Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 11

CONVERTINO v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ERIC STRAUS

April 21, 2009

Prepared for you by

Bingham Farms | Ann Arbor | Detroit | Flint | Grand Rapids | Jackson | Lansing | Mt. Clemens

PHONE: 248.644.8888 FAX: 248.644.1120

www.bienenstock.com

DA000081
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

RICHARD CONVERTINO,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 07-CV-13842-DT
Hon. Robert H. Cleland
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendant.
__________________________________________

The Deposition of ERIC STRAUS,

Taken at 211 West Fort Street,
Detroit, Michigan,
Commencing at 9:22 a.m.,
Tuesday, April 21, 2009,
Before Viola Newman, CSR-4320, RPR.

DA000082
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES: 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 2
3 STEPHEN M. KOHN 3 WITNESS PAGE
4 ERIK J. SNYDER 4 ERIC STRAUS
5 Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto 5
6 3233 P Street NW 6 EXAMINATION 5
7 Washington, D.C. 20007 7 BY MR. KOHN:
8 202.342.6980 8
9 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff. 9 EXHIBITS
10 10
11 LENORE M. FERBER 11 EXHIBIT PAGE
12 Convertino & Associates 12 (Exhibits attached to transcript.)
13 801 West Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 233 13
14 Plymouth, Michigan 48170 14 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 1 14
15 734.927.9900 15
16 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff. 16
17 17
18 JONATHAN E. ZIMMERMAN 18
19 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO 19
20 SCOTT A. RISNER 20
21 U.S. Department of Justice 21
22 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW 22
23 Washington, D.C. 20530 23
24 202.514.2395 24
25 Appearing on behalf of the Defendant. 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 ALSO PRESENT: 1 Detroit, Michigan
2 Peter Y. Fu 2 Tuesday, April 21, 2009
3 3 9:22 a.m.
4 4
5 5 ERIC STRAUS,
6 6 was thereupon called as a witness herein, and after
7 7 having first been duly sworn to testify to the truth,
8 8 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was
9 9 examined and testified as follows:
10 10 MR. KOHN: Steven M. Kohn, K-O-H-N,
11 11 attorney for Mr. Convertino, the Plaintiff.
12 12 MR. SNYDER: Erik D. Snyder, that's
13 13 E-R-I-K, D as in David, Snyder, S-N-Y-D-E-R, attorney
14 14 for Mr. Convertino.
15 15 MS. FERBER: Lenore Ferber, attorney for
16 16 Mr. Convertino, and that's F-E-R-B-E-R.
17 17 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Jonathan E. Zimmerman.
18 18 MS. SHAPIRO: Elizabeth Shapiro for the
19 19 Department of Justice.
20 20 MR. RISNER: Scott Risner, also the
21 21 Department of Justice.
22 22 MR. FU: Peter Fu, paralegal.
23 23 EXAMINATION
24 24 BY MR. KOHN:
25 25 Q. Would you please state your name and address for the

