Doyle RUD Trial Transcript vol 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KAREN D. DESHETLER, CSR281-723-9090

1

REPORTER'S RECORDCASE NO. 09-14-00458-CR & 09-14-00461-CRCAUSE NO. 12-03-02583-CR & 12-03-0258545

VOLUME 5 OF 11 VOLUMES

THE STATE OF TEXAS

VS.

SYBIL DOYLE AND ROBERTAMARGARET COOK

))))))))))))

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS

359TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JURY TRIALApril 1, 2014

On April 1st, 2014, the following proceedings

came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause

before the Honorable John Stevens, Judge Presiding, 359th

District Court, held in Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas.

Proceedings reported by machine shorthand and

computer-aided transcription.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


2

APPEARANCES

FOR THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL:

Mr. David GlicklerAssistant Attorney GeneralATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXASP.O. Box 12548Austin, Texas 78711-2548Tel: (512) 463-3088Fax: (512) [email protected]: 00787549

Mr. Jonathan WhiteAssistant Attorney GeneralATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXASP.O. Box 12548Austin, Texas 78711-2548Tel: (512) 463-3088Fax: (512) [email protected]: 24054475

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Mr. Jarrod WalkerLAW OFFICES OF JARROD WALKER300 W. Davis StreetConroe, Texas 77301Tel: (936) 539-3335Fax: (936) [email protected]: 00788601

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEXPAGE

By the Court............................................. 6

FOR THE STATE:

STILLWELL, JAMES

Direct by Mr. White......................... 6Voir Dire by Mr. Walker..................... 27Direct by Mr. White (Continued)............. 28Voir Dire by Mr. Walker..................... 35Direct by Mr. White (Continued)............. 36Cross by Mr. Walker......................... 65Redirect by Mr. White....................... 99Recross by Mr. Walker....................... 111

McDUFFEE, RICHARD

Direct by Mr. White......................... 113Voir Dire by Mr. Walker..................... 127Direct by Mr. Walker (Continued)............ 128Cross by Mr. Walker......................... 139Redirect by Mr. White....................... 171Recross by Mr. Walker....................... 175

State rests............................................ 176

Motion for Directed Verdict by Defense................. 176

Court's Ruling on Motion for Directed Verdict.......... 177

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

GOEDDERTZ, PETER

Direct by Mr. Walker........................ 177Cross by Mr. Glickler....................... 189Redirect by Mr. Walker...................... 206Recross by Mr. Glickler..................... 207

GRANT, PHIL

Direct by Mr. Walker........................ 209Cross by Mr. White.......................... 223Redirect by Mr. Walker...................... 229Recross by Mr. White........................ 231Further Redirect by Mr. Walker.............. 232

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

ALPHABETICAL INDEXPAGE

GOEDDERTZ, PETER

Direct by Mr. Walker........................ 177Cross by Mr. Glickler....................... 189Redirect by Mr. Walker...................... 206Recross by Mr. Glickler..................... 207

GRANT, PHIL

Direct by Mr. Walker........................ 209Cross by Mr. White.......................... 223Redirect by Mr. Walker...................... 229Recross by Mr. White........................ 231Further Redirect by Mr. Walker.............. 232

McDUFFEE, RICHARD

Direct by Mr. White......................... 113Voir Dire by Mr. Walker..................... 127Direct by Mr. Walker (Continued)............ 128Cross by Mr. Walker......................... 139Redirect by Mr. White....................... 171Recross by Mr. Walker....................... 175

STILLWELL, JAMES

Direct by Mr. White......................... 6Voir Dire by Mr. Walker..................... 27Direct by Mr. White (Continued)............. 28Voir Dire by Mr. Walker..................... 35Direct by Mr. White (Continued)............. 36Cross by Mr. Walker......................... 65Redirect by Mr. White....................... 99Recross by Mr. Walker....................... 111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5

EXHIBIT INDEX

OFF ADM

FOR THE DEFENSE:

SX-7 Cert. Mont. Cty. Elec. Recds Voter Reg... 26 28SX-8 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/Doyle........ 35 36SX-9 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/Cook......... 35 36SX-10 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/Curry........ 39 39SX-11 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/Berntsen..... 39 39SX-12 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/Goeddertz.... 39 39SX-13 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/McDuffee..... 39 39SX-14 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds and Voluntary

Homestead Designation/Adrian Heath....... 39 39SX-15 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds and Voluntary

Homestead Designation/James Jenkins...... 39 39SX-16 Cert. Mont. Cty. Deed Recds/Allison...... 39 39SX-17 Aerial map of Mont. Cty. WRUD borders.... 42 42SX-17A Aerial map blow-up....................... N/O N/ASX-18 Cert. Mont. Cty. Appraisal District

Homestead Exemptions..................... 59 59SX-20 Photos of 16728 Bending Oak, Conroe, Tx.. 49 49SX-21 Photos of 607 Sycamore, Conroe, Tx....... 49 49SX-22 Photos of 13238 Stonecrest, Conroe, Tx... 58 58SX-23 Photos of 32 N. Rainforest, The Woodlands

Tx/William Berntsen...................... 58 58SX-24 Photos of 15910 Hartman Rd. Magnolia, Tx/

Peter Goeddertz.......................... 58 58SX-25 Photos of 27907 Hanson Ct. Spring, Tx/

Richard McDuffee......................... 58 58SX-26 Photos of 43 W. Stony Bridge Ct. Spring,

Tx/Adrian Heath.......................... 58 58SX-27 Photos of 16 Pastoral Pond, The Woodlands

Tx/James Jenkins......................... 58 58SX-28 Photos of 14993 Boyd Ln, Conroe, Tx/

Benjamin and Robert Allison.............. 58 58SX-29 Photos of 2630 N. Crescent Dr., Spring,

Tx/Laukien............................... 102 102SX-33 Photos of WRUD Civil Suit Intervenors.... 127 128SX-39 Cert. DPS Records, August 12, 2011....... 63 63SX-40 Cert. DPS Records........................ 63 63SX-49 Cert. TDofT-Mont. Cty. Vehicle Reg. Recds 63 63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6

THE COURT: All right. We recall 12-03-2583 and

2585, State of Texas versus Sybil Doyle and Roberta Cook, who

are present with their attorney and the State's attorney.

We ready to proceed?

MR. WHITE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Bring the jury in

please.

(At this time the jury enters the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Thank you. I believe we are ready to proceed

and when we recessed yesterday, Mr. Stilwell was testifying and

being examined by the State. And the State of Texas may

proceed.

MR. WHITE: Thank you, Your Honor. And we would

had offered State's 6 and it was admitted I think the record

will reflect.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(State's Exhibit 6 admitted.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)

BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Mr. Stilwell, before we dive into State's Exhibit 6,

I just wanted to go back to what we were speaking about

yesterday. We had spoken about the business and economic

growth that the RUD had helped bring to that area of The

Woodlands. Is that correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7

A. Correct.

Q. We had spoken about the free use of the roads to the

residents and the fact that the residents aren't taxed for the

use of those roads. Is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. I want to talk a little bit about what type of tax it

actually is on those business properties because we didn't get

into that specific detail. Can you explain that to us?

A. Sure. As I was talking about the road utility

district and describing it, I mentioned that there was a

substantial amount of commercial property that's located inside

the district. The tax that is on -- instituted by the road

utility district is a real property tax, sometimes referred to

as an ad valorem tax, but if you think of it as a property tax

that's based on the value of the property.

Q. And are those the type of taxes that a homeowner in

that context would see, perhaps, on their -- I guess their

taxes at the end of the year from the tax assessor collector?

MR. WALKER: I'm going to object to relevance,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. For instance, the county assesses on residences a

county tax. The school assesses on residences a school tax.

The township in The Woodlands assesses a property tax on

residences, as well. The road utility district does not. Only

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8

on those commercial properties inside its bounds.

Q. Okay. And what is the tax base that is being taxed

by the RUD?

A. Well, that changes all the time as new businesses

come into place and as businesses are being valued differently;

but at about the time that this election took place, there was

more than 1.5 billion with a B, $1.5 billion in the road

utility district tax base.

Q. And the Defendants who are in the room with us today

are or are not taxed by the RUD?

A. They are not.

Q. Are the cost of these roads somehow passed down to

the consumers and people that shop in the area of The

Woodlands?

A. Well, it's not a sales tax. So when you purchase an

item, you don't pay a tax on the bottom of your receipt because

it's not a sales tax. I'm very familiar with different stores

inside the road utility district, shopped both at locations

inside and outside of the district. And the best way I can

answer is with an example. I like Starbucks coffee. I know a

lot of people like Starbucks coffee. There are approximately

five Starbucks locations that are inside the road utility

district. But by way of example, at the corner of 1488 and

2978, there is a Starbucks that is not inside the bounds of the

road utility district and the price for a cup of coffee, a tall

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9

cup of coffee, by way of example, at the five locations inside

the district and the location that I'm describing that is just

outside the district is the exact same. Now, the ones inside

The Woodlands township, there's actually a 1 cent more sales

tax that the township imposes. But otherwise, the price is the

exact same inside and outside the district.

MR. WALKER: I'm going to object to

nonresponsive, the narrative, and relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. But please ask your next

question.

Q. (By Mr. White) And is that consistent with other

stores inside and outside the RUD that are located relatively

closely together otherwise?

A. That's true. Similar for Whataburger, for Target,

other stores that have locations inside and outside.

Q. And you mentioned earlier that your practice is

inside the road utility district. In terms of professional

services in your practice, are you having to charge higher

prices because you operate inside the RUD?

A. My office is inside the RUD and, no, I do not charge

higher prices because of that.

Q. Okay. I want to talk in just a tiny bit more detail

about the elections and whether they're held and not held and

what that is all about.

So if there are candidates that are opposing the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10

incumbent directors, is there an election?

A. Yes.

Q. If there are not candidates that apply to oppose the

incumbents, as was done in the 2010 election by three of this

group, is there an election?

A. If there is no opposed race, there is no need for an

election under state law, so there is not an election under

state law.

Q. And why is that?

A. Well, elections cost money. That is they cost, you

know, time and effort and you pay poll workers to run the

polls. So if there is not an opposed candidate, then state law

presumes that the only existing candidate gets at least one

vote necessary to win the election. And so there is not a

necessity to have the election.

Q. Okay. Now, in terms of this board, which serves a

commercial district and not residents, besides the fact that

there are elections where someone can apply to be a candidate,

are there other accountability measures that make this board

and this RUD accountable to the public for its services?

A. Yes, there are.

Q. And could you name one of those for me?

A. Example of one would be open records. I can give you

more examples.

Q. What is open records?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11

A. Well, under state law, any governmental entity's

records are open to the public, that is, if you wanted to see a

record of the district, you would make a request to see a

record and the governmental entity has to provide you that

record for you to look at.

Q. So, if a person was concerned about the operations of

a RUD before doing something like registering at a hotel to

vote in an election, would they have been able to get those

records and look at the financial records of the RUD to see

what was going on?

A. If they made an open records request, they would be

provided the records the same way that I made open records

request and I was provided the records.

Q. We mentioned just in passing yesterday that the RUD

is independently audited?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Are those audits available as part of open records

requests?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And what is an independent financial audit?

A. Because the road utility district is a governmental

entity that issues bonds, we talked about issuing those bonds

to build and construct roads, they have to maintain certain

financial requirements. And so each year, the road utility

district has an independent CPA or accounting firm perform a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12

review of its books and records and financial practices and to

make sure that they are following the proper accounting

practices, that they are maintaining the records in the right

way, and that they're properly expending the money for the

purposes for which the bonds were approved for. So it is an

independent report of an accounting firm to insure that all of

the practices follow accepted standards.

MR. WHITE: If I might approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. White) I'm going to show you what's been

marked as State's Exhibit 36. Is this, in fact, a certified

copy of one of those audits?

A. Yes. This is the 2009 audit.

Q. And would that have been available for someone who

was inquiring into the RUD or potentially inquiring in 2010 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- at the time of this election?

A. It looks like it was issued December 9, 2009. So,

yes, it would have been available in 2010.

Q. And what was the opinion of the independent auditor

in terms of whether or not the RUD passed muster?

MR. WALKER: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WHITE: At this time, Your Honor, the State

will offer a certified copy of the independent audit of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


13

road utility district for 2009.

THE COURT: And you're talking about -- you're

referring to State's Exhibit 36?


THE COURT: All right.

MR. WALKER: The objection is the same, Your

Honor, hearsay.

(Bench conference.)

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Mr. Walker, on

behalf of the Defense, has objected to State's Exhibit 36 as

being hearsay.

MR. WALKER: For the purposes of the record, I

need to add to that objection and say relevance, as well.

THE COURT: Okay. And your response to this?

I'm looking under Rule 902, self-authenticating intrinsic --

extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition to

admissibility is not required with respect to the following --

and then No. 2, domestic public documents not under seal. And

it seems like that would fit. Is that what your position is?

MR. WHITE: Yeah. I think I was presenting this

as a public document that is under seal and this is a copy of

that.

THE COURT: Well, you're saying that's the seal?

MR. WHITE: That's the seal.

THE COURT: Well, I think that would be under 1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14

But I think No. 2 -- I don't know if that's really much of a

seal. It's an impression of something that appears like a

seal. But it certainly Mr. Neill, as chairman of the Board of

Directors, certifying this is his signature seems to fit the

elements of Subpart 2 under Rule 902 for self-authentication.

And I would overrule the objection for hearsay.

However, he also makes the objection for

relevance. Can you proffer into the record what the

relevance -- how this is relevant to proving one of the

elements in the case?

MR. WHITE: Sure. I think this document is

certainly relevant as to motive of this group of folks who

voted to take over this road utility district.

THE COURT: That's -- anything else?

MR. WHITE: I do have something else, but I'm

not doing it right now. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. It

will be admitted.

MR. GLICKLER: Your Honor, just for record

purposes, I would -- I just want to say that the State's

position is that is a domestic public document under seal

because the seal of a political subdivision of The Woodlands

Road Utility District is a political department or agency and

under Rule 1005 for public records allows us to produce a copy.

So although this isn't a raised, shiny seal that we might

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15

sometimes see, it's a copy of one. This is our third trial of

we don't know how many, so obviously we're not going to have an

original every single time.

THE COURT: I just think that that's --

MR. GLICKLER: That's what the State's position

is.

THE COURT: All right. As far as -- under 1001

and 1002 and 1003, admissibility of duplicates, a duplicate is

admissible to the same extent as an original unless there is a

question raised as to its authenticity or in circumstances it

would be unfair to admit duplicate to prove the contents of a

writing, the original is required except as otherwise provided

by these rules. A duplicate is a counterpart produced by the

same impression as the original, et cetera. It has a

definition.

The point of the matter is who's to say that's a

duplicate of it. Nobody is swearing that that's -- I know what

an original seal is; but a duplicate seal, I think if you're

going to go under that field for a duplicate, you're going to

have to have something that shows that it is a true and

accurate duplicate. I mean, it purports to be some kind of an

impression of a seal, but is that all that important. Isn't it

still admissible under --

MR. GLICKLER: Understood. Understood.

THE COURT: I think if you're going to use a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16

duplicate, I think a duplicate has to have something stating,

purporting under oath that it as duplicate. Otherwise, any

purported duplicate is enough. And I think you have to still

meet the definition under Rules of Evidence of what a duplicate

is.

MR. GLICKLER: Okay.

THE COURT: Somebody has to say -- in his

authentication, he doesn't say anything about that seal.

MR. WHITE: I'm curious because I think I have a

different understanding of seals. Can it not be a stamped

seal?

THE COURT: I think it probably could be, but

somebody has to -- I still think something has to refer to the

seal as being an authentic representation. It would be like

carrying a badge and saying I'm junior patrolman, I'm a law

enforcement official. Who's to say that is. It may purport

to -- appear to be.

MR. WHITE: I just wanted to --

THE COURT: The point is if there is another

method of getting it that fits the Rules of Evidence and you're

safe in that way, but it's something to discuss over -- after

5:00.

MR. WHITE: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Bench conference concludes.)

THE COURT: All right. The objections are

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17

overruled. State's Exhibit 36 is admitted.


THE COURT: Thank you for bearing with us,

Ladies and Gentlemen. Sometimes we have to discuss things for

admissibility and it has to be put on the record. It's not

like -- I'm sorry. We're not talking about you. It's just

something has to be placed in the record outside the hearing of

the jury. Thank you for bearing with us.

Go ahead.


Q. (By Mr. White) Mr. Stilwell, we'll move along; but

the basic point that I'm trying to get at is, did the RUD pass

this audit?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. And have they, in fact, passed all of their audits in

the last -- let me ask you this. What timeframe are you aware

of the audits of the road utility district?

A. I'm generally familiar with their audits from the

year 2000 forward and they have passed all of them.

MR. WALKER: Judge, I'm going object to, one,

relevance. In addition to that, hearsay. And for the sake of

keeping me from being a pop gun here, if I could have a running

objection based on relevance and hearsay to any information

regarding the audits of the RUD.

THE COURT: I'm not going to allow that, because

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18

if -- we're going to allow him to testify from admitted audits.

But you need to raise your objection each time if there are

items that haven't been admitted into evidence. And as far as

that is concerned, referring to items that haven't been

admitted, unless this man was the personal author of those

audits, then the objection is sustained.

Q. (By Mr. White) Along this theme of accountability,

Mr. Stilwell, do property owners agree to be part of the RUD

when they purchase property in the RUD?

A. Well, there are 2 different ways that a property

owner can be a part of the RUD. One is that they can a acquire

property that is already part of the RUD, in which case, as a

part of that purchase as I mentioned yesterday, there's a

disclosure form that the property that they're purchasing is

inside the road utility district. So that's one method.

And the other method is they can ask to be

included within the bounds of the RUD. And the map that we

showed you yesterday identified two what were called

"annexation parcels," where the property owners had asked to be

included inside the bounds of the road utility district.

Q. And would there be any remedies for property owners

if they were not happy with the RUD and its operation in terms

of promoting business and economy or the use of funds? Is

there a remedy available to property owners?

A. There are multiple remedies.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19

Q. And in this case, are the property owners the

taxpayer?

A. In this case, the commercial property owners are the

taxpayer and the commercial property owners have remedies if

they are not happy with the way that the RUD -- road utility

district operates.

Q. And what remedies would be available to the taxpayer

in this case?

A. Generally just like any other governmental entity, if

you're not satisfied with something, you talk to your

representative. There are five directors that are on the Board

of Directors and if it were me and my office is in the road

utility district, my first stop would be to talk to one of the

five directors about the operations and to try to see if they

might change something. I mean, that's Step 1.

Q. Would there be any civil legal remedies?

A. Certainly if the road utility district was not

operating in accord with their governmental requirements and if

they weren't financially handling things properly, a property

owner in the district, a commercial property owner could bring

a civil lawsuit.

Q. And would there, perhaps, be criminal remedies if

there were some sort of wrongdoing?

A. Certainly. If there is mishandling of governmental

funds, mishandling of governmental funds can qualify under a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20

number of different penal code provisions. So if they were

doing and they're not, but if they were, then there could be

penal code violations.

Q. And while you've done work for the RUD and been

involved with the road utility district and are aware of the

goings on of the road utility district, have any of those

things happened?

A. No. But to be fair, I have not done legal work for

the district. I have done legal work for three of the

directors of the district.

Q. Fair enough.

A. But, no, there hasn't been any of that that has gone

on during the time period that I've been knowledgeable about

and involved with the road utility district.

Q. Mr. Stilwell, I want to shift gears and jump right

into State's Exhibit 6. This is the point where we left off

yesterday and you had subpoenaed -- testified that you had

subpoenaed records from the Marriott Residence Inn to determine

nights stayed by these individuals, if any. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And we'll go through these records one by one.

What is this document, first off?

A. This is part of the documents that I received in

response to the subpoena. They are from the Marriott and this

first is a guest log for James Jenkins and it shows an arrival

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21

day of May 7, 2010, and it shows that he rented -- there it

is -- Room 102.

MR. WALKER: Judge, I'm going to object to

hearsay as far as anything from the business record. It

already is in evidence, but this witness' interpretation of a

business record, I would object to that as hearsay.


Q. (By Mr. White) And does it show a stay of one or two

nights?

A. It shows two nights. It also shows a departure date

of May 9, so May 7 to May 9.

Q. And what significance was the day of May 8?

A. May 8 was the date of the road utility district

election or election day, if you will.

Q. And what is the number of guests listed on this guest

log?

A. This document lists one guest.

Q. And this is a page of notes that appears to be from

their internal system at the Residence Inn. Who is the guest

listed upon this document?

A. This is a follow-up document on Jim Jenkins' room

rental.

Q. And one thing of note is that there's been a note

added here apparently that says what?

A. There were a additional individuals that were

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22

authorized to stay in his room. That is Adrian Heath and Tom

Curry and Mr. Goeddertz and Mr. McDuffee. So four individuals

the hotel had noted were authorized to stay in his room, as

well.

Q. And including Mr. Jenkins, that would be how many

adult men?

A. That would be a total of five adult men for one hotel

room.

Q. And in the details up here, it lists the number of

nights as two and what is the number adults listed underneath

that?

A. It lists one right above that -- right below that.

Q. At a rate of what?

A. $119 for a night.

Q. Okay. And is this record for another one of the

voters in the May 8 election?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And who does this one belong to?

A. This is Mr. Tom Curry.

Q. How many nights and how many guests?

A. Well, it shows an arrival date of May 7th and a

departure date of May 8, so a single night. And it shows one

guest.

Q. This appears to be another stay by Tom Curry. When

was this?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23

A. This was earlier in time. This was April 30th of

2010. Departure May 1, 2010. So, again, a single night stay.

Q. And this looks to be about a week before the

election. Is that fair?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. Here we have a listing for Benjamin Allison?

A. Can you lower it a little bit for me? There we go.

Thank you.

Q. All right. What is that address?

A. 13993 Boyd Lane.

Q. And are you familiar with that property?

A. Yes. I have been to that property.

Q. And where is it located, roughly?

A. It is on the northeast side of Conroe.

Q. And how many nights were listed on this stay?

A. This lists a single night. So an arrival of

May 14th, 2010, and a departure of May 15th, 2010.

Q. Okay. Now, this appears to be the week after the

election; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And what's the number of guests listed?

A. This was two guests.

Q. So if we turn the page, we see we're at the beginning

of the record. So is that the entirety of the records that you

received?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24

A. Sure. Those were all of the stays in 2010 up through

the date of the subpoena in May for those individuals.

Q. Okay. So prior to the election itself, how many

total rooms were rented by this group of ten voters?

A. Prior to the election, there was Mr. Curry on two

occasions before the election and then the night of the

election. And then there was the one room rental by

Mr. Jenkins the night before the election. So you have a total

of three room nights.

Q. All right. And two directly before the election; is

that right?

A. Two the night preceding the election day.

Q. Now, this stay here on May 14th to May 15th, what was

going on during that time period? Had you become involved in

this case?

A. I had become involved in the case. And what was

going on was immediately following the election, a lawsuit was

filed to contest the votes of the ten individuals that we're

talking about, including Ms. Doyle and Ms. Cook. And that

lawsuit had been filed, so this date was immediately after that

lawsuit had been filed.

Q. Okay. So one week before the election, Tom Curry

rents a night?

A. Correct.

Q. The night of the election Tom Curry rents another

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


25

night?

A. Correct.

Q. And James Jenkins rents two nights?

A. Correct.

Q. And then after the election contest had occurred and

a suit had been filed, we have a stay from Benjamin Allison and

two guests; is that correct?

A. I think that that two would be including Mr. Allison,

but yes. Immediately following the election, after the lawsuit

was filed, we have a single night stay listing two guests.

Q. And is the entirety of the stays at the Marriott

Residence Inn that were available during this timeframe

involving these individuals?

A. Correct.

Q. And is this the list of the individuals that you

requested?

A. Correct.

Q. And would you read Letter A for us?

A. Sure. Letter A says, "Sybil Doyle and/or James

Doyle."

Q. James Doyle being related to her in what way?

A. Her husband.

Q. And on Letter E, what did you list there?

A. Roberta Cook.

Q. Okay. And were there any documents at all indicating

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


26

that the two Defendants stayed a single night at the Residence

Inn before the election?

A. Not in the year 2010.

Q. Were you able to obtain copies of the voter

application change form for the ten Defendants?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's

Exhibit 7. And are these, in fact, those documents?

A. Yes, they are.

MR. WHITE: At this time, the State will offer

certified Montgomery County elections records, State's Exhibit

7.

MR. WALKER: May I take the witness on voir dire

briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

Just a second. For the purposes of the jury,

you heard Mr. Walker ask to be allowed to voir dire the

witness. Voir dire has a couple of different meanings. Not

only picking a jury, but also when the Court allows a witness

to be examined out of order regarding issues concerning

admissibility of items, we refer to that as "voir dire," just

so the jury understands.

Go ahead.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


27

Q. I see on here that on State's Exhibit No. 7 -- you

got that in front of you?

A. I don't anymore.

Q. Okay. My copy is the same as the copy you were

looking at, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your testimony is that's a certified copy of the

government document, to wit, we have a seal on there; is that

correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Is that the original or -- not my copy, but the copy

that the State offered or -- yeah, that the State offered and

showed to you, was that an original copy?

A. Okay. It was a certified true and correct copy of

the original.

Q. Well, okay. We have -- let me go -- we have the

original that is kept by who?

A. The elections administrator for Montgomery County.

Q. So you go there and you want a copy of it, they're

not going say, like, well, here's our original and they don't

have anything left, right?

A. Correct. They don't give me the original

application. They give me a certified copy that says this is a

true and correct copy of that original.

Q. That's my ultimate question. State's Exhibit No. 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


28

that the State offered, was that the original copy that you

received from the -- who is it? -- the election administrator

of Montgomery County or was it a copy of that copy?

