with them nonetheless, correct? A. Yes.	Section 34 notes
Section 35 Q. Your wife has testified to an October or November 2003 board meeting which had to do with the pledge. Do you recall that meeting? A. Yes. Q. I don't want to be unfair to you here, but there was -- the issue at hand that produced -- there was an issue at hand that produced some public controversy, correct? A. Are you talking about the pledge? Yes, a great deal of public controversy. Q. That issue was whether or not the board should pass the resolution in favor of keeping the phrase under God in the pledge, correct? A. I wouldn't use the word resolution. What they wanted to pass -- they wanted to draft a letter of support to send to the Supreme Court, which was at that time considering hearing a challenge to it. I don't know if I'd call it a resolution or not. But that was the gist of it. They were going to draft a letter of support for leaving the pledge as it is now and send it to the Supreme Court. Q. Now you took a position in public against that, however you'd like to phrase it, resolution or -- A. You can call it a resolution. That's fine with me. I don't care. Q. Let's do that, because I believe it was a resolution to send the letter? A. You're the lawyer, not me. I'm not going to argue with you.	Section 35 notes
Section 36 Q. And you voted against that, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. To be technically, I abstained. I did not vote against it. I abstained. Q. The reason you abstained is, as you testified in your deposition, because you felt you had a message from on high that you shouldn't support that resolution, correct? A. Yes, that's the way I would put it, yes. Q. So in that particular occasion, you took a position on a matter that the board was addressing because you thought you had a message from on high? A. I woke up the Sunday before that vote with the phrase, one nation under Allah, in my head and I couldn't get rid of it. I could not get rid of it. And I had to teach a Sunday School lesson that day, which is not the best way to go into teaching a Sunday school lesson. And it was that afternoon I came to the conclusion that, you know, because I always told my Sunday School class, when in doubt, go with the Golden Rule. I was like, oh, one nation under Allah. I would not want to have to stand up there and say, one nation under Allah. So maybe somebody else does not want to have to stand up there and say, one nation under God. And under the Golden Rule, I felt compelled to say, I can't support this. I'm opting out.	Section 36 notes
Section 37 Q. And as you understand the Golden Rule, that's a religious teaching of Jesus Christ, correct? A. It is, yes. Q. Now on that resolution, Sheila Harkins also abstained with you, correct? A. Yes, she did. Q. There's been some testimony about the input from the public, and I think that you've testified in your deposition that you found Barrie Callahan irritating, is that correct? A. I did make that statement, yes. Q. And you said that, at times in her appearance to the board, she was politically motivated? A. That was my opinion, yes.	Section 37 notes
Section 38 Q. There's been testimony today about some comments made by an individual named Max Pell at a board meeting touching on the selection of the Biology text. Did you testify on that today? A. Testify? You mean comment? Q. Concerning that exchange? A. At the very end of the conversation, I felt that Max Pell had been kind of ganged up on. As I said, Noel Weinrich, Alan Bonsell, and Bill Buckingham were literally taking turns arguing with him. And what I stated -- at the end of the discussion, I leaned into the mic and said, of course, the full board will take a vote on this Biology textbook. And I just -- I felt sorry for the guy. But also, I was stating a fact, you know. Mr. Buckingham would not make the decision himself whether we bought the book or not. It would be the full board that would do it. So I stated that as sort of -- because I felt sorry for Mr. Pell, that's why. Q. And what you were trying to convey to Mr. Pell is that the committee chairman might recommend a course of action, but it's the board that has to approve the final course of action, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you testified that you suggested intelligent design at one point, correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And at the time you did that, you thought you were on safe legal ground, correct? A. Yes.	Section 38 notes
Section 39 Q. You've also testified that you believe Alan Bonsell was skeptical about some of the claims made for evolutionary theory? A. Skeptical, yeah, that's a good word. Q. But you said that you saw his objections as reasonable objections concerning things such as gaps in the fossil record, etc.? A. Yes. From the reasonable, from the standpoint, they did not cross the line into endorsing the -- the truth of the matter is, I had forgotten, when I gave my deposition, I had forgotten some of the statements that Alan made. I better get -- I'm going to have to clear that up now. After my deposition -- well, as you know from -- you conducted that deposition. There were a number of subjects where I was very vague and very fuzzy, and that has continued -- I'll tell you, my greatest fear is, I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning, assuming we get done today, and realize I forgot something else important. And I'm not kidding. I've been feeling that way for weeks. I had literally forgotten Alan's endorsement of creationism when I gave my deposition. It was not until I saw that document the other week, the one that was referred to earlier. And I was like, and my initial reaction was, would Alan say that? And then I started to think. It was like, wait a minute. And then I remembered that, you know, the 50/50, the half and half, creationism, evolution, and it came back to me. So I would have to stand here and tell you, yes, my deposition that I gave you was partial. It was not complete. It was not full. I did not recall that when I gave that to you.	Section 39 notes
