The following testimony is taken from volume 7 of the 27 volume trial
transcript of Leonard Peltier's trial in 1977 and is from the cross
examination of FBI Agent Frederick Coward who worked out of the Rapid City
office.  Marvin Stoldt was a BIA officer approximate age 22 years.
Agent Coward claimed to have observed Leonard Peltier in the company of at
least four others running from the area across a hilltop a half a mile away
from a side view.  Marvin Stoldt claimed to have identified Jimmy Eagle (who
wasn't there, by the way)..He claimed to have discussed this with Stoldt
during the course of the day, but never wrote a report on Jimmy Eagle until
September when he again met Stoldt at the office.  The 302 was dated two
days after the incident and written by Agent Coward.  The report written in
September by the same agent says Stoldt claimed to have identified Peltier
that day running across the hilltop.

GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY : SIKMA
LEONARD'S ATTORNEY: TAIKEFF
"COURT: = JUDGE"

Q  I put it to you, sir, and you tell me whether this is correct or
  incorrect:  That on June 30th, 1975, you and one or more of your fellow
  agents sat down and decided from the evidence you had gathered up to that
  point what had happened that day, and to a considerable extent wrote    
  reports which reflected not what you had seen and heard but what you 
  believed had taken place, what you believed as of that time had taken 
  place, true or false?
{1299}
A  False.
Q  I put it to you, sir, and you tell us whether I am right or
  wrong:  That you wrote certain portions of your report purely on the basis
  of fiction, motivated by what you then believed occurred on June 26th, 
  1975, is that true or is that false?
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, I would object. This question has been
  asked and answered No. 1; No. 2, it is misleading; No. 3, it is
  argumentative as far as this witness.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Did you not write in your report something
  about seeing Leonard Peltier that day?
A  That's correct.
Q  And isn't it a fact that it is false, that you did not see
  Leonard Peltier that day?
A  That's incorrect, sir.
Q  Which way were you looking when you saw Leonard Peltier that
  day?
A  Well, I was looking in a northeasterly direction.
Q  Generally speaking in the direction of the residences?
A  You mean when I saw him specifically?
Q  When you claim you saw him, yes.
A  Well, when I saw him specifically I was looking east.
Q  And you were in the position off the chart, west of the houses,
  about a half mile away?
A  Well, I was approximately 700 yards when I made the viewing of
  Leonard Peltier.
Q  Isn't it a fact, sir, that you were a half mile away?
A  From --
Q  (Interrupting) When you were at the place from which you say you
  saw him.
{1300}
A  Well, if you take the place where I was and measure the distance
  to the houses, it is approximately 800 yards which is less than a half a
  mile. If you take where I was and where I made the observation, it would be
  approximately 700 yards.
{1301}
Q  I show you Defendant's Exhibit 92 for identification and ask
  you, yes or no, if you are able to answer yes or no, do you recognize that?
A  Yes, sir, I do.
Q  Is it an affidavit?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And did you sign that affidavit?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And did you swear to the truth on its contents?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And does it have certain attachments to it which you referred to
in the text of your affidavit?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  And when you signed that affidavit and swore to it, did you
  understand that you were incorporating the attachments by reference and
  thereby swearing to the accuracy of the attachments and the statements you
  made about them?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Was there a map attached?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Made perhaps from an aerial photograph?
A  There was a map attached, however it was made I don't know.
Q  And on that map did you indicate the place where you say you saw
  Leonard Peltier?
{1302}
A  May I see the affidavit, please?
Q  Well, can you tell me from memory, first?
A  I think the general area is probably indicated but I'm not
  specifically sure.
Q  Do you recall whether you marked on that map and said in your
  affidavit that you had marked on that map the place where you were and the
  place where Leonard Peltier was allegedly seen?
A  I believe I did but I would have to see the affidavit.
Q  Now I return to you Defendant's Exhibit 92, I'm showing you the
  last page. I'm also placing before you a blue index card with a straight
  edge. Do you have a pen or a pencil with you?
A  No, sir, I do not.
Q  I'm also placing before you a fountain pen. Do you see two marks
on that last page?
A  What do you mean "marks"? On the map itself?
Q  A mark with A and a mark with B.
A  Yes, I do.
Q  And is one of them, according to your affidavit and your present
  recollection, the place where you say you were and the place where you say
  you saw Leonard Peltier? Yes or no, if you can answer it yes or no.
