LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

US v MITSUBISHI CORPORATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: UVMC149851, CourtName: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Plaintiff: US, State: PA Pennsylvania, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>UVMC149851, United States, Mitsubishi, Conspiracy, Evidence, Government, Indictment, Ucar, Cir, Request, Jury, Motion, District, Prices, Abetting, Graphite Electrodes, Instructions, Paul Weiss, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, Offense, Aiding, Conflict, Act, Memorandum, Japanese, Representation, Sentencing, Agreement, Testimony, Sherman Act, Crime, Carbon, Witness, Witnesses, Mitsubishi Corporation, Cartel, District Court, Brady, Support, Employees, States District Court, Pursuant, Conspirators, Sales , ContentID: 120246095

Case Documents
1   US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113685
29 pages
PDF
2   US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE US EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113684
4 pages
PDF
3   US PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113680
7 pages
PDF
4   US PROPOSED REPLACEMENT JURY INSTRUCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113679
5 pages
PDF
5   US PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113678
31 pages
PDF
6   TRIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE US
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113674
68 pages
PDF
7   RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REQUESTS TO CHARGE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113670
6 pages
PDF
8   RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION CONCERNING COLLUSION BY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS IN THE 1980S
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113669
2 pages
PDF
9   PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AND ADDTNL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113665
7 pages
PDF
10   OPPOSITION TO MOTION CONCERNING VISUAL MANIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113663
4 pages
PDF
11   JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR AN INSTRUCTION CONCERNING INTERPRETERS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113660
3 pages
PDF
12   INDICTMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113658
5 pages
PDF
13 2001-05-10 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113673
11 pages
PDF
14 2001-02-01 US REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO INTRODUCTION OF 1990 DOCUMENTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113682
4 pages
PDF
15 2001-01-29 US MEMO REGARDING THE USE OF JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113676
5 pages
PDF
16 2001-01-24 NOTICE OF THE US INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113661
4 pages
PDF
17 2001-01-16 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113666
6 pages
PDF
18 2001-01 US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NOTES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113683
9 pages
PDF
19 2001-01 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113667
9 pages
PDF
20 2000-05 US VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113686
6 pages
PDF
21 2000-05 US REPLY TO DEFENDANTS TRIAL MEMORANDUM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113681
6 pages
PDF
22 2000-05 US MOTION FOR A HEARING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113677
13 pages
PDF
23 2000-05 US AMENDED AND EXPANDED VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113675
4 pages
PDF
24 2000-05 SENTENCING AGREEMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113672
5 pages
PDF
25 2000-05 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADMITTING US EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113671
4 pages
PDF
26 2000-05 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS M-O-L ON AN EVIDENTIARY ISSUE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113668
5 pages
PDF
27 2000-05 ORDER CONCERNING PROTECTION OF GRAND JURY MATERIALS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113664
3 pages
PDF
28 2000-05 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113662
11 pages
PDF
29 2000-05 JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR A COURT APPOINTED JAPANESE INTERPRETER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113659
3 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 29 documents , 279 pages
Price: $ 159.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES
DEFENDANT
MITSUBISHI
COURT
CONSPIRACY
MOTION
GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
DISTRICT COURT
PRICES
SUPPORT
UCAR
STRIKE
ABETTING
CARTEL
SALES
CHARGED CONSPIRACY
CUSTOMERS
FIXED PRICES
INDICTMENT ALLEGES
GOVERNMENT
CONSPIRATORS
EASTERN DISTRICT
PENNSYLVANIA
FACILITATING
SUBPARAGRAPHS
SELLING GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
MEMORANDUM
ALLEGATIONS
CONCEALMENT
                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA           )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                   )
          v.                       )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                   )
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,            )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                   )
                 Defendant.        )  Filed:  05/23/00




                      MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
                 GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
                      TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE





                                          ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                          JOSEPH MUOIO
                                          WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                          ROGER L. CURRIER

                                          Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                          Antitrust Division
                                          U.S. Department of Justice
                                          The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                          170 S. Independence Mall West
                                          Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                          Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401



                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS


I.      The Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II.     Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        A.  Description of the Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        B.  The Conspiracy and Mitsubishi's Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
  • TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
  • Legal Principles for Aiding and Abetting.
  • Subparagraphs 4and of the Indictment
  • Conspiracy by SellingElectrodes at Fixed Prices
  • Mitsubishi Aided and Abetted the Conspiracy
  • Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation has moved this Court for an order striking
  • graphite electrodes industry.
  • the Government opposes defendant's motion and in support
  • Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary UCAR Carbon Company,
  • The substantial terms of the charged conspiracy were:
  • concealing the existence of the conspiracy from customers and others to allow the
  • Mitsubishi's electrode sales are coordinated by the company's Carbon Division.
  • selling graphite electrodes manufactured by these companies to various customers
  • profitability was tied to the profitability of several of the principal actors in the cartel.
  • The Indictment alleges a conspiracy among graphite electrode producers covering just
  • actively participated in arranging and facilitating meetings and other conspiratorial
  • Japanese conspirators, and its knowledge of the cartel by Mitsubishi executives who spoke both
  • Defendant's motion to strike as surplusage subparagraphs 4and 4of the Indictment
  • Moreover, "n considering the sufficiency of the allegations in an indictment, `common sense
  • Charged Conspiracy by Selling Electrodes at Fixed Prices
  • Mitsubishi argues that an agent's concealment of a conspiracy from its customers and

  • 2 . US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE US EXHIBITS 2 AND 3

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CONSPIRACY
    GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS
    DEFENDANT
    MITSUBISHI
    CRIME
    MANUFACTURERS
    EXCLUDE
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    MEETINGS
    JAPANESE
    UNITED STATES
    COUNSEL
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    MOTION
    CONTENTION
    PREDATES
    FORMATION
    COMMISSION
    INTENT
    PLAN
    ENCOURAGING
    CIR
    BARNETT
    COURT
    ADVICE
    PERPETRATION
    LAW
    MOREOVER
    
                                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                        ) Criminal No. 00-033
                                                    )
                      v.                            ) Judge Marvin Katz
                                                    )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION                          ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §2(a)
                                                    )
                                      Defendant.    )  Filed 01-31-01
    
    
                              GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
           DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
    
           Defendant has moved for the exclusion of Government Exhibits 2 and 3 based on the
    
    contention it has made repeatedly in several memoranda that any evidence predating the inception
    
    of the conspiracy it is charged with aiding and abetting is irrelevant.  These documents relate to
    
    Mitsubishi meetings with Japanese and European manufactures prior to the date the conspiracy
    
    was formed.  As set forth in previous Government memoranda, Defendant is charged with aiding
    
    and abetting in part due to its actions encouraging and facilitating the formation of the
    
    Such evidence necessarily predates the charged conspiracy, and in itself is sufficient to establish
    
    Defendant's guilt. See United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 309 (7  Cir. 1984)
                                                                             th          .
    