2 (Pages 2 to 5)
DA000083
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 18 Page 20
1 him my no comment. 1 A. What happens is if this is the top of the document,
2 Q. Did he mention at that time anything about the 2 and the record should reflect the upper right-hand
3 Department of Justice OPR investigation? 3 corner, what the mail room does often is write the
4 A. I don't -- I don't think so. 4 name of the AUSA handwritten in the top right-hand
5 Q. Did he mention -- 5 corner, so it said Straus and then on the back of the
6 A. My best recollection would have been when I was 6 three, four-page document was a time stamp for the
7 interviewed by OIG on that but I don't remember. He 7 U.S. Attorneys Office, Eastern District of Michigan
8 wanted to ask me about those two items, we didn't have 8 somewhere in September, 2003.
9 a long conversation because I quickly said no comment. 9 Q. Okay. So to the best of your recollection it's a
10 Q. Did you know at that time that the Farhat matter was 10 three or four-page document on the top right-hand
11 part of an OPR inquiry? 11 corner, handwritten Straus, on the back of the
12 A. Yes. Well, I assumed it was. 12 document, a time stamp?
13 Q. And you had something to do with that? 13 A. Yes, but no envelope --
14 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay.
15 Q. What did you have to do with that? 15 A. -- as far as I recall.
16 A. I brought it to the front office's attention and I 16 Q. Now describe to me what'd be on the front page of the
17 also later met with John Tukel to -- he had called me 17 document itself other than your name in the top
18 up to his office to clarify, I assume some facts in 18 right-hand corner?
19 which -- facts I didn't have which I ended up having 19 A. I haven't seen one in a while but it would be readily
20 to call Barb McQuade who is another assistant U.S. 20 identified as a standard court judgment and commitment
21 attorney in our office -- 21 order with the case heading and...
22 Q. How was it brought -- how was the Farhat matter 22 Q. So on the top, would it have the case heading?
23 brought to your attention? 23 A. As I recall.
24 A. -- which Farhat matter? 24 Q. Like U.S. V. Farhat is the standard way?
25 Q. The one that you brought to the attention of your 25 A. Yeah, I'm pretty sure, I could be wrong about that,
Page 19 Page 21
1 supervisors. 1 but that's -- I don't know -- I can't remember if
2 A. The Farhat matter I brought to my supervisor's 2 there's a cover sheet on that or not.
3 attention dealt with the sentencing of Marwan Farhat. 3 Q. And then would it be a transcript or -- on that first
4 Mistakenly our mail room sent me the judgment and 4 page, a transcript of the sentencing hearing or would
5 commitment order for Mr. Marwan Farhat, the J and C is 5 it be some other type of statement?
6 what we call it, I'm assuming erroneously because I 6 A. No, it would be simply an order of the Court with --
7 was the assigned prosecutor apparently in our computer 7 it is a form, it is a national court form that is
8 records to another Defendant called Ali Farhat and so 8 utilized I think around the country and it's not in
9 they stuck it in my mailbox but I was not the assigned 9 the way of a transcript or anything like that.
10 AUSA on Marwan Farhat. 10 Q. Okay. So the front page would be the form with the
11 That judgment and commitment order revealed 11 heading of the case on top and then what would be the
12 that he essentially received no sentence of 12 second page?
13 incarceration despite the fact that he had been 13 A. With -- contained within those three, four, five pages
14 charged with some very significant gun and drug cases. 14 there is a page with the actual sentence, there is a
15 Q. Okay. Just describe to me the document, how it came 15 page that has the conditions of supervised release for
16 to you, how did that document come to you? 16 any special conditions. That's about all I remember.
17 A. In my -- probably in my mailbox. 17 I haven't seen one in a while.
18 Q. I mean, was it in an envelope or just in your mailbox? 18 Q. Would it also -- did it include the transcript of the
19 A. Just in my mail -- as any other mail would come in. 19 sentencing hearing?
20 Q. So was it in a sealed envelope or was it just like an 20 A. No, no, that was sealed.
21 interoffice document just with a paper clip on it in 21 Q. So you did not get a copy of the transcript of the
22 your office, do you remember? 22 sentencing hearing?
23 A. Just the document itself, that's what I remember. 23 A. Eventually I did.
24 Q. Okay. So and then did it have anything on it, like to 24 Q. And when was that?
25 Mr. Straus or just the document in your box? 25 A. During the Koubriti file review.