A  That would be a yes, sir.
Q  Is there a scale on the map which tells you the equivalent
{1303} of how many feet per inch?
A  Uh-huh.[Yes.]
Q  Would you, sir, use the blue card and the pen, if necessary, and
  the scale and tell us the distance between the place where you said you 
  were and you said you saw Leonard Peltier. Have you determined a distance?
A  Yes. 2600 feet.
Q  How many feet are in a mile, sir? Is it 5,280 feet?
A  I believe so.
Q  Would you concede that short 40 feet the distance was a half a
  mile?
A  I would concede that.
Q  Now when you were looking through this distance of a half mile,
  how many individuals do you say you saw?
A  I saw four.
Q  And were they standing still or moving?
A  They were running.
Q  And in which direction?
A  Well, southwesterly direction.
Q  In a southwesterly direction. Trace on the chart with the tip of
  the pointer the approximate route they were running as you viewed it.
A  Well, when I viewed it?
{1304}
Q  I'm talking about only your own personal sighting.
A  That's right. When I viewed it it was in this area right like
this (indicating).
Q  Let me describe that for the record. That's about a half an inch
  to the right of the arrow that's designated "body of Joe Stuntz" on the 
  road or path?
A  Well, they weren't on the road.
Q  No. Your pointer is on the road.
A  Well, what I'm saying is --
Q  Perhaps east of the road?
A  Yes.
Q  All right. And now trace out their path for a short distance.
A  Well, went this direction (indicating).
Q  Mostly in a southerly direction?
A  Right.
Q  And you were looking which way?
A  Looking east.
Q  You were looking east and they were moving south?
A  (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q  Okay. Will you sit in that chair and assume for the moment that
  the back of the courtroom is to the south -- correction -- is to the east.
{1305}
A  Okay.
Q  Then facing the jury would be to the south?
A  That's correct.
Q  Now when you saw, or when you say you saw Leonard Peltier
  running in the direction of the jury, was he running that way and looking
  that way (indicating) or was he looking at you so you could get a good look
  at him?
A  He was running that way.
Q  So you could see only his profile?
A  Basically; yes.
Q  And from a half a mile away looking through the telescopic sight
  of a rifle, you were able to recognize the defendant in profile while
  running?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Have you ever performed that feat at any other time in your
  life?
A  No.
Q  Now you were not the only person who accomplished something like
  that that afternoon, isn't that true?
A  I later found that out; yes, sir.
Q  When you say "later," when was that?
A  Well, the first time I had heard that was a couple months after
  my report. I was not cognizant of it.
Q  Isn't it true that you just forgot to put it in your report?
{1306}
A  No. That's not true.
Q  The identity by name of the people other than law enforcement
  officers who were present that day was exceedingly important to your
  investigation, a correct proposition or an incorrect proposition?
A  I lost you. Could you restate it, please?
Q  Yes. I asked you whether the following hypothesis or proposition
  is correct; the identity by name of the people other than law enforcement
  officers who were at or near the Jumping Bull community on the afternoon of
  June 26th, 1975, was exceedingly important to your investigation, true or
  not true?
A  True.
Q  Agent Skelly was one of those agents you worked with? Yes?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Agent Waring was one of those agents you worked with? Yes?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  You met with them every morning?
A  I met with everybody that was there.
Q  I understand. But I have to be precise. You met with those two
  agents every morning and every evening in the days following June 26, 1975?
A  I saw them; yes.
{1307}
MR. TAIKEFF:  May I have this marked for identification please?
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Between June 26th, 1975 and the end of your
  working day on June 30, 1975, did you and your fellow I agents talk about
  people who had been identified positively as being present that afternoon 
  at the Jumping Bull community?
A  Yes.
Q  Did anyone mention the sighting of Leonard Peltier?
A  I did.
Q  Were you the only one?
A  That I was aware of; yes.
Q  Did anyone mention the sighting of Jimmy Eagle?
A  Yes.
Q  Who mentioned the sighting of Jimmy Eagle?
A  You mean the agent?
Q  Yes.
A  Or who in particular?
Q  You don't know?
A  (Witness nods negatively.)
Q  As far as you know, as of June 30 that sighting was common
  knowledge amongst all of them?
A  As far as I knew. I was aware of it.
