STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - MUNICIPAL DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff,

-V - No. OOMCl-217168

MARK BUNKER,

Defendant.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS of the trial before the

Honorable WILLIAM P. O'MALLEY, Judge of said Court, and a
jury, on the 6th day of February, 2001.

APPEARANCES:

HON. RICHARD M. DEVINE,
State's Attorney of Cook County, by
MS. CHERYL WRONKIEWICZ and MS. BRANDY KING,
Assistants State's Attorneys,
on behalf of the Plaintiff;

MS. JULIE AIMEN and MR. DENNIS de VLAMING,
on behalf of the Defendant.

Grace Brennan C.S.R. 84-1918 Official Court Reporter
1340 South Michigan
Chicago, IL 60605


-----------------------------------------------

INDEX

February 6, 2001

Jury Instruction Conference 4

Dr. Barbara Zizic
Direct Examination by Mr. de Vlaming 11
Cross Examination by Ms. King 29
Redirect Examination by Mr. de Vlaming 41

Mark Bunker
Direct Examination by Mr. de Vlaming 44
Cross Examination by Ms. Wronkiewicz 65
Redirect Examination by Mr. de Vlaming 80
Defendant Rests 89

Allison Schloss
Direct Examination by Ms. King 90
Cross Examination by Ms. Aimen 93

Katherine Cuddy
Direct Examination by Ms. Wronkiewicz 96
Cross Examination by Ms. Aimen 104
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wronkiewicz 107
Recross Examination by Ms. Aimen 107
State Rests in Rebuttal 108
Closing Argument by Ms. King 109
Closing Argument by Mr. de Vlaming 112
> Rebuttal Argument by Ms. Wronkiewicz 121


2
-----------------------------------------------

Jury Charged 130
Verdict 138


3
-----------------------------------------------

(Whereupon the following proceedings were held out of the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay I we are back on trial. Why don't all of you listen up.
We have gone through jury instructions. 1.01 has been agreed to by both sides.
1.02, 1.03, 1.05, 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, 3.02, 3.11, 16.11, 16.11A, 16.12A, 26.01 and
the two verdict forms, not guilty and guilty. All of the parties agree those are
the ones we went through and that all parties have agreed that those will be the
instructions that will be given to the jury at this time. Is that correct?

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: That's correct, Judge.

THE COURT: Defense.

MS. AIMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: Miss Aimen, you want me to give two other instructions. One is a
modified I.P.I. 5.01 that says if you find from the evidence that the State failed to
properly reserve evidence in this case, then you may infer that evidence was favorable
to the Defendant.

You want to be heard on that? My tendency, as I said to you earlier, is that I am not


4
-----------------------------------------------

going to give it.

MS. AIMEN: Yes.

THE COURT: And 5.01 is another one. If a party to this case has failed to offer
evidence within his power to produce, you may infer that the evidence would be adverse
to that party if you believe each of the following elements: The evidence was under
control of the parties who could have been introduced by the exercise of reasonable
diligence. The evidence was not easily available to adverse party.

Reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances would have
offered the evidence if you believe it could have been favorable to him. No reasonable
excuse for the failure has been shown. Those are the two you want to give.

MS. AIMEN: Can I just see those for a moment? Judge, with respect to the modified
I.P.I. Civil No. 5.01, that was the instruction that you just read. If you find from the
evidence that the State failed to properly preserve and it goes on from there.

Judge, you are quite aware that in this State there have been a series of cases
that deal with the destruction of evidence, from Youngblood

5
-----------------------------------------------

on, there is case law that says that there are issues in cases where the trier of fact
needs to be able to determine whether it was a purposeful destruction on the part of the
State. They can consider that.

We have given this jury an instruction on circumstantial evidence. The issue has been
raised in this case as to who had custody of that tape and whether, in fact, there was a tape.
This instruction allows them to make that consideration and, in fact, instructs them that they
can consider that if it was in the control of the State that they can make an inference from it.

