By: dmc-admin//July 2, 2001//
“Reeves paints the government’s case as based on weak circumstantial
evidence and Elliot’s incredulous testimony. Given the weakness of the
case against him, he asserts that if he had testified a different
outcome may well have resulted because the jury would have been asked to
resolve a credibility contest between him and Elliot. Not so. The case
would not have become merely a ‘he said, he said’ if Reeves had
testified; not only did Dyer and Marks-Pozniak corroborate Elliot’s
testimony, but the thrust of the government’s case was documentary
evidence. In contrast, Reeves offered self-serving statements and
documentary evidence of little relevance. The memorandum and letter
offered by Reeves shed little light on the matter; they were written by
Reeves who had an overwhelming interest in covering up what he was or
was not doing during his employ at CCI.”
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Bauer, J.