           There is no requirement that the Defendant's acts occur at any particular time in relation
    
    to the commission of the substantive crime.  United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 841 (9  Cir.
                                                                                                   th
    
    
    1982).  As the Barnett Court stated:
    
           The fact that the aider and abettor's counsel and encouragement is not acted upon
           for long periods of time does not break the actual connection between the
           commission of the crime and the advice to commit it.  "It is only necessary that the
           appellant counseled and advised the commission of the crime, and that the counsel
           and advice influenced the perpetration of the crime.  We know of no rule of law
           which fixes a time limit within which the crime must be perpetrated."  Workman v.
           State, 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 714 (1939).
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 2
  • Defendant has moved for the exclusion of Government Exhibits 2 and 3 based on the
  • Mitsubishi meetings with Japanese and European manufactures prior to the date the conspiracy
  • As set forth in previous Government memoranda, Defendant is charged with aiding
  • and abetting in part due to its actions encouraging and facilitating the formation of the
  • Such evidence necessarily predates the charged conspiracy, and in itself is sufficient to
  • See United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 309 (7 Cir.
  • United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 841 (9 Cir.
  • The fact that the aider and abettor's counsel and encouragement is not acted upon for long
  • "It is only necessary that the appellant counseled and advised the commission of the crime,
  • We know of no rule of law which fixes a time limit within which the crime must be
  • Moreover, this evidence is important to establish defendant's intent.
  • Defendant has cited no law to support its contention that evidence of aiding and abetting
  • meetings with Japanese and European manufacturers did not encourage the conspiracy.
  • its plan and intent to cartelize the electrode industry and its efforts to put that plan into
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

  • 3 . US PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CRIME
    EVIDENCE
    CHARGES
    GOVERNMENT
    LAW
    UNITED STATES
    COURT
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    MITSUBISHI
    EMPLOYEES
    REASON
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    CONSPIRACY
    PRICE
    RESPONSIBILITY
    CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
    VOIR DIRE
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODE
    JUROR
    PERSONAL OPINIONS
    FOREIGN COMPANIES
    DIRECT EVIDENCE
    WITNESSES
    MEMBER
    BUSINESS
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODE MANUFACTURERS
    FIXING
    COMMITTING
    
                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA         )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                     )
              v.                     )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                     )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,          )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                     )
                     Defendant.      )  Filed:
    
    
    
                    PROPOSED VOIR DIRE OF THE UNITED STATES
    
    
    
    
    
                                              ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                              JOSEPH MUOIO
                                              WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                              ROGER L. CURRIER
    
                                              Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                              Antitrust Division
                                              U.S. Department of Justice
                                              The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                              170 S. Independence Mall West
                                              Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                              Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
    
    
    
                                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                            )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                        )
                          v.                            )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                        )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                             )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
                                                        )
                                   Defendant.           )  Filed:  01/16/01
    
                                UNITED STATES' PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • PROPOSED VOIR DIRE OF THE UNITED STATES
  • UNITED STATES' PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
  • I will now summarize for you the charges against the defendant.
  • This is a criminal case in which an Indictment has been returned against Mitsubishi
  • Mitsubishi is a Japanese corporation which does business throughout the world.
  • The Indictment charges that Mitsubishi Corporation violated Section One of the Sherman Act by
  • the crime alleged here is that this defendant helped a conspiracy among certain major
  • Under the law a defendant can be held responsible for committing a crime even if the
  • evidence that the defendant helped in some way to make the crime succeed?
  • require the Government to prove that the defendant was involved in every aspect of the crime?
  • responsible for the conduct of its employees if they are acting within the scope of their
  • laws against foreign companies that do business in the U.S.?
  • direct evidence and the other is circumstantial evidence.
  • There may be some conflict in the testimony of the witnesses.
  • As a juror it will be your
  • about accepting the responsibility to determine who is telling the truth?
  • any philosophical views or personal opinions about making judgments of others that would make
  • Do you have any reason to believe that you would hesitate to convict Mitsubishi of
  • Have you, any member of your family, or any of your close friends ever been the

  • 4 . US PROPOSED REPLACEMENT JURY INSTRUCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CONSPIRACY
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    CIR
    INSTRUCTION
    DEFENDANT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    JURY INSTRUCTION
    EXISTENCE
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    REPLACEMENT JURY INSTRUCTION
    STIPULATION
    PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
    STATUTE
    LIMITATIONS
    SUPP
    VENUE
    REQUEST
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    INDICTMENT
    PORTION
    SALES
    COATESVILLE
    ACTS
    OMISSIONS
    OCCURRED PRIOR
    HELPING
    SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE
    KISSEL
    
                            IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                     )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                 )
                   v.                            )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                 )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                      )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                 )
                          Defendant.             )  Filed:  02-07-01
    
                                    UNITED STATES PROPOSED
                              REPLACEMENT  JURY INSTRUCTION
    
           In view of the Stipulation entered into between the United States and the defendant, the
    
    United States hereby files it proposed replacement instruction No. 6 on the Statute of Limitations
    
    and Venue, which replaces the Government's original Request No. 6.
    
    
    
    
                                                         _________________________________
                                                         ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                                         JOSEPH MUOIO
                                                         WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                                         ROGER L. CURRIER
                                                         Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                                         Antitrust Division
                                                         U.S. Department of Justice
                                                         The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                                         170 S. Independence Mall West
                                                         Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                                         Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
    
    
    
                                   GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST NO. 6
                                                   (Replacement)
    
                                    Statute of Limitations and Venue
    
           In addition to the other elements of aiding and abetting, before you can find the defendant
    
    guilty, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy charged in the indictment was
    
    in existence and that some portion of it was carried out in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • In view of the Stipulation entered into between the United States and the defendant,
  • United States hereby files it proposed replacement instruction No. 6 on the Statute of
  • and Venue, which replaces the Government's original Request No. 6.
  • In addition to the other elements of aiding and abetting, before you can find the defendant
  • you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy charged in the indictment was
  • in existence and that some portion of it was carried out in the Eastern District of
  • within the five year period immediately preceding the return of the Indictment.
  • that price quotations which were the subject of the conspiracy were submitted or sales were
  • Coatesville, Pennsylvania within the period in question.
  • You should understand, however, that there is no requirement that the acts or omissions
  • They could have occurred prior to the time the
  • conspiracy started, such as by helping bring the conspirators together, or they could have
  • as I have just told you, is measured by that which applies to the substantive offense, the
  • United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 606-608.
  • Northern Improvement Co., 814 F.2d 540, 541-544 (8 Cir.),
  • United States v. Kale, 661 F. Supp.
  • Proposed Replacement Jury Instruction has been hand delivered to counsel of record for the

  • 5 . US PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EVIDENCE
    REQUEST
    DEFENDANT
    JURY
    INSTRUCTIONS
    OFFENSE
    CONSPIRACY
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    SHERMAN ACT
    CIR
    AGREEMENT
    TESTIMONY
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PRICES
    WITNESSES
    INDICTMENT
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    PURSUANT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    COMMERCE
    CRIMINAL ANTITRUST
    PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
    PLEA AGREEMENTS
    GOVERNMENT
    INTERSTATE
    FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE
    MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING
    UNLAWFUL
    
                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                            FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                       )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                   )
                    v.                             )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                   )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                        )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                   )
                             Defendant.            )  Filed:  01/17/01
    
                          UNITED STATES PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
    
            The United States, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.30, requests this Court give the attached
    
    instructions in addition to the standard instructions to the jury in this case.  The United States
    
    further requests, in accordance with Rule 30, that the Court inform counsel of its proposed
    
    actions on the requested instructions prior to counsels' arguments to the jury.  The United States
    
    reserves the right to supplement, modify, or withdraw these requested instructions depending
    
    upon the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, and any requests for instructions which
    
    the defendant files.
    