6 (Pages 18 to 21)
DA000084
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 22 Page 24
1 Q. And you got that copy of that transcript before the 1 Q. And instead of seeking his -- any guidance from him as
2 article appeared in the Detroit Free Press? 2 to exactly what happened at the sentencing, you read
3 A. I believe long -- I believe long after. 3 the document and then did you put it in Mr.
4 Q. Oh, so it's your testimony you did not see the 4 Convertino's box?
5 transcript before the article appeared? 5 A. No.
6 A. I don't -- I don't think so. There's probably an 6 Q. How long did it take you to give the document that you
7 order to unseal and reseal with the judge when that 7 under -- did you understand that that document was
8 date was, but... 8 directed to Mr. Convertino?
9 Q. Was there any indication on the first page of Mr. 9 A. I brought the matter to my superiors.
10 Farhat's sentencing documentation that the proceeding 10 Q. That's not my question. Did you understand that the
11 was sealed in any way? 11 document placed in your box was inadvertently placed
12 A. Not that I recall, the reason I say that is because I 12 in your box and should have been placed in Mr.
13 sent one of our paralegals across the street to get a 13 Convertino's box, yes or no?
14 copy of the Rule 11 plea agreement and that's when we 14 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, compound
15 learned that the entire file was sealed. 15 question. There were two parts of that question. You
16 Q. And when did you send someone across the street to get 16 asked him yes or no.
17 a copy of the Rule 11? 17 BY MR. KOHN:
18 A. The same day I saw the commitment order. 18 Q. If you can answer, you can; if not, I'll rephrase.
19 Q. And who authorized you to do that? 19 And just for the record, counsel can raise objections
20 A. Myself, assuming it was a public document which was 20 to all my questions but because there's not a judge
21 contemporaneous -- well, let me back up. Either I did 21 here, generally you're -- unless he instructs you not
22 it individually, at the same time I was telling my 22 to answer, you can still answer.
23 supervisor, Robert Cares, or he did it or we jointly 23 A. Okay.
24 did it or I did it individually, but roughly around 24 Q. But if he raises an objection, you want me to rephrase
25 that same time. 25 the question because it makes it -- you know, you
Page 23 Page 25
1 Q. Now, when this document appeared in your box, you knew 1 don't understand it or something --
2 it had been misfiled and it should have been given to 2 A. Well, if you could break it down.
3 Mr. Convertino, correct? 3 Q. Sure. When that sentencing document, when you saw it
4 A. Yes. 4 in your box and you saw who the defendant was, did you
5 Q. And but instead of taking it and giving it to Mr. 5 understand that that document should have been placed
6 Convertino, you decided to read the document, is that 6 in Mr. Convertino's box or perhaps there was an
7 correct? 7 inadvertent error?
8 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, leading. 8 A. Yes.
9 Objection, leading. 9 Q. Okay. And then -- you did not then take the document
10 You can answer the question. 10 that you understood had been intended to be received
11 A. Yes. 11 by Mr. Convertino, you did not take that document and
12 BY MR. KOHN: 12 place it in Mr. Convertino's box, correct?
13 Q. And you at that -- at that time did you have any -- 13 A. Correct.
14 before you read the document, did you have any 14 Q. Instead you read the document, correct?
15 concerns about Mr. Convertino and Mr. Farhat? 15 A. Correct.
16 A. Yes. 16 Q. And after you read the document you had concerns about
17 Q. Now, when you read the document, did you talk to Mr. 17 what you read, correct?
18 Convertino about what happened at the sentencing? 18 A. Correct.
19 A. No. 19 Q. And you then did not discuss those concerns ever with
20 Q. So you never -- when was the first time you saw Mr. 20 Mr. Convertino, correct?
21 Convertino's input into specifically what happened at 21 A. Correct.
22 the sentencing? 22 Q. Instead you took it to your supervisor, I understand
23 A. I never did. 23 your testimony?
24 Q. And he's a colleague of yours, Mr. Convertino? 24 A. Yes.
25 A. Yes. 25 Q. And who was that supervisor?

7 (Pages 22 to 25)
DA000085
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 26 Page 28
1 A. Robert Cares. 1 it raised some significant, troubling issues.
2 Q. Did you take it to anybody else? 2 Q. So once -- my question is once this document you found
3 A. Not that I recall. 3 raised some troubling issues, why would that trigger
4 Q. And did you -- you mentioned you then went and pulled 4 in anyone's mind that you should go to OPR with those
5 a Rule 11 from a public file or something? 5 troubling issues?
6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, misstates his 6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation.
7 prior testimony. 7 A. I think the circumstances concerning how Marwan Farhat
8 BY MR. KOHN: 8 was dealt with, the fact that nobody seemed to know
9 Q. Yeah, you said -- 9 that this sentencing had taken place certainly raised
10 A. We directed, either myself individually, either Cares 10 some eyebrows as to whether or not this thing had been
11 individually or us jointly asked my paralegals to go 11 approved and there was something additional going on
12 pull what we call a Rule 11 plea agreement, Rule 11 of 12 beyond just --
13 the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ordinarily 13 BY MR. KOHN:
14 those are public documents and we did ask a paralegal 14 Q. My question is what was -- why a discussion -- to the
15 to go pull it. 15 best of your knowledge or your understanding go to OPR
16 Q. And then you found out that it was sealed? 16 with it, like why OPR?
17 A. Yes. 17 A. Because I think it struck myself and a lot of people
18 Q. And then did you take steps to unseal it? 18 as improper conduct.
19 A. I don't -- I don't think I did, I think someone 19 Q. When you say a lot of people, who are these other
20 eventually did but I don't know that I was involved in 20 people?
21 that. 21 A. Robert Cares, Alan Greshel.
22 Q. Do you know the approximate time period it was that 22 Q. What about Mr. Tukel, was he involved?
23 you saw this sentencing document placed in your 23 A. I don't know if he was here yet.
24 mailbox? 24 Q. Okay.
25 A. Roughly around the second, third week of September, 25 A. He may have arrived shortly thereafter.
Page 27 Page 29
1 2003. I think the date is in the OIG statement. 1 Q. So if something strikes as improper conduct, it should
2 Q. Did there come a time when someone said or the idea 2 go to OPR?
3 came up that something to do with this Farhat 3 A. That is DOJ policy.
4 sentencing should be referred to OPR? 4 Q. Do you follow that policy?
5 A. Yes. 5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Okay. When did that come up, to the best of your 6 Q. Do you know who first came up with the idea of taking
7 recollection the first time that came up in a 7 it to OPR?
8 conversation? 8 A. I don't.
9 A. Probably -- I don't have a specific recollection, 9 Q. But you concurred?
10 probably shortly thereafter. 10 A. Sure.
11 Q. And why did it come up that maybe this should go to 11 Q. Do you think you came up with that idea?
12 OPR? 12 A. I may have, I may have. I mean, it struck a -- struck
13 A. Because there had been some prior discussions between 13 me as pretty obvious.
14 my supervisor, Bob Cares, Alan Greshel, the 14 Q. Now -- we're going to come back to this but now I want
15 criminal -- then criminal chief, and Convertino 15 to go to before the article appeared in the Detroit
16 about -- about pulling Marwan Farhat's Rule 11 plea 16 Free Press. Approximately how much time before the
17 agreement because of an attempt by Mr. Farhat to 17 article appeared did you know an article was going to
18 obstruct justice in another case being investigated 18 appear in the paper?
19 and prosecuted within our office, and so that in 19 A. The Tuesday before.
20 combination with the fact that clearly this was an 20 Q. Okay. So it's the Tuesday before the Saturday?
21 individual who had -- who was facing a significant 21 A. Correct, that's my present recollection. I think
22 amount of time, he had 12 to 14 guns under his bed 22 that's --
23 when he was arrested, the office policy concerning 23 Q. So it was on the Tuesday, on the Wednesday, on a
24 downward departures generally is about maximum about 24 Thursday, on a Friday, so it was about four days
25 50 percent, in this case this was like 99 percent so 25 before it appeared?