Section 40 Q. And that's fair enough, Mr. Brown. I took your deposition on May 17th, 2005, correct? A. I'm taking your word for the date. Q. And let me -- I can represent that to you. If you want, I'll -- A. That's quite all right. I'm willing to take your word for it. Q. Okay. And at that time, you didn't remember those comments on the part of Mr. Bonsell, correct? A. That's correct. Q. In fact, in your deposition, you testified that you had no reason to believe that Mr. Bonsell's support for intelligent design theory was based on anything other than the fact that he saw it as two scientific theories, correct? Do you recall that? A. No, I don't recall saying. I'm not going to say, I didn't, but I don't recall it. Q. Well, as you sit here today, do you believe that Mr. Bonsell's support for intelligent design theory was because he basically believed they were two scientific theories? I mean, you supported intelligent design? A. Well, until I learned a little bit more about it, I did, yes. I can't -- I cannot state for a fact one way or the other. I will say this. I know Alan did not believe in evolution. What his opinions on intelligent design are, I do not know. I don't. I have no idea why he supports intelligent design. I don't know.	Section 40 notes
Section 41 Q. Okay. Now we have had testimony about the purchase of Of Pandas and People, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you testified to the manner in which Mr. Buckingham tried to tie together the purchase of the Biology text recommended by the science faculty, Miller and Levine Biology, with the purchase of Of Pandas and People, correct? A. Yes. Q. But Mr. Bonsell was against that use of taxpayers' money, is that correct? A. Yes, he was. Q. And on August 2nd, 2004, when Bill Buckingham tried to link purchase of the Biology text to purchase of the text Of Pandas, Mr. Bonsell did not capitulate to Mr. Buckingham's demand, is that correct? A. That is correct.	Section 41 notes
Section 42 Q. And you testified that, although Alan Bonsell might have had some interest in creationism, he wouldn't violate the law. He's not a bomb thrower. Is that correct? A. I testified that that was my opinion of Mr. Bonsell. And I would certainly hope that I am correct in my opinion. Q. You remember, you said that Sheila Harkins discussed the book Of Pandas and People with you? A. Yes. Q. And she expressed the notion that it would be good to teach another theory of evolution to you? A. I don't remember testifying to that. She may have said that. I'm not sure. I know she -- I remember her saying, read the book, read the book, and we should buy the book. But I'm not positive that she said it -- she may have. I don't remember at this point in time. Q. I understand. MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What page do you want me to look on? BY MR. GILLEN: Q. I'll get you there. A. I have a feeling I'm about to make a liar of myself. Q. That's not true. You said you weren't quite sure. Page 123. A. Okay, 123. She wants to buy a book we don't need. She has been fighting --	Section 42 notes
Section 43 Q. Hold on there, Mr. Brown, if you would, please. A. You're going to read it for me. Good. Go ahead. THE COURT: Mr. Brown, hang on. He'll get a question on the floor. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Better not to anticipate what Mr. Gillen is going to do. He'll guide you through this. BY MR. GILLEN: Q. First thing I'd ask you to do, Mr. Brown, is look at line 22 there. There's a question on line 20. That will give you some context. A. But doggone it. What was the thing she wanted to do that caused me to tell her we will get sued? Okay. That's not very helpful. What was the thing she wanted to do that caused me to tell -- can we go to the next page? Q. You can indeed. My question to you is, Mrs. Harkins told you that she thought the book of Pandas was useful because it presented another theory of evolution, is that correct, Mr. Brown? A. I -- okay. Reading this, I do remember that she said she wanted to purchase it as a supplemental text. That has come back to me, yes. My memory is not the world's best. Q. If you look at page 123, line 7? A. You're going to do this to me again. Line 7. Okay. Apparently, I remembered it then. She said it presented another theory of evolution. Fine. There it is. I said it. I must have remembered it then. And again, this is how memories work. Sometimes they need jogging. I'm sorry.	Section 43 notes
Section 44 Q. Understood. But your testimony that day was truthful and accurate, to the best of your knowledge? A. Yes. It is today, too. It may not seem that way, but it is. Q. And during this conversation, you told Mrs. Harkins that you believed that Mr. Buckingham's comments had poisoned the well, so to speak, is that correct? A. Yes, I did use the phrase poisoned. Q. Mrs. Harkins told you, Bill isn't the whole board? A. Yes, she did say that. Q. In that way, she echoed the same sentiments you expressed to Mr. Pell in 2004 when the Biology text was discussed, is that correct? A. I guess you could put it that way, yes. Q. Now subsequently, Dr. Nilsen told the board that the teachers had agreed to use the -- to have the book placed in the classroom as a reference text, is that correct, Mr. Brown? A. Yes, that was -- in fact, it was carried in the local papers when they made that statement.	Section 44 notes
