C United States District Court. CR NO. District Court for the District v. April 8, Pursuant to adjournment as aforesaid, at o'clock, a. Does the Government have any? We have decided we would not subpoena Clarence Kelly. Therefore, I notify the Government accordingly. We do have some information I would like to communicate to the Court concerning witnesses for whom we have asked subpoenas, but for whom we do not need them.
I don't know that we need necessarily to take the time of Government counsel and the jury to do that. We would like an opportunity sometime today, when it is convenient to the Court, to report to the Court on that subject as a continuation, so to speak, of yesterday's o'clock conference with counsel. We believe that we are entitled to take that up with the Court on an ex parte basis and make application at this time to do so when we report to the Court on the subject of subpoenas generally.
I would delineate the scope of that by saying that we seek the Court's assistance in finding the witness, and in that regard we think it essentially constitutes an investigative effort of the defense.
We think we are entitled to make our application on that limited subject on an ex parte basis. I would ask whether the Government is aware of his presence and whether or not he produced the object which was subpoenaed. If they have no knowledge, we will make other inquiry.
I am wonder whether the Government thinks that it has done so, and the reason I am speaking with some uncertainty is that certain papers were exchanged about two weeks ago, and because of other pressures those papers have not been reviewed by me; and so I am sort of calling upon the Government to help me as to whether that was their response in that particular regard. The only other thing I have, your Honor, is in relation to a letter, a copy of which was handed to me within the last 10 minutes.