8 (Pages 26 to 29)
DA000086
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 7 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 50 Page 52
1 Q. Did you disclose this phone call with Judge Rosen to 1 not a helpful article to that endeavor.
2 the Inspector General's Office? 2 Q. And did you learn anything from reading the article or
3 A. I don't recall and I don't know if I was even asked 3 at least did you learn like new additional or new
4 about that. 4 information, and you can feel free to review it?
5 Q. Do you remember anyone else who called you about the 5 I can actually go over and ask you whether
6 article? 6 before the article came out whether you knew certain
7 A. No, not offhand. 7 things, it might be helpful.
8 Q. Was the article discussed in the office? 8 A. I think the Makalda thing, I don't know that I knew
9 A. Yes. 9 the full story on that. That's the one thing that
10 Q. Among who? 10 sticks out I think.
11 A. I'd be speculating but I -- I assume quite a number of 11 Q. Do you know where the person who provided the
12 people around the office were discussing it but I 12 information to Mr. Ashenfelter would have or could
13 don't have specific recollection of people telling me 13 have gotten his information or her information about
14 they were discussing it or me stumbling upon 14 what happened with -- before Judge Cook and the
15 conversation. 15 sentencing, because there's a lot of discussion about
16 Q. What was your immediate reaction upon reading the 16 that?
17 article? 17 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation.
18 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance. 18 Objection, assumes facts.
19 A. I think I was shocked at the amount of material. 19 A. I would have no idea.
20 BY MR. KOHN: 20 BY MR. KOHN:
21 Q. And what do you mean by that? 21 Q. I'm going to ask you a question that I know will be
22 A. The amount of material he had in here was more than I 22 objected to on the grounds of speculation alone and
23 really thought that he could obtain, but that was my 23 then I'm going to ask you your basis for that but this
24 initial reaction and then of course I thought this is 24 is my question. To the best of your speculation,
25 not going to reflect positively on the case that we 25 based on everything you know about the United States
Page 51 Page 53
1 were doing the file review on, that is the U.S. vs. 1 Attorney's Office, Mr. Convertino, Mr. Ashenfelter,
2 Koubriti case. 2 circumstances of the leak, any person you may have
3 Q. And why wouldn't it reflect positively on that case? 3 spoken to since that time, interactions you may have
4 A. Because throughout the case the allegations by the 4 had, observations of people you may have had,
5 defense attorneys were that Mr. Convertino had 5 discussions with the Inspector General, the entire
6 withheld evidence helpful to the defense and in some 6 scope of your knowledge or opinion, just everything
7 ways this -- these allegations certainly reinforce 7 about that leak, who do you believe leaked the
8 that view and of course we were smack dab in the 8 information?
9 middle of the review or at the beginning stage of the 9 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation;
10 review, Moreford (phonetic) and myself and Joe Capone, 10 objection, form; and objection, relevance.
11 and it certainly wouldn't reflect positively on the 11 A. Okay. I think based on the fact that there are things
12 government's position in that case. 12 in here that were not -- particularly the Marwan
13 Q. At that time, what was the government's position on 13 Farhat story that I was aware of that did not go in
14 that case? 14 there, which were probably the most unflattering parts
15 A. We were reviewing the files at that point, mid 15 of that story, I believe, one, whoever leaked did not
16 January. 16 have the OPR report, they just didn't; two, I think,
17 Q. I mean, was the understanding that does that mean it 17 so it's been my opinion at least for a while now that
18 may have increased the chance that the case would get 18 it was multiple sources and I've always thought that
19 thrown out? 19 either Keith Corbet or Rick Convertino or both of
20 A. To the extent some of this may have been relevant, 20 them, either intentionally, which is less likely, or
21 yes, I think that that was a fear. I don't know about 21 unwittingly confirmed the story based on information
22 fear, but a concern that this was reinforcing what we 22 Ashenfelter received, not necessarily from people who
23 had already found in the file, which were numerous 23 were directly aware from this, but second, third-tier
24 instances of failure to turn material over, including 24 people who heard it either on the street or from
25 classified exculpatory material. So, yes, this was 25 others as scuttlebutt stories, that's been my opinion.