                                                           _________________________________
                                                           ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                                           JOSEPH MUOIO
                                                           WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                                           ROGER L. CURRIER
    
                                                           Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                                           Antitrust Division
                                                           U.S. Department of Justice
                                                           The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                                           170 S. Independence Mall West
                                                           Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                                           Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
    
    
    
                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST NO. 1
    The Offense Charged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • UNITED STATES PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  • The United States, pursuant to Fed.
  • GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST NO. 1
  • Aiding and Abetting: Elements of the Offense
  • Sherman Act: Offense Charged and Elements of the Offense
  • Interstate Commerce Generally
  • Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
  • Wisdom of Immunizing Witnesses
  • Consideration to be Given to Guilty Pleas and Plea Agreements
  • The defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, is charged with violating Section One of the
  • Sherman Act by aiding and abetting a conspiracy among certain major graphite electrode
  • The Indictment in this case is the formal method of accusing the defendant.
  • American Bar Association, Sample Jury Instructions in Criminal Antitrust Cases, No. 29, at 81
  • United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir.
  • Government claims the defendant aided and abetted the conspiracy.
  • in existence and that some portion of it was carried out in the Eastern District of
  • Edward J. Devitt, et. al, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 51A.21 (5 ed. Supp.
  • This section makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to engage in conduct
  • which is in unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce.
  • continuing agreement, understanding and concert of action among those co-conspirators, the
  • In the absence of an agreement or mutual understanding or meeting of the minds,
  • maintain or stabilize the prices charged or to be charged for their products or services.
  • "Direct evidence" is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact,
  • Proposed Jury Instructions has been mailed/faxed to counsel of record for the defendant as

  • 6 . TRIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE US

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CIR
    MITSUBISHI
    COURT
    EVIDENCE
    CONSPIRACY
    ACT
    UCAR
    PRICES
    DEFENDANT
    JAPANESE
    AMERICA
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
    DISTRICT
    GOVERNMENT
    CRIME
    AUTHENTICATION
    PRODUCERS
    BUSINESS RECORDS
    INVESTMENT
    SHERMAN ACT
    SECONDEES
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
    INDICTMENT
    AGREEMENT
    CONSPIRATORS
    TESTIMONY
    FUKUSHIMA
    SUBSIDIARIES
    WITNESSES
    
                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA     ) Criminal No. 00-033
                                          )
                v.                        ) Judge Marvin Katz
                                          )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,        ) Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 & 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                          )
                      Defendant.        )  Filed:  12-11-00
    
    
    
                 TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
    
    
    
    
    
                                                 ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                                 JOSEPH MUOIO
                                                 WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                                 ROGER L. CURRIER
    
                                                 Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                                 Antitrust Division
                                                 U.S. Department of Justice
                                                 The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                                 170 S. Independence Mall West
                                                 Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                                 Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
    
    
    
                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
    
    I.   Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    II.  Anticipated Length of Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    III.  The Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    IV.  The Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
     V.  Summary of the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • Preliminary Statement.
  • The Defendant.
  • The Indictment.
  • The Period of the Conspiracy.
  • Conspiracy Under the Sherman Act
  • Background Evidence of Pre-Conspiracy Activity by
  • "Secondees" were Agents of Defendant.
  • Certain of its U.S. Subsidiaries Were Agents of Defendant
  • The MIC Records Are Admissions and/or Business Records
  • A Witness May Testify About Whether An Agreement
  • Or Understanding Was Reached by the Conspirators
  • J. Government May Impeach Its Own Witness.
  • Witnesses Identified With Defendant
  • The Government May Elicit Testimony Concerning Immunity
  • Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.,
  • F.2d 1358 (3d Cir.
  • In re: Japanese Elec.

  • 7 . RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REQUESTS TO CHARGE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    GOVERNMENT
    UNITED STATES
    OBJECTION
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    COURT
    CIR
    CHARGE
    DEFENDANT
    INSTRUCTIONS
    CONSPIRACY
    ACT
    REPLACEMENT REQUEST
    DISTRICT
    WILLFULNESS
    JURY
    EMPLOYMENT
    INTERPRETER
    RESPONSE
    MITSUBISHI
    STANDARD
    OFFENSE
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    KNOWING
    THIRD CIRCUIT
    GARTH
    COUNSELING
    LAW
    
                              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                        )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                    )
                    v.                              )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                    )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                         )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a)
                                                    )
                            Defendant.              )  Filed:  02-07-01
    
                                     GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO
                               DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS TO CHARGE
    
    
            The Government, by and through its attorneys, respectfully submits the following in
    
    response to Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation's Requests to Charge.
    
            Defendant's Request No. 1 (General Requests):
    
                    Objection.
    
                    Without knowing the specific standard instruction, defendant's Request that such
    
    instructions be given as to "trial perjury" is objected to.
    
            Defendant's Request No. 2 (Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy):
    
                    No objection.
    
            Defendant's Request No. 3 (Conspiracy):
    
                    No objection to Paragraph 1.
    
                    The Government respectfully requests that the Court give the Government's
    
    requested instructions on a Sherman Act conspiracy.
    
    
    
              Defendant's Request No. 4 (Elements of Aiding and Abetting):
    
                     Objection.
    