A. I believe -- and I don't have it in front of me now,

but I believe it was a photocopy of the certified record.

Q. Let me go ahead and show it to you so we can be sure

on that. (Tenders document.)

A. I believe that that is a photocopy of the certified

record.

Q. That you received that are --

A. Correct. One in the same.

Q. Okay.

MR. WALKER: Same objection, Judge. The

objection is relevance and hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. State's Exhibit 7

admitted.



BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Mr. Stilwell, could you identify this document for

us?

A. Yes. This is a voter registration application form.

This particular one being for Sybil Doyle.

Q. And is it a new application or change of address

form?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


29

A. This is one that is marked as a change of address

form.

Q. All right. And for Ms. Doyle, what is the residence

address that is listed?

A. She swears on this document she resides at 9333 Six

Pines Drive.

Q. And I want to look at that quickly. Under No. 9, if

I can zoom a little bit. There is an oath on this document; is

that correct?

A. There is.

Q. Could you read that to the jury, please?

A. Sure. It says that "I understand that giving false

information to procure a voter registration is perjury and a

crime under state and federal law. Conviction of this crime

may result in imprisonment up to 180 days, a fine up to $2,000

or both. Please read all three statements to affirm before

signing."

Q. And under Subsection 4, mailing address, could you

read the text that comes after mailing address? There's an

instructive guideline for the voter.

A. Sure. It says, Mailing address, street address, and

apartment number, parenthesis, if mailed cannot be delivered to

your residence address.

Q. And what is the address that Ms. Doyle listed to

receive mail at?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30

A. She listed 16728 Bending Oaks, Conroe, 77385.

Q. This form appears to be signed and dated on what

date?

A. It's actually dated April 1, 2010, so four years ago,

April Fool's Day.

Q. There seems to be a slightly different format, but is

this the same document essentially?

A. It is also a voter registration application form.

Q. And who is this form for?

A. This is for Roberta Cook.

Q. And does it contain the same warning for perjury?

A. It does.

Q. All right. And the same oath and affirmation?

A. It does.

Q. And what address does Roberta Cook, the Defendant,

swear is her residence address?

A. She swears her residence address is 9333 Six Pines

Drive, The Woodlands, Texas 77380, The Woodlands Residence Inn

Marriott.

Q. What address does she list as her mailing address?

A. She identifies 607 Sycamore, Conroe, Texas 77302 as

mailing address.

Q. And this document appears to be signed and dated on

what date?

A. April 7, 2010.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


31

Q. And that was roughly how long before the election?

A. Approximately one month before the election, the

election being May 8th.

Q. And are the other eight voters contained also in this

package?

A. Yes. That package that I got from the elections

office in Montgomery County was for each of those ten voters

that voted in the road utility district, not the two Laukiens.

They voted in early voting, but the ten that voted on election

day.

Q. And the addresses we looked at before, the

607 Sycamore for Ms. Cook and the Bending Oaks address,

16728 Bending Oaks address, have you been to both of those

addresses?

A. I have been to both of those address.

Q. Okay. And James Jenkins, here on his form, also

swears to the address of 9333 Six Pines Drive; is that right?

A. Yes, as his residence.

Q. And as the mailing address, what does he list?

A. 16 Pastoral Pond Circle in The Woodlands.

Q. Okay. And have you been to that address as well?

A. I have.

Q. Adrian Heath also listing Six Pines Drive. Does he

list an address for his mailing address?

A. He lists a post office box.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


32

Q. Okay. And does Mr. Curry do the same thing?

A. Yes, again, residence 9333 Six Pines Drive and then a

mailing address of a post office box.

Q. Mr. Berntsen, what does he list as his mailing

address?

A. He listed his mailing address as 32 North Rain Forest

Court in The Woodlands.

Q. Now, do we see that address earlier on a candidacy

application form for Mr. Berntsen?

A. Yes. He put that when he filled out his candidate

application to run for director of the road utility district,

he swore that was his permanent residence address.

Q. And Mr. Goeddertz, we have a similar situation it

appears. What is the mailing address for him?

A. He lists 15910 Hartman Road in Magnolia, which,

again, was the permanent residence he listed on his candidate

application for the road utility district.

Q. And Mr. McDuffee, also a similar situation; is that

right?

A. That is correct.

Q. What does he list as his mailing address?

A. On this form, he lists his mailing address as

27907 Hanson Court in Spring, which, again, was the same

address that he put as his permanent residence address on his

candidate application.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


33

Q. But on this date, which is April 5th, for

Mr. McDuffee, he swears that his residence is where?

A. 9333 Six Pines Drive, which is the hotel address.

Q. And on March 31st, Mr. Goeddertz swears his address

is where -- his residence address, I'm sorry?

A. He swears his residence is the hotel at 9333 Six

Pines Drive.

Q. And, in fact, all of these ten swear that their

residence is at that address; is that correct?

A. They do.

Q. Okay. Mr. Berntsen on 4-1, April Fool's?

A. Correct.

Q. Mr. Curry, does this appear to be the 1st of April?

A. Yes, 1st of April. It says 1 A-P-R, 1st of April.

Again, April Fool's Day.

Q. Mr. Heath on March 5th; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Mr. Jenkins on April 5th?

A. Correct.

Q. And we just have the --

A. Two Allisons.

Q. -- Allison brothers, Benjamin and Robert?

A. Correct.

Q. They also list Six Pines, but list their mailing

address as what?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


34

A. 14993 Boyd Lane.

Q. For Benjamin and for Robert?

A. The exact same address.

Q. And Robert does this on 4-6; is that correct?

A. April 6th, correct, 2010.

Q. And Benjamin on the same date?

A. Also April 6th, 2010, correct.

Q. As of all these dates for these individuals,

according to the Marriott Residence Inn records that are in

evidence, had any of these individuals stayed a single night at

this hotel at the time that they swore that that hotel was

their residence?

A. Per the records of The Woodlands Marriott Residence

Inn, no. At the time that they were swearing that they lived

at the hotel, they had not stayed one single night there in

2010.

Q. Now, did you have an opportunity to review the county

deed records for the addresses listed as mailing addresses by

these individuals?

A. Yes. And for the ones that listed post office boxes,

I pulled their deed records, as well.

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you State's Exhibits 8 and

9. Do you recognize these documents?

A. Yes, I do recognize both of these documents.

Q. What are they?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


35

A. These are the deeds for Jim and Sybil Doyle's home

and for Roberta Cook's home. 8 being the Doyle home and 9

being Ms. Cook's home.

Q. All right. And are these records certified and

sealed by the county clerk of Montgomery County?

A. They are.

MR. WHITE: State will offer at this time

certified deed records of Sybil Doyle and Roberta Cook, State's

Exhibits 8 and 9.

MR. WALKER: May I take the witness on voir

dire.

THE COURT: Yes.


BY MR. WALKER:

Q. As to 8 and 9, this is kind of the same line of

questioning we had with the previous Exhibit No. 7.

You went to the Montgomery County clerk and

obtained these records; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Obviously, they didn't give you the original. They

made a copy and put a seal on it saying it's a true and correct

copy, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And what I'm looking at here, what's been offered, 8

and 9, those are copies of the copy you received; is that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


36

correct?

A. They are exact photocopy of the certified deed

record.

MR. WALKER: Okay. I'll object to 8 and 9 based

on relevance and hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. State's Exhibits 8 and 9

are admitted.

(State's Exhibit 8 and 9 admitted.)


BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Showing you State's Exhibit 8 on the overhead here.

What is this document, and what does it show?

A. This is a deed, that is, it's a deed out of the

Montgomery County real property records. And you can see up at

the -- sorry -- up at the top, it identifies -- I don't know

what I just did there -- it identifies the exact location

within the deed records that you would find this deed and

you'll see it has Mr. Doyle's name on it.

Q. And does this document indicate the purchase of the

property and the ownership of it?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And when was this property purchased and acquired by

Mr. Doyle?

A. Well, this is a little hard to tell because this is

actually a correction deed. You'll see the word right below my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


37

arrow that it's a correction deed. So there was a deed that

was in January of 1969 and then this correction deed was for

September 18, 1970. So it looks like the original transaction

was back in 1969.

Q. All right. So 1969 to today was -- correct my

math -- 45 years ago?

A. Correct.

Q. And did you investigate the location of the property

that is indicated on this deed?

A. I did.

Q. And is that the same address on Bending Oaks that we

looked at earlier on Sybil Doyle's mailing address that she

listed on there voter registration application?

A. It is.

Q. Is this also a deed document?

A. It is. Again, you'll see right up at the top that it

is -- I keep doing that -- see if I can get it. Maybe. It's a

deed. And again, it has the identification location of where

you can find it in the real property record stamped onto it.

Q. And what does this deed indicate?

A. You have to look because it's within the body, but

you'll see it has Roberta Cook's name and it has the address

607 Sycamore Drive on it, so it is the deed for her property at

that address.

Q. All right. And what date was that deed executed?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


38

A. Looks like the 24th day of June, 2005.

Q. Did you investigate the location of the property

described in this deed?

A. Yes, I've been to that address.

Q. And is that address, in fact, 607 Sycamore?

A. Correct.

Q. And that is in Conroe, Texas; is that correct?

A. Yes. It's -- it's -- postal address is considered

Conroe, Texas. It's located just off of the edge of River

Plantation, a little bit south of what you think of as the city

of Conroe, if you will.

Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity to obtain

deeds that pertain to the homes of the other eight voters in

this election?

A. I did.

Q. I should say the other eight voters who voted on

election day and changed their address to the Marriott

Residence Inn?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what's marked as State's

Exhibits 10 through 16. Are those, in fact, the deeds that you

requested?

A. Yes, these are each of those deeds.

Q. Okay. And Exhibit 16, does that pertain to the

address that was listed on Benjamin Allison and Robert

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


39

Allison's voter registration applications?

A. Yes.

MR. WALKER: I object to any testimony coming

from the documents prior to their admission into evidence.


Q. (By Mr. White) All right. Are those copies of --

certified copies of deed records from the Montgomery County

clerk?

A. Yes. They are exact copies of the records contained

in the deed records as certified by the county clerk.

MR. WALKER: Judge, we object -- sorry.

MR. WHITE: State offers 10 through 16.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. WALKER: We object to State's 10 through 16

based on relevance as well as hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. State's Exhibits 10

through 16 are admitted.

(State's Exhibit 10 through 16 admitted.)

Q. (By Mr. White) I'm not going to go through each one

of these individually, but do these addresses -- and have you

been to each one of these residences?

A. I have been to each of those residences, yes.

Q. Okay. And do these documents show the ownership of

these residences by the individuals or by a spouse or parent of

the individuals who voted in this election on May 8th?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


40

A. Yes. In fact, each of those deeds show those as the

residences of those individuals who voted on election day.

Q. All right. State's 10 being Tom Curry?

A. Correct.

Q. 11 being?

A. This is Mr. Bernsten's, Bill Bernsten's, the 32 North

Rain Forest Court.

Q. You have 12, also?

A. I do. No. 12 is the deed for Mr. Goeddertz.

Q. And 13 appears to be Rick McDuffee. Is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And Berntsen, Goeddertz, and McDuffee being the three

candidates; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. 14 belongs to whom?

A. Adrian Heath. And that is the deed for his house in

The Woodlands.

Q. And 15 belonging to whom?

A. This is the deed for Mr. James Alan Jenkins and his

wife at 16 Pastoral Pond in The Woodlands.

Q. Okay. And this was pertaining to my question before

about Ben and Robert Allison. Who does that property actually

belong to?

A. This is the deed for their parents, Peter and Alice

Allison. The two boys lived with their parents.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


41

Q. And is that the address that they listed on several

State's exhibits that we've already put into evidence?

A. Correct. 14993 Boyd Lane.

Q. Okay. After you had -- or at some point you had

actually physically been to these properties. Did you create

or have created a map that plots these properties out on some

sort of aerial map?

A. Yes, I did. Any time you're talking about addresses,

I find it helpful to have a visual depiction or a map showing

you where things are.

Q. All right.

A. And, yes, I had a map created for that purpose.

Q. I'll show you State's 17. Is that the map that you

had created?

A. It is.

Q. And what does it plot out basically?

A. Generally, this is a satellite photograph of a

portion of Montgomery County, Texas, that was -- covered enough

of a portion to get in each of the addresses for the homes and

residences of the ten voters that we have been talking about

and also reflects the boundaries of The Woodlands Road Utility

District and the location of the Marriott Residence Inn hotel.

Q. Do you think this map will be helpful to the jury in

understanding where these ten individuals lived in relation to

the road utility district and the Residence Inn where they

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


42

voted from?

A. I believe it's very helpful for that purpose.


State's Exhibit 17, an aerial map of the area, including the

road utility district.

MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Admitted.


Q. (By Mr. White) And did you also have created an

exact blow-up of this map?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. I'm holding it here behind you. This is the

blow-up of the map we're talking about?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. WHITE: Can I have permission to publish

this to the jury, Your Honor? It's an exact blow-up of State's

Exhibit 17.

THE COURT: Is it marked in any way?

MR. WHITE: It is not. Would you like it marked

for identification purposes?

THE COURT: I think for the record so that we

can follow along. You want to refer to that as 17-A.

MR. WHITE: That will be perfect. I'll go ahead

and mark it.

(State's Exhibit 17-A marked.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


43

MR. WHITE: As I attempt to place this on this

easel where the jury can see it, would it be possible for

Mr. Stilwell to step out behind the map. I'm going to put it

right in front of him.

THE COURT: Sure.

Q. (By Mr. White) All right. Tell us -- first off,

there are what appears to be ten addresses on there total.

What are those addresses?

A. It's ten addresses and the ones that are yellow and

alphabetically labeled are the nine addresses for the voters.

Again, remember, Benjamin and Robert Allison were two of the

voters that lived at the same address. And then the tenth

address is the Marriott Residence Inn and it's not depicted by

an alphabetic number, but a red dot.

Would you like me to locate those?

Q. Yeah. Let's look first at the Defendant Sybil Doyle

who seems to be marked by a Letter A?

A. Correct.

Q. Would you show us where her residence is?

A. Right. So this is State Highway 242 and this is I-45

running through the middle of Montgomery County. So a little

bit to the east of State Highway 242 on the north side of State

Highway 242 is Sybil Doyle's address.

Q. And where is Pete Goeddertz's address in relation to

the road?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


44

A. Mr. Goeddertz, one of the candidates, he lived -- he

was the one I was describing lived out near Stagecoach. You

can actually see the little red border of the municipality of

Stagecoach. His address is actually a Magnolia address because

he is outside of the bounds of the city of Stagecoach. We

think of Magnolia proper as being off of 1488 near FM 1774.

But his address is on Hartman Road. It's a Magnolia address.

Q. Okay. And let's skip to the Defendant Ms. Cook on

Sycamore Drive?

A. Sure. Ms. Cook, as I was describing, lives just off

the edge of River Plantation. So if you took I-45 north,

heading towards Conroe, River Plantation is on the east side of

the road and her address is just off of that location.

Q. We just recently talked about the Allisons. Show us

their address, please.

A. Correct. Benjamin and Robert Allison lived at their

parents' address at 14993 Boyd Lane, that same mailing address

that was on their voter registration certificates. That's

actually all the way up here off to the east side of Conroe.

You can see at the very top of the map the Conroe airport. So

any of you that are familiar with where that's located, you

have Conroe proper, Conroe airport, and then heading east out

towards Cut and Shoot is where that address on Boyd Lane is

located.

Q. And approximately how far, if you know, travel time

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


45

is that from the road utility district?

A. Well, I've been there and I've done that, so let's

say from the address at the Six Pines hotel, you're about

three minutes out to I-45. You're about 30 minutes up to

downtown Conroe. And then you're another about 20 minutes out

to that address. So approximately an hour by the time you add

it all up together.

Q. All right.

A. Depending on traffic lights and that sort of thing.

Q. Sure. Have you made the drive from the RUD over to

Mr. Goeddertz's residence out in Magnolia?

A. I have done that, as well.

Q. Do you know the proximate time?

A. Also, again, if you were going from that same

location, you're approximately the same time period. It's a

little harder to get back to his address because you don't have

the I-45 corridor. So even though it is maybe a little bit

closer, it's slower speed limit. So it takes about the same

time, about an hour.

Q. And did we identify -- I don't recall whether we

identified that red dot in the center.

A. Oh, I'm sorry. The red dot that I was pointing to is

the hotel at 9333 Six Pines Drive, The Woodlands Marriott

Residence Inn.

Q. And there is some major thoroughfares of the road

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


46

utility district and I don't want you to go into any detail,

but could you just point out the ones that the folks would

know?

A. Sure. What you see in kind of the coffee color, the

tan color that is on the map are the bounds of The Woodlands

Road Utility District, the same kind of map that we looked at

earlier. So this long road going from right to left or from

east to west is Woodlands Parkway. This is Lake Woodlands

Drive. This is Research Forest Drive just to the north of it.

And then on kind of the north-south run, you have Gosling Road,

you have Kuykendahl Road, and then right here, although it's a

little bit hard to see, you have Grogans Mill Road. So those

kind of north-south corridors.

Q. The only thing I can think of else to do is to point

out the other two directors we talked about. Mr. Goeddertz.

The other two candidates for director would be Mr. Berntsen and

McDuffee. Could you point out their residences?

A. Sure. Mr. Berntsen is on North Rain Forest Court.

He was down here in the lower edge of The Woodlands. And then

Mr. McDuffee, I had mentioned earlier lived out in Bender's

Landing. So he is out here off of Hansons Court in the

southeast part of Montgomery County.

Q. And there is a Letter C that appears to be in the

middle of some roads that the road utility district services,

but not in the bulk of The Woodlands it doesn't seem. Who is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


47

that and explain that, please?

A. Sure. Adrian Heath was one of the voters that we

have talked about. And Adrian Heath's address is on Stony

Bridge Court, which is located not the midst of The Woodlands

on a residential street. The residential street is not in the

bounds of the road utility district. He is roughly located

between two of the roads where the road surface is in the road

utility district, that being Woodlands Parkway and Lake

Woodlands Drive, but his house itself is not part of the

boundaries of the road utility district.

Q. Does he pay taxes for the road utility district?

A. No, he does not.

Q. Do any of these individuals listed on this map pay

taxes for the road utility district?

A. No, they do not. Unless they're commercial property

owners and none that I have found.

Q. On their residence, none of these individuals reside

in the road utility district; is that correct?

A. None of them reside in the road utility district,

correct.

MR. WHITE: I'm going to take this down and you

can take your seat, if you don't mind.

Q. (By Mr. White) What was the purpose of your visits

to these homes?

A. As I mentioned, there was a lawsuit that I was hired

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


48

for immediately following election day. And under court order,

I was authorized to go and visit each of these addresses and

take photographs of the contents of the homes.

Q. And did you do that, in fact, for Sybil Doyle's

residence at 16728 Bending Oaks?

A. I did.

Q. Did you do it, as well, for the residence of Roberta

Cook at 607 Sycamore?

A. I did.

Q. I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 20 and 21. Do

you recognize these photographs?

A. Yes, I do on Exhibit 20 and, yes, I do on Exhibit 21.

Q. And who took those photographs?

A. I took these photographs.

Q. And during what time period or what date did you take

those photographs?

A. I don't remember the exact date. It was within the

month of May. It was after the lawsuit was filed. So in

between May 12th and May 30th, so in that two-week timeframe

was the date that the Court authorized and ordered that I go

take the photographs.

Q. All right. And how was this period of time when

these photographs were taken in relation to the May 8th

election?

A. It would have been within the two weeks following the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


49

May 8th election.

Q. Okay. So you were photographing the condition of

these homes at that time for what purpose?

A. As you saw, the voter's registration cards that each

of these people signed swore that that was their residence

address; that is, the 9333 Six Pines Drive, the hotel in The

Woodlands. They swore that that was their residence. The

court ordered and authorized me to go and take photographs of

the property that was located on their deed records to see what

those properties looked like. Did they have furniture there?

Did they have clothes there? Did they have food there?

Q. And do the photographs taken in State's 20 and 21 by

you fairly and accurately depict the contents of the residences

that you visited that day?

A. They do.

MR. WHITE: State offers State's 20 and 21.

MR. WALKER: No objection.

THE COURT: They are admitted.

(State's Exhibit 20 and 21 admitted.)

Q. (By Mr. White) What is this notation on the first

photograph?

A. Well, I was going out to take photographs at nine

different locations that day and as I arrived at each location,

I had a legal pad with me and I wrote the name and the address

before I took pictures so that on my camera I would have a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


50

separator between the pictures identifying which pictures were

taken at which address.

Q. There appears to be a mailbox with what markings on

it here?

A. The mailbox that you see to the left is the Doyles'

mailbox. You can see it has their name on it and their street

address.

Q. All right. And what is depicted in this photograph?

A. Well, you have a garage and storage on the lower

level and then you had rooms above it. Then what you see off

to the left-hand side of the picture is the main residence.

Q. Okay. This is some sort of storage structure?

A. In fact, yes. And there's a picture of the contents

of that storage structure later in the photos.

Q. And what do we see in this photograph?

A. When I was identifying the main residence was to the

left, this is actually the main residence structure.

Q. There appear to be some sort of pet living there?

A. There was a dog that was on a chain on the location,

yes.

Q. And what is this photograph?

A. Well, first, let me apologize to the jury for the

quality of my photographs, but when I took pictures that day

the Doyles' had their power turned off and so the pictures

aren't as great as I would want them to be. But this is a --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


51

you'll see a computer, a desk and various books and records.

So this was kind of a study or work area in the house.

Q. Did any of the other homes that you visited have the

power turned off?

A. Yes, a couple of them did.

Q. Okay. Were you able to get that power turned back on

in the garage or wherever it had been cut off?

A. No, I did not make that attempt.

Q. Okay. And it's a little blurry, but what are we

seeing in this photograph in terms of things that -- items that

are everyday living items that people have?

A. Sure. Well, we open the window to make sure that we

could get some light in to take a photograph. But you see

across the bottom of the picture, you see a couch and then a

love seat or a sofa. There is a fireplace back on this wall.

Picture on the wall. And then off to this side of the

photograph was the kitchen area.

Q. And do we see books and things of that nature that

are items that people would have in their homes?

A. Yes. There was a set of encyclopedias on a shelf on

this part of the photograph. Bookshelves with books here.

Television set. And then television stand that had tapes and

other things like that on it.

Q. And what types of everyday living items did you see

in the kitchen area?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


52

A. Sure. This is the kitchen area and there were food

and spices and I believe medications that were on the

countertop here as well as dishes and cups and glasses that

were out and open on the counter. Also the refrigerator.

Q. Were you allowed to open the refrigerator?

A. I was.

Q. What was the contents in the refrigerator?

A. Well, in -- in almost all the homes that I looked at,

there was food, perishable food located in the refrigerators.

Q. And did you open this one?

A. I opened every single refrigerator. I don't think I

took a picture inside this one.

Q. Okay. Was there spoiled food in there?

A. No. There was not spoiled food in any refrigerator I

looked at.

Q. And do you recall some evidence that would indicate

that the power was actually off at this house for a period of

time in regard to this refrigerator?

A. Actually, the refrigerator itself was cool, which

indicated to me that the power had not been shut off for very

long.

Q. And this is sideways, but what do we see here?

A. This was their pantry and I know it's hard to see,

but there were regular kinds of pantry items that you would

see. There were canned vegetables and spices and I think there

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


53

was a box of cookies and other things that people regularly and

ordinarily keep in their pantries.

Q. More of the same?

A. Sure. And, in fact, if you don't mind zooming in

real quick right over in that area. You will see that there

were, as I mentioned a second ago, you couldn't see it very

well in the last photograph, but there were medications on the

countertops that were labeled for the Doyles on their kitchen

countertop.

Q. And it seems pretty obvious. What are we looking at

here?

A. Laundry room.

Q. What are we looking at here?

A. This is bathroom countertop.

Q. I'll zoom out a little bit so we can see.

A. Bedroom.

Q. Could you tell whether this was a master or a guest

bedroom?

A. You know, four years later, I don't remember.

Q. And what type of clothing do we see hanging in this

closet?

A. This was inside the closet in that room and there's

some women's clothing in there.

Q. I won't make you any comment on every single one of

these. It gets repetitive at a certain point. But this -- is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


54

this another section of closet?

A. Right. And this particular closet had men's clothing

in it.

Q. Does it appear also to be women's clothing? I'm

seeing some black and white paisley here.

A. There may have been both.

Q. Not that there is anything wrong with that. This

appears to be a different bedroom; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And we have another closet with clothing?

A. Right.

Q. And contents of a garage or shed?

A. Correct. You can see a lawn mower, ladder, riding

mower.

Q. All right. So in the home of Sybil Doyle at

16728 Bending Oaks, did you see all the types of things that

you would expect to see in a home that's being lived in,

resided in by people?

A. Sure. Pets, food, clothing, kitchen items, just what

you would normally expect to find in somebody's home.

Q. All right. And moving on to the home of Roberta Cook

on 607 Sycamore. You have marked mailbox again. Moving

through the exterior of the home. What do we see here?

A. Trash cans out. It was garbage collection day on

that street.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


55

Q. What does this appear to be?

A. Like a family room or living room, if you will, with

TV, couches, ordinary stuff that folks keep in their house.

Q. Do we see photographs of family members and children?

A. Correct. There were photographers throughout the

house. In fact, you see a whole line of them here. Just in

case anybody was wondering, this is also a terrarium. The

lights were -- the power was on at Ms. Cook's home. You see a

reddish tint. That was a red light on a terrarium for a pet.

Q. Out of curiosity, this large cage here, do we know

what animal lived in that?

A. I don't specifically remember, but I believe it was a

bird.

Q. And those pets were still living? Did you see them?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you observe about this

kitchen?