14 (Pages 50 to 53)
DA000087
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 8 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 54 Page 56
1 BY MR. KOHN: 1 incident which I called Barb McQuade, so whether he
2 Q. So as you sit here today you don't think anyone from 2 told me or I just assumed, it was pretty apparent to
3 the United States Attorney's Office leaked this 3 anybody who was being asked specific questions about
4 information other than Corby -- Corbet or Convertino, 4 that by the first assistant that there was going to be
5 is that your testimony, yes or no? 5 an OPR referral.
6 A. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. I think within the 6 Q. When's the first time you actually knew there was one?
7 universe of second and third-tier people it is 7 A. I -- I don't remember.
8 possible, perhaps even likely that it was U.S. 8 Q. So based upon the testimony you've already provided,
9 attorney office people but I don't think you can 9 it appears as though the actual confirmation that
10 discount the fact that there were court personnel that 10 there was an OPR investigation was a result of whoever
11 were aware of this and also FBI agents who were aware 11 leaked to Ashenfelter and the follow-up conversations
12 of this as well. 12 you had with your supervisors shortly before the
13 Q. Okay. Which court personnel were aware of the OPR 13 article came out?
14 investigation? 14 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, assumes facts;
15 A. That I don't know, I don't think anybody, I'm talking 15 objection, form.
16 about underlying -- 16 BY MR. KOHN:
17 Q. Which FBI personnel were aware of the OPR 17 Q. I believe your testimony was that you learned there
18 investigation? 18 was an OPR investigation at least as of the one -- the
19 A. I don't think anybody. 19 Friday meeting before the article came out, correct?
20 Q. Okay. Outside of the United States Attorney's Office 20 A. Well, re -- restate the question.
21 in Detroit, who else do you think knew about the OPR 21 Q. My question is, I'm trying to find out when you knew
22 investigation? 22 there was going to be an OPR investigation versus
23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation. 23 speculation that there might be. I'm just saying, I
24 A. I don't -- I don't know. 24 asked you about it and you talked about some time
25 BY MR. KOHN: 25 period between the Tuesday and Friday. You then gave
Page 55 Page 57
1 Q. Do you know of anybody who did before the article came 1 follow-up testimony about a specific meeting on Friday
2 out? 2 and it seemed to me that at least as of that meeting
3 A. I -- I can't say. I -- I have a recollection that 3 on Friday you knew there was an OPR on Rick
4 before the article came out Rick Convertino and Keith 4 Convertino --
5 Corbet were talking openly about an OPR referral. 5 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, form.
6 Where I heard that from, I don't remember, it might 6 BY MR. KOHN:
7 have been from some of the guys in the unit, but they 7 Q. -- is that fair?
8 talked openly about it, so where that went from there, 8 A. Fair. I -- or at least it was going to be reported.
9 I don't know. So I can't -- I can't say whether or 9 I mean, I -- just to put it in context, I assumed
10 not, but that -- I have a recollection of that, so... 10 there was going to be an OPR investigation, so that --
11 Q. But did you hear them talking openly about it? 11 nothing about those conversations struck me as a
12 A. No, no. 12 surprise.
13 Q. And who told you they were talking openly about it? 13 Q. Okay. If you'd be so kind as to look at Exhibit
14 A. I don't remember. It would have been someone in close 14 Number 1, second paragraph, you see where it says
15 proximity to the strike force if not within the strike 15 department officials told the Detroit Free Press this
16 force, either Jim Wouczyna or David Morris. 16 week that U.S. attorney Jeffrey Collins requested the
17 Q. But you don't remember who today? 17 investigation last November after discovering possible
18 A. No, and I don't think that was an isolated incident 18 ethics violations, do you see that?
19 so... 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you know about the OPR, when did you actually know 20 Q. So it's your testimony -- who -- based upon your
21 there was an OPR against Rick Convertino? 21 knowledge who do you think these department officials
22 A. I assumed there was going to be the moment John Tukel 22 were?
23 asked me for clarification as he was obviously working 23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, asked and
24 on something on the Hassan Daher (phonetic) 24 answered, calls for speculation.
25 obstruction of justice allegation, that was the 25 A. I do not know.