                     That the defendant act "willfully" is not an element of an offense under
    
    18 U.S.C. § 2(a).  Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) with 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS TO CHARGE
  • Defendant's Request No. 1:
  • Without knowing the specific standard instruction,
  • instructions be given as to "trial perjury" is objected to.
  • Defendant's Request No. 2 (Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy):
  • No objection.
  • The Government respectfully requests that the Court give the Government's
  • That the defendant act "willfully" is not an element of an offense under
  • No recent Third Circuit case requires this as an element of the offense.
  • United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir.
  • Replacement Request No. 3, which fully and fairly sets forth the elements of aiding and
  • Defendant's Request No. 5 (Aiding, Abetting, Counseling.
  • By using the word "caused" this Request erroneously suggests that the jury must
  • or that Mitsubishi had to be the principle actor in the events charged.
  • This is not the law.
  • recently in United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir.
  • "willfulness" is not an element of aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C.
  • within its definition of scope of employment that Mitsubishi is not liable for acts by an
  • Defendant's Request No. 10 (Interpreter):
  • Response to Defendant's Requests to Charge has been hand delivered to counsel of record for

  • 8 . RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION CONCERNING COLLUSION BY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS IN THE 1980S

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANT
    DISTRICT
    DEFENDANTS MOTION
    GOVERNMENT
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    MEMORANDUM
    RESPONSE
    COLLUSION
    JAPANESE
    MANUFACTURERS
    INTENDS
    KRASS
    ROBERT KRASS
    MITSUBISHI
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    CONSPIRACY
    OPPOSE
    GOVERNMENT NOTES
    EVIDENCE
    RUMORS
    PRICE-FIXING
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    REDIRECT
    CERTIFY
    COUNSEL
    
                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                            FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                       )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                   )
                     v.                            )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                   )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                        )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                   )
                             Defendant.            )  Filed:  02-06-01
    
    
                     MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE
                      TO DEFENDANTS MOTION CONCERNING COLLUSION
                            BY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS IN THE 1980'S
    
    
              The United States intends to limit its questioning of Robert Krass to his knowledge
    
    concerning Mitsubishi and its role in aiding and abetting the conspiracy.  Accordingly, the
    
    Government does not oppose the defendant's motion.
    
              The Government notes, however, that it has been the defendant which has introduced
    
    evidence of "rumors" of price-fixing in the 1980's.  Should the defendant pursue this area on
    
    cross-examination of Mr. Krass, the Government does intend to address his knowledge on this
    
    subject on redirect.
    
    Dated:
    
                                                           _________________________________
                                                           ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                                           JOSEPH MUOIO
                                                           WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                                           ROGER L. CURRIER
                                                           Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                                           Antitrust Division
                                                           U.S. Department of Justice
                                                           The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                                           170 S. Independence Mall West
                                                           Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                                           Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE
  • The United States intends to limit its questioning of Robert Krass to his knowledge
  • concerning Mitsubishi and its role in aiding and abetting the conspiracy.
  • Government does not oppose the defendant's motion.
  • The Government notes, however, that it has been the defendant which has introduced
  • evidence of "rumors" of price-fixing in the 1980's.
  • cross-examination of Mr. Krass, the Government does intend to address his knowledge on this
  • subject on redirect.
  • This is to certify that on the day of 6 February 2001, a copy of the Memorandum of the
  • United States In Response to Defendants Motion Concerning Collusion by Japanese
  • Manufacturers in the 1980's has been hand delivered to counsel of record for the defendant as

  • 9 . PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AND ADDTNL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EMPLOYEES
    DEFENDANT
    ACT
    AGENTS
    CIR
    REQUEST
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    OFFENSE
    CONSPIRACY
    CRIME
    INSTRUCTIONS
    SCOPE
    COMMITTING
    SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE
    APPARENT AUTHORITY
    REPLACEMENT
    GOVERNMENT REQUEST
    JURY
    VIOLATION
    LAW
    GUILTY
    ACTING
    PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
    AID
    ABET
    ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY
    CHARGE
    SHERMAN ACT
    
                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                  )
                   v.                             )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                  )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                       )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                  )
                           Defendant.             )  Filed:  02-05-01
    
                          UNITED STATES PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
                              AND ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
    
           The United States, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim. P.30, hereby files the following:
    
           1.      Government Request No. 3 (Replacement), Aiding and Abetting:  Elements of the
    
                   Offense, which replaces the Government's original Request No. 3;
    
           2.      Government Request No. 5 (Replacement), Corporations Act Through Employees
    
                   and Agents, which replaces the Government's original request; and
    
           3.      Government Request No. 5(a), Corporate Knowledge, which is an additional
    
                   Request.
    
           The United States requests this Court to give the attached instructions to the jury in
    
    addition to those already filed by the United States and the Court's standard instructions.
    
    
    
                                                          _________________________________
                                                          ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
                                                          JOSEPH MUOIO
                                                          WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
                                                          ROGER L. CURRIER
                                                          Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
                                                          Antitrust Division
                                                          U.S. Department of Justice
                                                          The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
                                                          170 S. Independence Mall West
                                                          Philadelphia, PA 19106
                                                          Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • UNITED STATES PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
  • Government Request No. 3, Aiding and Abetting:
  • addition to those already filed by the United States and the Court's standard instructions.
  • Aiding and Abetting: Elements of the Offense
  • abet a crime punishable as principals--as if they had committed the crime itself.
  • a person may violate the law even though he or she did not do every act constituting
  • the substantive offense or even, in fact, if he or she was incapable of committing the
  • requirement that the defendant know all the particulars of the substantive offense,
  • A corporation, such as the defendant, may be found guilty of aiding and abetting.
  • one may aid and abet an antitrust conspiracy just as one may aid and abet other offenses.
  • the charge in this case, that Mitsubishi Corporation aided and abetted a price-fixing
  • I will explain the elements of the substantive offense, conspiracy in violation of Section
  • One of the Sherman Act,
  • United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir.
  • Corporations Act Through Employees and Agents
  • Under the law, a corporation is a person, but it can only act through its agents--such as its
  • directors, officers, employees, or others acting on its behalf.
  • Acts done within the scope of employment are acts performed on behalf of a corporation
  • Apparent authority is the authority that outsiders could reasonably assume the agent
  • American Bar Association, Sample Jury Instructions in Criminal Antitrust Cases, No. 15, at 51

  • 10 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION CONCERNING VISUAL MANIPULATION OF EXHIBITS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    GOVERNMENT
    MOTION
    DISTRICT
    VISUAL MANIPULATION
    DEFENDANT
    DISCLOSE
    ORDER DIRECTING
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    OPPOSITION
    PREMATURE
    HIGHLIGHT
    JURY
    ENLARGEMENT
    RESPONSE
    DEFENDANT MITSUBISHI CORPORATION
    GOVERNMENT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS
    ATTORNEY
    DISPLAY
    UNDERSTANDING
    MEANING
    ATTENTION
    PERMISSION
    ABILITY
    REASON
    EQUIPMENT
    JURORS
    
                                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                        )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                    )
                       v.                           )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                    )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                         )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                    )
                                  Defendant.        )  Filed: 01-25-01
    
                  GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
                      MOTION DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO DISCLOSE IN
                 ADVANCE ANY INTENDED VISUAL MANIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
    
                Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation has moved the Court for an Order directing the
    
    Government to disclose at least 48 hours in advance any intended use of computer technology to
    
    visually manipulate exhibits.  The Government respectfully requests that this motion be denied as
    
    premature.
    
                The Government and the defendant have both agreed to have available a computer
    
    software program which will allow an attorney to display an exhibit in its original form and
    
    highlight aspects of that exhibit.  This is intended to facilitate the jury's understanding of the
    
    exhibit's content and meaning.  It merely focuses a jury's attention to the most meaningful
    
    sections of an exhibit.  It is neither intended to, nor capable of, manipulating the integrity of
    
    exhibit.
    