A. The kitchen had, again, the regular things you would

think of with an everyday kitchen in it. There were items on

the countertop. There were, in this case, dishes in the sink,

food in the pantry, food in the refrigerator.

Q. Did it appear that this kitchen was actively in use?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you observe here in this room?

A. This house had multiple bedrooms. This is one of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


56

bedrooms in the house.

Q. Did you catch you in the mirror?

A. Actually, that was one of the other people that was

present. That was not me that you see there. The voters also

had their attorney and some of them attended the photography,

as well. And in that particular case, that's a reflection of

one of them in the mirror.

Q. Okay. What type of clothing do we see here?

A. In this case you see some long-sleeved and

short-sleeved shirts and some jackets.

Q. How about in this photo?

A. Right. Over on this side of the closet, there were

some dresses.

Q. I don't know if we can make out down here.

A. You had some women's shoes.

Q. Okay. And do you see anything over in this area, or

is it just a blur to you?

A. In my picture, I can't see a whole lot there.

Q. Did you know whether or not Ms. Cook had children?

A. She had pictures of children inside the house and

there were certainly children's items in some of the bedrooms.

Q. Are these some of those photographs you mentioned?

A. Yeah. This was just right above the fireplace.

Q. And this appears to be some sort of document here on

the bed. Do you know what that was?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


57

A. Right. That document was actually one of the

documents from the legal case that we were involved in at the

time.

Q. And had that been put there by one of the attorneys,

or was that in the home like that when you found it?

A. That was in the home exactly as you see it when I

walked in.

Q. So did the home of Ms. Cook at 607 Sycamore contain

all the things that you expect to see in a home that is

actively being lived in?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And I'm going to show you State's Exhibits 22 through

28. Could you tell us what those are, please?

A. Sure. Exhibit 22 are the photographs I took at Tom

Curry's home. Exhibit 23 are the photographs I took at Bill

Bernsten's home. Exhibit 24 are the photographs I took at

Peter Goeddertz's home. Exhibit 25 are the photographs I took

at Richard McDuffee's home. Exhibit 26 were the photographs I

took at Adrian Heath's home. Exhibit 27 are the photographs I

took at James Jenkins' home. Exhibit 28 are the photographs I

took at Peter and Alice Allison's home where Benjamin and

Robert Allison lived.

Q. And do the photos in the exhibits that I just handed

you fairly and accurately represent the homes as you viewed

them on that day?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


58

A. Yes, they to do.

MR. WHITE: At this time, the State will offer

State's Exhibits 22 through 28.



(State's Exhibit 22 through 28 admitted.)

Q. (By Mr. White) I'm not going publish these or go

through these Mr. Stilwell, but in looking through all these

homes and taking all these photographs in these homes, did you

see in each one of these homes the types of things that you

expect to see in homes that are being actively lived and

resided in?

A. Absolutely.

MR. WHITE: Now would be a good time for us to

take a quick break if it pleases the Court.

THE COURT: Of course. I think it will please

us all. How about ten minutes, Ladies and Gentlemen? You may

be excused. Everyone remain seated while the jury exits.

Thank you.

(At this time the jury exits the courtroom for

the break.)

(At this time the jury returns to the

courtroom.)

THE COURT: Please be seated. Thank you.

You can sit, really, anywhere you want, but

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


59

every jury -- and this is my 310th jury trial, by the way.

Every jury picks their own seats early and they keep with those

seats. They become territorial. Ever jury is similar. They

find a seat and they like it and they just sit there.

I think we are ready to proceed. Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. White) Mr. Stilwell, did you have an

opportunity to obtain homestead exemption applications for this

group?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 18. Are

these the documents that you acquired?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And they're for the ten voters that we -- pertaining

to the ten voters or the nine addresses that we've spoken about

earlier?

A. Yes. Again, with the Allison -- the two Allison boys

at their parents' address.

Q. Okay.

MR. WHITE: At this time State offers State's

18, which is a certified copy of the homestead exemption forms

for the voters.




Q. (By Mr. White) First off, could you explain what a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


60

homestead exemption is?

A. Certainly. When you own real property -- I call it

"dirt" in my law practice. When you own dirt, you can -- if it

is your residence address where you live, the laws of the State

of Texas allow you to designate your residence dirt, if you

will, as a homestead. That generally carries two different

protections in the State of Texas. One is a protection from

creditors, that is, your homestead is protected from someone

coming after it to take it away from you, save and except if

you have a mortgage on it. And then the second is a taxing

designation, that is, as we've already talked about the county

and school districts and what have you tax you on your real

property. Some of those districts give a tax break on

homesteads if you have filed the paperwork identifying that

that property is your homestead. So a homestead exemption form

is the -- particularly for the tax break.

Q. Okay. What does a homeowner have to do to get that

tax break, to qualify for that?

A. Generally you apply for it and you file that document

with the Montgomery County Appraisal District or, in some

instances, with the taxing authority.

Q. All right. And is there a residence requirement for

a homestead exemption?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


61

A. The address that you designate as your homestead must

be your residence.

Q. Okay. Meaning what?

A. Meaning that that is where you live.

Q. And do you have to swear to those facts in order to

receive a homestead exemption?

A. Yes. There is a spot on the document just above the

signature where you swear to the facts in the document.

Q. Okay. And whom is this homestead exemption and

application for?

A. This is James and Sybil Doyle. Again, at that

16728 Bending Oaks address that we've been looking at.

Q. And when is this document signed and dated, if you

can see?

A. It's a little hard, but it looks like it is 2-22 --

looks like that says '10.

Q. So late February of 2010?

A. Correct.

Q. And we see Pete Goeddertz here. James Jenkins, but

I'm going to skip to Roberta Cook here.

A. Correct.

Q. And is the address for Roberta Cook applying for this

homestead exemption the same as you visited and photographed?

A. Correct, yes, the 607 Sycamore address.

Q. And does she also swear to the information on this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


62

document?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you read the text below her signature?

A. Sure. Below her signature it says, "If you make a

false statement on this application, you could be found guilty

of a Class A misdemeanor or state jail felony under the Texas

Penal Code Section 37.10."

Q. And you see here the general residential exemption.

And does it indicate whether you can or can't claim a homestead

exemption on any other property?

A. You can only claim it on one property. It

specifically says that you only qualify if you have not claimed

a residence homestead exemption on any other property.

Q. And let's see. Richard McDuffee, Thomas Curry,

Adrian and Candy Heath, William Berntsen, Peter Allison on Boyd

Lane. Did each one of these residences that you visited and

that we saw on all the documents that have been before us today

have a homestead exemption that was active?

A. Yes, it was -- yes, they did.

Q. I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 39, 40, and 49.

Do you know what those documents are?

A. Yes. These are records from the Texas Department of

Public Safety for driver's license. That is 39. 40 is also

records of the Texas Department of Public Safety also for

driver's license and record information. And then Exhibit 49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


63

is Texas Department of Motor Vehicles automobile registration

information.

Q. And do all those documents appear to be certified?

A. They are.

MR. WHITE: State offers State's 39, 40, and 49,

which are certified documents of DPS and Texas DMV.


THE COURT: They are admitted.

(State's Exhibit 39, 40, and 49 admitted.)

Q. (By Mr. White) And in reviewing these documents,

what address is listed for Sybil Doyle on her driver's license

registration?

A. On Exhibit 39, the Texas Department of Public Safety

records reflect that Sybil Doyle's driver's license address is

16728 Bending Oaks address.

Q. And if you see when those records are certified, tell

us what date that's as of?

A. The date of the certification?

Q. Yes.

A. It is as of the 12th day of August, 2011.

Q. Okay. And what is the address listed for Roberta?

A. In Exhibit 40, the records reflect that the driver's

license for her is 607 Sycamore, the same address that we've

been looking at.

Q. And on State's 49, which is the DMV records -- we

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


64

just have two pages here. And the first one is a vehicle

registered to whom?

A. Well, the owners are James and Sybil Doyle at the

16728 Bending Oaks address.

Q. And the second document?

A. Well, it has the owner Roberta Cook, 607 Sycamore.

Q. Now, I want to ask you one last question -- or a

couple of questions. And what it has to do with is the fact

that a group of ten individuals tried to vote in the RUD and

take over the road utility district.

A. Okay.

Q. And given your testimony about the business and

economic growth that the RUD has brought and the free use of

the roads to residents, that they're not taxable and that the

costs of the RUD aren't passed to in the form of higher prices

and the independent audits that are passed and the double A

credit rating, what is the downside to this RUD?

MR. WALKER: Objection to relevance, Your Honor.


A. To me, there is close to no downside whatsoever. It

is a big help to our community and to the businesses that are

located in The Woodlands. If I was to identify any downside,

it would be in order to have roads, somebody has got to pay for

them and so there is a tax to those commercial property owners

in order to pay for the roads. But I think the roads more than

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


65

adequately compensate and benefit for that tax.

MR. WHITE: Pass the witness.

MR. WALKER: May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Mr. Stilwell, have we ever met before?

A. I think we have met here and there in the courthouse

a time or two or at a bar association function.

Q. Okay. And you were talking about this civil lawsuit

that you were involved in. I wasn't involved in that; is that

correct?

A. No, you were not involved in that. You are correct.

Q. As far as these individuals that were ultimately --

well, the Defendants in that civil lawsuit, who were they

represented by?

A. The Defendants in that lawsuit were represented by

Eric Yollick's law firm.

Q. Who is Mr. Yollick?

A. Mr. Yollick is an attorney in Montgomery County.

Q. Have you had a lot of experience in dealing with him?

A. I have dealt with him in multiple different lawsuits.

Q. Describe in a general sense what type of lawsuits

we're talking about.

A. The different lawsuits I've been involved with him on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


66

besides this particular election contest were civil lawsuits.

They were generally construction lawsuits.

Q. Has Mr. Yollick practiced for some time in the

Montgomery County area?

A. He has to my knowledge. I'm sorry. I also had some

will and probate matters with Mr. Yollick, as well.

Q. So you are familiar with his work?

A. I have known him on opposite sides of cases for about

15 years.

Q. And certainly during the course of this business, we

have opposite sides of the case, but we learn to respect each

other and treat each other professionally; is that correct?

Almost -- well, we hope to. It's our aspiration.

A. We hope to; but with Mr. Yollick, that's not always

the case.

Q. Okay. How would you rate him as far as competency as

a lawyer?

MR. WHITE: Objection to relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Response?

MR. WALKER: I think it is relevant, Judge, in

the sense that his name has come up in testimony as far as

being involved in this scenario and I want to delve into that

subject matter.

THE COURT: So personal opinions about

attorney's competence, we want to interject into this forum.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


67

MR. WALKER: As long as we're not talking about

me, Judge, I'm fine.

THE COURT: That's what I'm thinking, are you

serious?

MR. WHITE: I don't think the relevance of

Mr. Yollick as a witness or a Defendant or anything has been

established to the point of needing to get to this point in

determining his qualifications by testimony of another attorney

at this point.

THE COURT: I am going to allow Mr. Walker a

little leeway here to see where he's headed, but be careful

about flying too far afield here because I want to make sure it

dovetails into issues that this jury is going to deliberate

upon, please, which are elements of the charge.

MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) Back to my question. You need me to

restate it?

A. Please.

Q. Would you consider Mr. Yollick to be a competent

attorney?

A. I -- he is a licensed attorney. He is not won any of

the cases I've been involved with in him and he has multiple

judgments against him relating to his work as an attorney. His

competence, in my mind, is questionable.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


68

Q. Yet -- I guess we'll get to the ultimate. He is a

licensed attorney in the State of Texas?

A. He is.

Q. Does he have an office location down in the south

part of the county?

A. He does.

Q. How long have you been knowing him?

A. I think the first case that I had involving him was

about 1997, so more than 15 years.

Q. Now, let's move on to you. We're not going to talk

about -- ask you to rate yourself. But let's talk about your

areas of practice. I believe you testified that you worked in

the areas of probate law, real estate law, and the general

heading of civil trial law. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. You don't practice criminal law, do you?

A. I do no criminal law.

Q. And in the course of -- well, obviously, you worked

on this case and that would have required you to become

somewhat intimate with the Texas Election Code; is that

correct?

A. In the civil case, yes, I had involvement with the

election code in the election contest.

Q. And I want to -- this is elementary for us for what

we do, but I want to make this make sense for the jury. So

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


69

when we talk these general areas, we have different codes for

different areas of the law in the State of Texas; is that

correct?

A. We do.

Q. For instance, I've got sitting on my table is a penal

code, Code of Criminal Procedure, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And there's other things. There's a probate code,

correct?

A. They just changed that. It's now an estate's code.

Q. Estate's code, okay.

A. As of January 1.

Q. I'm a little brighter today. We also have a real

estate code; is that correct?

A. We have a real property code.

Q. Real -- I'm sorry. You're right. Property code.

And all of these codes typically start out with

a -- a list of definitions of various terms; is that correct?

A. Many of the laws and many of the codes containing

those laws have definition sections, yes.

Q. Would that be true of the real property code?

A. There are sections of the real property code that

have definitions, yes.

Q. And certainly that's true of the elections code; is

that correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


70

A. Yes, the elections code also contains definitions.

Q. Do you know or recall whether or not the property

code contains a definition of the word "residence" or

"residents"?

A. I do not recall.

Q. Is it possible it does and you would just have to dig

out the books and look?

A. I generally dig out the books and look.

Q. Okay. But you became familiar with the definition of

the term "residence" in the context of the Texas Election Code

when you worked on this civil lawsuit; is that correct?

A. Yes, the election code has a definition. And, yes,

it was part of that lawsuit.

Q. I'm going show you -- put it upon the screen here.

Would you agree with me that's a -- well, let me hand it to you

first. It won't all fit there.

Would you agree with me that that's a definition

as contained in the Texas Election Code?

A. That does look like it.

Q. And I want to point you specifically to Subsection B

of that definition. In the course of your practice, when

you're dealing with real property --

A. Can you slide that up just a little bit more?

Q. Sure.

A. The bottom part is cut off on my screen. There you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


71

go. Thanks.

Q. In the course of your practice in dealing with the

real property code and this is probably the Civil Practice and

Remedies Code, wherever you have had to look at various codes

and various definitions, can you point me to any definition of

any term that refers me to common law rules as enunciated by

the courts of this state?

A. I know that the former probate code and now estate's

code also references the common law; and I'm confident that

there are others, as well. But that's the only one I can think

of right off the top of my head.

Q. Okay. But as far as -- back to the point of the real

property code and the term "residence," you don't recall

whether that's defined in the property code?

A. I do not know in the property code whether there's a

definition of "residence" or "resident" or not. I'd have to go

look.

Q. And if we had property code with us, that's probably

about a two-minute process, right?

A. Yeah. There's generally pretty good indexes in the

back.

Q. Okay. We'll get this that part in a little bit.

Let's talk about who were you your clients in

this lawsuit. Remind us who your clients were.

A. Sure. There were three directors who were existing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


72

directors in the road utility district that hired me. They

were Bill Neill. They were Gene Miller, although his full name

as it appeared on the ballot and on these papers is Eugene

Miller, and then Winton Davenport, Junior, although he goes by

the name "Buck."

Q. And prior to -- or first of all, did these

individuals retain you or did the RUD retain you?

A. I was not hired by the RUD. I did not represent the

RUD. In fact, I got a restraining order against the RUD.

Q. And who represented the RUD?

A. Mike Page.

Q. Tell us who Mr. Page is?

A. Mr. Page is an attorney that generally represents

governmental entities, special districts. He represents -- or

up until about two years ago, I believe he represented The

Woodlands Township, among others.

Q. Where is his practice located?

A. His law firm is Schwartz, Page & Harding. And I

actually think Schwartz, Page & Harding is located in Houston,

not here in Montgomery County.

Q. When you said that you were required to get a

restraining order against the RUD, was that in the course of

this lawsuit?

A. When you say "this lawsuit" --

Q. I'm sorry. The lawsuit that you were hired to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


73

represent the --

A. Yes. In the civil lawsuit as part of the election

case, I got a restraining order to prevent the votes of the ten

individuals from being counted. So I was restraining the road

utility district from counting the votes that we contended were

illegal votes.

Q. So this certainly wasn't -- your restraining order

certainly was not against your clients or their interests,

correct?

A. The order restraining the road utility district

restrained all of the existing directors from taking any

actions contrary to that order. So in that sense, yes, it

actually restrained my own clients, as well. However, it was

not against their interests.

Q. And that was to restrain the RUD from seating these

three people that were elected?

A. Right. There's a process that follows the actual

votes being cast where they're tallied, where they're counted,

where they're canvassed. That's election code terminology.

And then the district declares the winner of the election. And

so it was partway through that process, after they were cast,

but before some of these other steps were taken, to prevent

results from being declared and prevent the three challengers

from taking the seats.

Q. Your clients, Mr. Neill, Mr. Miller, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


74

Mr. Davenport, did you know them prior to them retaining you to

represent them?

A. I knew Mr. Neill, but the other two I did not know

prior to them retaining me.

Q. Had you had any dealings with anything to do with the

road utility district prior to being retained for that lawsuit?

A. Only in my commercial real estate practice.

Q. And whom did you know?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Whom did you know that was involved in this lawsuit

prior to being retained to represent these individuals? I

believe you said Mr. Neill.

A. I knew Mr. Neill, Mr. Neill being one of the folks

that hired me. I have known Mr. Page for a long time in the

legal community.

Q. Yollick, of course.

A. Mr. Yollick, I have know for approximately 15 years;

but at the time that I filed the lawsuit, I didn't know who was

going to be representing the ten voters.

Q. Okay. What about these two absentee ballots. What

were the names on that?

A. It was Dirk Laukien and Kate or Katie Laukien.

Q. And do you know those individual -- or did you know

those individuals prior to your involvement in that lawsuit?

A. I do know those individuals and I did know those

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


75

individuals prior to the lawsuit.

Q. And had you represented them before in any lawsuits?

I'm sorry. That's a bad question.

Have you ever represented them in any type of

legal work?

A. I have not ever represented Dirk Laukien or Kate

Laukien. I have represented entities that they are owners or

shareholders or their different forms of entities, members or

managers of.

Q. Such as limited liability partnerships, corporations,

things of this nature, correct?

A. I know that I have represented at least one that he

was a partner or owner in, correct.

Q. And certainly your involvement in this lawsuit

required that you be familiar with the road utility district in

general and its history and its procedures and things like

that?

A. It did.

Q. Other than this road utility district, have you ever

had any dealings with any other road utility districts?

A. I had a little bit of involvement with one other road

utility district in Montgomery County.

Q. How many do we have in Montgomery County?

A. I actually don't know.

Q. This one's -- I saw and I believe it's one of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


76

first exhibits, that it said Road Utility District No. 1?

A. Correct.

Q. When -- wouldn't we assume that would mean that it

was the first one in Montgomery County?

A. It may be the oldest in Montgomery County. I know

the other one I dealt with was younger.

Q. And the one that we're talking about in this case,

Road Utility District No. 1, when was it formed?

A. 1991.

Q. Are these positions on the board, are they paid

positions?

A. I believe that the directors do receive a -- and I

don't know what the term is called -- but a per meeting stipend

or small sum of money, like 50 bucks a meeting or 75 bucks a

meeting, something like that. But it's not what you think of

as a paid, full-time position by any means.

Q. Being on that board is not going to be your job,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you testified earlier that there was an election

held in 2010, correct, the one we're talking about here?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there's been one subsequent to that; is that

correct?

A. That is correct.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


77

Q. What year was that?

A. There was one -- I believe it was last year.

Q. And prior to this election which was held in 2010, do

you know when the last time that they were required to hold an

election?

A. I do not remember there having been an election prior

to 2010.

Q. And you testified that the primary properties located

within this road constitute what we would call "commercial

properties." Is that correct?

A. Correct. And the surfaces of the road.

Q. Yet, one would have to be a resident, according to

the election code definition, in order to vote for the Board of

Directors; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. During the course of your representation during this

civil lawsuit, did you become aware of the number of voters

that were purporting to be residents of that road utility

district?

A. I did examine a list of people who had registered for

the district, yes.

Q. And approximately -- well, if you know exactly, tell

me exactly; but I bet you're going to have to approximate the

number of registered voters that were eligible to vote in that

election.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


78

A. Two different questions.

Q. You're right.

A. But I think that the list that I looked at had

approximately 20 people on it, including the ten that we're

talking about. And I believe that there were only two that

were truly eligible to vote.

Q. Okay. That's your interpretation of the -- well, let

me move on from there.

We have 20, and that includes the ten people,

including the lady sitting next to me, correct?

A. It did include them.

Q. As well as the other people we referred to and let's

say those ten people. So we're down to ten people on the

voter's roll for that road utility district, correct?

A. There were ten other or so people registered,

correct.

Q. And in your opinion, as far as those ten, you only

found two that were, once again, in your opinion, eligible to

vote; is that correct?

A. I know that two were eligible to vote because they

lived in a residence in the district.

Q. And you're referring to the -- am I saying their name

right, the Laukiens?

A. That's close enough, yes. Dirk and Kate or Katie.

Q. What about these other eight people? Are they dead

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


79

or moved off or what?

A. For the most part, the other individuals had

registered a business address, which was not a residence.

Q. Are you familiar -- you said you went around to all

these people's various houses. You took pictures at their

residence and that was pursuant to court order; is that

correct?

A. The ten that we're talking about including Ms. Doyle

an Ms. Cook, yes.

Q. And did you go to the address for the Laukiens?

A. I did.

Q. What address is that?

A. It's on Crescent Ridge Drive. And I want to say it

was 4320, but I'd have to look to be certain.

Q. If I said -- well, let's get it exact, because it's

on the exhibits. It's 2630, I believe.

A. I'm with you, I'd rather get it right.

Q. Let's make -- there we go. This is State's Exhibit

No. 3. Tell me if I need to move it around to make it work for

your screen.

A. You're good.

Q. And we've got the two people voting absentee and that

is -- you know those signatures to be the Laukiens, correct?

A. They weren't absentee.

Q. I'm sorry, early voting.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


80

A. They were early voting and, yes, those are the two

Laukiens' signatures at 2630 North Crescent Ridge Drive.

Q. Did you take any photographs of that residence?

A. I did.

Q. Do you have those with me?

A. I do not have those with me, no.

Q. Are they easily retrievable?

A. I believe that the State has them.

Q. Okay. Does this address at 2630 North Crescent Ridge

also contain any commercial buildings?

A. 2630 North Crescent Ridge Drive is a residence.

There is a commercial building adjacent to it with a different

address.

Q. And who is that commercial building owned by?

A. I actually am not entirely certain.

Q. And are you familiar with the real estate owned by

Mr. Laukien during the course of your representation of the

entities owned by him or during the lawsuit you represent these

individuals in?

A. I know a few pieces of real estate that are owned by

entities or by Mr. Laukien individually. But I certainly have

no clue what the entirety of the real estate that he owns is.

Q. Are you aware whether or not he owns other commercial

real estate located within the RUD excluding 2630 North

Crescent Ridge?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


81

A. He does.

Q. Do you know the extent of those holdings, whether

it's Mr. Laukien or his wife or them together or through some

partnership or corporation?

A. I know there are multiple different answers to that

question. I know multiple pieces of property that are owned in

different fashions that are within the road utility district

that are commercial property that the Laukiens or Mr. Laukien

are involved with.

Q. Let's go ahead and list the ones you know of, whether

that's owned by him individually, his wife individually, them

jointly, or through some business entity such as a limited

liability partnership, a partnership, a corporation?

A. Sure. For instance, the Black Walnut Cafe. The

Black Walnut Cafe is owned by an entity that is called "Black

Forest Ventures." It's located on Research Forest Drive in The

Woodlands and Mr. Laukien and maybe Ms. Laukien have an

interest in Black Forest Ventures. There is real property in

the road utility district that is called Bruker Optics. Bruker

Optics is a manufacturing facility. It's located in The

Woodlands. The commercial property is located inside the

bounds of the road utility district and Mr. Laukien has

ownership in Bruker Optics. There is a multi-tenant commercial

building that's known as "24 Waterway." 24 Waterway, I believe

is owned by an entity called 24 Waterway, LLC, and Mr. Laukien

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


82

has ownership in that entity.

Q. Any others?

A. I believe that there are others, but I'm not sure

that I could specifically identify them by address or entity.

Q. I believe you testified earlier as far as the

commercial value --

A. I'm sorry, I did just remember one more.

Q. Sure.

A. There is a property that is close to the intersection

of Research Forest and Gosling that is called -- I believe it's

called "Black Forest Plaza." It's where Hubble & Hudson

Kitchen is located and has commercial lease space in that

building at that address. And I believe that is also owned by

the Black Forest Ventures group, which I already identified

that he is an investor in.

Q. Your office is in the road utility district, correct?

A. It is.

Q. You lease that office space, correct?

A. I do.

Q. Does Mr. Laukien have any interest in that building?

A. Does not.

Q. Who owns it, if you know?

A. I know indirectly who owns it. There is an entity

that is named -- that is the ownership entity for that

building, but the ultimate owner is the Howard Hughes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


83

Corporation.

Q. Back to the topic I started to delve into, the value

of the property contained within the RUD.

A. Yes.

Q. You testified to that earlier. I don't know if you

gave us the exact number, but I believe it was in the billions.

What was that?

A. In 2010, around the time of this election, the value

of the commercial property in the road utility district was

about 1.5 billion with a B. And it's shown in the audited

statements, as well.

Q. Right. And that's in evidence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the -- what is the amount of assets that the

road utility district has? How much money do they have on

hand?

A. Today?

Q. Let's go back to what is in evidence, in the audit in

'09. How much did they have on hand?

A. I believe in the audit in '09, they had funds on hand

in excess of $21 million.

Q. And they have author- -- the road utility district

has authorization to issue bonds; is that correct?