15 (Pages 54 to 57)
DA000088
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 9 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 70 Page 72
1 United States, John Ashcroft, in anything to do with 1 government's response to a new trial motion that had
2 Mr. Convertino? 2 not been received at the time of my assignment but was
3 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation. 3 going to be coming within the next -- the following
4 A. No. 4 few weeks, so that was my initial role.
5 BY MR. KOHN: 5 Q. And then you said that role metamorphosized?
6 Q. And you've already testified about Judge Rosen? 6 A. At the direction of Judge Rosen, as a result of a
7 A. Right. 7 hearing on December 12th, 2003, I was directed by
8 Q. What about anyone from Department of Justice Office of 8 Judge Rosen to review the file for any other
9 Professional Responsibility, did you ever talk to any 9 discoverable Giglio-Brady like material that, in
10 of them about Mr. Convertino? 10 addition to this one letter, had not been turned over
11 A. No. 11 to the defense.
12 Q. Do you know what rulings the Department of Justice OPR 12 Q. And then did your role again metamorphosize?
13 made about Mr. Convertino? 13 A. No, that was pretty much -- that -- that was pretty
14 A. No. 14 much my role to the end.
15 Q. And I'm going to throw some other names at you, if 15 Q. And then at the end you -- who was the decision maker
16 you've ever had any discussions with them or heard 16 as to whether the United States would agree or not
17 anything about any involvement they may have had, 17 agree with the defense motion for the new trial?
18 Jeffrey Taylor? 18 A. My guess is Craig probably would have been but the way
19 A. Jeff Taylor sat in on a -- he represented a -- at the 19 it worked out is we had -- we had Liza Collery as a
20 time he was office of attorney general, he was the 20 decision maker, myself and Craig Moreford, but I
21 representative from the AG who would attend meetings 21 believe Craig was actually U.S. attorney when we
22 or be in on conference calls when discussing the 22 actually made the filing, he might have just become
23 progress of the file review on the U.S. vs. Koubriti 23 U.S. attorney, but he was a special attorney
24 case. 24 authorized by the attorney general to -- to represent
25 Q. Did you ever give indication that he knew there was 25 the United States in this case and so he was the
Page 71 Page 73
1 going to be an OPR referral? 1 person we gave all our stuff to refer. Liza Collery
2 A. No. 2 provided legal support in determining whether or
3 Q. Was he told there was going to be an OPR referral to 3 not -- what the implications were of all these various
4 the best of your knowledge? 4 things that we had found during the file review.
5 A. I think so, yes. 5 Q. Other than -- I'm going to draw a distinction between
6 Q. Do you believe that he knew about that OPR referral? 6 the factual predicate of say contained in the article
7 A. My contact with him was limited, it was pretty much 7 or the OPR referrals or all the information gained
8 related to the Koubriti case. 8 from any source whatsoever, putting that aside, did
9 Q. Okay. In terms of the Koubriti case was it -- was it 9 Moreford or Collery have a need to know that there was
10 necessary for anyone doing the file review of the 10 in fact an OPR investigation of Mr. Convertino --
11 Koubriti case to know about, not the substantive facts 11 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance.
12 of the OPR referral, but the fact that OPR was going 12 BY MR. KOHN:
13 to investigate Mr. Convertino? 13 Q. -- in order to perform their job on this group you're
14 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance. 14 working with?
15 A. Just that bare fact? 15 A. I don't know. I don't know.
16 BY MR. KOHN: 16 Q. Okay. Why would they need to know that there was an
17 Q. Yeah. 17 OPR investigation?
18 A. I don't think so. 18 A. Just the bare --
19 Q. And what was your role in the Koubriti review? 19 Q. Yeah.
20 A. I was assigned to represent the United States in U.S. 20 A. Maybe they didn't. The facts were the critical ones
21 vs. Karim Koubriti and I was to, post trial and I was 21 that we had to turn over to the courts, so...
22 to do -- defend the guilty verdicts that had been 22 Q. Do you think that in terms of the article that
23 obtained in the summer of 2003 and more specifically 23 appeared in the newspaper, the January article in the
24 to, along with another AUSA who ended up leaving the 24 Detroit Free Press, was every fact contained in that
25 office, David Debold (phonetic), prepare the 25 article relevant to the Koubriti case --