                Among its functions, the program allows an attorney to highlight a document; zoom into a
    
    document; mark a section with an arrow; draw text or freehand lines; block out text; and show
    
    documents side by side for comparison or a combination of these functions.  It is the
    
    Government's intention to limit our usage of Sanction to highlighting, zooming, and side by side
    
    comparison of exhibits.
    
    
    
           Defendant's motion is premature because no document can be displayed to the jury in any
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
  • ADVANCE ANY INTENDED VISUAL MANIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
  • Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation has moved the Court for an Order directing the
  • Government to disclose at least 48 hours in advance any intended use of computer technology to
  • The Government respectfully requests that this motion be denied as
  • software program which will allow an attorney to display an exhibit in its original form and
  • highlight aspects of that exhibit.
  • exhibit's content and meaning.
  • It merely focuses a jury's attention to the most meaningful
  • the program allows an attorney to highlight a document;
  • Defendant's motion is premature because no document can be displayed to the jury in any
  • be done only with the permission of the Court preserving the defendant's ability to object.
  • defendant's motion is also premature for the practical reason that it is impossible at this
  • The equipment has not been installed, and placement of the equipment may effect the
  • jurors' ability to see certain documents without some enlargement.
  • The trial software package can be very helpful to the jury's understanding of documents.
  • the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny
  • Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation for an Order Directing the Government to Disclose in Advance
  • any Intended Visual Manipulation of Exhibits and the Government's Response in Opposition

  • 11 . JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR AN INSTRUCTION CONCERNING INTERPRETERS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    WITNESS
    PARTIES
    UNITED STATES
    INSTRUCTION
    DEFENDANT
    JURY
    QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS
    OBJECTION
    CHECKERS
    DISTRICT
    COURT
    REQUEST
    GOVERNMENT
    TRANSLATIONS
    PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
    NIPPON PAPER
    TESTIMONY
    JAPANESE
    DISAGREE
    NIPPON PAPER INDUS
    SUPP
    MASS
    WITNESSES TESTIFY
    COUNSEL
    ENGLISH
    RETAINED QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS
    SPECIAL WEIGHT
    OPINION
    EVIDENCE
    
                             IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                        )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                    )
                    v.                              )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                    )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                         )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                    )
                            Defendant.              )  Filed:  01/16/01
    
    
    
                              JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR AN
                            INSTRUCTION CONCERNING INTERPRETERS
    
            The United States of America and the defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, by and through
    
    their attorneys, respectfully request this Court to give the jury an instruction about the role of
    
    witness interpreter and their own qualified interpreters ("checkers") at the outset of the trial. 
    
    form of the instruction requested by the parties is attached.  The government and the defendant
    
    have each arranged for their own qualified interpreters ("checkers") to assist in checking the
    
    accuracy of the witness interpreter's translations.  The parties contemplate that either party may
    
    object to an interpretation given by the witness interpreter.  In the event of such an objection,
    
    parties believe that the witness interpreter should be permitted to confer with the checkers at the
    
    time of the objection to determine whether they can agree upon the correct interpretation.  If the
    
    witness interpreter and the checkers cannot agree upon a correct interpretation, then each of the
    
    proposed interpretations (the witness interpreter's and the checkers') should be presented to the
    
    jury, and the proper interpretation should be an issue of fact for the jury.  In that event, the
    
    witness interpreter's interpretation should be afforded no special status.  This procedure was
    
    
    
    followed in the Nippon Paper antitrust case.  See United States v. Nippon Paper Indus. Co., 62 F.
    
    Supp. 2d 173, 182-83. (D. Mass. 1999).
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • INSTRUCTION CONCERNING INTERPRETERS
  • The United States of America and the defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, by and through
  • respectfully request this Court to give the jury an instruction about the role of the
  • witness interpreter and their own qualified interpreters at the outset of the trial.
  • form of the instruction requested by the parties is attached.
  • accuracy of the witness interpreter's translations.
  • parties believe that the witness interpreter should be permitted to confer with the checkers
  • time of the objection to determine whether they can agree upon the correct interpretation.
  • proposed interpretations should be presented to the
  • jury, and the proper interpretation should be an issue of fact for the jury.
  • See United States v. Nippon Paper Indus.
  • Supp.
  • Mass.
  • During the course of the trial, a number of witnesses will give testimony, either in whole
  • or in part, in Japanese.
  • When those witnesses testify, a witness interpreter will be present to
  • translate the questions posed by counsel into Japanese and the answers given by the witness
  • English.
  • the Government and the defendant have each retained qualified interpreters
  • If the interpreters disagree on the correct
  • In case of such a disagreement among the interpreters, you should give no special weight
  • to the opinion of the witness interpreter; instead, you should consider, based on hearing the
  • evidence in the case.

  • 12 . INDICTMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CONSPIRACY
    UNITED STATES
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
    INDICTMENT
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION
    UCAR
    CHARGES
    PRICE
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    DEFENDANT
    TOKAI
    SHOWA DENKO
    CO-CONSPIRATORS
    SOLD
    STEEL
    CARBON
    TRADE
    COMMERCE
    ACT
    TRANSACTION
    ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
    PENNSYLVANIA
    NIPPON
    COMPETITORS
    INTERSTATE
    FOREIGN TRADE
    CONTINUATION
    JAPAN
    BUSINESS
    
                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA   )
                                           )  Criminal No.: 00-033
                 v.                        )
                                           )  Filed: January 19, 2000
                                           )
                                           )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,      )
                                           )   Judge: Marvin Katz
                         Defendant.      )
    
    
                                        INDICTMENT
    
    The Grand Jury charges:
                                                I
    
                                   OFFENSE CHARGED
    
          1.     Mitsubishi Corporation is hereby indicted and made a defendant on the
    
    charge stated below.
    
          2.     Beginning at least as early as March 1992 and continuing until at least
    
    June 1997, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, UCAR International
    
    Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary UCAR Carbon Company (collectively UCAR);
    
    SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft (SGL); Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. (Tokai); Showa
    
    Denko KK (Showa Denko); SEC Corporation (SEC); Nippon Carbon Co., Ltd.
    