Q  Did you not tell us before that you were working with the BIA
  officer by the name of Marvin Stoldt?
A Yes, sir.
{1308}
Q  Did you have any conversations with Marvin Stoldt?
A  All day.
Q  Did he tell you that he claimed to have spotted Jimmy Eagle in
  that same group of four people?
A  Yes, sir, he did.
Q  That was an important fact, wasn't it?
A  Yes.
Q  Is it in your 302?
A  Is it in my 302?
Q  Yes.
A  It's in one of them; yes.
Q  I return to you Defendant's Exhibit 91 and perhaps you can
  assist me with the possible oversight. Can you tell me the page and
  paragraph?
A  It's not in this particular 302.
Q  Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Did I fail to hand you your report of the
  activities of June 26, 1975?
A  These are mine. These are my observations, no one else's.
Q  But that is your report concerning what happened on June 6th,
  1975, isn't it?
A  That I personally did; yes.
Q  Only what you personally did is in that report. Yes or no?
A  Well --
Q  Yes or no.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor. I'd --
{1309}
MR. TAIKEFF:  I offer it in evidence again, Your Honor.
MR. SIKMA:  Same objection as stated by the side bar.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Now, would Your Honor examine the exhibit, please?
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, the objection is the same for the same
  reasons.
MR. TAIKEFF:  The basis is entirely different this time, Your
  Honor. If I may hand it up to the Court --
MR. HULTMAN:  You're going to the side bar.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm not going to say anything.
THE COURT:  Counsel approach the bench, please.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were at the bench;)
THE COURT:  Specifically why do you feel that --
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, the report details in the most precision
  imaginable the activities of everybody with whom he was working, not just
  himself, and every time he mentions another person's name it is in capital
  letters. Your Honor doesn't even have to read the words, Your Honor only 
  has to read the names which are boldface. This report impeaches his 
  statement as to the explanation why the Jimmy Eagle sighting is not in 
  there, because it doesn't refer to anybody else's activities.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, that refers to things that {1310} he
  personally observed other people do.
MR. TAIKEFF:  And what people told him.
MR. SIKMA:  That is not -- what does it show other people told him?
MR. TAIKEFF:  There are eight or nine pages of what other people
  told him throughout.
MR. SIKMA:  There are things that people said on the radio but not
  interviews.
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's not true at all.
MR. HULTMAN:  Let us finish on this side, please. Might I make a
  request?
THE COURT:  The report will not be received. It can be used in the
  cross-examination of this witness to point up any discrepancies between his
  testimony and the --
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm going to have to read every single word in the
  report which is going to be the equivalent of offering it into evidence.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, I object to that. He's been through this 50
  times. I think Counsel's trying to delay the trial.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Not in this case he's not been through it. He hasn't
  begun getting through it yet.
THE COURT:  The ruling of the Court is that this exhibit will not
  be received.
MR. LOWE:       A point of inquiry just to clarify. This is {1311}
  a general, not relating only to this exhibit, but general use. If Your 
  Honor says that this is not admitted into evidence but it can be used in
  cross-examination, Your Honor is not precluding the reading of portions of
  it to a witness then, for example, is that correct? I'm not clear whether
  you do or don't. I'm going to make sure we don't offend Your Honor's
  understanding of what proper use can be made of it in cross-examination.
THE COURT:  You may show it to the witness, ask him to read a
  certain portion and if that is clearly within conflict with what he has
  testified, then it may be brought out.
MR. LOWE:  Well, I guess my question, Your Honor, and this is
  general, but we're going to hit this on other occasions in this trial. If
  the witness has said, assume, number one, he said this only contains what 
  he saw or did and there are portions here which clearly by any objective
  reasoning give other information, namely what other people have told him, 
  it seems to me we're obviously entitled to have the jury look at the 
  document for themselves to judge the candor and credibility of the witness. 
  That's the point I'm making. Mr. Taikeff showed it to you to offer, to let 
  you see the clear inconsistencies.
MR. SIKMA:  There are no prior inconsistencies.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Now we have the inconsistencies and that's {1312} the
  basis for offering it in evidence, to let the jury view it and use it as
  part of the data upon which they judge this witness' credibility.
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, now Mr. Lowe referred to two Counsels
  I'd like to be heard.
MR. TAIKEFF:  NO objection.