A. They do.

Q. And, in fact, they've done that; is that correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


84

A. They have.

Q. Now, certainly we have properties all over the

county, all over the state that are, one, in a municipality and

they're not in a road utility district; is that correct?

A. That is true.

Q. And as far as maintenance upkeep, et cetera, as far

as the roads within those areas, who does that responsibility

fall to?

A. Well, there are a variety of different options. The

most common one is the county, but sometimes there are private

roads.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about public roads.

A. Okay.

Q. Would you agree with me that the primary

responsibility as far as upkeep or building of those roads in

public areas falls to Montgomery County, correct?

A. It frequently does. It depends on the specific

circumstance, but most often it's the county.

Q. What about the State. What involvement would they

have in areas such as that?

A. Well, if it's a state road like a state highway, for

instance, I mentioned State Highway 242 earlier. State

Highway 242 was built by and/or is a function of the state as

opposed to the county. Most of our highways are not county

responsibility.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


85

Q. And are there any state highways included within the

boundaries of the RUD?

A. You know, I don't believe that there are.

Q. Go ahead if you need to step down.

A. I think that this is helpful. There are properties

along the edge of State Highway 242, which, if you were looking

right here again, this is I-45. This is actually State

Highway 242 that comes across here and the commercial

properties that are at the edge of State Highway 242 are within

the bounds of the district; but the highway itself, you'll see

is not colored that beige or coffee-colored spot. The state

highway is not part of the district because it falls under a

different government.

Q. Okay. Now, there -- would you agree with me that

there are county roads located within the road utility

district, public county roads? I'm sorry that's a bad word,

county roads. Roads that are, were it not for the RUD, that

Montgomery County would be responsible for the upkeep of those

roads?

A. Can you say that one more time because I want to make

sure that I answer it accurately.

Q. In the absence of the RUD --

A. Okay.

Q. -- are there roads contained within the boundary of

that RUD that would fall under the -- as far as upkeep and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


86

things of that a nature, they would fall to Montgomery County?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the road utility district have assets such as

tractors and asphalt and things of that nature, or do they

contract for those services?

A. They generally contract for services.

Q. And who do they contract with in a general sense, if

you know?

A. A lot of different entities.

Q. And who has the duty or obligation to make those

contracts?

A. Well, the road utility district enters into contracts

for the building of roads or the improvement of roads.

Q. And they do that through their board of directors; is

that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Phil Grant?

A. I do know Phil Grant.

Q. How do you know Mr. Grant?

A. Mr. Grant is part of the district attorney's office.

He's another licensed attorney in the county and somebody that

I have met through activities with the bar associations and

otherwise.

Q. And, in fact, he is the first assistant district

attorney; is that correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


87

A. He is.

Q. Now, prior to the filing of this lawsuit that we've

been representing, the lawsuit that you filed in relation to

the road utility district, did you have any meetings with

Mr. Grant?

A. Prior to filing the lawsuit, no, I did not.

Q. Did you have any phone conversations with Mr. Grant

prior to the filing of the lawsuit?

A. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, no, I did not.

Q. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, did you have any

meetings with Mike Page regarding the road utility district?

A. I did not have any meetings with him, but I believe I

had at least one phone call and maybe two phone calls with Mike

Page prior to filing. If we go to prior to filing the lawsuit,

I probably had more than two phone conversations with Mike

Page. Prior to being hired in the lawsuit, I probably had two

with him about the road utility district.

Q. You lost me a little bit. One or two conversations

regarding the road utility district prior to being retained by

these three individuals?

A. Correct.

Q. After being retained and before filing the lawsuit,

how many conversations with Mr. Page?

A. At least two and maybe three.

Q. Did you have any meetings or telephone conversations

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


88

with Mr. Grant after being retained in the lawsuit or the

lawsuit that you represented the three individuals?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. And when did those occur in relation to filing

of the lawsuit?

A. On the day that I filed the lawsuit, I met with

Mr. Grant.

Q. Any meetings after that or telephone conversations?

A. I believe that the week that the actual trial

started, and I don't remember whether there was a phone call or

whether I just stopped in at his office when I was in the

courthouse, but I let him know that the trial was starting. So

one either call or meeting about the time that the actual civil

trial started.

Q. I don't want to delve too far in your business, but

you were certainly compensated for your time and effort in that

lawsuit you filed on behalf of those three individuals; is that

correct?

A. I was.

Q. You had these ten individuals when you had all these

documents -- or during the course of your investigation and

your lawsuit -- I don't know quite how to put this -- those ten

individuals exist, correct?

A. Yes. They're real people.

Q. They weren't pseudonyms. They weren't fictitious

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


89

names. These were individuals that go by those particular

names, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Are you familiar with the requirements of an

application to be a registered voter?

A. I'm generally familiar with one.

Q. And we have some of those in evidence; is that

correct?

A. We do.

Q. And those are required to be filed at some point

prior to the election; is that correct?

A. That is correct under the election code.

Q. And what is the timeframe in which a person, prior to

the election, has to file those applications?

A. Generally it is 30 days prior to an election.

Q. Now, I know we're parsing the word "residence" a lot,

but do you have to be at that residence 30 days before the

election?

A. You swear on the application that you reside at a

residence. So at the time that you file your voter's

registration application, you're swearing what your residence

is.

Q. Let me ask it a different way. Does a person have to

be a resident of a location 30 days prior to the election in

order to be eligible?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


90

A. I think in order to register to vote, you have to

swear that you reside inside the bounds of a territory that you

want to vote in. But the election code does not require

residence other than you're swearing to it when you file the

application. I believe that you can -- I don't know what the

right word would be -- acquire a residence inside of 30 days

prior to an election, but you would not be generally eligible

to vote in that election because you hadn't met the

registration deadline. Does that make sense?

Q. Okay.

A. You follow what I'm saying?

Q. Yeah.

A. May not have been clear. I tried.

Q. Well, it's two lawyers sitting here asking a jury if

they understand the question.

But the 30 days is an application requirement,

not a -- not a -- I'm a resident when I become a resident of a

location. I don't have to wait 30 days in order to declare

myself a resident; is that correct?

A. You do not have to wait 30 days to declare yourself a

resident, that is correct.

Q. Certainly, you would agree with me that when we're

talking about these properties that have had ad valorem tax put

on their property, that that's a business expense for them,

correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


91

A. The businesses that pay that tax, that is a business

expense, that is correct.

Q. And certainly these businesses are in the -- the best

hope is that they turn a profit, correct?

A. Most businesses are out to make a profit, that's

generally true.

Q. And these expenses, whether they be rent or supplies

or taxes, those are eventually basis economics, those are

eventually paid by the customer; is that correct?

A. I think that's not necessarily entirely a fair

statement. I'm also an economics major. That was my

undergraduate degree.

Q. You're going to be here another couple of hours.

A. Fine and dandy. But different businesses factor

their expenses different ways. Some pass them on to customers;

others don't. And for the most part, based from what I have

seen from my own shopping in the road utility district, the

major retail locations don't.

Q. You talk about the ways that these properties can

become part of the road utility district. First of all, back

in -- if you know, back in 1991 when it was formed, what were

the boundaries?

A. Back in 1991, I don't know. I know that the Texas

legislature created the district, but I don't know whether they

created the district with an existing map or whether they

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


92

called for a boundary election. I'm not sure.

Q. And since 1991, have the boundaries or the amount of

land contained within the road utility district, has it

expanded, contracted, or stayed the same?

A. It has increased as different property owners have

petitioned to have their land included within the district.

Q. Can you name any of those property owners that have

petitioned to be within the district?

A. I can.

Q. Okay.

A. For instance Wal-Mart at the end of Woodlands

Parkway -- at the intersection of Woodlands Parkway and 2978,

that certainly did not exist back in 1991. Today it does

exist. And today it is part of the road utility district. It

became a part of the district along the way by annexation.

Q. How does that process work?

A. Well, generally a property owner requests that

property be included within the bounds of a district and then

the Board of Directors, I believe, makes the determination as

to whether or not to annex it or include it in. If it's by a

property owner request, I generally believe that is a vote of

the Board of Directors.

Q. Now, I can speak from personal experience, but I

rarely volunteer to be taxed more. What is the benefit for

these businesses to be within the road utility district?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


93

A. Well, generally a property owner who wants a roadway

improvement that is adjacent to their business facility might

be willing to have their property included in order to have the

possibility of getting the roadway improved.

Q. You mentioned Wal-Mart. And do they garner some

benefit by being in the road utility district?

A. I believe in the particular instance of the Wal-Mart

at the end of The Woodlands Parkway, that there was a stoplight

put in by the road utility district at the driveway entrance

into the Wal-Mart facility. I think that made it handy for

customers to be able to turn into their driveway. I think it's

something that Wal-Mart wanted. I think it's something that

the road utility district wanted.

Q. And the road utility district would not have the

authority to put in, for instance, that stoplight unless the

property was contained within the road utility district?

A. And two different things there. I believe the road

utility district paid for the improvement, but I believe that

stoplights are the function of the county.

Q. Okay. But the improvement to the roads, that was a

benefit to Wal-Mart, correct?

A. In that particular instance, having that stoplight

there I think was helpful to that shopping center, yes.

Q. You stated there was some other way for a property to

be brought within the boundaries of the road utility district.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


94

What's the other one? You talked about the volunteer. What's

the other way?

A. I believe at the very beginning of the district,

there was either -- the Texas legislature either had a map

describing the boundaries or there was some kind of a boundary

election. That's just before my time, before I was in

Montgomery County, and I don't know.

Q. Are you aware of the location where the Board of

Directors has their meetings?

A. Today, I'm not entirely sure.

Q. Let's talk about 2010.

A. I am aware of where they held meetings in 2010.

Q. Where was that?

A. They held their meetings in the 24 Waterway building.

Q. And who is that building owned by?

A. That building is owned by 24 Waterway, LLC.

Q. Which is an -- LLC, when we use that term, that's a

limited liability corporation, correct?

A. It is.

Q. Do you know who the shareholders of that entity are?

A. I do not know who all of the shareholders are; but as

I mentioned earlier in my testimony, Mr Laukien is one of the

owners of that facility.

Q. Are there rules or requirements as far as how many

meetings or when they have to have meetings?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


95

A. I don't -- I know that they're enabling legislation

calling for at least an annual meeting, but I'm not sure that

they prescribe a specific number or requirement of meetings. I

know they meet whenever they need to do business and they have

public postings and public notice of the meetings. But I don't

know that there is a minimum number other than an annual

meeting. They've had more frequent meetings than that.

Q. And have you ever attended any of the meetings?

A. I have.

Q. Outside of the Board of Directors and maybe support

staff and yourself, have you ever seen any members of the

public at these meetings?

A. I have.

Q. Anyone that you are -- that you know, know their

name?

A. Yes.

Q. Who would that be?

A. Well, I know that at the meetings there was a road

vendor that actually was bidding for a road job. And the owner

or one of the owners of that is the Kellogg Company.

Q. Any other individuals?

A. Sure. I know that there have been members of the

Chamber of Commerce, where I'm also on the Board of Directors

of the Chamber of Commerce, and they've from time to time

attended the meetings. I believe Amy Milstead has attended

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


96

those meetings.

Q. How many meetings have you attended?

A. I've been to four meetings, I believe.

Q. Any of the ten people we're talking about in relation

to this election, the two ladies sitting next to me and the

other eight, ever see any of them at any of the meetings?

A. I did not see the two ladies, Ms. Doyle and Ms. Cook,

at any of these meetings. However, I did see other members of

the ten voters at one of the meetings that I attended.

Q. Who would that be?

A. My recollection is that Mr. McDuffee, Mr. Curry,

Mr. Goeddertz, I believe Mr. Berntsen, and Mr. Heath were

present at one of the meetings that I was present at.

Q. Let's put that in context. Was that before or after

the election of 2010?

A. The meeting I'm referring to was after the election,

where I saw those individuals where I was in attendance and

they were in attendance.

Q. You testified about the records of the road utility

district being public; is that correct?

A. They are.

Q. And --

A. State law.

Q. Right. And can you tell us where those records are

housed?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


97

A. I do not know where they are housed today.

Q. Okay. 2010, when you were representing these three

individuals, were you aware where the records of the road

utility district were located?

A. No. Because when I made the open records request, I

contacted an individual over the telephone and they gave me an

address to send the request to. But I don't know whether the

records were at that address or not. I simply don't know.

Q. Where was that address at?

A. The individual that I was asked to send it to was a

legal assistant in the Schwartz, Page & Harding law firm.

Q. That's the law firm for Mr. Page --

A. Mr. Page.

Q. -- who represents the -- or at least in 2010

represented the road utility district.

JUROR: Excuse me, Your Honor, can he speak up?

MR. WALKER: I'm sorry.

JUROR: I'm having a little trouble hearing.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) Mr. Page represented in 2010, at

least we know, he represented the road utility district; is

that correct?

A. He did.

Q. Was the place where you sent this request his office

location?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


98

A. It was. That's where I was told to send the request

to.

Q. What did you request specifically?

A. I requested some of the elections records, the

combination form that I think are already in evidence that were

put upon the screens. I believe I requested the boundary map

for the road utility district.

Q. What about the audit we have in evidence?

A. Back in 2010, I don't remember. I know I requested

it at some point in time, but I think that was later than 2010.

Q. Did they charge you a fee for copying these records?

A. I believe there was a minimal photocopying fee that

was based on the number of pages that I requested. It was a

per page copy cost. Maybe 10 bucks or less.

Q. To your knowledge, are your three clients still

sitting members of the board of the road utility district?

A. I know that Bill Neill is the chairman of the road

utility district today. I don't know for certain, but I do not

believe that either Mr. Miller or Mr. Davenport are still on

the road utility district.

Q. You mentioned there was an election last year. You

were aware of how many people voted in that election?

A. I actually don't know.

Q. Back to Mr. Grant for a second. I want to be clear

on this. You had conversations with him at some point during

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


99

this. Did you ever have a conversation where you were present,

Mr. Grant was present, and Mr. Page was present?

A. No. Take that back, I'm sorry.

I believe during the civil trial there was day

that Mr. Grant attended to observe and I believe on a break

that he and I and Mr. Page exchanged pleasantries in the

hallway. So I think that there was indeed one occasion when we

were all at the same place at the same time.

MR. WALKER: Pass the witness.

THE COURT: Anything else?



REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Mr. Walker raised several topics I'd like to just

address quickly with you. Dirk Laukien, being a business owner

or being a property owner in the road utility district, that

would make him a taxpayer or not a taxpayer?

A. For the road utility district a taxpayer.

Q. Okay. So would he be, perhaps, even a major taxpayer

or not in the grand scheme of things?

A. I know that his facilities have a substantial amount

of value; but as far as what percentage in the overall

district, I have no idea.

Q. Okay. And he is a taxpayer that also happens to have

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


100

a residential property; is that correct?

A. He does.

Q. So the address we talked about earlier, 2630 Crescent

Ridge, is that his personal residence?

A. It is.

Q. And how is that property zoned?

A. It is a residence, and it is zoned residential.

Q. Okay. Is that property zoned separately from the

commercial business properties that are adjacent to it?

A. It is. Of course, The Woodlands doesn't have zoning.

We generally refer to them as restrictions or covenants. They

talk about what kind of facility that you can have, but it's

the same idea.

Q. Okay. In terms of the taxes on the business property

versus the taxes on the residential property, are those set up

appropriately or is there some overlap between the two?

A. They are separate pieces of property and they are

separately appraised by the appraisal district and they are

separately taxed by the tax appraisal district and the entities

that tax them, so they are separate.

Q. Are you aware if Mr. Laukien an his wife Katie have a

homestead exemption on that property at 2630?

A. I am aware, and they do.

Q. Could you describe that residence for us, because

there's been some impression of the overall area in terms of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


101

being an office building or commercial properties? Could you

explain the residence?

A. Yeah. It is not commercial. It is a residential

property. It is a property that I have been to, I have taken

photographs of, and I have been at the Laukiens' home at their

invitation. It is a modern style building, that is, it's not a

red brick Colonial by any means. It is modern-looking

building; but it has a patio, it has a swimming pool, it has

bedroom, it has kitchen, it has bathroom. It has everything

that you and I might think of when we think of a home.

MR. WHITE: Permission to approach the witness,

Your Honor?


Q. (By Mr. White) Sorry to interrupt.

A. It just looks a little bit different from the outside

because they preferred a modern style of architecture.

Q. Okay. Mr. Walker asked you if you had taken photos

of the home and you responded that you had; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Handing you State's 29. Do you recognize those

photographs?

A. I do.

Q. Are those, in fact, photographs that you took?

A. They are the photographs I took of the Laukiens'

house.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


102

Q. And the general timeframe of those photographs is

what?

A. Again, the month of May 2010.

Q. Okay. And do those photographs fairly and accurately

depict that residence on -- in May of 2010?

A. They do.


State's Exhibit 29.

MR. WALKER: No objection.

THE COURT: It's admitted.


Q. (By Mr. White) And since a picture is worth a

thousand words, you were describing this home to the jury and

for unfortunately these are a little bit blurry, especially

when we put them on the overhead. But what are we looking at

here?

A. The thing on the left-hand side of the photo, this is

actually the mailbox at the facility. You can see it's got the

address number and the name on the right side. This is the

patio entrance into the home.

Q. And what do we see here in this photograph?

A. This is the exterior of the home. You can see it has

the modern style of architecture that was describing and

that's -- this right here is the gate into that patio area.

Q. And where was this photograph taken?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


103

A. That is one part of the Laukiens' closet, master

closet in this particular instance.

Q. And this photograph?

A. That is another part of the master closet.

Q. What is this photograph taken of?

A. This is the family room area. You can see that he --

Mr. Laukien, in particular, liked modern style architecture

inside the home, also. He had kind of modern furniture pieces.

Q. And where was this photograph taken?

A. This is in the master bathroom.

Q. And let me ask you this. You seemed to have not

taken quite as many photographs of their home. Is there a

reason for the number that you took?

A. No. I mean, it had what I needed to see and I took

pictures of what I thought was important to see.

Q. Okay. Did you take a photo in each room?

A. I did take a photo in -- I think that there was a

powder room or a half bathroom that I did not.

Q. Okay. So this represented a photo of what room?

A. This was the family room or living room. Again,

modern couch and TV stand and speaker.

Q. And the final photo was taken where?

A. This is Katie Laukien actually in the picture in the

kitchen, and she was actually just about to make dinner when I

was taking the photographs.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


104

Q. Okay. Mr. Walker asked you about the number of

voters that purported to be of residence. Really, we're

talking about residents -- we're talking about individuals who

had voter registrations that were inside the RUD. Do you

remember answering questions about that?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. What I'd like to ask you is what is it that

has to be done to become registered to vote in a specific area?

A. Well, back in 2010, a person had to fill out a

voter's registration application or a card; but occasionally,

if I'm remembering correctly, for 2010, when you obtained your

driver's license, on your driver's license application there, I

believe, was a box that you could check to also request being

registered to vote at your driver's license address.

Q. So in addition to filling out a voter registration

application and providing an address there, which we've seen

some examples of today --

A. Correct.

Q. -- one would be able to check a box on a driver's

license when you're applying at the DMV, I suppose?

A. There was back in 2010. I'm not sure if there still

is today, but it was part of a motor voter bill is what they

called it.

Q. Okay. And filling out a voter registration

application or checking that box at the DMV or having that box

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


105

checked for you, does that make one an eligible voter?

A. I would -- I would say the answer is no. It enabled

a person to get a voter's registration card; but unless the

person met the requirements to be an eligible voter, they would

not be.

MR. WALKER: I'm going to object. That calls

for the ultimate conclusion of the case.


Q. (By Mr. White) Is residency a requirement for

eligibility?

A. It is.

Q. And Mr. Walker asked you about some of these

individuals that happened to be registered at business

addresses in the RUD. To your knowledge, did any of these

individuals ever vote?

A. They did not.

Q. Did any of them vote in the 2010 election?

A. They did not. I mean, the ten individuals did and

Dirk and Kate Laukien did; but the other individuals that were

being referred to that had registered an address inside the

district at a business or otherwise did not vote.

Q. Okay. And do we have any idea who all these people

are?

A. I did a little bit of investigation into it, and I

have a little bit of knowledge about it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


106

Q. Okay. Did you run across anybody who lived or

claimed to live legitimately in the road utility district that

was interested in voting in elections?

A. The answer is no, besides the two Laukiens who had an

actual residence inside the district.

Q. Now, Mr. Walker also asked you about what would

happen in the absence of the RUD. The answer is it would fall

to Montgomery County, and I believe you said that some might or

they would?

A. There are roads that are inside the bounds of the

road utility district that would otherwise be the

responsibility of Montgomery County, correct.

Q. So in absence of the RUD that funds those roads

currently, if the RUD were gone, what would be the consequences

in terms of taxes to the residence of Montgomery County?

A. I don't currently pay taxes for those roads; but

absent the road utility district, I would.

Q. And in terms of the business that the road utility

district brings in and the purpose for why it was created and

set up in the way that it does, was that purpose to spread the

tax burden out or to concentrate it on a group of people or

even residents of The Woodlands?

A. It is not by coincidence that the major commercial

properties that are located on the major roads in The Woodlands

form the tax base for those roads. Businesses need good

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


107

access. Businesses need roads to bring shoppers or service

users to them. And it is by design that they form the taxing

basis for this district to help support the very roads that

they wanted and needed, which are to the benefit of the rest of

us, too. But it's no coincidence.

Q. And is The Woodlands Road Utility District and its

roads, does it bring in primarily outside traffic or does it

bring in Woodlands residence to those retail outlets and

professional services and whatever businesses are there?

A. It is both and, in particular, at the peak rush-hour

time periods in The Woodlands, the traffic counts reflect that

there is a greater inflow on those roads than outflow, bringing

employees, bringing shoppers, bringing people to those

addresses rather than from those addresses.

Q. In regard to the questions that Mr. Walker asked

about the requirements for voter registration, he presented a

scenario where a voter had not registered within the 30-day

deadline, but actually was a resident of that district or that

precinct?

A. Okay.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a provisional ballot?

A. I am familiar with a provisional ballot.

Q. What is a provisional ballot?

A. If a person comes to the polls and says, hi, I'm here

to vote, and the election official looks down at their list of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


108

registered voters or enters it in their computer, depending on

the particular election, and the person is not designated on

the list of registered voters for that election, the voter can

still cast a ballot. And the kind of ballot that they cast is

called a "provisional ballot." It is -- it allows the voter to

express their desire for who they want to vote for and who they

want to elect in the election and then later a decision can be

made as to whether or not it is a legitimate ballot. So it's

provisional in the sense of they get to cast it, they get to

make their vote. And then later on a determination is made as

to whether or not they are eligible and legal to vote.

Q. So if a voter is in a situation that was described,

where they're actually a resident, but they became a resident

within 30 days of the election, do they have to lie on a voter

registration application ahead of time or can they just show up

on the day of the election and cast a provisional ballot?

A. They certainly do not have to lie and they certainly

can fill out a provisional ballot.

Q. In regard to the road utility district tax being a

business expense, some questions were asked on that. Do all

businesses generally pay for the infrastructure that serves

them in one way or another?

A. In one form or fashion or another, they do.

Q. Not just businesses inside the RUD, but do all

businesses?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


109

A. Businesses everywhere have to pay for the facilities

that they use. They have to -- if they don't have electricity

to them, they have to pay for electricity to be brought to

them. If they don't have computer services, they have to pay

for wires to be installed to bring the services to their

facility. So businesses are generally responsible for the

infrastructure that are required for their businesses.

Q. And we talked about land that's actually been added

to the RUD where businesses like Wal-Mart, for example, have

petitioned to be included in the RUD. So we know that

businesses -- some businesses are getting into the RUD. My

question would be: Are there any businesses that are trying to

get out of the RUD?

A. To my knowledge, there has not ever been a business

that has petitioned to be excluded from or removed from the

RUD.

Q. All right. So if a business like Wal-mart wants

better roads, better infrastructure, is the RUD available to

consider annexing their property and improving the roads?

A. Yes, with one caveat. I think that it has to be a

business that is adjacent to the existing boundaries of the

road utility district. That is, a business here in Conroe

could not petition to be a part of The Woodlands Road Utility

District. I don't think that their enabling legislation allows

that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


110

Q. And you were asked also about the Board of Directors

meetings in 2010 being at 24 Waterway, that building?

A. Correct.

Q. Which is owned by 24 Waterway, LLC?

A. Correct.

Q. And I believe that you testified also that

Mr. Laukien has some interest in that LLC; is that correct?

A. That -- he does.

Q. Now, does the Board of Directors and, hence -- I

should say does the RUD have to pay rent for office space?

A. Today, I do not know where the RUD meets or leases

office space. In 2010, I do not believe that they were leasing

space inside that building.

Q. Okay. And does the RUD or the Board of Directors

require office space for its daily operations?

A. I don't believe that they do; or if they do, it's

very minimal. They don't have paid staff. It's contract

staff. At least back in 2010. I'm not sure about today.

Q. Now, if the RUD had to pay rent for the Board of

Directors to have offices or meetings rooms or things like

that, where would those funds come from?

A. From the taxpayers, that is, the commercial entities

that were the taxpayers for the RUD.

Q. So if one of the taxpayers or business property

owners donated space for a meeting for the RUD, would that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


111

reduce their tax bill, essentially?

A. Essentially if the road utility district was allowed

to use a meeting room, that's another expense that they didn't

have or another expense that they wouldn't have to tax for.

Q. In regard to open records and how those records are

housed, all the records of the road utility district, does the

RUD pay for office space and storage space for their own

records?

A. I actually don't know the answer to that.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm not sure where they keep the records. I just

know that when I needed to make an open records request, that I

was asked to send it to the Schwartz, Page & Harding law firm,

to their attorneys.

Q. Is it possible that they outsource the recordkeeping

and their storage so that they don't have to have an ongoing

expense of office space?

