Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dan Cogdell
402 Main, 2nd Floor
Houston, TX 77002
713-426-2244 (Office)
713-426-2255 (Fax)
713-806-7060 (Cell)
281-458-1533 (Home)
dan@cogdell-law.com (Office email)
1
Speaking of my son, Hunter, he is thinking of changing our dog’s (“Oakley”) name. I suggested “Brady”
and he is pondering that choice. Since you seem to be interested in the minutae of my life, perhaps you
want to weigh in. I am concerned that (since the Enron Task Force has taken the position that there is no
Brady material in any Enron case—despite millions of documents and thousands of witnesses) you might
be opposed. Let me know.
Mr. Andrew Weismann
May 10, 2005
Page Two
For eight days, I was in the courtroom watching Ken Rice testify
on direct examination, cross examination, re-direct examination, re-
cross examination and final re-direct. At no time were you there.
Reports had you at (among other places) the arguments at the Supreme
Court on the Anderson matter. Apparently, the 1410.91 mile distance
between where you were and the courtroom I was in is not too great an
obstacle to preclude you from erroneously concluding I was somehow
"violating the Sixth Amendment".
Indeed, had you been in the room, you would have observed that on
every day I went to watch Ken unaccompanied by Dolan (except one) Mr.
Petrocelli was sitting on the left side of the courtroom and I on the
right. In fact, I sat on the right side of the Courtroom so that I was
not visible to Ken as I was behind a large screen used for the visual
presentation. I chose that seat to avoid a suggestion that had been
voiced in my earshot that I was "signaling Rice". It seems as though
various defense lawyers were suggesting that the level of damage Rice
was inflicting through some of his answers on direct "had to come"
through some covert coaching from me. Ironic, to say the least given
your "suggestions".
The smartest lawyer around I am not. But even I can see that the
creation of the "conflict issue" is nothing more than an intentional
effort on your part to create conflict (where there is none) between
Mr. Rice and myself. It is truly disappointing to see them in play.
It is sincerely hoped that you can thereby move forward and focus
on items which are actually deserving of the expenditure of
prosecutorial resources and tax dollars. Hopefully, those would include
pursuing the appropriate resolutions of the matters you are charged
with handling and not creation of baseless "conflict" issues. I
sincerely hope that focus is specifically sharpened in the immediate
future.
Dan Cogdell
DC/rn