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, this is a bald attempt in order to get
  all kinds of hearsay into this record and before this jury. The very 
  limited purpose that Counsel legitimately understands the rules concedes he 
  has now done, that in no way then puts a document with all of these various 
  items, all of us here know that that 302 represents two things basically; 
  one, what it is that person may have seen or observed that day and, two, 
  whatever it is by way of information in a general way likewise came to his 
  attention.
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's precisely my point.
MR. HULTMAN:  But in no way does it allow the document itself to
  come on as the best evidence. The best evidence is the man sitting right
  there that's asking the questions.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I'm on the adverse side of the case. I don't have to
  accept his answers.
MR. HULTMAN:  You do as far as the inconsistencies, you have shown
  those out and used the document.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I haven't begun. I need the document in {1313} order
  to do that.
MR. HULTMAN:  You've used it. That's what you have been doing.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I understand Your Honor's ruling and I
  will proceed.
THE COURT:  My ruling is you may state to the witness what you
  understand his testimony to be and to go over what he has said and if he
  agrees that's what he has testified. You may ask him to read a specific
  portion of that you consider to be in conflict what that testimony and go 
  on from there.
++++++++++++++++++


AFTER SEVERAL FAILED ATTEMPTS TO GET THE 302 WRITTEN BY AGENT COWARD (AN FBI
REPORT) WHICH CONTRADICTED AGENT COWARD'S CURRENT TESTIMONY INTO
EVIDENCE...THE ATTORNEYS WENT TO THE BENCH........
MR. TAIKEFF:  May I ask Your Honor the leading basis for the sustaining of
  the Government's position, so that I know whether or not I perhaps have
  overlooked something in laying the foundation for the introduction of this
  document.
THE COURT:  You may state the legal basis as to why you feel that
  document is admissible.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Because it provides graphic illustration that
  contradicts important testimony strongly adhered to by this witness. It
  impeaches him in a significant way, and I also want to be able to read the
  contents of it to the jury. It ties in with other evidence which will be
  coming in this case, and I'm left with something in a black bag that I
  cannot refer to in its text if I am not able to introduce this report. It 
  is surely relevant.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, may I respond?
THE COURT:  You may respond.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, the only testimony that this witness gave
  essentially on direct examination was, number {1348} one, that he sighted
  Leonard Peltier; and in addition he talked about seeing some other
  individuals which were fleeing from the area. And I guess there was one
  other point where he indicated that he went down to the wooded area, that
  there was some shooting in that area. And that he had sighted two
  individuals.
  Now, the other one thing that's significant about this:  is while
  he's testified to this, the defense counsel in opening statements said that
  we'll have no people to dispute essentially with the fact that Leonard
  Peltier was in this area on the --
MR. TAIKEFF:  That's true, Your Honor.
MR. SIKMA:  -- on the 26th of June. I fail to see what the use of
  spending about four hours of the time in court cross-examining this witness
  on a very insignificant issue. This particular thing, the witness has
  testified that he believes there's any accuracy -- inaccuracy on the date. 
  I do not see where that is an important and impeaching matter.
  I think that it is a very insignificant matter of perhaps
  typographical error or something of this nature. But it certainly is not
  worth the time and effort that's been gone into in this.
  Second thing is that it is also very misleading concerning its
  importance in this trial the fact that counsel is, for what reason I don't
  know, but spending a considerable {1349} amount of time on a witness that
  took about fifteen minutes on direct examination, if that long.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, the answer to the main point made by Mr.
  Sikma, which I think could be called out of his statement, is that we don't
  dispute his presence. The point is that when this document was prepared in
  June of 1975 the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not know that that was
  not going to be an issue in the case that they were planning against the
  defendant, and we are going to prove before this trial is over that the FBI
  has manufactured evidence and witnesses against the defendants in this 
  case, or that the defendants in these cases, and this is the beginning of 
  that proof.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, I would point out a rather credible,
  incredible fallacy in the defendants, counsel's argument. They've indicated
  that we have manufactured evidence.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Not you, Mr. Sikma. The FBI.
MR. SIKMA:  The FBI. This man stated on direct examination that he
  made that observation, made a record of it very shortly thereafter of
  identifying this person.
  He has stated that as far as this person is concerned he did not,
  he did not discover that someone else had also identified this individual
  until some time later, that is, the defendant, Leonard Peltier. And I can't
  see where that {1350} shows evidence of manufacturing evidence.