    (Nippon); and other co-conspirators entered into and participated in a combination
    
    and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by secretly fixing the price
    
    and allocating the volume of graphite electrodes sold in the United States and
    
    elsewhere.  The combination and conspiracy unreasonably restrained interstate and
    
    
    
    foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
    
    § 1).
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • The Grand Jury charges:
  • Mitsubishi Corporation is hereby indicted and made a defendant on the
  • June 1997, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, UCAR International
  • Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary UCAR Carbon Company;
  • SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft; Tokai Carbon Co.,
  • Denko KK (Showa Denko); SEC Corporation; Nippon Carbon Co.,
  • and other co-conspirators entered into and participated in a combination
  • and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by secretly fixing the price
  • foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
  • graphite electrodes sold in the United States and elsewhere;
  • competitors and to agree to fix, maintain and stabilize prices of graphite
  • others to allow the continuation of the conspiracy.
  • During the period covered by this Indictment,
  • Japan.
  • the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees,
  • or transaction of its business or affairs.
  • of steel in electric arc furnaces, the steel making technology used by "mini-mills,"
  • the United States in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate and foreign

  • 13 . SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SENTENCING
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
    UNITED STATES
    CONSPIRACY
    DEFENDANT
    GUIDELINES
    GAIN
    OFFENSE
    COURT
    CARTEL
    RECOMMENDATION
    UCAR
    PRICE
    GOVERNMENT
    LOSS
    IMPOSE
    EVIDENCE
    GUIDELINES RANGE
    AGREED-UPON
    CULPABILITY SCORE
    MEMORANDUM
    PARTIES
    DISTRICT
    CALCULATING
    PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY
    MANUFACTURERS
    AGREEMENT
    SALES
    EMPLOYEES
    
                            IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                  )
                   v.                             )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                  )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                       )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                  )
                               Defendant.         )   Filed:  04/19/01
    
    
                   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
    
           The United States files this Sentencing Memorandum in support of its joint
    
    recommendation with the defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, that the Court sentence the
    
    defendant to pay a fine of $134 million, payable within 15 days of sentencing.  The parties also
    
    request that sentence be imposed on May 10, 2001, based on the current record without need of
    
    an evidentiary sentencing hearing or a presentence report.
    
                                                         I
                                             INTRODUCTION
    
           Mitsubishi was convicted after a two week jury trial on a one count Indictment for aiding
    
    and abetting a conspiracy among graphite electrode manufacturers to fix the price of graphite
    
    electrodes from at least as early as March 1992 and continuing at least until June 1997.  Because
    
    the case was tried before Your Honor, this memorandum will not recap the evidence presented at
    
    trial.  This memorandum will,  however, highlight various issues raised in calculating the relevant
    
    Sentencing Guidelines range, as well as agreements the Government and Mitsubishi Corporation
    
    have reached to resolve these issues.  These agreements were reached as a result of negotiations
    
    concerning not only novel questions of how to apply the Sentencing Guidelines to a defendant
    
    who aided and abetted a price-fixing conspiracy, but also disputed issues of fact regarding the
    
    
    
    gain to the defendant and others or the loss to the victims resulting from the crime.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
  • defendant to pay a fine of $134 million, payable within 15 days of sentencing.
  • Mitsubishi was convicted after a two week jury trial on a one count Indictment for aiding
  • Sentencing Guidelines range, as well as agreements the Government and Mitsubishi Corporation
  • who aided and abetted a price-fixing conspiracy, but also disputed issues of fact regarding
  • gain to the defendant and others or the loss to the victims resulting from the crime.
  • It disgorges Mitsubishi's gain from the offense and serves as
  • a strong deterrent to any corporation even contemplating assisting a price-fixing conspiracy
  • The sentencing of Mitsubishi Corporation should bring to a close the graphite electrodes
  • cartel grand jury investigation which became public in June 1997.
  • loss to the victims to support such a fine under the alternative fine provisions of 18 U.S.C.
  • waives its right to appeal sentencing if the agreed-upon recommendation is accepted by the
  • A fax copy of the Sentencing Agreement is attached.
  • manufacturers to fix the price of graphite electrodes in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1.
  • UCAR, resulting in commerce of $168,150,000.
  • Mitsubishi made direct sales of
  • the parties for purposes of this sentencing.
  • In order to determine the Guidelines fine range, Mitsubishi's culpability score must be
  • because the offense involved its Carbon Division which had over 200 employees and the
  • determined from the evidence currently in the record.
  • that in calculating the amount of loss attributable to a defendant who performed social
  • that the Court impose a fine of $134 million as the sentence in this case.

  • 14 . US REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO INTRODUCTION OF 1990 DOCUMENTS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MITSUBISHI
    GOVERNMENT
    FUKUSHIMA
    PLAN
    EVIDENCE
    EXCLUDE
    DISTRICT
    COURT
    TRANSLATIONS
    ADMISSIBILITY
    SUBMISSION
    OPPOSITION
    ICHIRO FUKUSHIMA
    CONSPIRACY
    PENNSYLVANIA
    INTENDS
    BUSINESS
    UCAR
    INDUSTRY-WIDE
    ELECTRODE
    MITSUBISHI EMPLOYEES
    MOREOVER
    PREDATE
    MOTION
    EXHIBITS
    CONTENTION
    REFUTE
    RELEVANT EVIDENCE
    PRECLUDING
    
                            IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                  )
                   v.                             )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                  )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                       )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                  )
                               Defendant.         )  Filed: 02-01-01
    
    
                   GOVERNMENT'S REPLY TO SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT
                   IN OPPOSITION TO INTRODUCTION OF 1990 DOCUMENTS
                                   THROUGH ICHIRO FUKUSHIMA
    
    
           Pursuant to the Court's Order of February 1, 2001, the Government respectfully submits
    
    this reply to the Submission of Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation in Opposition to Introduction of
    
    1990 Documents through Ichiro Fukushima.
    
           As it has advised this Court and the Defendant, the Government plans to introduce certain
    
    documents of defendant Mitsubishi created in 1990 into evidence as soon as possible.  The
    
    Government advised Defendant this morning that it intends to introduce these documents through
    
    Ichiro Fukushima, former General Manager of Mitsubishi's Business Development Group.
    
           The documents at issue are key Government evidence establishing that when Mitsubishi
    
    decided to acquire UCAR, it did so with the intention and plan to encourage and facilitate the
    
    industry-wide collusion that ultimately occurred.  These documents also show that, even in 1990,
    
    Mitsubishi had already begun to implement its plan through discussions with graphite electrode
    
    manufacturers.  Further, while defendant in both its opening and throughout this trial has
    
    attempted to create the false impression that Mr. Fukushima and Mr. Kimura were the only
    
    Mitsubishi employees who participated in or knew of the conspiracy, these documents clearly
    
    
    
    establish that numerous individuals throughout Mitsubishi knew about Mitsubishi's plan to
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • GOVERNMENT'S REPLY TO SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT
  • IN OPPOSITION TO INTRODUCTION OF 1990 DOCUMENTS
  • As it has advised this Court and the Defendant, the Government plans to introduce certain
  • documents of defendant Mitsubishi created in 1990 into evidence as soon as possible.
  • Ichiro Fukushima, former General Manager of Mitsubishi's Business Development Group.
  • The documents at issue are key Government evidence establishing that when Mitsubishi
  • decided to acquire UCAR, it did so with the intention and plan to encourage and facilitate the
  • industry-wide collusion that ultimately occurred.
  • Mitsubishi had already begun to implement its plan through discussions with graphite electrode
  • Mitsubishi employees who participated in or knew of the conspiracy,
  • In its efforts to exclude these documents, Defendant has claimed they are irrelevant
  • because they predate the conspiracy.
  • exclude Government Exhibits GX-2 and GX-3.
  • The Court rejected Defendant's contention with
  • refute both their apparent meaning and the Government's translations.
  • should not be excluded simply because Defendant may feel compelled to attempt to refute it.
  • trials could be shortened if the parties are not permitted to introduce relevant evidence.
  • Moreover, the Defendant has resisted not only the Government's requests that it identify its
  • objections to the Government's translations thereby precluding any attempt by the Government
  • Although Defendant has previously conceded in its memorandum in support of its motion
  • The Government intends to question Mr. Fukushima
  • substance of the documents is unnecessary to establish their admissibility.