Illinois Supreme Court has said that you need to tender instructions and you are entitled
to write non I.P.I. instructions. We are not bound by I.P.I. rules. This instruction as modified,
I believe, covers the situation that the jury could find that that tape was in the hands of the
police department and that they could infer there was something unfavorable to the State by its lack of production.

THE COURT: State.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Yes, Judge. We would object


6
-----------------------------------------------

to the -- either of these instructions being given.

MS. AIMEN: I haven't argued the second one.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MS. AIMEN: You want to take them one at a time?

THE COURT: No. Go ahead.

MS. AIMEN: The second one as given is a civil I.P.I. instruction and there is nothing that
excludes us from being able to use appropriate civil instructions in a criminal case.

These are courts of unified jurisdiction and if there is an instruction that fits the
situation, this Court has the ability to offer them.

THE COURT: Okay, State.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Yes, Judge. The State would object to either of these jury instructions being given to the jury in this case.

First of all, as counsel pointed out, these are civil instructions. This obviously is a
criminal courtroom and the jury in this courtroom should be instructed regarding criminal matters.

The civil instructions that counsel wants you to consider, you also have to consider the
fact that in civil cases, the burden is lower here.


7
-----------------------------------------------

Burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why we have criminal instructions for criminal cases.

Second, Judge, the jury instructions proposed by the Defendant do not correctly state the
law in Illinois. In Illinois, if there is an issue as to the destruction of evidence, the courts are
not required to accept the Defendant's version that the lost evidence is favorable to the Defendant.
That's certainly something they can argue to the jury, but it's not worthy of receiving a jury
instruction regarding the matter.

The jury instructions are there for the jury to consider the law as it's stated in Illinois.
This is not the law. Judge, we have had a motion in this case already. It was a motion to
dismiss based on this alleged destruction of evidence and I won't go over everything I argued in the motion but, Judge, there was certain standards that had to be met in that motion.

The Defendant, first of all, had to prove that this evidence was in the State's custody
and then he had to prove that he was prejudiced by it. In that motion, the Defendant never proved that the State had custody of the tape. In fact, it was


8
-----------------------------------------------
the State's position in the motion that actually the evidence that was heard was that Mr. Zizic
had the tape.

So clearly either side can argue that the destruction of evidence was favorable to either
side. I can come out and argue that the reason the tape is missing is because it shows the Defendant's
guilt and you don't have to believe that because it's missing it favors the Defendant.

Judge, these are issues for the jury to decide, but they don't need jury instructions
regarding this. All this will do is confuse the jurors. We don't believe these are proper jury
instructions to give these jurors and we would object to either instruction coming in.

THE COURT: Well, they are not going in. Is the jury ready?

MS. AIMEN: I have one other problem here and that is that I have been tendered by the State two
I.P.I. numbers 1.01 that are dramatically different. One says the faithful performance by you of your
duties as jurors is vital to the administration of justice. The other says you should consider all the
evidence in light of your observations and


9
-----------------------------------------------

experience in life.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Judge, she had a changed

THE COURT: The one I got ends up by saying the last two paragraphs are neither by these
instructions nor by any ruling or remark which I have made do I mean to indicate any opinion as to
the facts or as to what your verdict should be and then finally --

MS. AIMEN: Is that the paragraph you should consider all the evidence in light of your own
observations and experiences in life at the top of that instruction?

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: I don't think that's one.

MS. AIMEN: Here is what I have got that they gave me.

MS. KING: There is a front page.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: The pagination was off and you are missing the front page. Just so --

THE COURT: Here is what I have got.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Just so the record is clear, we had to add and exhibits into page one which she
wanted us to change and we did add that and she is


10
-----------------------------------------------

MS. AIMEN: Okay, thank you.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court.)

THE COURT: Call a witness.

MR. de VLAMING: Call Dr. Barbara Zizic to the stand.
(Witness sworn.)