A. That's perfectly allowable under state law.

MR. WHITE: Pass the witness, Your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. When you --

MR. WALKER: What's the exhibit on the Laukien

pictures?

THE COURT: 29.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


112

MR. WALKER: Is that admitted?

MR. WHITE: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) On No. 29, when you took those

pictures, you didn't have to pick the lock. You called the

Laukiens and said, "Hey, I need to come over and take some

pictures," right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any --

A. Or, no, I didn't have to pick the lock. Yes, I

called them and asked them if I could take pictures. No law

enforcement representatives were around, so...

Q. Okay. Were there any -- are you aware of any other

residential properties owned by Mr. or Ms. Laukien?

A. I know I saw a reference to them owning property in

another state, but I don't have any real knowledge of that.

Q. What about Montgomery County, if you're aware?

A. I'm not aware of other residential property that they

own in Montgomery County.

MR. WALKER: I'll pass the witness.

THE COURT: All right. May this man be excused?


THE COURT: All right. We're going to take a

break for lunch. Can everyone please return back at 1:30,

Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you. You are excused.

(At this time the jury exits the courtroom.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


113

(At this time a lunch break is taken.)

(Continuation after lunch.)

THE COURT: Please bring the jury in.

Who's next?

MR. WHITE: It will be Richard McDuffee.

THE COURT: Please be seated. Thank you.

All right. We are ready to proceed. Call your

next witness.

MR. WHITE: State calls Richard McDuffee.

THE COURT: Mr. McDuffee, please come forward.

(Witness is sworn.)

RICHARD MCDUFFEE,

having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. McDuffee. Could you please

introduce yourself to the jury?

A. Richard McDuffee, Montgomery County, Texas.

Q. And you're doing well right now, but if you can keep

leaning into that microphone which is directly in front of you

and we'll be able to hear you. Appreciate it.

Mr. McDuffee, what was your roll in the May 8,

2010, Woodlands Road Utility District election? Let me

rephrase that.

What connection did you have with that election?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


114

A. Being friends with Jim Jenkins and others that were a

part of it -- ultimately became part of it.

Q. Okay. And did you participate in a scheme to vote in

the road utility district?

MR. WALKER: Object to the characterization of

"scheme," Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, how would you characterize it?

Do you understand the question? Can you answer that question?

WITNESS: I believe so, yes.


Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. White) Did you participate in a scheme to

vote in the road utility district?

A. Yes.

Q. And I use the word "scheme" --

THE COURT: I'm sorry, you can't hear?

Please, I've got this volume up at 90 percent

and anything more gets feedback. So if everyone can please

speak into the microphone. Thank you very much for working

with us.

Q. (By Mr. White) In your response to the question

whether or not you participated in the scheme to vote in the

road utility district was "yes." Is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And are you offended by my use of the word

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


115

"scheme"?

A. No.

Q. Do you think that that properly characterizes more or

less what it was?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Well, tell us what the basic idea was.

A. The basic idea after the original meeting was to get

as many voters as you could to register in the district of the

RUD, that is, a defined boundary inside Montgomery County, and

to go and vote for their election, to vote three of us onto the

board.

Q. And were you one of those members that were to be

elected to the board?

A. Somehow I was selected to been the president.

Q. Okay. Was this your idea?

A. No.

Q. Was there one individual that brought the idea to

this group of ten?

A. The one that I would -- correct. The one who brought

forth to me to be the president was Mr. Jim Jenkins.

Q. Okay. And do you know who conceived of the actual

idea to vote in this election?

A. Jim was the biggest cheerleader for us at the

original meeting that was discussed. That did not last. It

broke up. But he put forth the idea to reregister into the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


116

district.

Q. And when you say "Jim," you're referring to Jim

Jenkins; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. We also have another Jim involved in this whole

scheme and that Jim is who?

A. Jim Doyle.

Q. And is Jim the husband of Sybil Doyle who's the

Defendant in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And he's is father of Roberta Cook who is the other

Defendant in this case; is that correct?

A. That's what understand, yes.

Q. All right. So where do you live and reside,

Mr. McDuffee?

A. I reside on Hansons Court in Bender's Landing Estates

in Montgomery County, Texas.

Q. Okay. And how long have you lived there?

A. I'm trying to recall the year we built our house. I

believe it was 2007 Hurricane Ike had passed through. We moved

in right after that.

Q. Okay. So since Hurricane Ike in 2007, have you lived

there continuously?

A. Yes.

Q. What subdivision?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


117

A. Bender's Landing Estates.

Q. Bender's Landing, okay.

How long have you lived in this area in

Montgomery County or this area?

A. Total time would be about seven and a half years. We

lived in the county moving back from Johnson County, Texas, and

then having the house built. A total of about seven and a half

years.

Q. Okay. Did you ever intend to leave your home and

give up your residence in Bender's Landing Estates and move

into the Residence Inn hotel?

A. No.

Q. What was the idea behind registering to vote at that

address?

A. Came from Mr. Jenkins. It was that it was --

Q. Well, let me -- let's leave out who it came from and

just talk about what the idea was.

A. The idea was to get ten or more to change their

voting registration to inside of the district to vote in the

upcoming election.

Q. Okay. Now, where you reside and where you resided at

the time is Bender's Landing Estates; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And were you eligible or not eligible to vote in this

RUD election from where you lived?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


118

A. No.

Q. You were not eligible?

A. Not eligible.

Q. And you knew that; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you pay taxes to the RUD on your home because

of your property that you own in Bender's Estate?

A. No.

Q. And to your knowledge, does anyone in this group of

ten live in the RUD and pay RUD taxes?

A. No property taxes.

Q. At any time during this whole period going back to

2010 and even before, did anyone, to your knowledge, live in

the RUD and pay road utility district taxes?

A. No.

Q. I'm going to show you what's marked as State's

Exhibit 7. And these are the certified voter registration

applications change forms. Do you recognize these documents?

A. Yes.

Q. And is the one that you're looking at right now in

State's 7, is that your voter registration application form?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you'll look on the monitor there in front of

you. Was there some points with this group where these forms

were either passed out or talked about that you guys needed to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


119

fill these forms out?

A. We were encouraged to fill the form out, to retrieve

the form and submit it. I cannot say if I went and picked my

own form up or if I picked up a blank form at Jim Jenkins'

office.

Q. Okay. And how was the address 9333 Six Pines Drive

decided on?

A. It was well inside of the district. That decision

would have come from Jim Jenkins.

Q. And were you aware at the time that it was a Marriott

Residence Inn?

A. I was familiar with the name. It was a Marriott

hotel and I had seen it and been passed it many times.

Q. Now, did ten people, yourself included,

simultaneously decide that they're going to leave their homes

and move into a Marriott Residence Inn that just happened to be

at the same address?

A. No.

Q. What was the purpose in changing your voter

registration address to the Six Pines Drive?

A. The idea was we would all about unified being at one

location and the address was posted on the wall in Mr. Jenkins'

office.

Q. Now, on No. 9 on this form, can you read that? Do I

need to zoom in a little?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


120

A. I got it there. Yes, I can read it.

Q. All right. Did you understand that to be a warning?

A. Yes.

Q. Against providing false information?

A. Right.

Q. Did it inform you that it was a crime to provide

false information on this form?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that give you any pause when you signed this form

and swore that your residence address is 9333 Six Pines?

A. Can I expound on that answer or just "yes" or "no"?

Q. Sure. At the time when you filled this form out and

provided the residence address as 9333 Six Pines Drive, did

this warning here that you would be committing perjury, giving

false information, procure voter registration is a perjury and

a crime under state and federal law, did that warning give you

any concern and, if so, what, or if not, what?

A. Well, it did give concern because it's there. But

information I was given from a lawyer in the county and back

case law that it was very seldom ever prosecuted.

Q. Okay. So did you feel that this was true information

when you provided it?

A. I would say -- I couldn't call the attorney being

fraudulent because I did not research case law.

Q. Okay.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


121

A. So I took it upon his word that it would fly under

the radar.

Q. Okay. So when you filled out this form and swore to

the address at the Marriott Residence Inn as your residence,

first off, had you ever stayed there?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever rented a room there?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever even been in the building?

A. No.

Q. And the advise or whatever it was that you received,

it indicated to you, if I'm understanding you right, that there

was a low probability of you being prosecuted?

MR. WALKER: Object to leading, Your Honor. I'm

objecting to leading.

MR. WHITE: I was doing a clarifying question.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let him ask the

question. If you want to re-urge it, you may.

Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. White) So that I understand you correctly,

are you saying it's a fair statement that when you provided

that address, that you believed that there was a low

probability of prosecution for providing that information as

your residence address?

MR. WALKER: Same objection, Your Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


122

Leading.


Q. (By Mr. White) You can answer the question.

A. Yes. I believed it was a very low possibility.

Q. And for wherever you were at that time in your

thinking process, was that a risk you were willing to take at

that point?

A. It had to be because I took the risk. It still was a

little nagging; but, you know, kind of give your faith and

trust to somebody who's in the business of the law and actually

researching it.

Q. Okay. So is this something that the group had

discussed?

A. The group is hard to say it's a group. If one of us

was in it, it was discussed. If there had to be two people in

Jim Jenkins' office, there may have been two. But as far as

everybody that was involved in it being inside one of these

meetings, I say the chance was very slim to none.

Q. Did anybody actually move into the hotel and move out

of their homes?

A. No one moved out of their homes to the hotel prior to

the election.

Q. Did anybody pack anything more than an overnight bag

for the hotel the night of -- or prior to the election, I

should say?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


123

A. I cannot say because I was not present. I was out of

county and when I returned it was 5:00 in the afternoon -- 4:00

or 5:00 o'clock, correction. I voted and went home.

Q. Okay. So were you also one of the ones that did not

spend the night in the hotel before the election?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And then you voted in that election on

May 8th, 2010, is it?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. How many nights have you spent in the

Residence Inn at 9333 Six Pines in your lifetime?

A. None.

Q. After the election we've heard in this trial that the

result of that election which was you and Mr. Goeddertz and

Mr. Berntsen winning the director positions by a margin of ten

votes to three. We have heard testimony that --

THE COURT: Just a second. Weren't there only

two votes otherwise? Isn't that what the record reflects?

MR. WHITE: Yes, Your Honor. I lost myself in

that question.

THE COURT: That's all right. Because I think

you said ten votes to three. Just to make sure that the jury

is not confused and the record is completely accurate. Thank

you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


124

Q. (By Mr. White) So the margin was ten votes to two;

is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. After the result of that election was in, we have

heard that the result of that election was contested. Is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And after that occurred and the group heard that

there was going to be a challenge to the election results, what

did the group do?

A. Well, since none of us are really election people or

in law, we just had to rely upon Mr. Jenkins and on his

attorney of what was happening.

Q. And that attorney's name was?

A. Eric Yollick.

Q. Okay. And what were you advised to do in regards to

the upcoming election contest?

A. Can I put it in context?

Q. Yes.

A. Because the way we were advised was an emergency

called meeting at Mr. Yollick's office, 6:00 o'clock. And I

basically walked in and said you're going to trial.

Q. Okay. And what was the response of the group to

that?

A. I think we all went home shaking our heads trying to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


125

understand what was going to happen.

Q. Was there some concern?

A. There were a lot of questions, but the bottom line

was get ready to go to court.

Q. And in the upcoming days and weeks in preparing for

court, what other advice did the group receive?

A. I'm going back step one on you.

Q. Sure.

A. It was a very big tongue lashing by an attorney of

only two rooms being rented for ten people and two of them

being married women.

Q. Are we talking about Eric Yollick?

A. Yes.

Q. So where was this meeting; do you recall?

A. At Mr. Yollick's office.

Q. Okay. And at Mr. Yollick's office, he chastised the

group. How would you characterize it and what was said?

A. Chastised the group, I would say sort of. Mr.

Jenkins was kind of the one instigating the rooms and paying

for the rooms. That just wasn't going to cut it. Especially

being the one night.

Q. Okay. So remind us of how many rooms had actually

been rented prior to the election.

A. Then night -- I think the day before the election,

they rented one room so they could say we spent one night in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


126

the hotel and went and voted and went home.

Q. Okay. Is it possible that Mr. Jenkins rented a room

and Mr. Curry also might have rented a room that night?

A. That was never discussed. It was get rooms rented.

Q. But Mr. Yollick mentioned something about two rooms.

What was that?

A. Mr. Jenkins, as far as I know, paid for two rooms for

the night and that was it.

Q. Okay. What did Mr. Yollick say about that?

A. You can't have ten people in two rooms in the

Residence Inn. You're only allowed four. Two of the women

were married and their husband's were not present in the group

of ten.

Q. Are those the two ladies in the courtroom today?

A. Yes.

Q. So what were you advised to do going forward in

preparing for this election contest?

A. More presence in the Residence Inn. Be there as much

as possible. Have mail forwarded there and held at the front

desk. Have several breakfasts there. Pictures taken out by

the swimming pool, basketball court. Movement in and out.

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what's marked as -- when

I find it here -- State's Exhibit 33. Do you recognize these

photographs?

A. Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


127

Q. And as you flip through those, are these photographs

that were taken at the Residence Inn as you just mentioned?

A. Yes. This would have been in the morning time.

Breakfast.

Q. And do these photos fairly and accurately depict the

people and places and scenes that we see in them?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the time period where these were taken?

A. These were all taken during the breakfast time. They

were serving breakfast at the hotel. These pictures here, most

of the group would be there.

Q. But these were -- was it leading up to the election

contest when these were taken?

A. These are post election.

Q. Post election, pre --

A. Trial.

Q. -- trial, okay.

MR. WHITE: State's going to offer State's

Exhibit 33.

MR. WALKER: May I take the witness on voir

dire?

THE COURT: Yes.


BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Mr. McDuffee, all the pictures contained in State's

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


128

Exhibit 33 were after the election at the Marriott, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever see either of these two ladies, the

Defendants in this case, at that hotel after the election?

A. No.

MR. WALKER: I would object to relevance, Your

Honor.


State's Exhibit 33 is admitted.



BY MR. WHITE:

Q. In this first photo -- Mr. McDuffee, can you see that

on your screen?

A. Yeah, I can make it out.

Q. This individual right here, can you identify him?

A. That's Mr. Doyle.

Q. Is that Jim Doyle?

A. Jim Doyle.

Q. The husband of the Defendant, Sybil Doyle?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you make out this individual right next to

him here?

A. That would be Adrian Heath.

Q. Okay. That's the head of Adrian Heath.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


129

And on the other side of the table from Mr. Jim

Doyle is?

A. Mr. Jim Jenkins.

Q. And can you make out this other individual?

A. That is Mr. Tom Curry.

Q. And the next photograph?

A. That is myself.

Q. All right. What are you doing in this photograph?

A. Looking over the paperwork supposedly for work.

Q. Okay. You say "supposedly." Were you really doing

paperwork here, or were you posing for a photograph?

A. Posing.

Q. Okay. And is this one of your business documents

here that you're holding up for the camera?

A. Correct. That's the company's logo on the top of the

page.

Q. Okay. And while we're talking about it and the

advice that you received to go and spend extra nights at the

Residence Inn -- well, first off, what was the purpose of your

spending those nights? Or -- I'm sorry. You didn't spend

nights.

But what's the purpose of spending time and

making appearances at the Residence Inn during this time

period?

A. To give a credence for the trial that we had been

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


130

there, that we're staying there, and it was kind of a

come-and-go situation. There were two gentleman who

actually -- young men who actually did -- they kept a room

rented for them at the inn.

Q. Okay. Now, was this a thing where you guys are

actually living here or were you just making appearances?

A. Making appearances.

Q. Okay. And what do you do for a living, Mr. McDuffee?

We were looking at your business documents here.

A. At that time I had a security license, life insurance

license and several other licenses I had with Prime America.

Q. And in this group of individuals here, who is this?

A. Adrian Heath.

Q. Who is next to him?

A. Jim Doyle.

Q. All right. And we've got several pictures already

with Mr. Jim Doyle in them. But your testimony before was that

you never saw Ms. Doyle and Ms. Cook at the Residence Inn. Is

that correct?

A. I never saw them there, no.

Q. Okay. Who is this individual in the yellow shirt?

A. Bill Berntsen.

Q. Mr. Berntsen.

And who is in the blue shirt here holding the

envelope?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


131

A. That would be Tom Curry.

Q. Okay. Do you have any idea what this envelope is?

A. Again, that was mail he had sent to the residence and

it got held at the front desk.

Q. Okay. Are you saying he sent himself a letter at the

hotel?

A. I cannot testify as to who sent it. I just know we

were all encouraged to have mail sent to the Residence Inn and

held at the front desk for us to come and retrieve it from the

front desk.

Q. Okay. Did you ever send yourself a letter at the

Residence Inn?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the purpose of sending yours a letter there?

A. Photograph and staff at the hotel knowing you by

face.

Q. Okay. Is this Mr. Berntsen here again intrigued with

the newspaper?

A. Correct.

Q. This appears to be Jim Jenkins. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is next to Mr. Jenkins just in front of you?

A. That would be -- the one diagonal across would be the

Allisons, the brothers.

Q. And Ben Allison with the glasses; is that correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


132

A. Correct.

Q. And who is this? Do you remember the other --

A. I don't remember -- I had a hard enough time

remembering Allison, so...

Q. Does Robert sound familiar?

A. Robert. Ben and Robert, yes.

Q. Okay. Is this Mr. Berntsen posing again?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea what that document is?

A. I cannot make it out.

Q. I don't know if it can be made out. I was just

wondering if you knew what the significance -- were there

significance to the documents that were posed with in these

photographs?

A. The imprint was that you were receiving mail there,

so you were coming and going from the hotel on a regular basis.

So you would have mail sent there so you could get there and

pick it up there without having to go someplace else to pick it

up.

Q. Okay.

A. It was make sure -- the newspaper especially was to

be in photos because the headlines would give date from the

Chronicle.

Q. And was that the reality of the situation is that you

guys were kind of living at this hotel, or was this just for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


133

appearances?

A. For appearance.

Q. Is this photograph of Jim Jenkins here?

A. Yes. That would be one of his grandsons.

Q. Okay. And do you know why he brought his grandsons

to the hotel?

A. Again, for the appearance. I don't know if they even

used the pool or just came by and walked in and said "hi" and

left. I wasn't there that day, at that time.

Q. Okay. Who is the smirking individual holding the

newspaper?

A. That is Tom Curry with a classic photo of the Houston

Chronicle being held in front.

Q. Okay. So this newspaper photo, what was that

supposed to indicate or prove?

A. Well, it gave you the fact that the day of that

Chronicle was published to kind of lend credence to the time

the picture was taken.

Q. Okay. And this is another breakfast?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In regards to these breakfasts, had you guys

all rented rooms and were you-all guests at the hotel when you

were eating breakfast at the hotel?

A. No.

Q. So you guys just stopped by and picked up some

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


134

breakfast and coffee and stuff like that. Is that what

happened?

A. Yes, for photo op. I mean, they had two rooms and

they'd move up from there so each room could have four

occupants. So walk in and sit down as a group.

Q. Okay. Another newspaper photo?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is this?

A. Mr. Berntsen.

Q. This appears to be a classic Richard McDuffee

newspaper photo; is that right?

A. Yeah. I don't know what was in the paper that day.

Q. I'm not sure if we had seen this individual yet or

not right here?

A. That would be Mr. Goeddertz.

Q. Pete Goeddertz?

A. Pete Goeddertz.

Q. And this is Mr. Goeddertz here again sitting with

Mr. Curry?

A. Yes.

Q. Across the table from whom?

A. That would be Adrian Heath from that head.

Q. Okay. And more of Mr. Curry, Mr. Goeddertz, and

Mr. Berntsen?

A. Correct.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


135

Q. And what's this a picture of?

A. We went out and sat by the outdoor seating

arrangement and someone was taking pictures.

Q. Okay.

A. Using the amenities of the hotel.

Q. Okay. Here you are again?

A. Yes.

Q. What's going on in this photo?

A. I would say the other end of the table there would be

just chitchat at that end and I found something interesting in

the paper I was reading.

Q. And what is this a photograph of?

A. That was the evening that I think four went down and

were shooting hoops on the basketball court.

Q. In front of the Residence Inn; is that correct?

A. I believe the sidewalk comes from left to right at

the front door.

Q. Okay. Tom Curry again posing with the basketball at

the entrance?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain this photo to us?

A. Later in the time of this, the Allisons actually were

given -- brothers were given a room to stay in the inn and

leave from work from there, so they had some clothes hanging up

in the closet. I'm believing that's the Allisons' clothing. I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


136

can't swear to that, but that was part of it of leaving clothes

hanging in closets.

Q. Okay. Now, certainly, this isn't all the clothes

that somebody owns, do you think?

A. No.

Q. Where were the rest of their clothes?

A. They had been at their parents' home.

Q. Here we have Adrian Heath.

A. Yes.

Q. Technical difficulties. Be back momentarily, I'm

sure.

All right. Can you tell what Mr. Heath is

holding here?

A. Looks like a Montgomery County voter registration

card.

Q. All right. Now, during this time period, how often

would you try to make an appearance at the hotel?

A. Two, maybe three times a week. Breakfast time. One

evening I stopped by. Mr. Goeddertz had rented his own room.

That's why I was aware of the basketball game because you could

see it from his window.

Q. Okay. This sounds like it was a fairly concerted

effort, a fairly dedicated effort to make an appearance. How

would you characterize it?

A. It was dedicated, but it was after the fact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


137

Q. Okay. Let me ask you this then. After the election

contest was resolved, everything is done, did you ever go back

to the hotel and make an appearance?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, did anybody go back?

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. Okay. And the places that you-all returned to, was

it the homes that you were living in before this whole deal

happened?

A. I would say everybody did because no one had any

other place to go live except their residence.

Q. Okay. All right. Mr. McDuffee, after the election

was over, after the election contest and that suit was come and

gone, did you eventually learn that this voting scheme might

become a criminal matter?

And I'll rephrase the question if it helps. Did

you learn of an investigation regarding this election?

A. Yes, we learned of an investigation.

Q. Okay. How did you learn of that?

A. I want to say from Jim Jenkins, from Eric Yollick's

office.

Q. Okay. And are we talking about a criminal matter

that you learned about?

A. I'm trying to remember -- the intervenors, going to

that court --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


138

Q. Let me just ask you if you learned at some point

about a Grand Jury investigation?

A. That's what I was trying to distinguish. But, yes,

I --

Q. All right. How did you learn about that?

A. Trying to be real honest. I remember vividly knowing

about it. And I was given an opportunity to testify before a

Grand Jury.

Q. Okay. And what did you do in response to that

opportunity?

A. I called the number on -- I guess I was given a --

received a piece of mail. I don't think it was a summons. It

was a voluntary coming and I called that number and left a

voice mail.

Q. And at some point, did you and I speak?

A. Yes, you called me that afternoon, I would say around

2:00 or something for you to see what my next step would be.

Q. Okay. And at that point, what did you tell me that

you wanted to do?

A. I wanted to come and talk to the Grand Jury.

Q. Okay. You understood that there are potential

criminal consequences for voting in that election, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And did I promise you any special treatment at that

time or that you wouldn't be prosecuted?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


139

A. It was -- basically all I wanted to know is when

could I come and testify.

Q. Okay. And when you testified, what was your

objective?

A. To get it off my chest. To let some light shine on

it instead of doing it in the dark, those dark night meetings

and phone calls. No, I know there's no phone, but the

meetings. I was tired of it.

Q. Okay. Is that what you did?

A. That's exactly what I did.

Q. Okay. Did you get indicted for illegal voting?

A. I was not processed or anything else. I just wanted

to testify and get this off my chest, get this behind me. I

was not promised anything. I didn't ask for any favors. I

went that morning. It was a rainy, nasty day. The reason I

know that is I ruined a 200-dollar tire on my car trying to get

here on the freeway. And that's the only thing I looked

forward to is getting before the Grand Jury and talking to them

face to face and answering their questions.


MR. WALKER: May I proceed, Your Honor?


CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. So you voted in the May of 2010 road utility district

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


140

election, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In addition to that, you were a candidate on the

ballot; is that correct?

A. My name was to be the president on the ballot, yes.

Q. Okay. Let's get a little background information

here. How old are you?

A. Currently I'm 65 years of age.

Q. And what do you do for a living?

A. Right now, I have no license and no jobs. I do

nothing. I'm retired.

Q. What did you do before you retired?

A. Financial advice, mutual funds, life insurance,

several other licenses. I never used them, but I had to get

them.

Q. So if I could put that under one heading, would it be

fair to say that you were a financial advisor?

A. To an extent, yes.

Q. And is that the type of work you did during your

entire working career?

A. No.

Q. What else did you do?

A. I've been everything from a carpenter to an

electronics in the oil field, neutron lab. X-ray tech.

Several different fields.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


141

Q. Do you have a college education?

A. Two-year degree.

Q. From?

A. Back then it was called Houston Community College. I

got another two-year, you would say, for becoming an X-ray

tech.

Q. The -- let's talk about how -- what was your thought

process, what was your state of mind at the time of the

election, okay? We're talking about -- what was the day? --

May 10th of -- no, May 8th of 2010.

Okay. Did you go up to the hotel the night

before the election?

A. No.

Q. Did you go up to the hotel the day of the election?

A. 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon in the parking lot.

Q. So my answer to my question there is, yes, you did go

up to the hotel on the day of the election?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you entered that voting booth -- let's talk

about that.

Where was the voting held?

A. The voting was held at The Woodlands Municipal

Building where people who live in The Woodlands would know.

It's where they go pay their property taxes and MUD taxes.

It's a little building kind of off in a hidden corner.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


142

Q. And did go up there by yourself or with anybody else

from this group of ten people?