19 (Pages 70 to 73)
DA000089
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 10 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 94 Page 96
1 down to the third paragraph, was it public knowledge 1 worked with cases in which there were informants ever?
2 that he had spent hours in the U.S. Attorney's Office 2 A. Yes.
3 translating Arabic tapes, was that known to the public 3 Q. And would you find it surprising that an investigator
4 at the time, to the best of your knowledge? 4 had ever asked one of these informants to frequent
5 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation. 5 some bars to try to get information, would that be a
6 A. To the best of my knowledge that was a widely-known 6 shocking fact to you?
7 fact within the office, whether or not it was known 7 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance.
8 outside the office I don't know. 8 A. I would be -- I would be concerned if we had a
9 BY MR. KOHN: 9 cooperating witness without wearing a wire and without
10 Q. And what about the fact that officials said he 10 supervision, a person who had a relationship with the
11 frequented bars in the Dearborn area to pick up 11 FBI that he was supposed to at some point in time
12 information on -- for terrorism investigators, was 12 testify and he was frequenting bars in Dearborn
13 that known to the general public that Mr. Farhat went 13 unsupervised.
14 to public bars to pick up information for a terrorism 14 BY MR. KOHN:
15 investigation? 15 Q. But you've already testified that an informant might
16 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, speculation. 16 be in the capacity of we're not wearing a wire or not
17 How could he know what the general public knows? 17 be someone who you're necessarily setting up to give
18 BY MR. KOHN: 18 testimony.
19 Q. Was that fact known to the general public, to the best 19 A. That's true.
20 of your knowledge? 20 Q. So I'm talking about an informant here, not a
21 A. I don't know that I even knew that. 21 cooperating witnesses. Have you indirectly worked
22 Q. When did you find that out? 22 with informants or is your experience solely based on
23 A. I don't remember. 23 cooperating witnesses?
24 Q. If it in fact was true on or about January, 2004 that 24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance.
25 Mr. Farhat for terrorism investigators, you know, on 25 A. I've had cases where we have had informants in the
Page 95 Page 97
1 their behalf to help them out was frequenting bars in 1 case, I've not directly supervised them. I've worked
2 the Dearborn area to pick up information, is that -- 2 with cooperating defendants.
3 is that the type of fact that the United States 3 BY MR. KOHN:
4 Department of the Justice would want known to the 4 Q. Okay. Based upon what you knew about informants, is
5 public? 5 it your testimony that you would be troubled if an
6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance; 6 investigator, say like an FBI agent had asked an
7 objection, speculation. 7 informant to frequent some bars to try to collect some
8 A. It's actually a troubling fact because it suggests 8 information, you would find that a troubling fact?
9 that this guy's out of control, so I assume no, they 9 A. No, only with cooperating witnesses.
10 would not want the fact that we have so-called 10 Q. Okay, thank you. Now let's go to the next question.
11 cooperating witnesses frequenting bars. 11 Assume that for the sake of argument that the
12 BY MR. KOHN: 12 statement in this -- on this sentence is a true
13 Q. So you don't know if ever sending an informant -- how 13 statement, I know you may not have any basis and you
14 many informants being vetted have you ever worked 14 may not even know who it is, but assume it's true that
15 with? 15 an official of the United States Department of Justice
16 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance. 16 told a journalist that Mr. Farhat was -- had been
17 A. I've never worked with an informant. 17 going to bars on -- at the request of terrorism
18 BY MR. KOHN: 18 investigators to pick up information, would you find
19 Q. In your -- how many years have you worked at the U.S. 19 that release to the newspaper to be a violation of any
20 Attorney's Office? 20 law, rule or ethical principle of the Department of
21 A. 22 years. 21 Justice?
22 Q. And you've never worked with an informant? 22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, relevance.
23 A. No, I've worked with cooperating witnesses but not 23 A. Yes.
24 informants. 24 BY MR. KOHN:
25 Q. Based upon your knowledge of all -- but have you 25 Q. Okay. When you read this in the newspaper, what steps