Section 45 Q. And at the time, it was regarded as a reasonable resolution of -- A. We got accolades from both papers for having reached a compromise acceptable to all sides, yes. Q. Now there's been testimony concerning the October 18th, 2004, board meeting at which the board adopted the curriculum at issue in this litigation. And I want to ask you, do you recall, as you sit here today, Mr. Bonsell calling you prior to that meeting? A. Okay. Mr. Bonsell -- all right. I don't recall Mr. Bonsell calling. I remember my wife telling me that Mr. Bonsell had called and wanted me to call him back. And I remember thinking -- well, I asked her why. And one of the things she brought up was, well, Alan asked whether you supported voting for Sheila Harkins for president or voting for him for a second consecutive term as president. I was like, I do not want to get into this. And also, I had been over to his house not too long ago -- not too long prior to that to look at an electrical job that he had coming up, and that was also an issue. There were a couple of issues. Nothing was, you know, I don't recall that there was anything in there that would really be pertinent to this issue, but then I didn't recall Sheila saying that it presented another theory of evolution, did I? So I don't know how good my memory is. But these are the things I'm remembering as I say this. I remember it was about the upcoming election for board president when I did not want to get into it. It was about an electrical job. And at this point, Casey and I were both seriously considering resigning the board, and I thought, if I'm quitting the board, I do not want to be in Alan's house. That would just be too creepy for me. I couldn't deal with it. At any rate, I did not call him back, no. Q. You didn't call him back, correct? A. I did not call him back. Q. So you don't really know why he called you, do you? A. Other than what my wife told me, no.	Section 45 notes
Section 46 Q. Now you said that during the discussion at the October 18th, 2004, board meeting, the teachers took the position that they did not teach origins of life, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you've testified that there was a question posed by the teachers concerning whether the change to the curriculum would require them to teach origins of life, correct? A. They didn't pose it as a question. They flat out stated that it was their opinion that, by placing it in the instructional curriculum, they were -- I believe they used the word compelled -- compelled to teach it. Q. And Mr. Bonsell said, we are not going to require you to teach it, correct? A. I don't remember -- I can't say he didn't. I remember Heather Geesey definitely, and I believe Mr. Buckingham. I don't recall Alan saying it, but he may have. I don't remember. Q. You remember Mr. Buckingham saying, we're not going to require you to teach it, correct? A. I'm pretty certain he did, yes. I'm absolutely certain of Mrs. Geesey. She said it more than once. Q. And your testimony here today is that you moved the note onto the board curriculum version for the purpose of ensuring that the teachers would not be required to teach origins of life? A. Yes.	Section 46 notes
Section 47 Q. And when you did that, it was your understanding that intelligent design addressess the origins of life? A. I would have to say that intelligent design doesn't really address much but the origins of life. That's my understanding of it. Q. And so your purpose was, by appending the note, as you recall, to the curriculum, your goal was to ensure that, on the one hand, it was referenced in the curriculum, and on the other hand, teachers would not be required to teach it, is that correct? A. I wasn't absolutely certain it would -- the truth of the matter is, the board can always change their motion. But my intention at the time was to put that up as a firewall in case it ever came up in the future, that you would have that safeguard, because quite frankly, I didn't -- by that point in time, I did not take Mr. Buckingham's word for anything anymore. Q. So in so doing, Mr. Brown, the net result was to ensure that students would be made aware of intelligent design, but it would not be taught, is that correct? That was your goal? A. No, that was not my goal. My goal was that we drop the subject completely. This was what I viewed at the time as at least something to prevent it being taught. I would not say my goal was to make them aware of it. At that point, I didn't want anything to do with it. My goal would have been for the -- to convince a couple of board members, or even one to be exact, to vote against the motion altogether. That would have been my real goal. Q. One of the objections you had is that you thought the curriculum change would complicate contract negotiations with the teachers? A. Yes. As a school board member, I viewed the teachers' contract as vastly more important than what we said in biology class. All politics is local.	Section 47 notes