A. Mr. Jenkins is the one who drove me.

Q. And you went in there to the voting booth by

yourself, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you voted in the election, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, back to the point I was getting at. By the way,

after you voted, what did you do then?

A. Went over to the South Montgomery County Community

Building and voted in the college bonds.

Q. So there was another election?

A. There were two separate locations.

Q. Okay. What did you do then?

A. From there, I returned to the hotel and went home in

my vehicle.

Q. Did you ever go in the hotel?

A. That day, no.

Q. I'm going to paraphrase your testimony. You tell me

if I get it wrong. We need it coming from you, not from me,

about what you knew on that day when you entered that voting

booth and voted in the road utility district election, okay?

That's what I'm talking about. That specific moment, okay?

A. Uh-huh.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


143

Q. Did you know that you were casting an illegal vote at

that time?

A. As I knew the voting rules at that time and from a

letter I received the district attorney warning of it, yeah, I

was a little apprehension when I went and signed that.

Q. Did you know that you were making an illegal vote?

Is it your opinion that you made an illegal vote today?

A. Today, yes. It was an illegal vote.

Q. Let's talk about on the day of the election. When

you walked in that voting booth, did you know that you were

costing an illegal vote?

A. I had a doubt, but I did not have a total knowledge

of the law saying yes or no. So I can't draw a definitive

line.

Q. Would it be fair for me to say that your -- you had

some apprehension, but you did not know that you were casting

an illegal vote?

A. I had apprehension on voting. I cannot answer that

positively on yes or no.

Q. And certainly you're not a man that makes a practice

of going out and committing felonies, especially felonies where

everybody has your address and knows who you are, correct?

A. I do not believe a felony; but, no, I would not just

jump up and do it.

Q. So you certainly didn't intend to commit an offense

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


144

that day, a felony offense of illegal voting; is that correct?

A. I have to go back to the letter from the district

attorney's office warning us all about the possibility of

prosecution for fraudulent vote. That came from Bret Ligon's

office.

Q. And you're referring to a letter, I believe, that

came from his first assistant district attorney --

A. Mr. Phil Grant.

Q. -- Phil Grant, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Let's make sure we don't step over each other because

the Court Reporter will kill us both.

That letter came from Phil Grant, correct?

A. It was signed by First District Attorney Phil Grant.

Q. Do you have that letter with you?

A. No.

Q. If you saw that letter, would you recognize it?

A. Good possibility. I looked at mine briefly. We

discussed it briefly. Could never get a yes-or-no answer from

an attorney.

Q. And you know Mr. Grant is an attorney, right?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Did Mr. Grant's letter say, Mr. McDuffee, don't vote

in the March -- I'm sorry -- May 8, 2010, road utility district

election?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


145

A. It was a warning not to. It was not saying

definitely you go vote, we'll see you the next day in court.

Q. So did this letter cause you apprehension?

A. It caused several of us apprehension. We were at a

gathering for a different candidate that evening after we all

received it and I listened in on a conversation and he was

basically an attorney and saying there is a possibility you

could be prosecuted.

Q. But it was not such that it stopped you from voting

in that election, correct?

A. We had all gone that far, I don't think so. I don't

know any of who were there and any of who came to vote --

changed their registration, did not vote.

Q. Say that again.

A. Those who are at the gathering --

Q. Right.

A. And everybody was not present at that little

gathering, we all had some kind of questions or listened in the

conversation with the attorney. I believe it was the Allison

brothers' father who was asking him the question. And again it

was a gray area that you could or may not. There has been

voting irregularities in Texas that has never been prosecuted

and there have been some that were fully prosecuted.

Q. So I'll ask it again. First of all, you mentioned

something about the group and we're going to get to that as far

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


146

as when we say "the group," who we're talking about because I'm

sure that's a shifting number of people, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did everybody who changed their voting address to

that hotel, did they all vote in the road utility district

election as far as you know?

A. Well, from Mr. Jenkins, he had ten who had changed

their addresses and ten voted.

Q. And you walked in there of your own volition on that

day to vote, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Mr. Jenkins didn't have a gun on you, did he?

A. No.

Q. He didn't force you to do it?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Jenkins doesn't have any magical powers that

overpowered your will and made you vote in that election,

correct?

A. No.

Q. That was a voluntary action on your part, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. So I'll ask once again, at the time that you cast

that ballot, when you're sitting there, I don't know if it's

punch card or one of those screens they use now, when you're

voting in that election, did you know what you were doing was

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


147

casting an illegal vote? Did you know it?

A. It's illegal if you get prosecuted.

Q. Well, not necessarily. That jury gets to decide

whether you're guilty or not.

A. If I run a red light, is that guilty, a violation?

Q. Well, unfortunately, I don't -- I'm not sitting up

there on the hot seat. You are. So you have to answer the

questions.

But once again, I'm trying to get to the point.

What was in your brain? What was your state of mind when

you're casting that ballot? I know there's a long history of

stuff before the election, the meetings and after the election

up there at the hotel. I'm talking at that specific moment,

did you have moral certainty, did you know that it was illegal?

A. To the letter of the law, it was illegal.

Q. Did you know that on --

A. I read the back of the card and read it on the screen

here and, yes, it was a prosecutable offense by changing,

altering, lying upon this form and signing it and mailing it

in.

Q. So your statement, your testimony here today is that

I knew I was committing a crime, but I thought I could get away

with that. Is that a good summation?

A. It would fly under the radar, ten votes.

Q. Do you recall testifying before any hearing regarding

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


148

this matter? You've testified a few times, right?

A. I've testified a few times, yes.

Q. Do you recall giving a different answer when asked if

you knew whether or not your vote on that day was illegal?

A. There's been several trials and the way I answer the

question, is it 100 percent the way I say each trial? No. Do

I -- I change the way I word something. Is it illegal? I

thought on the day of the vote, figured it was maybe a 50/50

percent chance, toss the coin, more than likely it was going to

be maybe a nickle toss. Not going to be worth time and effort.

But it's blown up into this. So can I say I knew black and

white on that day, at that moment I went in that little

building and signed on a little piece of paper because they did

not have a machine or anything. It was the first time they had

ever held an election. From the time this RUD board had been

in the existence, they had never had -- there was no residence

in the district, so there was never any elections.

Q. Let me ask you this. Did you think that was fair?

Did you think that was right, not having elections?

A. Well, not since there were actual six voters who

lived in the district this entire time.

Q. And what was the intent of this plan ultimately as

far as the road utility district was?

A. The instructions I got?

Q. Uh-huh.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


149

A. Very simple. Mr. McDuffee, get elected to be the

president, pay off the bills, turn out the lights, and shut it

down. It's that simple.

Q. Where did those instructions come from?

A. Mr. Jenkins.

MR. WALKER: Judge, if I could have a second, I

need to go through the record and find the relevant sections.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I have a signal from the

witness that he may need a break. Can you inquire into that?

MR. WALKER: It's going to take me a few

minutes, Judge.

THE COURT: We can all use a little break,

right? Let's take a break of about ten minutes, everyone. And

we are in recess. Thank you.


(At this time a break is taken.)

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, are you ready?

Everybody be seated. Let's bring the jury in,

please. Thank you. Everybody remain seated while the jury

goes in and out. It's a security thing so that if somebody

stands up, they can see something. They can see that. If

everybody is standing up, people can move without being seen.


courtroom.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


150

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Okay. I think we are ready to proceed.

Mr. Walker, you were on cross-examination.


Q. (By Mr. Walker) Mr. McDuffee, back when we took a

break, we were talking about this issue of what you knew, what

was your state of mind when you entered that voting booth to

vote in the RUD election. If you can answer my question in a

yes-or-no fashion, did you know you were committing a felony

offense when you cast that vote?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall testifying in previous hearings

regarding this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And we had an opportunity to review some of that

testimony before you -- during the break, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you don't contest the copy of the transcript I

have as far as accuracy?

A. No.

Q. Those were the questions asked of you and those were

the answers you used?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever give a different answer to those

questions or similar type questions when asked about your state

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


151

of mind when you cast that ballot?

A. The best I can remember, I never said that I thought

it was totally legal.

Q. Let me ask the converse of that. Did you ever think

it was totally illegal?

A. Only if I was the Defendant. It would be totally

illegal. Does that make sense? I mean -- I'm just saying

that --

Q. Let me go ahead and go through these statements as

far as -- you testified here today that the first inkling of

concern you had regarding this whole process was upon receipt

of that letter from the district attorney's office. Is that

correct?

A. Reading the voter registration card is a warning.

Q. Right.

A. And I'm trying to recall when basically the attorney

said that it was a very big gray area in Texas.

Q. Who was the this attorney that you keep -- you know

Mr. Yollick, right?

A. Eric Yollick is the primary -- the only attorney I

could give you a name of.

Q. When you were talking about this other attorney that

you sought advice from, it sounds like it was kind of an

informal meeting at some political function, right?

A. It was after the election he was in, and he was -- I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


152

can't even recall if he won that election or not. But the --

Q. Was this -- this before or after the election that

you voted in?

A. It would have been -- come on, brain. He ran for

office previously as a judge of the county. Lost that

election. So that's why I kind of get -- and then he ran for

statewide and he won that office.

Q. I bet you're talking about John Devine?

A. Correct.

Q. Does that ring a bell?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. So you -- he ran for a seat here in the county

and was defeated and then actually ran for the Supreme Court

and was elected a justice of the Texas Supreme Court, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So your conversations with him, although it's not a

formal, sit down in a lawyer's office and consulting with him,

you discussed this issue with him before you cast that ballot

on May 10th, correct?

A. I did not discuss it with him directly. It was the

Allisons' father who was there at the meeting and the two

Allison boys. He got him kind of cornered -- caught in a

corner and was asking him and I was leaning over and kind of

listening in.

Q. You were listening in on the conversation between

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


153

Justice -- it was probably Mr. Devine at the time and the

Allison brothers, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And was it his advice or his read of the situation

that this was a gray area of the law?

A. He was concerned about the letter from the district

attorney's office. A little bit more casting of dispersion

upon voting.

Q. Okay. What did that letter from Mr. Grant, what did

that urge you-all to do? Did it ask you to or did it urge you

to seek legal counsel?

A. I believe that was in the final paragraph of the

letter, yes.

Q. And did you do that?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Yollick prior

to casting that ballot on May 8 of 2010?

A. No, not directly.

Q. Okay. And so you received information from

Mr. Jenkins regarding the propriety of what you were doing,

correct?

A. Yes. He brought it up with Mr. Yollick and then

addressed it to the rest of us.

Q. And Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Yollick, "Hey, are we on

solid legal standing?" And Mr. Yollick related to Mr. Jenkins

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


154

who related to you that you were on solid legal standing?

A. I wouldn't say he gave it a solid rock. It was kind

of a little squishy. There was always that possibility, but in

time past to that time, I believe the RVers in East County were

accused of illegal voting because they would leave the state

for so many months and they considered that RV park as their

residence. I just remember that one, because that was a case

where they were saying they voted illegally because they

weren't -- but that was their -- every year they came back to

that park.

Q. The difficulty I'm having here is just trying to

differentiate between your fear of prosecution versus what you

knew as far as whether or not this process was illegal. You

understand that?

A. The difference -- I mean, the difference to me was it

was a prosecutable account if somebody brought it up.

Q. You understand that in the legal process, the

prosecutor merely brings charges. Just because they bring

charges doesn't mean a person is guilty of the charge, right?

A. Well, actually tend to go first to a Grand Jury and

then --

Q. Right. You went through the Grand Jury process. But

the prosecutor doesn't get to pass judgment guilty or not

guilty. You understand that, right?

A. Right.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


155

Q. So we go on and have trials, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's where were sitting here today, right?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. So you had some apprehension about voting

because of the letter you got from Mr. Grant and then what

you're hearing down the stream from Mr. Yollick, the attorney,

what you're overhearing Mr. Devine, another attorney, saying,

you know this is an issue, right?

A. It could be an issue, yes.

Q. But at the time, and this is part of all the

information you put together making your decision whether or

not to cast that ballot on May 8, 2010, you did not know, you

did not know when you walked in that voting booth that you were

casting an illegal ballot. You had doubts about it; but you

didn't know it, did you?

A. I'm trying to answer this. Because, to me, that's a

double-edged sword. You know it, but it's only going to hurt

if you get caught and indicted. So for me to say one, it makes

it both ways.

Q. So your testimony today is that when I walked in that

voting booth, I knew I was break being the law. I knew I was

committing a felony. I knew I was casting an illegal ballot,

but I thought no harm, no foul because I'm unlikely to get

prosecuted. Is that your testimony?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


156

A. From the State of Texas, ten votes, yes.

Q. Let's go over some of your testimony. Once again

back to the point, you testified in a previous hearing

regarding this matter, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall being asked whether it was legal to go

forward, in other words, vote? Do you recall being asked that

question?

MR. WHITE: Objection, Your Honor, improper

impeachment.

THE COURT: What's going on? I mean, just ask

him the question.

MR. WALKER: Okay.

THE COURT: It's as though you're trying to

refresh his memory or something, but just ask him the question.

MR. WALKER: Okay.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) In a previous hearing regarding this

case did you testify that at the time prior to the election,

that you believed it was not a cut-and-dry yes-or-no legal

issue.

MR. WHITE: Objection, Your Honor. If he would

just ask him that specific question today and not ask if he had

answered that question in the previous hearing, I think we

could get to the point where we do proper impeachment -- a

proper impeachment, if necessary.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


157

Q. (By Mr. Walker) Okay. Prior to casting the vote,

did you believe it was legal to go forward?

A. 100 percent legal to go forward?

Q. I think that's kind of like being kind of pregnant.

It's a yes-or-no question. Something is legal or something is

illegal. So the question, once again, is the same as the

question was before. Did you believe it was legal to go

forward prior to the election?

A. Again, I can't give you a cut and dry. My scenario

today is unfortunately back then at that time, I had another

mind set and my answer was yes or no. But it's a gray area.

If I don't stop at the stop sign at the end of my street, I

have broken the law. And voting in this election, were we

trying to do something right, I felt right until I got the

instructions from Mr. Jenkins. I testified in previously that

you're referring to about the fact that mobility has to be

known about. You can't walk into something and say turn the

lights and get the room out. I want to see were they doing

good for The Woodlands and I got the job, right or wrong. My

intentions was to get on the board and see what was going on.

My pressure for me to vote and shut it down and turn the lights

out was not my intention. That was an outside force. So

without being on the board, nobody knew what was going on with

the board. They held their meetings on Monday morning and all

the records were held in Harris County. So how are you going

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


158

to go find the documents to read up.

Q. Let me ask you another specific question. Did you

knowingly put false information on your registration form to

vote, at the time you did it, did you believe you were

knowingly putting down an illegal residence? You didn't

believe that in your mind, did you?

A. No, I knew it was illegal address. The fact that I

wrote the Residence Inn on Six Pines was false.

Q. Do you recall answering that question differently at

another hearing of this matter?

MR. WALKER: May I approach the witness, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Rule 613 talks about it.

It says the witness must be told the contents of the statement,

the time and place and the person to whom it was made and must

be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statement.

That's Rule 613 of the Rules of Evidence. You'll follow that.

MR. WALKER: That's why I'm approaching the

witness, Judge.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) Let me show you this document.

A. That Question 4, I do remember that because it was

about put a tent under the Research bridge and call it my

residence. That is legal in the State of Texas. If you go put

a tent up under a bridge or wherever, you can declare that as

your permanent residence and vote from it. That's a comment

being made about being at the Residence Inn or under a bridge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


159

in a tent.

Q. When you filled out the voter registration form --

wait. When did you do that?

A. Whatever the date is on it that I signed it. It had

to have been 31 days before the election. So April 20th, I

believe, something.

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, you asked him when you

filled out the voter's registration form. Are you talking

about that voter application change form?


THE COURT: That's distinct and different from a

registration application.

MR. WALKER: You're correct, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WALKER: I'll clear that up.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) I'm going show you what's been

marked as State's Exhibit No. 7, several pages before we get to

the relevant one. Okay. There we go.

This is the voter registration application that

you filled out, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And when did you fill that out?

A. April 15, 2010.

Q. Let me give you three options here. When you filled

out that application, yes, no, or it wasn't clear to me, did

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


160

you know you were committing an offense?

A. Yes, no, or --

MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I know I'm late on this

objection, but I'm going to object to relevance because an

individual's knowledge that they are committing a criminal act

is not an element of the offense. It's not required and it's

not relevant to the issues at this trial.

MR. WALKER: I believe it is an element of the

offense, Your Honor, based on the indictment that's been

returned against these two individuals.

THE COURT: Actually -- well, the indictment

alleges that the Defendants did then and there vote in an

election in which the Defendants knew they were not eligible to

vote, namely the May 8th, 2010, Woodlands Road Utility District

Board of Directors election when they knew they did not reside

in the precinct in which they voted. Standby.

And, Mr. Walker, you are asserting in your

theory of your case here in defense that the Defendants acted

under mistake of law?

MR. WALKER: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. And you will be getting

this instruction, but so this will help you as you process this

information, it is no defense to prosecution that a Defendant

was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has

taken effect. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


161

the Defendant reasonably believed the conduct charged did not

constitute a crime and that they acted in reasonable reliance

upon, 1, an official statement of the law contained in a

written order or grant of permission by an administrative

agency charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the

law in question; or, 2, a written interpretation of the law

contained in an opinion of a court of record or made by a

public official charged by law with responsibility for

interpreting the law in question.

That will be the law that you will be

deliberating over as relevant in this particular case. That's

called mistake of law defense and those are all important

elements that must be met. And these will also be provided to

you in written form at the conclusion of the case, Ladies and

Gentlemen.

You may go forward.

MR. WALKER: Thank you, Judge.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) You voted in the RUD election,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you called the Attorney General's office when you

received a letter regarding this issue?

A. I cannot positively answer that question, if it was a

letter or a phone call left at my residence or how -- it had to

have been a letter because I vaguely remember looking at the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


162

bottom -- or the top of it or the bottom and finding a phone

number I could call back on.

Q. And was it your state of mind at this point, we're

post election, we're post-election contest, we're -- everything

is over with, was it your state of mind that you were just kind

of fed up with this whole mess?

A. Personally, I was fed up with the way we -- the sheep

were led to it by Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Yollick and all the hoops

we had to jump through and all the, not even half truths,

out-and-out lies that we had to go through.

Q. I want to ask you if you're familiar with some

documents. Did you ever review any attorney agenda -- I'm

sorry -- Attorney General opinions regarding voter residency?

A. I would say I was dependent upon the words from

Attorney Yollick and his summation of what had been written and

what trial had taken place over a voting fraud.

Q. Do you -- well, did you ever sit down with Yollick?

A. We had meetings with Mr. Yollick. After the

election, there was a little, bitty probably interview room

that he had in his office and there was 10, 12 people crammed

around this table.

Q. Let's talk preelection, okay? I want to narrow the

focus to preelection. Did you ever meet with Mr. Yollick?

A. I have been represented by Mr. Yollick in the past

over a Lone Star -- I guess it was Lone Star College case. I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


163

met Mr. Yollick through the years prior to that, probably a few

times. I know I've been in his office like two or three or

four times before he moved. As far as being buddies with

Mr. Yollick or having lunch or something, no.

Q. I want to go specifically preelection and regarding

the subject matter of the road utility district. Did you ever

meet with Mr. Yollick?

A. Personally, never.

Q. Okay. So any information that he would have shared

would have come to you through who?

A. Mr. Jenkins.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. What was your first impression, your first knowledge

of the road utility district?

A. Adrian Heath brought the information about an

article -- or a reporter on the Internet who wrote a report

about the Montgomery County RUD district.

Q. Let me slow you down there. Adrian Heath --

A. Adrian Heath --

Q. When was that? This was the first thing you know

about it. Was this during early 2010?

A. More like it would have been in the first of March,

would have been the month.

Q. Of 2010?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


164

A. 2010.

Q. And was this at some meeting?

A. It was --

Q. Do you recall where it was?

A. The first meeting that I ever heard about the road

utility district was at Mr. Jenkins' office when Adrian brought

in the thing about the story of the RUD board and all the rest

of it. I was asked did I ever read the article on the

Internet. And I said I read the first few pages of it. It was

long and I don't like to read off the bond restraints, so I

closed it.

Q. Who was present at this meeting that you recall?

A. I think Mr. Doyle was there.

Q. Jim Doyle?

A. Jim Doyle.

Q. Adrian Heath?

A. Pete Goeddertz was there. I arrived. We were

waiting for Adrian to show up. And when he finally showed up,

that's when the meeting basically started and laying out what

he had learned.

Q. Okay. You got Jim Doyle, Pete Goeddertz, Adrian

Heath, obviously yourself?

A. Myself.

Q. And who am I missing there? Jim Jenkins was there?

A. Jim was there. You got to understand, this meeting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


165

room is about this wide and about this deep and there's doorway

and hallways so it's kind of -- you're not in a real room. And

I'm trying to remember, I don't believe Mr. Curry made that

meeting or was there. It didn't last long because it became a

dispute between Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Heath and Mr. Heath stormed

out of the building. And I think Mr. Goeddertz followed him.

And a few minutes later, I left the building.

Q. Was this meeting solely about the road utility

district?

A. Putting light on it for the rest of us to know about

it.

Q. Okay. You said this is a meeting. Is this some

formal group?

A. The group has no formal meetings or times. If we're

going to file a complaint on an elected official for not doing

their campaign finance report, Mr. Jenkins and his secretary do

all the research and he would get Mr. Doyle or myself or others

to come in and sign the complaint and sent it off. So there

was never any monthly meetings. You get a call and say, hey,

we're going to have a meeting tonight. If you can make it,

come on by.

Q. So there is no formal organization. This is just a

group of like-minded individuals who pursued the same type of

activities?

A. Kind of. I mean, nobody had the same ideas, but it

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


166

was a way to kind of get at the politicians for not doing their

paperwork.

Q. This would have been in March 2010, right?

A. Yes.

Q. The two ladies sitting next to me, the Defendants in

this case, they weren't present at that meeting, were they?

A. No.

Q. What is the next recollection you have as far as a

meeting or a conversation regarding the road utility district?

A. It wasn't. It was phone calls and you stopped by and

picked up the new what was going on.

Q. Phone calls between primarily the people at that

meeting?

A. Jim Doyle would call you or if you stopped by

Mr. Jenkins' office, you would catch up on the latest

scuttlebutt that was going on. I was there times in the

afternoon when I didn't have anything to do and visit. Maybe

Tom Curry would be there. Maybe not. And people came by as

they were in the area if they had time.

Q. So was this issue and plan, was it gathering steam?

A. None of us liked the idea that -- I believe the RUD

board had been in existence for six years. And there attorney

had declared there were no residents inside the borders and

there was no need for an election. And a simple search showed

six people who were in that precinct and the attorney never

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


167

bothered to go check the files.

Q. Did Mr. Jenkins, at that meeting, relay any

information as far as legal opinions or any official documents

from any administrative agency such as the Attorney General,

Secretary of State, case law?

A. The original meeting?

Q. Correct.

A. No. Nobody knew what it was until Mr. Heath arrived

and orally gave it to those who were standing there.

Q. And were there any other meetings held prior to that

date of the election?

A. Again, it was drop by. I get a call from Patty, the

office secretary, or Jim Doyle telling you this, that, and the

other, need to go by the office and you drop by at your

leisure?

Q. So did Jim Jenkins ever relate to you that

Mr. Yollick had informed him that you-all were on solid legal

footing to vote in that election?

MR. WHITE: Objection; hearsay.


Q. (By Mr. Walker) Don't answer that.

Did Mr. Jenkins ever relate to you that he was

in conversation with Mr. Yollick?

A. Yes.

Q. And at any time leading up to this date of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


168

election, did you -- had you ever met Sybil Doyle?

A. I had been to the Doyles' residence maybe a dozen

times. I think maybe three or four times of that I saw Sybil

come out of the house. But as far as being at their house on a

formal gathering, no.

Q. Did you ever have any conversations with her

regarding the road utility district?

A. No.

Q. Okay. We have Roberta Cook here, as well. Do you

know Ms. Cook?

A. I only know that Jim and Sybil have a daughter. I

had never met her. I don't think I even saw her at her mother

and dad's home.

Q. And obviously you had no conversations with her

regarding the road utility district, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And on the date of the election, you didn't -- well,

let's back up.

The night before you did not go up to the hotel,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So you went up there the next day. Did you ever

actually enter the building, or did you stay out in the parking

lot?

A. This will take a moment because I go and dress in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


169

1800 clothing for the state at a park and I came in -- I

volunteer at the state park as a reenactor. And I just -- I

came in that afternoon from doing it most of the day. And I'm

thinking I ran into a room I was given a key to and changed

into regular clothing, so I didn't have 18-inch high boots on

and cloth coat and stuff. But that would have been in, change,

out, vote, back to my car and home.

Q. Do you recall ever seeing either Sybil Doyle or

Roberta Cook at that motel that day or hotel?

A. No.

Q. Do you ever recall seeing either of them at any of

these meetings at Yollick's office after the election?

A. No. Jim Doyle was representing there for his wife

and daughter.

Q. Who else was there? Yollick, obviously?

A. Well, Yollick, I think an assistant of his. The

Allisons were there. Tom Curry.

Q. What about Jenkins?

A. I believe Jenkins was there because he got a tongue

lashing from Mr. Yollick.

Q. That's regarding the issue of --

A. Two rooms.

Q. Was Mr. Heath there?

A. That's a hard one, because I mean, take those tables

and put them in a room with chairs sides -- on the side, you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


170

put that many people in it. So I was standing in a doorway

just -- because Mr. Yollick was at the opposite doorway. So

who was at the table?

Q. So as far as Mr. Heath, you're telling me you don't

recall whether he was there or not?

A. I can't -- if he was, he didn't say anything. I

mean, the biggest part was between Mr. Yollick and Mr. Jenkins.