  • 15 . US MEMO REGARDING THE USE OF JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    QUESTIONNAIRE
    UNITED STATES
    GOVERNMENT
    JAPANESE
    BIAS
    DISTRICT
    DEFENDANT
    SURVEY
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION
    ANTI-JAPANESE BIAS
    POTENTIAL JURORS
    COURT
    MEMORANDUM
    JAPANESE COMPANY
    AMERICAN
    DECISION QUEST
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    OPPOSE
    WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE
    VOIR DIRE PROCESS
    PARTIES
    DEFENSE
    PREJUDGE
    GUILT
    RESPONDENT
    ATTITUDES
    COSTS
    GOVERNMENT NOTES
    
                                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                            )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                        )
                       v.                               )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                        )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                             )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
                                                        )
                                 Defendant.             )  Filed:  01/05/01
    
    
                             GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING
                                     THE USE OF JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
    
           The United States does not oppose the defendant's request that prospective jurors be
    
    asked to complete a written questionnaire as part of the jury selection process.  The Government
    
    and Mitsubishi Corporation have agreed on a proposed questionnaire for the Court's
    
    consideration.
    
           It is the preference of the Government that the questionnaire be completed by prospective
    
    jurors on the morning of January 29, 2001.  With the Courts' permission, jury selection would
    
    begin the next morning to allow the parties the opportunity to review the completed
    
    questionnaires.
    
                                               I.  Preliminary Statement
    
           While the Government does not oppose the use of a questionnaire, it does not accept the
    
    statement of the defense that there is a high degree of anti-Japanese prejudice among the juror
    
    pool in this District.  Defendant provides no data to make the leap from general attitudes about
    
    economic competition between the United States and Japanese or foreign companies and the
    
    tendency to prejudge guilt against a Japanese corporation.  In fact, the survey did not ask any
    
    questions of the respondents as to whether they had an anti-Japanese bias that would cause them
    
    
    
    to pre-judge guilt in a criminal case.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING
  • The United States does not oppose the defendant's request that prospective jurors be
  • asked to complete a written questionnaire as part of the jury selection process.
  • and Mitsubishi Corporation have agreed on a proposed questionnaire for the Court's
  • It is the preference of the Government that the questionnaire be completed by prospective
  • While the Government does not oppose the use of a questionnaire,
  • statement of the defense that there is a high degree of anti-Japanese prejudice among the
  • tendency to prejudge guilt against a Japanese corporation.
  • Defendant claims that there is a strong anti-Japanese bias citing its survey results that:
  • 81% of the potential jurors in this case prefer to buy United States
  • and 73% prefer Americanmade products even if the identical Japanese-made product costs
  • It is significant that the question asked whether the respondent would prefer to buy an
  • predisposition to prejudge the guilt of a Japanese company.
  • Finally, the Government notes that Decision Quest, which conducted the survey for the
  • has also published information on national potential juror attitudes.
  • Decision Quest chart entitled "I Could Not Be A Fair Juror On A Case If One Of The Parties
  • use of a written questionnaire as part of the voir dire process.

  • 16 . NOTICE OF THE US INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CONSPIRACY
    EVIDENCE
    AIDING
    ABETTING
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODE
    UCAR
    GOVERNMENT
    DISTRICT
    INTENTION
    MOTION
    CARTEL
    ADMISSIBILITY
    ELECTRODE MANUFACTURERS
    DEFENDANT
    PARTICIPATION
    PRICES
    MEMORANDUM
    UNITED STATES
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EXCLUDE
    ALLEGED CONSPIRACY
    PLAN
    ACQUISITION
    INDUSTRY
    EXHIBITS
    KNOWING
    FORMATION
    ANALYZING
    FACILITATE
    
                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                            FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                       )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                   )
                      v.                           )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                   )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                        )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                   )
                             Defendant.            )  Filed: 1-31-01
    
    
                                  NOTICE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
                               INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
    
           In response to Defendant's motion to exclude certain Mitsubishi documents that were
    
    created in 1990,  the Court issued an Order on January 24, 2001, requesting, as a matter of the
                       1
    
    
    order of proof, that:  (1) proof of events before the alleged conspiracy period be deferred until
    
    events during the alleged conspiracy period are established; and (2) evidence of Defendant's role
    
    in aiding and abetting the alleged conspiracy be presented as early in the trial as possible. 
    
    the Government has now established the underlying conspiracy, and the 1990 documents provide
    
    significant evidence of Defendant's plan to establish a cartel and its role in aiding and abetting
    
    establishment of that cartel, the Government now intends to establish the admissibility of the 1990
    
    documents through the testimony of trial witnesses.
    
           The Government has established the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy among graphite
    
    electrode manufacturers through its first witness, HiroshiYamazaki.  In fact, Defendant conceded
    
    the existence of the conspiracy in its opening remarks, and informed the Jury that its defense
    
    would be based on Mitsubishi's lack of participation in, or knowledge of, the conspiracy.  The
    
    
                  Defendant's motion concerned Government Exhibits GX-101 through 108.
           1
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
  • In response to Defendant's motion to exclude certain Mitsubishi documents that were
  • events during the alleged conspiracy period are established; and evidence of Defendant's role
  • in aiding and abetting the alleged conspiracy be presented as early in the trial as possible.
  • significant evidence of Defendant's plan to establish a cartel and its role in aiding and
  • the Government now intends to establish the admissibility of the 1990
  • electrode manufacturers through its first witness,
  • would be based on Mitsubishi's lack of participation in, or knowledge of, the conspiracy.
  • Defendant's motion concerned Government Exhibits GX-101 through 108.
  • See United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 309 (7 Cir.
  • Mitsubishi's acquisition of a 50 percent ownership interest in UCAR,
  • graphite electrode manufacturer and the dominant U.S. company, plays a central role in this
  • The 1990 documents Mitsubishi seeks to exclude were created during the period Mitsubishi
  • spoke to manufacturers about its plan and encouraged them to meet and collude.
  • believed its purchase of UCAR would facilitate collusion due to Mitsubishi's close
  • more than the fact that Mitsubishi expected higher prices and profits from UCAR through some
  • participated in the formation of the conspiracy, and that its efforts were knowing and
  • In its Memorandum in support of its motion to exclude the 1990 documents, Defendant
  • identified the exhibits as "internal Mitsubishi documents analyzing the proposed."
  • As set forth in the Government's Memorandum in Support of its Motion In Limine To

