tic step is taken, to really consider the ramifications of that and have us press ahead as quickly as we can to get the ninth circuit to designate a judge and to have a hearing and see whether or not there is going to be a binding verdict in this case.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman's time has expired.

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. DeWine.

Mr. DEWINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You were the lead counsel in this case?

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEWINE. You signed all the pleadings?

Mr. GOODMAN. I did. I signed all the pleadings. I was responsible for reviewing them, if they were signed by somebody else.

Mr. DEWINE. OK, and you are fully familiar with all the facts of this case? I mean, you have been on the case from the beginning until now?

Mr. GOODMAN. At one point in time; I was more familiar with it when it was closer to the time of the trial, but, yes, I should be. Mr. DEWINE. I want to get that clear in my mind, because of your answer to a previous question.

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes.

Mr. DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Would you yield to me?

I appreciate the gentleman bringing that up, because that intrigued me about two answers to my questions.

One was what seemed to be an effort on your part to disassociate yourself with the tax counts and the only two counts that the judge was found guilty of by saying something to the effect you were in the room, but not involved. Were you involved with the preparation of the case with respect to the tax questions in the second trial?

Mr. GOODMAN. I was certainly involved with the preparation of the case, but not primarily responsible for that aspect of it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. May I continue, in answering questions, and they have been posed to you all day long, how are you answering the questions, as lead counsel, as counsel who happened to be in the room and remembered what people said, as counsel who signed the pleadings and prepared the briefs? What should we take from your answers?

Mr. GOODMAN. Depending on the individual question, they would be in different capacities. I am doing the best I can to tell you as closely as I can recollect what took place and also give you my personal feelings about certain things.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I hope I don't sound too conspiratorial here. You are not trying to get some kind of arrangement here where you can say later in some forum, perhaps the Senate, that, "Really, this subcommittee brought me in here and asked me questions in an area that I am not that expert in."

Mr. GOODMAN. No; that would never be my intention.

Mr. MAZZOLI. One further moment.

The second part that intrigued me was something, because I had a kind of an offhand comment-"We have the wrong lawyer here," and you said, "Well, I was invited."

I would like, if I could, to put, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the record, a letter dated June 13, 1986, from our Chairman, Mr.

Rodino, addressed to Judge Harry E. Claiborne at the Federal Prison camp in Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, inviting him— "The committee would like to grant you the opportunity to appear personally or through counsel.'

Again, you say you were invited. How were you invited to this hearing?

Mr. GOODMAN. I received, to the best of my recollection, I received a phone call indicating that Judge Claiborne and his counsel were being invited-

Mr. MAZZOLI. From whom, that phone call?

Mr. GOODMAN. Either from Mr. Remington or Ms. Mielke.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Remington of the committee phoned you knowing that you were his counsel of record?

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes; and he advised me I was going to receive a copy of a letter addressed to Judge Claiborne.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Why would they have selected you if you were not the lead lawyer in the tax case?

Mr. GOODMAN. I was the lead lawyer for Judge Claiborne. Two out of the three

Mr. Mazzoli. All of the counts, first, second trial, everything?
Mr. GOODMAN. That is correct.

Mr. MAZZOLI. So then, in effect, you were invited sort of secondarily because the judge told our staff that you were his lawyer, and therefore, copies of letters could be sent to you and invitations and details-

Mr. KASTENMEIER. If the gentleman will yield, a copy of the invitation to Judge Claiborne was sent to Oscar Goodman because it was common knowledge that you were his counsel and remained his counsel for such matters.

I think that is correct.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Therefore, once again, Mr. Chairman, if I asked Mr. Goodman lastly, in answering our questions and giving us the information to the best of your knowledge and recollection, and referring to what data you brought, you are speaking as Judge Claiborne's lawyer in a very close, intimate way and not as some distant fashion, as a lawyer who may have been listed in some of the several pleadings here?

Mr. GOODMAN. No question that I am Judge Claiborne's lawyer, his primary lawyer. He is relying on me. I was trying to be very candid with you.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from Ohio.

The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COBLE. Bear with me. I have a personal illustration, and then I have a question.

My friend from Kentucky prompted this when he reminded us of the high office of Federal judges, what that entails.

I was opposing a candidate in a congressional race, and he came to me and said, "We won't discuss private lives in this campaign." I said, "Oh, really. You want to declare your private life off limits in a congressional race?"

And I assured him that my private life was open to close scrutiny.

I was not saying to him that my private life was impeccable. I was rather suggesting that my private life was no longer private. It became public at that point, when I became a candidate. And I think the same sort of standard applies to Federal judges, certainly as rigidly and perhaps more so.

You indicated that you feared that juries-and I presume you meant a specific jury-sometimes is prone to impose a more severe standard when public officials are being tried.

Now, I ask you, Mr. Goodman, the matter of guilt or innocense in this trial was determined based upon the standard of reasonable doubt, was it not, just as it would for any other defendant.

Mr. GOODMAN. That was the legal standard to which the jury was instructed, yes, sir.

My comments, when I addressed the gentleman, I said sometimes I get the impression that juries treat public officials and judges differently than they would an ordinary person under the same circumstances, even though no man is supposed to be above the law, and I take the position just because you are a public official, you should not be held to a higher standard than any other citizen.