Section 48 Q. I wanted to take an opportunity to show you something, Mr. Brown. Just if you would -- may I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. GILLEN: Q. I misspoke, Mr. Brown. 64, please. A. I was going to say, this is after I was off the board. This isn't going to be much help. Q. It's not going to be that easy. I'm sorry, Your Honor, this is not more high tech, but this is Defendant's Exhibit 65 -- 64. A. Okay. This would be the agenda for that night. What specifically, because this is basically what came in our board packet that night? Q. Good question, Mr. Brown. If you page through Exhibit 64, you'll see in the lower right-hand corner, page stamp numbers. I'd ask you to turn to the page of Exhibit 64 that has the number 159 stamped in the lower right-hand corner. A. My goodness. Either I remembered -- okay. I stand corrected. I thought I had made that motion. I had suggested it. And I honestly thought that I had, you know, that I had made the motion. It says here, Mr. Bonsell offered the amendment. I seconded it. Q. That's what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Brown. Not taking anything away from you. A. I remember making -- suggesting that we could do that, and it just followed in my mind that I had actually made the motion. I'm sorry. I'm trying to take it away from Alan here. Sorry.	Section 48 notes
Section 49 Q. For the record, we're referring to that portion of Exhibit 64, page stamped 159, with the number 6, correct, Mr. Brown? A. Yes. Q. It's the heading 6, and it says, Mr. Bonsell offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Brown to add the note from Exhibit X1C as follows, the origin of life is not taught to Exhibit X1A planned instruction curriculum guide, correct? A. Yes. Q. And if you look down that page, Mr. Brown, I believe it will indicate that that motion passed unanimously? A. Okay. Yeah. Q. Do you see that? A. Yeah. Q. Am I correct? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. A. I am sorry. I've been hogging credit for introducing that motion. I honestly thought I had because I had proposed that we do that when they kept saying, we don't want to talk -- but the actual motion, no, it wasn't mine.	Section 49 notes
Section 50 Q. So on the actual night of the curriculum change when it was being contemplated by the board, you suggested a change that was designed to ensure the teachers' concerns were laid and the attendum to the curriculum would ensure that they didn't have to change origins of life? A. Right. Q. Intelligent design, correct? A. I did not state this. This is only what I was thinking when I proposed it. I'm not going to say Alan was thinking the same way I was. I have no idea. But Alan did indeed propose it, and I seconded it, and there it is. And that is my mistake. I am sorry. Q. That's quite all right. There's nothing to be sorry for. No further questions, Your Honor.	Section 50 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Redirect of Jeff Brown

Section 51 MR. HARVEY: Just a couple questions, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mr. Brown, please take a moment to look at what is in your notebook and marked as P-21? A. This same book? MR. HARVEY: Can I help him, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. You may approach. THE WITNESS: Oh, please. I need all I can get. All right. This book? I got more material up here -- yes. All right. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Is this the document that you looked at that refreshed your recollection -- A. Yes. Q. -- about what Mr. Bonsell said at the board retreat on January the 9th of 2002? A. Yes. Q. And did you see this document that's been marked as P-21 at your deposition that Mr. Gillen took in this case? A. No. No, I did not. Q. Were you aware that it had not even been produced by the Defendants in this case at that time? A. No, I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. Q. Please turn to the next document in here, P-25. A. Yes. Q. Is this the document that you looked at that refreshed your recollection about what Mr. Bonsell said on March the 26th of 2003, at the board retreat? A. Yes. Q. Were you -- did you see this document at your deposition that Mr. Gillen conducted in May of this year? A. No. Q. Were you aware that it wasn't even produced by the Defendants as of that date? A. Well, I'm aware that it wasn't -- well, it certainly wasn't produced to me. Q. And one final question. I forgot to ask you, what you do for a living? You made a reference to doing an electrical job. So is it safe to conclude you're an electrician? A. I like to think so. I haven't burned any houses down yet. MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Are you sure? MR. GILLEN: Mr. Brown, I find a very interesting character, but I will not question him further today. THE COURT: Mr. Brown, contrary to your worst fears, that ends your testimony, and you may step down. There is an end.

Section 51 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Discussion of exhibits

Exhibits Section THE COURT: We have for Mr. Brown one exhibit that was referred to that I'm aware of. That would be by Mr. Gillen on cross examination. That is D-64, which would be the school board minutes of October 18, '04, and specifically, page 159 within D-64. MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I move the admission of the entire document. I believe we stipulated to it, didn't we, Eric? MR ROTHSCHILD: I believe that's right. THE COURT: D-64 then is admitted in its entirely. And we will take the Plaintiffs' next witness.

Exhibits Section notes

← Previous page

Next page →