  I just fail to see where that -- totally irrelevant. If we don't
  call this witness, I would like to see what difference it makes. Totally
  irrelevant whether it's corroborated. It's corroborated practically by the
  defense themselves.
MR. TAIKEFT:  We are calling Stoldt when they took Stoldt off the
  witness list, we gave them notice that we were calling him, and we will 
  call him.
MR. SIKMA:  Well, we could still call him, but you know they're
  complaining about it and now they want to call him as a witness. They're
  saying that he's unreliable and that we've manufactured that witness. And
  now they want to call him as a witness. I think it's totally absurd.
MR. TAIKEFF:  The case is absurd. Our position is not absurd.
MR. SIKMA:  We would like to proceed in our case. They've already
  had overnight to prepare this cross-examination. We've been delayed in
  putting on another important witness, and I think that this is a delaying
  tactic on the part of counsel here.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Let me assure you that we're anxious for Norman Brown
  to take the stand. And if necessary be happy to work late into the night to
  keep him as late as he has to be on the stand.
{1351}
THE COURT:  That of course is not possible as I've already
  announced.
MR. SIKMA:  It's no wonder. Counsel knows it's not possible, Your
  Honor.
THE COURT:  The offer of Exhibit 105 is denied. Court finds in view
  of the witness's testimony that its impeachment value would be very slight.
  Further finds that the question that preceded the offer was placed
  in terms of the witness lying, which the Court views as an improper
  question; and the receipt of the exhibit will simply emphasize the improper
  suggestion in the minds of the jury.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, yesterday morning at the beginning of the
  court day in colloquy with the Court I suggested that it had been my
  experience that there were times when law enforcement officers took the
  stand and had convenient lapses of memory. And Your Honor was offended by
  that suggestion.
THE COURT:  That is something for counsel to present to the jury in
  argument. It is not a proper interrogation. You may interrogate him as to
  whether they have made conflicting statements. When the case is argued you
  can argue as to whether or not they were lying, and were they lying. But 
  for counsel to stand up and make these insinuations is improper in my 
  opinion.
{1352}
MR. TAIKEFF:  I understand that Your Honor is not a fact finder in
  this case, but if Your Honor is not already impressed with the fact that
  this witness has lied on considerable portions of his testimony, then Your
  Honor is absolutely immune to what is obvious. Because Your Honor just
  cannot believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has done and is
  doing the kinds of things which have been going on and are going on in this
  case.
  And I want Your Honor to know that I sincerely believe that if
  that's Your Honor's position, it's because Your Honor has, with all due
  respect to the Court, is an incorrect one. And I would ask Your Honor to
  keep an open mind with respect to what has been done in this particular
  case.
  Because if five years ago someone suggested to Your Honor that the
  revelations of 1973 and 1974 were going to be made, I'm sure Your Honor
  would, as I would have at that time, never believed it possible. But Your
  Honor, we will prove before this case is over a criminal conspiracy on the
  part of the FBI to convict this defendant. And Your Honor is frustrating
  that effort with rulings that are legally incorrect because Your Honor, in
  good faith, just cannot accept the proposition which we offer in this case.
  And I assure Your Honor that we know what we are talking about. We
  have proof of it and it's going to develop {1353} in the course of this
  trial.
MR. SIKMA:  Your Honor, this is the same, I heard this same speech
  before. I suppose we are going to get into matters of 1960 and early 1970.
  Totally irrelevant --
MR. TAIKEFF:  No, we're not.
MR. SIKMA:  -- to the defense, to the guilt or innocence of this
  defendant.
  We have brought witnesses here, we intend to present our evidence
  on the basis of physical evidence. This argument made by counsel, the
  Government contends, is totally out of line. I've heard this sort of thing
  over and over, and all it does is delay in getting the evidence before the
  jury. And I think this is a delaying tactic on the part of counsel, and I
  would urge the Court to keep this case moving along.
MR. LOWE:  May I ask a point of inquiry? I'm not clear when you say
  about the lying. And I have a witness later on, so I want to understand 
  what you said.
THE COURT:  The record is closed. I have made my ruling.
MR. LOWE:  I understand. May I ask just the general effect of what
  you said so I do not offend what you said here at a later time.
THE COURT:  You may proceed at a later time. I'm not ruling any
  further. I've made my ruling; I'm not saying anything more.
{1354}
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]