I know -- I think Mr. Doyle brought up a question or two. The

Allisons I don't think had any questions. They were very

quiet. And I didn't of any questions.

Q. All these pictures that we see, that's -- all those

events take place after the election, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever see either Sybil Doyle or Roberta Cook

at that hotel after the election?

A. The only time I could have seen that they were there

was if they were down in the breakfast area in the morning,

because I parked, came in, had some coffee, visited with

everybody, took pictures, and I left.

Q. So are you telling me you don't recall whether you

saw them or not?

A. I never saw them in the breakfast area, but I didn't

arrive there until maybe 9:00 o'clock in the morning.

Q. Certainly, if we refer to State's 33, they don't make

an appearance in any of those pictures, do they?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


171

A. Correct. In the picture times, it was the ones you

see over and over and over again.



BY MR. WHITE:

Q. The Allison boys, Benjamin and Robert, what was their

living situation and roughly what were their ages?

A. Early 20s. I think Ben was like 21, 22 and Robert

was somewhere -- they were close together, not years and years

apart. I know that after the chewing out by Mr. Yollick, they

were keeping, I believe, four rooms rented. Mr. Curry and his

wife actually rented their own separate room. So who was there

at night, I think I was only there maybe one evening when I

went up to Mr. Pete Goeddertz's room?

Q. And were the Allisons living at home with their

parents before the civil trial and the moving to the room at

the Residence Inn? Were they living with their parents, do you

know?

A. They had a room prior to the civil trial.

Q. Okay.

A. I believe that's correct, because we did the

drive-around photograph.

Q. Were you familiar at all that the Allisons lived with

their parents out in Cut and Shoot -- near Cut and Shoot?

A. I just knew -- I never been to their home. I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


172

remember it was somewhere east of Conroe, but --

Q. Okay. These were two young guys?

A. Yeah. They're young, single males.

Q. Do you happen to know whether or not they were

indicted?

A. I cannot answer that, no.

Q. Okay. Do you know -- have you heard of them being

indicted for illegal voting?

A. I am so far out of the loop, phone calls. Nobody in

the group communicates with me, and I don't communicate with

them.

Q. If I were to tell you they weren't indicted, you

wouldn't have any knowledge to the contrary; is that right?

A. Right. Let me correct one thing. Mr. Goeddertz and

I have talked maybe once every two or three months from the

duration of this. But even at that, it's limited to any

conversation with the group.

Q. Okay. I want to talk to you a little bit about the

questions that Mr. Walker was asking you in regards to whether

or not you knew you were committing a crime. When you, A,

filled out the registration application, change of address

form, and, B, when you actually voted. Okay. So I don't want

to mislead the jury here.

Are you -- have you heard the phrase "ignorance

of the law is no excuse"?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


173

A. Correct.

Q. Did you know that's an actual legal principal?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you know that you don't have to commit --

you don't have to know you're committing a crime to commit a

crime?

A. Yeah.

MR. WALKER: Object to leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Be careful about

leading. Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. White) Do you know whether or not you have

to know you're committing a crime to actually commit a crime?

A. Do I have to know it before I do it? I mean, you can

commit a crime in this state I know even if you don't know

what's on the law books.

Q. Okay. That's exactly what I'm asking. Thanks.

Did you know when you cast your vote on May 8,

2010, that you did not live at the Residence Inn hotel?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you know that you didn't reside at the Residence

Inn hotel?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you know that wasn't your habitation?

A. Correct.

Q. Your fixed place of living?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


174

A. Correct.

Q. And did you know that you didn't reside at the

Residence Inn when you signed your voter registration

application for your change of address?

A. Yes.

Q. During one of those meetings at Eric Yollick's

office, after the election, during that civil trial period --

or before the civil trial, do you recall a meeting where you

and the other members of the group were asked to come up with

your personal reasons for moving, in quotes, to the road

utility district?

MR. WALKER: Object to relevance, Your Honor.


A. Yes. It was a Saturday. No air conditioning in the

building and you had to hang around until he called your name

to present your story.

Q. (By Mr. White) Okay. So had you been asked to come

up with a story why you were, quote, unquote, moving to the

RUD?

A. It was a reason why you were moving from your

comfortable home to the Residence Inn.

Q. Okay.

A. A credible story.

Q. Okay.

A. And mine was ruled the weakest.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


175

Q. What was your story?

A. I wanted to be in the middle of the district for my

mutual funds and life insurance policies. Selling those.

Financial applications.

Q. Okay. And after you told Mr. Yollick your story,

what was his response?

A. Work on it.


RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. This coming up with the story, Mr. Yollick is present

at those meetings?

A. We were to audition to Mr. Yollick in his office on

that Saturday afternoon as to why we had changed our address to

the Residence Inn and why.

Q. Was Jim Jenkins present?

A. We came and went as we needed. I believe I -- the

Allisons may have been there, I think were ahead of me.

Somebody else may have been in the office. It was, again, come

and go.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Jenkins there or do you not

recall?

A. On the day that we were doing our audition, no. More

likely he did his in the morning with Mr. Yollick.

Q. And you didn't see Sybil Doyle there, did you?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


176

A. No.

Q. Didn't see Roberta Cook there, did you?

A. No.

MR. WALKER: I pass the witness.

MR. WHITE: No further questions.

THE COURT: May this man be excused?


THE COURT: You are excused, sir.

Next witness, please.

MR. WHITE: State rests, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We're going to take a

break, Ladies and Gentlemen. Relax, stretch your legs for

about ten minutes, then report back.

We are in recess.



THE COURT: Mr. Walker, on behalf of the

Defense, the State has rested its case-in-chief. What says the

Defense?

MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. On behalf of both

Defendants at this time, the Defense will make a motion for

directed verdict based on the fact that the State has failed to

prove a prima facia case of the Defendant's guilt. Namely, the

State has failed to produce any evidence to where a rational

jury could find the element of knowledge on the part of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


177

Defendants.

THE COURT: Well presented. In all due respect,

denied.

MR. WALKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ready to go forward? Let's bring

the jury in. Thank you.


courtroom.)

THE COURT: The jury is seated in the courtroom.

The parties are ready to proceed. The State has rested its

case-in-chief. What says Defense?

MR. WALKER: Defense is ready to proceed and

we'll call Pete Goeddertz.

(Witness is sworn.)

THE COURT: Please have a seat, sir. Thank you.

PETER GOEDDERTZ,


DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. State your name for the Court, please?

A. My name is Peter J. Goeddertz.

Q. How old are you, Mr. Goeddertz?

A. Huh?

Q. How old are you?

A. 66.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


178

Q. Where do you live?

A. 15910 Hartman Road, Magnolia, Texas.

Q. And are you employed?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. What do you do?

A. I'm a tile contractor.

Q. How long have you lived in Montgomery County?

A. About 40 years.

Q. You understand we're here talking about the election

for the Road Utility District No. 1 of Montgomery County back

in 2010. You understand that?

A. What was the question?

Q. We're here talking about the road utility district

election held in 2010; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you stand for a position on the Board of

Directors of the road utility district in the 2010 election?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you also vote in the road utility district

election held in May of 2010?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you first become aware of the existence of


A. I really couldn't say. I mean, when did I become

aware? It was sometime before that. It was told to us about

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


179

it. We were told about it.

Q. Okay. Who was the "us"?

A. Well, those that voted, I would assume, yes.

Q. Give me some names?

A. I know a Bill Berntsen, Rick McDuffee, Jim Doyle.

Jim Jenkins, myself, Tom Curry, and those two young fellows.

Q. You referring to the Allison brothers?

A. Yeah, the Allison brothers, right.

Q. There's two ladies sitting at the table here with me.

Do you know either of these two people?

A. I know Sybil.

Q. You know Ms. Sybil Doyle. How do you know her?

A. Well, through Jim Doyle. Our paths have crossed.

Q. What about the other lady sitting at the table with

me?

A. No, I'm not familiar with her.

Q. And how long have you known, approximately, Jim

Doyle?

A. Probably at least ten years, maybe longer.

Q. And in what context do you know him?

A. We were active politically.

Q. And do you also know Jim Jenkins?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. In what context do you know him?

A. Well, the same. We were active politically.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


180

Q. And are you familiar with an attorney by the name of

Eric Yollick?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. How do you know Eric?

A. I guess I met Jim through Eric. I met Eric through

the Republican Party, and that's how I met him.

Q. Prior to 2010, were you aware of the existence of the

road utility district?

A. No, not really.

Q. And when did this first become -- start to become an

issue in your life?

A. I believe Adrian mentioned it and then I guess we

discussed it, I guess, and they had a plan of action and then

we proceeded.

Q. Let's be careful with the pronouns there. We

discussed it, who is the "we"?

A. Well, you know, I really -- I'd say it was discussed

I guess would be more accurate. It was discussed. And with

who, I really couldn't tell you. I mean, obviously, it had to

be Jim and Adrian and, you know, a few others of us.

Q. Did you ever attend a meeting at Mr. Jenkins' office

in the early months of 2010 regarding the road utility

district?

A. Yes. That's where it was discussed. We had meetings

and, you know, I guess for other things, too. Other purposes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


181

Q. Do you ever recall Mr. Yollick attending these

meetings?

A. No. I don't -- I don't recall Eric.

Q. Do you ever recall seeing either of these two ladies

at those meetings?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Through the course of these meetings, was there

eventually a plan discussed or come up with on how to deal with


A. Yes.

Q. Tell me how that came about.

A. I can't tell you how it came about. I just know it

did come about and we acted on it and -- you know, we had a

plan and we acted on it.

Q. What did -- what did you-all do?

A. Well, we registered to vote in another district, you

know, applying for a new voter registration with an address

that was in that district.

Q. And during the course of these meetings, was it

discussed the legality of this plan?

A. Yes. Yeah, it was. And we obviously believed that

what we were doing was, you know, within the law.

Q. And what did you-all do? We need to get that clear

for the record.

A. Well, we stayed at the inn -- well, first of all, we

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


182

changed our addresses and we stayed at the inn, you know, to

meet the qualifications what we felt to vote in that district.

Q. You personally, did you review any -- let me give you

a list of things. Did you review any Attorney General opinion

regarding this subject?

A. That is probably the single most influential piece

that we -- you know, to -- yes, we did.

Q. And did you review any Secretary of State's opinion

regarding this issue?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall ever reviewing a Texas case, Mills v.

Bartlett. Does that ring a bell?

A. No, I can't -- I don't think I recall that.

Q. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. Yollick

regarding the legality of these --

A. Not personally, but we met with Eric and discussed,

you know, our concern. I think we got a letter with Phil

Grant.

Q. We're going to get to that in a minute.

A. Okay.

Q. Let's stay with this --

A. All right.

Q. And so you -- these meetings with Mr. Yollick, did

they occur before or after the election?

A. Before.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


183

Q. And did Mr. Yollick express an opinion that you were

on firm legal standing to follow through with this plan?

MR. GLICKLER: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.


MR. WALKER: May I be heard on that?


MR. WALKER: I wanted to respond that I'm not

offering for the truth of the matter asserted. Simply for the

state of mind of this witness and, we'll get to it at some

point, but also the state of mind of my clients.

THE COURT: Please approach.

(Bench conference.)

THE COURT: Here's my problem on that. Is that

under the mistake of law defense, it says for what the basis

that you can believe and rely on. And I'll let you get into

that. But it doesn't talk about Yollick or any of the defense

lawyers' advice.

MR. WALKER: Right.

THE COURT: So with that, to me, that's

confusing, misleading, and irrelevant to the issues for the

jury to deal with. But these last two trials, I have allowed

because I believe that what they knew is defined and how do you

prove knowledge. And for the mistake of fact, it talks about

what can be used to assert that and as long as you follow those

elements, I'll let you get into that. But Yollick's advice is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


184

truly confusing to this jury, to say the least. To me, our

example of what the bar association ought to be representing.

MR. GLICKLER: I would like to add that it's not

relevant to the mistake of law in and of itself, that it's Eric

Yollick's opinion. But more importantly, through the three

witnesses so far, there's been no evidence whatsoever that

these Defendants were involved with Yollick so far with

McDuffee and Goeddertz. When they had meetings, these two

weren't there. So what's in his state of mind as to what he

did wouldn't be relevant to what the women did either.

MR. WALKER: He said he did take meetings with

Yollick.

MR. GLICKLER: But that wouldn't be relevant to

Ms. Doyle or Ms. Cook because they weren't present, which he

said they were not. And so in addition to being irrelevant, it

would be to argue the prejudicial factor. But it's irrelevant

to mistake of law what Eric Yollick might have said.

THE COURT: Nonetheless, I'm going to sustain

the objection. So find again -- this is, again, third-hand

hearsay from Yollick is far afield from being able to show that

these ladies knew what Yollick was saying. We haven't

connected that one, so that, to me, is hearsay and another

reason that I would grant it under these circumstances the

record slows it to be. So I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. WALKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


185

(Bench conference concludes.)

THE COURT: Objection is sustained.

MR. WALKER: May I proceed?


Q. (By Mr. Walker) At -- well, did you ever go up to

the hotel there within the road utility district?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you do that? When?

A. Before the election.

Q. How long before the election?

A. A day.

Q. And did you rent a room there?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And did you spend the night there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Who else spent the night there?

A. I guess most of us did. Those that voted did.

Q. Let's talk about specifically about these two ladies.

Did you see them at the motel or hotel the night before the

election?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You're saying you didn't see them there, or you don't

recall?

A. I don't recall seeing them there.

Q. And --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


186

A. That does not mean they couldn't have been there. I

just didn't see them.

Q. And did you vote in the election the next day?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you see either Ms. Doyle or Ms. Cook there at

the hotel the day of the election?

A. I don't recall.

Q. But in any event, there were a certain group of you

that were there that went over to vote; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Where was the voting location in relation to the

hotel?

A. Not far. A couple of blocks.

Q. And as mentioned earlier, you were on the ballot as a

candidate in the road utility district Board of Directors

election; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did there come times after the election where you

made appearances there at that hotel?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And how often did you do that?

A. Seems like for almost a week.

Q. And at any point did you see either of the two ladies

at the table with me at the hotel during that period?

A. I don't recall seeing them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


187

Q. And at the time you cast your ballot in the road

utility district Board of Directors election, did you have

knowledge that you were casting an illegal vote?

A. No. No.

Q. What was your opinion as far as your vote?

A. Well --

MR. GLICKLER: Objection, Your Honor, relevance

as to his opinion. He's not on trial.

THE COURT: Any response?


THE COURT: Yes, sir. Go ahead.

MR. WALKER: We're talking state of mind and

we've heard ample testimony regarding a group here and as far

as what the state of mind of this particular witness is is

certainly relevant to this trial.

MR. GLICKLER: Your Honor, the objection of

relevance goes to the fact that it's a mischaracterization of

the law. As the Court has identified, mistake of law being an

issue in this case, ignorance of the law is no excuse, is no

defense. And the question is not whether he thought he was

casting an illegal vote. The question is whether or not he

knew he was eligible to vote as that phrase is defined not the

election code. Therefore, his opinion on the ultimate issue

before this jury for these Defendants is not relevant.

MR. WALKER: If we go back to the mistake of law

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


188

definition, he is saying he's relying on this -- I believe he

testified about this Attorney General opinion.

THE COURT: Again, let's -- this witness'

opinion and what his state of mind is, is one thing. But he's

not the one on trial.

MR. WALKER: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So why does his personal

opinion and reflection, how does that make it relevant to this

jury in making a determination on the indictments that are

against these ladies?

MR. WALKER: The group dynamics of the vote for

the road utility district.

MR. GLICKLER: My response there is, Your Honor,

this witness as well as the preceding witness for the state

have both pretty much testified nothing but to the fact that

Ms. Cook and Ms. Doyle weren't really part of the group. So

that dynamic wouldn't be relevant to them.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow you some

opportunity to connect what their knowledge may be through him;

but as yet, it's just still his opinion, which hadn't connected

to -- in the record to the Defendants. And again, it's these

Defendants who are on trial, not the witness. But I'll give

you an opportunity to build that up.

MR. WALKER: Okay.

Q. (By Mr. Walker) Mr. Goeddertz, you voted voluntarily

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


189

in the election, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. No one forced you to do that?

A. No.


CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLICKLER:

Q. Mr. Goeddertz, you lived in Montgomery County for

almost 40 years, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you have lived in Montgomery County for almost

40 years at 15910 Hartman in Magnolia, correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. GLICKLER: Your Honor, may I approach the

witness?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Glickler) State's Exhibit No. 12,

Mr. Goeddertz, is a copy of the warranty deed on your property

that was executed in 1976, almost 40 years ago, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And for almost the entire length of those 40 years,

you've been registered to vote at that address, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And during the course -- State's Exhibit No. 24, do

you recognize this series of photographs?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


190

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is this your house at Magnolia?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay. Where you've lived for 40 years?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And all that time you were voting where you lived at

Magnolia, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, in this election, State's Exhibit No. 2

shows that you weren't just any one of the ten voters. You

were a candidate for the board, weren't you?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Jenkins recruited you run for the board,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you did not have to reside in the road utility

district to be a candidate for the board, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And what you did there was completely legal, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And no one has ever accused you of a crime in running

for the board, correct?

A. Right.

Q. State's Exhibit No. 7 are a series of voter

registration applications. And the fifth page is yours,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


191

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you executed this change of registration for a

voter address on March 31 of 2010, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. That's was after you had already declared yourself as

a candidate, correct?

A. I would imagine. I don't know.

Q. Go ahead and I'll show you your form. You executed

your form, notarized March 4, 2010, correct?

A. I think we had to do it before.

Q. And then four weeks later, you registered to vote?

A. Correct.

Q. From the address which is -- we all know now is the

Residence Inn, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And when you signed this document saying this was

your residence, you never set foot on that property at that

time, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you listed your mailing address as the same house

on Hartman in Magnolia that you'd been at for almost 40 years,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, on the night before the election, that was the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


192

first night you ever stayed at the hotel?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't rent a room yourself, did you?

A. No.

Q. You stayed in a room that was rented by Mr. Jenkins,

correct?

A. I don't know who rented the room.

Q. Okay. Did you pay for your --

A. I think we contributed, though. We contributed.

Q. Everybody kicked in a few bucks?

A. Yes.

Q. Who stayed in the room you were in that night?

A. Seemed like Rick McDuffee.

Q. Was Mr. McDuffee married on May -- was he married on

May 7, 2010, at the time?

A. Was he married?

Q. Not was that the day of his wedding. But when he got

to the hotel on May 7, 2010, was he married at the time. Did

he have a wife?

A. I assume. I don't really know. I guess he did.

Q. Do you know Rick McDuffee?

A. Yes.

Q. Does he have a wife?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he have a wife on May 7th, 2010?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


193

A. I guess, yes.

Q. Was she at the hotel?

A. No. I didn't see her.

Q. Did you see Jim Jenkins at the hotel?

A. Yes.

Q. Was his wife there?

A. No.

Q. Did you see Adrian Heath at the hotel?

A. Yes.

Q. Was his wife there?

A. No.

Q. You don't recall seeing Ms. Doyle or Ms. Cook that

night, do you?

A. No.

Q. The next day, May 8th, 2010, the date of election,

you went down and voted and you were Voter No. 1, weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that your signature?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And I'm showing you for record purposes

State's Exhibit 4, which is those combination forms from the

election, listed the address as the Residence Inn address,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And there's nine other names. You don't know those

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


194

signatures, do you?

A. No.

Q. Do you know who you rode over to the election with?

A. I really couldn't say.

Q. Okay. Did you ride with Ms. Cook or Ms. Doyle?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Do you even recall seeing them?

A. Yeah, I did see them there.

Q. So you saw them on May 8, 2010, not at the Residence

Inn. You saw them where you were voting?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you're familiar with the photographs taken

in State's Exhibit 33? You've seen these before?

A. Yes.

Q. These were all taken after the election, correct?

During the --

A. I couldn't say that. I don't know --

Q. Well, we'll get into that --

A. -- when they were taken.

Q. We'll get into that in a minute. I'm going to leave

those up for you for now.

You were voting in this election because you saw

a problem with the road utility district, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The whole reason that you changed your residence

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


195

address for voting was so that you would eligible to vote in

this road utility district election, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't change your address to the Residence Inn

because you wanted to live at the Residence Inn, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You wanted to be a registered voter so you could vote

in that district. And that was your purpose for that address,

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Before that time, throughout your whole adult life,

had you been politically active?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And you're not politically active anymore, are you?

Not like you were?

A. Not as, but I'm still participating.

Q. Until you got into this plan of action, did you

operate under the general principal that you vote where you

live?

A. Yes.

Q. And you lived on Hartman in Magnolia, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you voted from that address for almost 35 years

before this election, right?

A. Correct.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


196

Q. And you vote from that address today?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. On May 7th and May 8th of 2010, where

were the bulk of your belongings?

A. Probably on Hartman.

Q. Okay. Then do you recall going back to the hotel

after you found out there was an election contest?

A. I'm sorry. I didn't -- I don't understand the

question.

Q. Do you recall going back to the Residence Inn after

you had met with Eric Yollick after you found out there was not

election contest, a lawsuit about the election?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did go back to that hotel at the direction

of Eric Yollick?

A. Yes, somewhat.

Q. Did you have meetings at Eric Yollick's office where

he urged in an adamant way that you-all needed to have a

stronger presence at the Residence Inn?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he particularly chastise anyone in the group

about the lack of rooms that had been rented prior to the

election?

A. I couldn't rightly say that. He may or may not have.

I don't know.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


197

Q. Okay. Well, earlier on direct examination you

testified that you guys on the night of May 7th, you stayed at

the inn to meet the qualifications for voting, right?

A. Correct.

Q. So as you understood it, you had to at least spend

the night there?

A. Yeah. At least. Yeah.

Q. Like once?

A. Spend some time there. I don't know.

Q. And that would be good enough to make you a

registered voter?

A. Yeah. Yes, it would.

Q. Okay. Now, you'll admit that at the Residence Inn,

there are no records that you, Pete Goeddertz, ever actually

rented a room?

A. I did rent a room in my name.

Q. After the election?

A. Yes.

Q. After Eric Yollick told you-all to go back?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you attend the meeting at Eric Yollick's office

after the election where the contest was discussed?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you remember being asked to slow up at his office

and a Saturday when the air conditioning was off?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


198

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Do you recall ever having to go meet with Eric

Yollick and give him a credible story as to why you were moving

into the Residence Inn that had nothing to do with the

election?

A. No, I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember having to do that?

A. No.

Q. Okay. What was your reason for -- did you come up

with a reason or state a reason as to why you were moving into

the Residence Inn?

A. To who?

Q. To Eric Yollick at any time?

A. Did I state a reason why I was -- I don't understand

the question.

Q. Okay. I'm -- you don't recall having to explain why

you were staying at the Residence Inn to Eric Yollick for any

reason?

A. Do I have --

Q. If you don't recall, you don't recall.

A. No, I don't recall.

Q. All right. Let's get to the crux of the matter.

A. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Q. Did you have meetings with Eric Yollick after the

election, before and during the civil lawsuit at his office?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


199

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. And was the status of your residence as well as the

other people in the lawsuit, was that discussed at these

meetings?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the status of people's residences being

listed at the Residence Inn, was that also discussed?

A. I'm sorry. The status?

Q. The status of people listing their residences at the

Residence Inn. I know it's difficult. It's the same word

twice. But the fact that people were calling the Residence Inn

their residence, was that also discussed?

A. Yes, it was -- yes.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about residence, okay? I'll show

you -- from the election code. This is the first time I've

touched this machine in a while, so I'll probably mess it up a

lot.

But do you recall seeing this definition of

"residence" the election code when you changed your voter

registration in March of 2010?

A. Do I recall seeing the definition of "residence"?

No, I don't recall.

Q. Okay. You said you read the Attorney General

opinion?

A. Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


200

Q. And you read the Secretary of State's opinion?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall those two opinions both laying

out in almost precisely this format, this law, the definition

of residence under Section 1.015 of the Texas Election Code?

A. I can't say what it said. All I know is that after

reading that, we feel -- I felt that we met qualifications.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about that. The first line says,

"In this code, residence means domicile. That is one's home

and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return

after any temporary absence."

Okay. Does that ring a bell? Just Line A.

A. No, not specifically.

Q. Okay. But let's talk about it. Domicile is a house,

right? A dwelling?

A. Yes.

Q. A home and fixed place of habitation. For almost 35

years at the time of this election, you lived in Magnolia at

Hartman, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. That was your domicile; was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. It was your home, right?

A. Yes.

Q. It was your fixed place of habitation?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


201

A. Yes.

Q. And when you were done with this election, you

returned to Hartman in Magnolia, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you were asked that question under oath on

May 8th of 2010, that would have been your answer, right, the

house on Hartman was your home, your fixed place of habitation?

A. I'm not sure what May 8th was.

Q. May 8th was the day you voted in this election?

A. Well, if I was asked, I would have to say that --

Q. By the end of the weekend, you returned to the house

on Hartman in Magnolia, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. With no intent to return to the Residence Inn?

A. No, I didn't think so.

Q. Okay. And I'm going for the rest of my questioning

call it "the hotel," because that's what it is.

A. All right.

Q. So that I don't say "residence" so many times that I

confuse you.

That's Paragraph A. Paragraph B, "Residence

shall be determined in accordance with the common law rules as

enunciated by the courts of this state except as otherwise

provided by this code." That's a bunch of legalese.

You didn't go to law school, did you?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


202

A. No.

Q. You don't know exactly what that means, right?

A. No.

Q. Do you care? You don't care, do you?

A. Well -- not really. I'm not going lose any sleep

over it.

Q. Reading that sentence doesn't help you answer

questions about what you did on May 8th of 2010, right?

A. No, not really.

Q. We'll go to C. "A person does not lose the person's

residence by leaving the person's home to go to another place

for temporary purposes only."

