The following is cross examination of Agent Cunningham (direct exam in Vol
9) located in Vol 10. Agent Cunningham and Agent Kelso were the two FBI
agents who examined the vehicles for bullet holes, cartridges and casings.
Form 192 (a mega list of items inclusive in bulk) differs from the 302
dictated on the same inventory.  The date at which things seem to change is
Jun 30...same with the prior radio transmission transcription...

Q  Now based on what you have just said, to try and summarize, {2108} let's
  take Special Agent Coler's car first. That is the last one I went on. .38
  special, you had one round in the trunk and three rounds in the trunk and
  twelve rounds in the trunk and in the front seat you had two individual
  rounds and I believe you identified those as being the only ones. I trust
  that what we said then was that there were no shotgun shells, no .223 
  shells and no .308 shells found in the automobile by you in the Coler 
  automobile, is that correct?
 A  No, sir.
 Q  No it's not correct or no you didn't find them?
 A  I only found, sir, what is on the 302.
 Q  Out of those four categories of ammunition in the Coler car, you only
  found .38 special ammunition, is that correct?
 A  Yes.
 Q  Did you ever tell anybody -- let me ask you whether you ever testified
  or gave an affidavit, I want to talk about some .38 cartridges for a 
  moment, .38 specials which are capable of being fired in .357 magnum 
  weapons. Did you as a matter of your official duties give an affidavit in 
  support of an extradition proceeding regarding Mr. Peltier some time in 
  1966? Excuse me. 1976.
 A  Yes, sir. And there were mistakes in that particular --
 Q  And you gave that under oath, did you not?
 A  Yes, sir. The best of my recollection.
 Q  And I trust that when you gave something under oath you {2109} read it
  first and you're testifying in that affidavit that it is true to the best 
  of your knowledge and belief at the time you made it?
 A  Yes, sir.
 Q  I show you what has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 124 and I just
  ask you to look at it for a moment to see if you can identify it. Look at 
  it particularly to see if you see your own signature on it and also if you 
  can state what the date is. The date frankly is not legible on my copy. 
  Perhaps you can tell if not the exact date the approximate date of that 
  affidavit.
 A  I can't read the month. It was the 11th day of some month.
 Q  Generally what time of the year, do you remember? Was it the fall or
  spring?
 A  I don't recall, sir.
 Q  You recognize your signature on that affidavit?
 A  Yes, sir.
 Q  You did give the affidavit under oath, did you not?
 A  Yes, sir.
 Q  When you gave the affidavit, did someone in requesting that from you
  indicate that it would be used in an extradition proceeding in Canada, a
  legal proceeding, in other words?
 A  Yes, sir.
{2110}
 MR. LOWE:  Your Honor, I would like at this point to approach the bench, if
  we could, for a moment?
 **THE COURT:  You may.
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the bench:)
 MR. LOWE:  We have had some false starts. Mr. Taikeff particularly did
  earlier this day about when a question has been asked and answered and
  whether it inhibits the use of documents and so forth, and also on the
  procedure for admitting documents into evidence.
  I want to explain to your Honor, what this is and what the significance is,
  and what I want to do with it in advance so that I am not interrupted at a
  critical phase when this witness is perhaps waiting, thinking of an answer,
  this is an affidavit which was given by this man which directly contradicts
  what he has just testified to under oath here and that is, it states, this
  right here (indicating), just read that, your Honor (indicating).
  It says in the Coler car, directly contradicts his statement he just made
  that he found no .223 cartridge in the Coler car.
  This cartridge is the single most important cartridge in this entire
  investigation and trial in the opinion of the defense; and what I would
  propose to do and what I would like to do is right now at the side bar 
  offer this {2111} in evidence and have you rule so that I can use it in 
  what I consider to be a proper way without a lot of interference -- whether 
  proper or improper interference -- that would be disruptive to my question.
  I believe it is certainly relevant. It is a direct contradiction of his
  testimony here by an earlier sworn statement. I want to be able to use it
  and use a slide of this when I am questioning the witness. I don't know
  whether your Honor would feel I could use a slide of this before it is
  introduced into evidence; and that's what I would like to do, either offer
  it now or have your authority to use the slide before it is exactly in
  evidence. I don't want a Catch 22 where I can't use the slide or I can't 
  get it in evidence.
  I asked for a side bar so you could rule on that now before I get a witness
  in a situation where I don't want to be interrupted.
  Did you read it?
 MR. SIKMA:  I am familiar with it. I will stipulate that it is error on his
  part. It isn't in the form of -- at least as it is written there -- it is
  not totally in error with regard to his custody of it, but it is in error 
  as far as his particular finding of it. I think that it was found by 
  Special Agent Hodge, and he has not testified in court here, that he found 
  that. That's in {2112} an earlier affidavit. It can be used as a prior
  inconsistent statement. There is nothing I can see that's wrong with using
  it as a prior inconsistent statement; but I think that in a sense it is the
  use of a straw man once again. They are using something that was in error
  and has not been testified to by this witness.
 THE COURT:  But he has testified as to what he found in that vehicle?
 MR. SIKMA:  Yes, he has. I have no objection to the questioning.
 THE COURT:  Is this the only part that --
 MR. LOWE:  (Interrupting) That's the only part that is inconsistent. I can
  block that out and show -- I think the jury should be entitled to read the
  entire document. It is only in context that the jury can see that this is
  not just a typographical error; that the context of all the other things
  that are said specifically refers to findings. I think on the previous page
  it enumerates things found and where they were found. I feel this is a
  critical piece of defense evidence, and by any standard it is admissible.
  This is sworn, Judge. This is on two different sworn occasions when he has
  testified differently or made an affidavit on one occasion and both times
  under oath; and I --
 MR. SIKMA:  (Interrupting) You mean that he made {2113} two affidavits?
 MR. LOWE:  He made an affidavit under oath he found it here, and today he
  testified under oath that he did not find it.
 THE COURT:  Well, you are certainly entitled to show that discrepancy and
  introduce the exhibit.
 MR. LOWE:  I move to introduce it now.
 MR. SIKMA:  I would -- I think I would object to items which are not
  inconsistent with his testimony.
 THE COURT:  Well, it is a part of the total. I would agree with counsel, it
  is part of the total affidavits.
 MR. LOWE:  Thank you, your Honor.
 (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the
  hearing and presence of the jury:)
 MR. LOWE:  I would move the admission into evidence of Defendant's Exhibit
  124.
 THE COURT:  124 is received.
 (Defendant's Exhibit No. 124, having been previously duly marked for
  identification, so offered in evidence, was received.)
 Q  (By Mr. Lowe) Now, Mr. Cunningham, I invite your attention to Paragraph
  6, top of the second page, and you can read along with me and the jury can
  read along; and I will read Paragraph 6, says that:  Also in the said 1972
  Chevrolet Biscayne automobile I found one .223 cartridge case in the trunk
  which {2114} I took into my possession and placed in an envelope marked
  "Items recovered from trunk, Jack R. Coler automobile"; and I ask you, 
  first of all, if that is an accurate recital of what is contained on Page 2 
  of your affidavit under oath?
 A  Yes, it is.
 Q  And I will ask you if the 1972 Chevrolet Biscayne automobile which is
  referred to there was Special Agent Coler's car?
 A  Yes, it was; and that, by the way, sir, is not correct.
 Q  It is not correct?
 A  No, sir.
 MR. LOWE:  Well. I have no further questions of this witness, your Honor.