  • 17 . RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MOTION
    BRADY
    INTERVIEWS
    MITSUBISHI
    WITNESSES
    DISTRICT
    DEFENDANT
    BURKETT
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    ANTICIPATES
    ATTORNEY
    KRASS
    EVIDENCE
    NAKAYAMA
    DISCLOSURE
    BAILINE
    PRICING
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    RESPONSE
    OPPOSITION
    JENCKS EVIDENCE
    PRODUCTION
    BRADY OBLIGATION
    PARALEGAL NOTES
    YAMAMOTO
    IMPEACHMENT
    KEY WITNESSES
    
                                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                          )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                      )
                       v.                             )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                      )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                           )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
                                                      )
                                  Defendant.          )  Filed: 01-25-01
    
    
                  GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
          MOTION FOR SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL  BRADY AND JENCKS EVIDENCE
    
    
           Defendant has renewed its Motion to the Court for the production of the Government's
    
    notes of all interviews of anticipated Government witnesses, including those notes taken by the
    
    Government attorneys during pretrial preparation of its witnesses.   The Government has
                                                                            1
    
    
    continued to comply with its Brady obligation and will have attorney notes in the courtroom as
    
    previously ordered by the Court.  The Government requests that the renewed motion for attorney
    
    notes be denied.
    
           While stating that its motion is not directed to the same Brady and Giglio issues covered
    
    by Mitsubishi's previous motion to compel, it clearly is.  Defendant continues to assert that the
    
    Government cannot be relied upon to produce Brady material and that, therefore, Brady requires
    
    the production of all attorney interview notes, even those taken during witness trial preparation
    
    interviews.  This motion raises no new issues.
    
    
    
                  Insofar as Mitsubishi seeks additional paralegal notes of interviews of anticipated
           1
    
    witnesses, the Government can provide no more notes--all such paralegal notes were produced on
    January 16, 2001.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL BRADY AND
  • Defendant has renewed its Motion to the Court for the production of the Government's
  • notes of all interviews of anticipated Government witnesses, including those notes taken by
  • Government attorneys during pretrial preparation of its witnesses.
  • continued to comply with its Brady obligation and will have attorney notes in the courtroom as
  • The Government requests that the renewed motion for attorney
  • Insofar as Mitsubishi seeks additional paralegal notes of interviews of anticipated
  • witnesses, the Government can provide no more notes--all such paralegal notes were produced
  • Government has provided "no material concerning its interviews of Mr. Yamamoto"
  • January 15, 2000--over a year ago--for one of its key witnesses, Robert Krass, although it is
  • The Government only anticipates calling Mr. Yamamoto in the event the documents he produced
  • a disclosure regarding the anticipated Government witness, Thomas Burkett.
  • Nakayama, but Krass told Burkett to continue to take orders from his previous direct superior,
  • Fred Bailine, UCAR's Director of International Marketing Coordination.
  • "Krass explained to TB to take orders (pricing etc.) from Bailine."
  • Government's failure to mention the reference to "" withheld "crucial" impeachment

  • 18 . US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NOTES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    BRADY
    ATTORNEY NOTES
    WITNESS
    DEFENDANT
    DEFENSE
    MATERIALS
    UNITED STATES
    COURT
    DISCLOSURE
    INTERVIEWS
    DISTRICT
    PRODUCTION
    REQUEST
    RESPONSE
    LAW
    PROFFERS
    MOTION
    DISCOVERY
    PENNSYLVANIA
    OPPOSITION
    INTENDS
    EXCULPATORY
    PARALEGAL NOTES
    DEFENSE COUNSEL
    RECOLLECTION
    MITSUBISHI
    THIRD CIRCUIT
    EVIDENCE
    SUDIKOFF
    
                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                    )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                )
                  v.                            )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                     )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                )
                          Defendant.            )  Filed:
    
    
                                               ORDER
    
           AND NOW, this        day of January         2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
    
    Request for Attorney Notes and the Government's Response in Opposition thereto, it is
    
    ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
    
                                                        By the Court:
    
    
    
                                                        _________________________________
                                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    
    
    
                              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                           FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                     )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                                 )
                     v.                          )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                                 )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                      )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                                 )
                             Defendant.          )  Filed: 01/17/01
    
    
                           GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
                           DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NOTES
    
              For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum of law, the United States
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • Request for Attorney Notes and the Government's Response in Opposition thereto,
  • GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
  • DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NOTES
  • MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST
  • The Government submits this memorandum of law in support of its response in opposition
  • to defendant Mitsubishi Corporation's motion to compel the Government to produce
  • all notes and other documents reflecting interviews and proffers of all
  • Defendant maintains that such disclosure is
  • The Government opposes this request as beyond the purview of Brady,
  • THE GOVERNMENT'S BRADY PRODUCTION
  • potentially exculpatory information known to the Government.
  • motion, Brady disclosure began on June 21, 2000 and has been ongoing.
  • weeks before trial which, given the length of the trial, means the defense will have witness
  • statements anywhere from two weeks to perhaps two months before the witness actually
  • paralegal notes taken at interviews of Government trial witnesses.
  • Brady and Giglio are not general discovery tools for open access to the prosecutors file.
  • the government produce all `exculpatory' evidence,
  • the Supreme Court itself said Brady does not establish a "duty to provide defense counsel
  • it is well settled that "mere speculation about materials in the
  • The Possibility that A Witness's Recollection
  • As the Third Circuit noted in United States v. Ramos in holding the fact that some
  • For each witness it presently intends to call at trial,
  • Sudikoff, however, is distinguishable from the instant case.

  • 19 . RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    EVIDENCE
    EXCLUDE
    CONSPIRACY
    UCAR
    MOTION
    UNITED STATES
    GRAPHITE ELECTRODE
    GOVERNMENT
    MITSUBISHI
    DISTRICT
    MEMORANDUM
    ELECTRODE MANUFACTURERS
    INTENT
    CIR
    RELEVANCE
    PLAN
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    RESPONSE
    FACILITATE
    ACQUISITION
    EASTERN DISTRICT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    OPPOSITION
    SUPPORT
    CHARGE
    ADMISSIBILITY
    PRE-ACQUISITION
    INDUSTRY
    TRANSLATIONS
    
                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                       FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                   )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                               )
                 v.                            )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                               )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                    )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                               )
                             Defendant.        )  Filed:
    
    
                                              ORDER
    
          AND NOW, this               day of January 2001, upon consideration of the Defendant's
    
    Motion to Exclude 1990 Documents and the Government's Response in Opposition thereto
    
          IT IS hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
    
    
    
                                                       By the Court:
    
    
    
                                                       ________________________________
                                                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    
    
    
                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                )  Criminal No. 00-033
                                            )
                 v.                         )  Judge Marvin Katz
                                            )
    MITSUBISHI CORPORATION,                 )  Violations:  15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
                                            )
                              Defendant.    )  Filed: 01-25-01
    
                        GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OP