Maybe that is where we differ in individual philosophies. But I think the law should be applied equally, no matter how you cut it. A man shouldn't be treated more harshly because he has a position or less so.

Mr. COBLE. I think he should be treated equally, too, and I have no reason to think that he wasn't. That is my opinion.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin have a question?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A few.

Were any part of the fines and costs of prosecution imposed against Judge Claiborne as a part of the sentence-have they been paid?

Mr. GOODMAN. I don't believe that any payment has been made as of this moment, but I will advise you that efforts are being made to gather the necessary moneys to pay the committee fine which is a five thousand plus five now, a $10,000 fine which is presently imposed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. There is no effort being made to raise the imposition of the costs of prosecution?

Mr. GOODMAN. We are doing one thing at a time. First the fine and then get on to the next matter.

It is very difficult to find the moneys in order to satisfy these obligations.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Does Judge Claiborne employ a secretary as part of his duties as the U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada?

Mr. GOODMAN. I believe there is a secretary who is managing the office.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What are her duties?

Mr. GOODMAN. I cannot speak of personal knowledge, but I could advise you that she goes in on a regular basis, and I am advised that she spends the entire work day there.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What is the last date that Judge Claiborne performed judicial duties in the court in Nevada?

Mr. GOODMAN. To the best of my recollection, on the day that the indictment was returned which would have been December 8, 1983, He called up Chief Judge Browning and advised Chief Browning because of the indictment, until the matter was resolved, would not actively handle any matters until specifically directed to do so by the Chief Judge.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Has he been directed to handle any matters since December 8, 1983?

Mr. GOODMAN. To my knowlege, he has not.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Has he been paid his full salary since that date?

Mr. GOODMAN. Once again, speaking from my understanding, the answer would be yes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you know if Judge Claiborne has employed any law clerks since December 8, 1983?

Mr. GOODMAN. I believe since that time there was a law clerk who was assigned to that particular department, and my understanding is that that law clerk, because the judge was not on the premises at all times, but you should be advised that he did appear at his office, even though he wasn't handling active trial case load. I have been advised that that law clerk has been assigned to visiting and to other judges who are handling cases in the building. I don't know whether the same applies to Judge Claiborne's secretary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Is a law clerk presently being employed in that court?

Mr. GOODMAN. I don't know the answer. I know the last law clerk that I was familiar with is now working in the District Attorney's office.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Goodman, I just have one or two questions remaining.

You stated at the outset that the three judges who heard the appeal said-I think you characterized it—"did not read the record, and in one"-or except in one case-"apparently read the briefs.' Could you tell us one what you base that statement?

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, sir. It is my recollection that when we were making the argument in the ninth circuit court of appeals that the judge advised us from the bench that they had not read the transcripts, one judge had read the briefs, and that they advised each other after the argument was completed that the transcripts should be disseminated amongst them so they would have an opportunity to read them and then render their decision.

But at the time that the argument was made, it was as though I was arguing at least to two of the judges, as I recall it, to the best of my knowledge, who knew nothing about the case.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. In the ninth circuit, or have they made those statements so that they are a matter of record?

Mr. GOODMAN. As I understand it, when we argue, it is being recorded.

I think there is a mechanical recording of it.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Are there other members who may have other questions?
The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. Goodman, would it be fair to characterize you as an experienced trial attorney?

Mr. GOODMAN. I think that is fair.
Mr. DEWINE. In the criminal area?
Mr. GOODMAN. That is all I do.

Mr. DEWINE. For how many years?

Mr. GOODMAN. Exclusively criminal law? I would say—it makes me feel old-about 18 years.

Mr. DEWINE. All right. That would include, in fact, the Federal courts, as well?

Mr. GOODMAN. My practice is 95 percent Federal criminal practice.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DEWINE. In that criminal practice, you would handle the filing of your own motions to suppress, your own, both pretrial motions during the trial and post-trial?

Mr. GOODMAN. I am responsible for it.

I have four lawyers who work in my office, but before anything is filed, I like to think I read it.

Mr. DEWINE. You are somewhat of an expert in the area of the motion to suppress, and you have written several articles concerning the motion to suppress, particularly in wire tap cases?

Mr. GOODMAN. That is correct.

Mr. DEWINE. I am looking at your bio here. It is a short one.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COBLE. One question I failed to ask Mr. Goodman.

During your testimony, you indicated that Judge Claiborne was running a business. I assume that you meant a law firm?

Mr. GOODMAN. Law practive, that is correct. I was just using it to show he had employees that he was responsible for.

Mr. COBLE. I thought that is what you meant.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Are there other questions of Mr. Goodman? If not

Mr. GOODMAN. May I say something, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes, you may.

Mr. GOODMAN. I want to thank you gentlemen for giving me this opportunity to appear in front of you and to share with you at least some of my thoughts and views.

We may not necessarily agree with one another, but we can all agree that this is a very important matter for the people of this country, as well as for Judge Claiborne, and I appreciate as a citizen who is not familiar with the legislative process appearing before a board, a committee as honorable as you gentlemen, for the opportunity to be treated with the type of kindness and dignity that I have been, and I wanted you to hear that from me.

Mr. KASTEMEIER. Well, we appreciate that statement, Mr. Good

man.

This concludes, therefore, the testimony, but let me for the benefit of all here, members and others who have testified and Mr. Goodman, give you an idea of where we go from here in terms of this proceeding.