Mr. Goeddertz, isn't it true that you went to

the Residence Inn for a temporary purposes?

A. Unless my house sold.

Q. Okay.

A. I put my house up for sale.

Q. All right. I'll talk about that.

A. Okay.

Q. But unless your house sold, which we'll get to, you

were going to return to the house?

A. Yeah.

Q. And were you at the hotel for a temporary purpose,

right?

A. Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


203

Q. Fair to call the hotel "a temporary residence"?

A. Yes.

Q. Because you only stayed there with the intention of

only staying there one to two nights?

A. Yes.

Q. "A person does not acquire a residence in a place to

which the person has come for temporary purposes only and

without the intention of making that place the person's home."

Isn't it true that you went to the hotel for

temporary purposes?

A. To establish a residency.

Q. A residency, but not a home, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. The power was still on? You got to speak up. She's

losing you.

A. Yes.

Q. That's why I'm doing most of the "correct." So all

you have to say is "correct." We make it easy on the Court

Reporter, because I'm usually correct.

Section E talks about prison inmates and isn't

relevant. So those answers you gave me as to residence, those

are the same answers you would have given under oath on May 8

of 2010, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you mentioned selling your home.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


204

A. Yeah.

Q. You have a unique situation with your ex-wife, right?

You're still -- she's your ex-wife, but you're still --

A. Yeah. Okay.

Q. -- involved?

A. Yeah, I love her.

Q. Right. But she has her own home?

A. She has a residence; I have a residence.

Q. You vote separately, separate residences?

A. Yeah.

Q. What do you for a living?

A. I'm a contractor.

Q. And what does she do?

A. She's a beautician.

Q. Did she have a real estate license back in 2010?

A. Yeah, she did.

Q. You act surprised; but we've talked before, haven't

we?

A. Yes. Maybe I'll ask you. I don't know. You seem to

know a lot more than I do.

Q. Like Mr. Walker said, I don't have to answer the

questions.

A. I'll just ask you.

Q. I'm sorry. Your wife had a realtors license, right?

A. Yes, she does.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


205

Q. And at the time of this election, you went ahead and

you actually put your house up for sale, right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that you put the asking

price up well above what you thought was a fair market value?

A. I put the asking price at what she suggested. I

thought it was too high, but she said you could get that for

that property.

Q. You thought it was too high?

A. I guess I did.

Q. And did you get any offers?

A. I got a lot of calls.

Q. And once they found out the asking price, what

happened to those calls?

A. They disappeared.

Q. So it wasn't a realistic attempt to sale the house,

really, was it?

A. No, I can't say that. It was.

Q. It wasn't a fair market value being asked, was it?

A. Well, I would always start high.

Q. Right. And if you got that high, you would have sold

the house?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. But you didn't get it?

A. No, I didn't get it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


206

Q. Would you have gone and lived with her, maybe, if you

had sold the house until you found another place?

A. Yeah.

Q. But not the Residence Inn?

A. Probably not.

MR. GLICKLER: No further questions, Your Honor.


THE COURT: Yes.


BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Showing you what's marked as State's Exhibit No. 7,

Texas voter registration application. And here on Page 5, is

that your application?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you fill that out?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you put as your mailing address?

A. 15910 Hartman.

Q. And does all the information, the address, the date

of birth, the phone number has been redacted, but all the

information contained in there correct?

A. That's correct, yes, sir.

Q. Now, let me ask you a silly question. You are Peter

Goeddertz, right? Am I saying your name right?

A. Yeah, that's fine, yeah.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


207

Q. And you spelled that correctly; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do with that form after you filled

it out?

A. We submitted it.

Q. Did you have any conversations or meetings or

anything with anyone outside of -- I'll use the term "the

group"? Anybody that did not vote in the road utility district

election, prior to the vote?

A. No, I can't say that. I believe I discussed it. I

probably discussed it with Linda.

Q. Who is Linda?

A. My wife -- my ex-wife.

Q. Anybody else that you can recall?

A. No. Well -- no. I don't -- I don't recall.

Q. You weren't trying to vote under a cover of darkness,

were you?

A. No. I thought everybody knew what we were doing.


RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLICKLER:

Q. Mr. Goeddertz, do you recall that the Attorney

General opinion and Secretary of State's opinion that you read

was specifically about four-year college students of Prairie

View A & M University and their right to vote, correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


208

A. I was not -- no. That came up at some point, I

believe, and I don't recall when, though.

Q. You don't recall when or where?

A. No.

Q. Because you don't really recall those opinions now.

Four years later, you don't recall them very well, do you?

A. Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What are you

saying?

Q. The Secretary of State's opinion and the Attorney

General's opinion that you said you read four years ago --

A. I believe they were connected.

Q. -- about -- by the Prairie View A & M situation?

A. Yes, I believed that.

MR. GLICKLER: Okay. No further questions, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. WALKER: No, sir.



THE COURT: You are excused, sir. Thank you.

Next witness, please.

MR. WALKER: May we approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Bench conference off the record.)

THE COURT: We'll take a ten-minute break,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


209

Ladies and Gentleman. Stretch your legs a little bit. Thank

you very much. We're in recess.



THE COURT: Everybody ready? Let's see if the

jury is ready. I told them ten minutes. They have had five.


courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right. I think we are ready to

proceed. You may call your next witness, sir.

MR. WALKER: I call Phil Grant.

(Witness is sworn.)


THE COURT: Your witness.

PHIL GRANT,


DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. State your name for the Court, please?

A. Phil Grant.

Q. Mr. Grant, how are you employed?

A. I'm the first assistant district attorney at the

Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.

Q. Does that put you as second in command in the

district attorney's office?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


210

A. Yes.

Q. And who is your boss?

A. Brett Ligon, the elected district attorney.

Q. You are not elected. You are hired by Mr. Ligon to

serve in your role; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. How long have you been a prosecutor?

A. Since 1996.

Q. And what jurisdictions have you practiced in?

A. I was in Harris County for a little over eight years.

Williamson County for about four and a half years and then

Brett asked me to come down here and be his first assistance.

I started January 1st of 2009.

Q. And is that the entirety of the time Mr. Ligon has

been in office?

A. That's correct.

Q. Give me an overview of the district attorney's

office. How many prosecutors are down there?

A. We have a little over 40 prosecutors, about a hundred

total staff, including legal assistants, paralegals, and

investigators.

Q. And in total, how many employees approximately?

A. About a hundred.

Q. And I'm sure the jury is somewhat aware, but tell me

what the duties of the district attorney for Montgomery County

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


211

are?

A. The duties of the Montgomery County District

Attorney's Office are to prosecute all adult criminal offenses

from Class C traffic tickets, all the way to capital murder

cases. We prosecute -- we prosecute it all. We have some

limited civil matters, but mainly civil jurisdiction is with

the county attorney's office.

Q. And does this involve any violation, whether it be in

the Penal Code or, in this case, election code or any other

felony -- or criminal offenses in the State of Texas that

occurs in Montgomery County?

A. Any of the adult criminal offenses, no matter what

code they're in, we're responsible for prosecuting.

Q. Does the district attorney's office have a public

integrity division?

A. We do.

Q. And describe to me what Public Integrity Division is?

A. Well, the purpose of that division is to basically

investigate any type of crime that would cause the public to

question official government operation. So we handle lots of

different things from officer-involved shootings to teachers

that engage in sexual misconduct with students, any type of

theft or misconduct by public officials. And we also tend to

investigate anything involving governmental operation.

Q. And as -- by way of example, if a police officer, I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


212

don't know, is accused of a burglary, would this typically fall

under the heading of public integrity?

A. Only if it was -- he was in his official capacity

when he did it. If a police officer is off duty and they get a

DWI, we're not going investigate that. But if they're involved

in some type of misconduct while they're on duty, that becomes

our responsibility.

Q. I guess I need to be more clear in my question. You

used an example of an officer gets a DWI. Obviously, your

office still prosecutes that officer, correct?

A. Yes, we still prosecute it. It wouldn't fall in the

Public Integrity Division, though, unless it was in the course

of their official capacity.

Q. Same thing, if an elected official, if they're

accused of some sort of malfeasance within their office, that

would fall under the heading of the Public Integrity Division?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. At some point -- well, let's get right to the

case here.

I'm going to show you what's marked as

Defendants' Exhibit 1 and ask you if you recognize that

document.

A. I do.

Q. Is that an accurate copy of what it purports to be?

A. It appears to be, yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


213

MR. WALKER: I'm going to tender it to opposing

counsel and ask that it be admitted.

MR. WHITE: No objection.


(Defendants' Exhibit 1 admitted.)

Q. Let's go through this document. What is it?

A. It's a letter that I drafted and sent out to a number

of individuals that registered to vote in an election back in

2010, it looks like.

Q. And who was this specific letter addressed to?

A. Sybil Doyle.

Q. Do you know Ms. Doyle at all?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you know of a woman by the name of Roberta Cook?

A. I don't think I do.

Q. But in any event, you sent out this letter to all of

the -- where did you get that list from, the registered voters?

A. From the Montgomery County elections, I believe. It

was -- we sent it out to everybody that was registered to vote

in that upcoming election.

Q. Do you remember an exact or approximate number of

letters that you had to send?

A. I don't, not off the top of my head. It wasn't many.

Q. And in your letter, first paragraph here, you

indicate that your office had received an official complaint,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


214

alleging fraudulent voter registration. Do you recall who that

complaint was received from?

A. I believe it was received from The Woodlands Township

via James Stilwell, I believe. And maybe some -- some other

attorneys that were involved in the road utility district, as

well.

Q. And who is Mr. Stilwell, to your knowledge?

A. He's a civil lawyer down in The Woodlands.

Q. And so what do you recall as far as your interaction

or your conversations with Mr. Stilwell prior to the drafting

of this letter? By the way, when was the letter drafted?

A. April 21, 2010, it looks like.

Q. And when did you -- describe the content or how

extensive your conversations with Mr. Stilwell were?

A. We met a few times, I believe, in between voter

registration and the election. I went down to The Woodlands.

We did some research. Met with some folks involved in The

Woodlands Road Utility District just so I could get a better

understanding of what that governmental entity was.

Q. Had you ever heard of that before this whole thing

came up?

A. I had heard of road utility districts before, but not

specifically this one.

Q. As far as the complaint in your dealings with

Mr. Stilwell, what else did you do?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


215

A. We took in the information that they brought us

regarding the people that are registered to vote there. We did

some independent investigation, figured out what we believe was

going on, and determined that the best course of action was to

send this letter out.

Q. And you say "we." Who is "we"?

A. In consultation with my boss, we made this decision.

Q. That's Mr. Ligon, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Anybody else involved from the DA's office as far as

the investigation or discussion of this issue?

A. Adrienne Frazier was an attorney working for our

office that was assigned to the Public Integrity Division at

the time. She was my subordinate, but she was involved in kind

of looking at this situation and briefing me on the law and the

kind of structure of the road utility district.

Q. And I think we skipped over that point. But did you

consider this to fall under the Public Integrity Division of

the district attorney's office?

A. The integrity of the electoral process is something

that that division handles, yes.

Q. Back in the 2010, what was the makeup of the Public

Integrity Division?

A. It was myself, Adrienne Frazier, and some assistance

from our chief and assistant chief investigator when necessary.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


216

Q. And you said that there was some independent

investigation done by your office. Do you recall what nature

that investigation was?

A. We went down and interviewed a couple of folks that

were registered to vote in that area to determine whether or

not they really had a legitimate residence, which they did.

Q. Do you recall who that was?

A. The Laukiens.

Q. Okay. What else, if anything?

A. Went down and consulted with the road utility

district's attorneys, did independent research on the structure

of the road utility district, looked at the history of the

elections, pulled all the electoral records that we could that

we thought were relevant, did some research on the individuals

that had registered to vote in this election to determine

whether or not they actually resided in the road utility

district. And once we had concerns about that fact, we made

the decision to send out the letter.

Q. At the time you're doing this investigation and

drafting this letter, what was the concern? What did -- what

was Mr. Stilwell -- what were they thinking was going to

happen?

A. Well, our concern was that there were people that

were going to try to vote in this election that didn't actually

reside in the road utility district.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


217

Q. And by this time, were there additional people

besides the Laukiens that had registered to vote in that

district?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall any of those names? Well, it's not pop

quiz time. Let me give you the names.

Do you recall Adrian Heath?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you recall Jim Jenkins?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall either Roberta Cook or Sybil Doyle?

A. Obviously, Sybil Doyle if I sent her a letter.

Q. But you don't have any independent recollection of

investigating regarding her specifically?

A. No.

Q. But she got a letter, so she was on that list of

applicants -- or actually the registered voters in that

district, correct?

A. We sent it to every registered voter in the district.

Q. What did you suggest that these registered voters do

in your letter?

A. Well, the purpose of the letter was to encourage them

to review the relevant statutes out there on voter registration

and where you could vote and encourage them to vote

appropriately.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


218

Q. And you also referenced them to a couple of websites?

A. Yes.

Q. What were those websites?

A. The Attorney General's office and the Secretary of

State.

Q. And what were those -- what do we've from those tow

entities that you referred them to?

A. There were some opinions that I thought were

informative on the current state of election law in the state

of Texas.

Q. And I don't remember if you said or not, but you also

encouraged them to seek legal counsel?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Adrian Heath?

A. I do.

Q. How do you know Mr. Heath?

A. Prior to this incident, Adrian Heath had been a

person I had run into at various and a sundry of conservative

functions. He was very vocal in some of his opinions about

local government and would make me aware of those. He would

call on occasion and discuss things with me. So I had had a

pretty fair amount of interaction with Adrian Heath prior to

this incident.

Q. There's a certain amount of politics that goes with

your job and certainly with your boss' job. So you know who

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


219

the dead flies are. You know who the politically active people

in the county are, in a general sense, right?

A. I was learning those people. I was only a year or so

into Montgomery County politics, so I was learning some of the

folks in the area.

Q. And certainly you would put Mr. Heath under that

heading, correct?

A. He was active.

Q. Let's talk about Jim Jenkins. Do you know Jim

Jenkins?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell me about Mr. Jenkins.

A. I had met with Jim Jenkins on numerous occasions

about some of his concerns regarding local entities.

Q. Same thing for him, politically active guy?

A. Very involved.

Q. Do you recall having conversations with Mr. Heath

regarding specifically the election for the Board of Directors

of the road utility district?

A. I believe he did call me after I sent out this letter

and I had a conversation with him about the election. He may

have stopped by. He would stop by on occasion, but I know I

had at least one conversation with him specifically about this

after I sent the letter.

Q. You specifically recall one telephone call, but there

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


220

may have been other conversations either by telephone or in

person regarding this issue?

A. That's the best of my recollection.

Q. Four years have passed since this happened, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall

having any telephone conversations or in-person meetings with

Mr. Jenkins specifically about the Board of Directors election

for the road utility district?

A. I don't recall any with Mr. Jenkins.

Q. And your letter went out prior to that election; is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you send any other communications in writing or

did you have any conversations with any of the registered

voters after this letter and prior to the election?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Does your letter tell any specific voters that you've

drawn the legal conclusion that they are not eligible voters

for that RUD?

A. No, sir.

Q. What does your letter -- in a nutshell, what does

your letter tell them to do?

A. I think it cautions them to not vote illegally.

Q. And you referred them to resource materials, as well,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


221

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would illegal voting -- that would be a criminal

offense, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that would fall under the auspices of the

Montgomery County District Attorney's Office; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the gentlemen to my right, did they work for your

office?

A. No. They work for the Attorney General's office.

Q. And did your office pursue criminal charges against

either Sybil Doyle or Roberta Cook?

A. We referred the investigation to the Attorney

General's office, so I would have to say yes.

Q. You got the complaint -- well, you got the complaint

before it ever happened?

A. Right.

Q. And then once the election took place, you received

further complaints, I'm assuming, did you?

A. Yes, sir. And we did additional investigation after

the election.

Q. And who did you receive complaints for after the

election?

A. Well, I mean, the same individuals were involved in a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


222

kind of keeping us up to date on who had actually voted and

what the results were. And then we went out and obtained

documentation, et cetera, from a hotel where some of these

folks had stayed, some other things like that, and then

packaged it all up and shipped it to the Secretary of State.

Q. And Mr. Stilwell, was he one of the people that you

spoke with?

A. Post election?

Q. Correct.

A. I'm sure.

Q. I'm drawing a blank on his name now, but the attorney

for the road utility district?

A. I think it's Page, Mike Page.

Q. You are correct. Mr. Page.

Did you speak with him after the election?

A. I probably did. I don't have any independent

recollection, but I'm sure I did.

Q. Certainly during the course of this whole mess, you

dealt with Mr. Page, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Recalling conversations with anyone that had voted in

that election after the election?

A. I've had a few conversations with Adrian Heath since

the election. And I've had -- I think I've had a couple of

other conversations with Pete Goeddertz and maybe some of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


223

other guys at various and sundry election events.

Q. You crossed paths with these people at the fish fry

or the barbecue or whatever that has some political aspect,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever expressed the opinion in any public

sense that you find the definition of "residence" in need of

clarification?

A. I think I have, yes, sir.

Q. In what venue was that?

A. I believe I was quoted in a Conroe Courier article,

something to that effect.

Q. If you would just paraphrase what you said. I don't

have it in front of me.

A. I don't recall exactly what I said. I think I was

expressing some frustration with the Secretary of State's

opinions on the matter.

Q. And as part of your investigation, you made yourself

familiar with the definition of "residence" in the election

code, correct?

A. Yes, sir.


CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Mr. Grant, you testified that your main concern when

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


224

you sent these letters out was that folks who didn't reside in

the road utility district were going to vote there. Is that

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so the purpose of your letter was to -- I believe

you testified to encourage them to research the law and not

vote illegally. Is that right?

A. That's right. I mean, there was an argument to be

made that they had already committed a criminal offense for

filling out a registration form in the first place. But our

office tries to take the tact in the Public Integrity Division,

at least, of education first, prosecution second. So my hope

was to educate them, help them make the right decision, and

therefore, help them avoid prosecution.

Q. Was that your hope in writing that letter, that you

would be able to avoid prosecution of these individuals?

A. It was my hope they made the right decision, yes,

sir.

Q. And why is it that you take that tact with crimes

like this, particularly with voting offenses?

A. I think people are passionate about politics and

sometimes they let that go to their heads and they don't really

make smart decisions in that regard. These guys are

passionate. I mean, they are -- and I just think they don't

think sometimes what the consequences of their actions are

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


225

going to be.

Q. It would have been possible for you to write a letter

that said you probably will be committing a crime if you do

this and we highly recommend that you don't do it. You could

write that letter, right?

A. I could have written it that way.

Q. Is there a policy reason, especially in regard to

voting offenses, that you wouldn't right the letter in that

way?

A. Well, there were some people that were registered to

vote in that district properly in my cursory investigation

prior to the election and you don't want to discourage people

that have the right to vote from voting in the appropriate

place. So -- and it's not my job as an assistant district

attorney to provide legal advice to citizens. You get in kind

of ethical sticky situations when we do that, if we advise

somebody incorrectly. So we felt like the only thing that we

could do in this particular circumstance was to educate. Point

them to the resources and hope they made the right decision.

Q. Now, on the topic of not discouraging voters, not

disenfranchising voters, I want to talk a little bit about the

Secretary of State's position on residency and your views of

issue of residency.

When you read the election code definition of

"residence," Section 1.015, which not sure if it's up on the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


226

screen?

MR. WALKER: Here, I'll get you mine.

MR. WHITE: Got a copy right here.

A. I'm familiar with it.

Q. (By Mr. White) And being familiar with this specific

definition under Subsection A, if says in this code, "Residence

means domicile, one's home, a fixed place of habitation to

which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

Do you find that that definition under the

election code lacks clarity?

A. I don't think that definition lacks clarity, no.

Q. And Subsection B is a little bit of legalese that

says, "Residence shall be determined in accordance with the

common law rules as enunciated by the courts of this state

except as otherwise provided by this code."

When we add that last portion and we look at

that, "except as otherwise provided by this code," that tells

us that we can -- if we have a problem in our heads that we

created by looking at other sources, we come back to this code,

right?

A. Correct. The code controls.

Q. And so if we were reading the common law court cases,

court opinions or certainly a Secretary of State opinion on

court cases, we would come back to this code if we had any

confusion, right?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


227

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the code goes on to say in Subsection C, "A

person does not lose the person's residence by leaving the

person's home to go to another place for temporary purposes

only."

And that's pretty clear, isn't it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Subsection D, "A person does not acquire a

residence in a place to which the person has come for temporary

purposes only and without the intention of making that place

the person's home."

And is that pretty clear to you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And so a person who has gone to, let's say, a hotel

for the temporary purpose of voting in that election and then

returning home, that's not a situation that lacks clarity, is

it, in your opinion?

A. Not in my opinion.

Q. And so when we talk about residency and lack of

clarity, is it really -- would it be more accurate to say that

the residency law is flexible enough to accommodate folks that

have special situations?

A. Yes. And that's where it does allow some

flexibility, where you have people that have two fixed

residences for different parts of the year. Maybe people that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


228

summer someplace and winter someplace or students that go to

college. That was one of the big cases. Students can register

where they go to college if they want to and they can register

where their mom and dad lives. And the law allows certain

flexibility for those special circumstances.

Q. In fact, the two opinions that you referenced in your

letter to the targets of this letter and the Defendants of --

Doyle, at least, in this case, were written specifically on a

situation involving four-year college students at Prairie View

A & M University; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And as far as you know, Ms. Doyle wasn't a student at

a four-year university at the time you sent this letter?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. And unless I'm mistaken, there's not a four-year

university inside The Woodlands Road Utility District, is

there?

A. Lone Star Montgomery might touch it. I'm not sure

about that.

Q. Okay. That's not an institution that has on-campus

living, is it?

A. No.

MR. WHITE: Okay. Pass the witness.

REDIRECT-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


229

Q. As a practicing attorney, you have to deal with

various codes; but your primary focus would probably be with

the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Texas Penal Code,

correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And would you agree with me that a lot of our various

codes, whether it be the real property code or the penal code,

a lot of times they lead off or early in the code, they have a

section dealing with definitions?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I think it's 107 in the penal code; is that correct?

A. I'm going to trust you.

Q. We'll talk about that one out in the hall. Okay.

But that is a common thing within Texas

jurisprudence; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the -- when you expressed your frustration with

the definition of "residence," we're pretty much -- or you tell

me. Was your reference -- or your level of frustration based

on that Subsection B of the definition of "residence" in the

election code?

A. Where it references common law?

Q. Correct.

A. No, not really.

Q. Okay. Where did your frustration as far as the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


230

clarity of that definition come in?

A. I think the Secretary of State is my frustration.

Q. Their interpretation of that definition; is that

correct?

A. Some unofficial interpretations they have made, yes,

sir.

Q. Okay. Tell us who the duties of -- in a broad sense

of the Secretary of State in Texas?

A. Come on. Basically the Secretary of State is in

charge of maintaining a lot of governmental operations or

controlling a lot of governmental operations.

Q. I think they're in charge of corporations, et cetera,

as far as administration?

A. All that kind of stuff, yes.

Q. They are also charged with conducting elections; is

that correct?

A. They do have a large responsibility in elections,

yes.

Q. At the time you sent that letter that's Defense

Exhibit No. 1, what information was within your knowledge as

far as what the plan of these individuals who had registered at

that hotel?

A. What was my understanding of their plan?

Q. Yeah.

A. Was that they register for a night at the hotel prior

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


231

to filling out their registration form, which I'm seeing up

here, and their plan was to go spend the night again the night

of the election and claim they had a temporary residence at

this extended-stay hotel.

Q. Were you involved at all with the presentation of

these cases to a Grand Jury?

A. I don't remember if I was or not, to be honest. It's

possible.


RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WHITE:

Q. Would it surprise you to learn that the Defendants

never stayed a single night at the hotel before they swore that

that was their residence address on their voter registration

application forms?

A. That would surprise me.

Q. Would it surprise you that these two Defendants never

stayed a night at the hotel before they voted in that election?

A. That would surprise me.

Q. Would it surprise you that these two Defendants had

never stayed a single night at that hotel in their lives and

voted in that election?

A. That would be problematic.


FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


232

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Does the definition of "residence" contained in the

election code have anything to -- does it state anything about

spending the night?

A. I believe it does, yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. I mean, maybe not with those words; but a domicile is

where you live. It's where you spend the night.

Q. Right. Are you familiar -- did you -- once this

issue came to -- on your plate, did you research the common law

as interpreted by the courts of the state?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the case of Mills v. Bartlett?

A. You're going to have to show it to me.

Q. I don't have it.

A. Do you know what the facts are?

Q. Mills v. Bartlett is an election case involving -- I

believe it's around Waco.

A. Not familiar off the top of my head. I have to look

at it.

Q. Fair enough. But you did do that research?

A. Yes.


MR. WHITE: No further questions.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


233

MR. WALKER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, we're going to

break for the evening, all right? Please remember the

instructions the Court has given to you and we will see you in

the morning at 9:00 o'clock. Thank you very much. We're in

recess.

(Proceedings adjourned.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


234

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

I, Karen D. deShetler, Deputy Court Reporter, in and

for the 359th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County,

State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing

contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of

evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel

for the parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's

Record, in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which

occurred in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.

I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the

proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,

admitted by the respective parties.

I further certify that the total cost for the

preparation of the Reporter's Record is $2,950 and will be paid

by the Defendants.

WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 13th day of

February, 2015.

/s/Karen D. deShetlerKaren D. deShetler, CSR 1688Expiration Date: 12/31/2014Deputy Court Reporter359th Judicial District CourtMontgomery County, TexasP.O. Box 132498The Woodlands, Texas 77393Telephone: 281-723-9090

Documents

Doyle RUD Trial Transcript vol 5