25 (Pages 94 to 97)
DA000090
 Case 1:04-cv-00236-RCL Document 176-11 Filed 07/12/10 Page 11 of 11
ERIC STRAUS
April 21, 2009
Page 106 Page 108
1 Q. Did anyone ever speculate or talk with you that they 1 A. Yes.
2 thought that Farhat might have been being geared up to 2 Q. Were there any discussions to the best of your
3 be a witness? 3 recollection about that issue prior to the publication
4 A. I don't remember. 4 of the article when you met with various people?
5 Q. Did anyone ever tell you -- 5 A. Not that I recall, I was somewhat out of the loop on
6 A. I would be actually surprised if that were true. 6 that.
7 Q. Have you ever heard the expression that Convertino 7 Q. And the paragraph underneath about Convertino failed
8 went off the reservation? 8 to clear the plea deal with superiors, was that
9 A. That was a quote of his in a newspaper article, I 9 discussed at all with you prior to the leak of the
10 believe. 10 article?
11 Q. Other than hearing it from Mr. Convertino quoting or 11 A. I believe so, I believe so.
12 saying that, did you ever hear it from anyone else at 12 Q. Was that fact publicly known before the article came
13 the Justice Department, those type of words used to 13 out that Convertino had failed to clear the plea deal
14 describe Mr. Convertino? 14 with his superiors?
15 A. No. 15 A. It was pretty widely known. I don't know how much it
16 Q. Okay. If you can turn to page three on this article, 16 was known outside the office, but the Dearborn Police
17 they're talking about dealings between Mr. Convertino 17 Department was upset that Rick had not followed
18 and Abed Makalda? 18 through with his promise to include their -- those
19 A. Yes. 19 violent acts in a RICO charge against Marwan Farhat,
20 Q. M-A-K-A-L-D-A. Did you know about that matter before 20 which was why they agreed to dismiss the charges in
21 the article came out? 21 Wayne County, so there was a little bit of a larger
22 A. I think I knew, I knew that Bill Sauget had some kind 22 university of people who knew about that and I think
23 of issue with Rick Convertino. I don't think I knew 23 the FBI also had some -- somebody had some discussions
24 all the facts until after the fact and I most 24 with the FBI, whether or not they approved -- their
25 certainly didn't know until after the article that 25 input was sought in that deal.
Page 107 Page 109
1 Judge Rosen during the trial had actually, I assume 1 Q. So let me just get this straight. It is now your
2 because he didn't trust Convertino, had actually asked 2 testimony -- if you can just put the exhibit down for
3 for Alan Greshel to bring the Makalda file over to 3 a moment because I'm not talking about the exhibit per
4 court to have that reviewed for Brady and Giglio, and 4 se, it's now your testimony today that the Dearborn
5 this was during the trial but I didn't find out about 5 Police Department knew what happened at that sealed
6 this until after, but I did know that Bill Sauget had 6 sentencing hearing --
7 sought advice from the state bar in terms of whether 7 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, it's a
8 or not he had some -- if Convertino failed to turn 8 mischaracterization.
9 something over, whether or not he was going to have 9 BY MR. KOHN:
10 some problems, and I'm not quite sure whether or 10 Q. -- is that your testimony, I want to know, yes or no?
11 not -- how much of it I knew before the article but I 11 A. No.
12 most certainly knew about it once the article came 12 Q. Okay. They did not know. Okay. My next -- second
13 out. 13 question. If the Dearborn Police Department did not
14 Q. My question is before the article how much you knew 14 know what sentence came during the sealed sentencing
15 about it? 15 hearing, it's your testimony today that they were
16 A. I knew something. I knew at least that Bill Sauget 16 actually concerned about the sentence he got that they
17 had some issue with Rick Convertino in the summer of 17 didn't know about, is that your testimony, yes or no?
18 2003 during the trial, but how much of that I don't 18 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Objection, mischaracterizes
19 know. There's a couple layers to that story, but... 19 his testimony.
20 Q. If you look at the very top of that page, page -- I 20 A. You're mischaracter -- and you have a misunderstanding
21 guess it's actually page four, right at the very top 21 of the way things work. The judgment and commitment
22 where it says an indication that Convertino had been 22 order has the sentence. That was a publicly filed
23 working with Grassley's committee at least two months 23 document. The transcript itself, which gave the
24 before Convertino said he had subpoenaed at the last 24 reasons for the departure from the guidelines, was a
25 minute to testify, do you see that? 25 sealed document.

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

DA000091