BARBARA R. BRISK ZIZIC
called as a witness herein, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. de VLAMING

Q. Please tell us your name.

A. Dr. Barbara R. Brisk Zizic.

Q. What city do you reside in?

A. Chicago.

Q. Are you employed?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. What do you do for a living?

A. I am a dentist.

Q. Is William Zizic your husband?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. And do you practice dentistry together?

A. Yes, we do.


11
-----------------------------------------------

Q. How long have you been a dentist?

A. A dentist, since 1980.

Q. Was there a time, Dr. Zizic, when you were a member of the Church of Scientology?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Approximately what time period was that?

A. 1994 or '96. I don't remember. In the early '90's 'til 1997. So 1994 'til 1997.

Q. And was there a time when you were trying to get out of the Church of Scientology?

A. Oh, yes, there was.

Q. And in that effort to get out, was there a request for a refund of a substantial sum of
money you had given the Church?

A. Oh, yes, there was.

Q. What was the purpose of the money given?

A. It was to buy courses.

Q. All right. Had some not been taken and so you had requested money back?

A. Oh, definitely. A lot.

Q. And in your -- well, first of all, was it returned to you immediately?

A. No.

Q. About how long a time did you make that


12
-----------------------------------------------

effort?

A. Couple years, a year. Over a year, well over a year.

Q. And was there at least on one occasion that you placed that request in writing?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. And do you know a Mary Anne Ahmad?

A. Yes, I do.

MR. de VLAMING: May I approach the witness, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MS. KING: We object to the point showing a letter.

THE COURT: Well, he can show it to her.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Dr. Zizic, do you recognize what's been marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 2?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you the author of that letter?

A. Yes, I am.

MS. KING: Your Honor, I want to know is he doing this to refresh her recollection?

THE COURT: Let's see if he asks another question. Then you may make an objection.


13
-----------------------------------------------

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. And did you send this letter to Miss Ahmad?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was there a time, Dr. Zizic, where you had gone to the Church of Scientology, let's say
approximately a week before January 25 of the year 2000, with your husband in order to obtain
monies back?

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Were you successful?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. We weren't allowed --

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. She can answer.

THE WITNESS: We weren't allowed to -- we had a scheduled appointment and we weren't allowed
to go in and have that appointment.

BY MR. de VLAMING:


14
-----------------------------------------------

Q. On the basis of that, was there arrangements made with any agency to come back the
week later?

A. We had the Chicago police, the squad car that came, that we called over to go inside and make
the appointment for the following week at the Church of Scientology.

Q. So you discussed with the police that you would come back the following week on the 25th?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was also scheduled with the organization itself as well?

A. Oh, yes. That was the time that they said we should come.

Q. Now did you make any efforts to contact anyone during that week's period of time to bring
them with you on January 25?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. What did you do?

A. We contacted Mark Bunker.

Q. Okay. How did you reach Mr. Bunker?

A. We were given the name of Mark Bunker through Patty Sullivan who --

Q. Who is Patty Sullivan?


15
-----------------------------------------------

CA. She is the wife of a dentist that sold his practice and gave all his money to the Church
of Scientology.

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. So you reached Mr. Bunker's name through a third party and contacted Mr. Bunker, what, to come with you?

A. We wanted the whole event documented. We were afraid to go in by ourselves.

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor. It's non-responsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Why were you afraid to go in?

A. Because we know -- I had another friend tell me that they will keep you down in the
basement --

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. So Mr. Bunker agreed to come in and document the discussions you would have with the


16
-----------------------------------------------

Church about the return of your money?

A. Right. We wanted witnesses and documentation.

Q. And did you know Mr. Bunker to be a man capable of video taping? Was he a videographer?

A. Yes, yes, he is a video -- he has a Zenu TV and he is a video reporter. (phonetic)

Q. And when he arrived in town on or about the 25th, were there any interviews done of you and
your husband by Dr. -- excuse me, by Mr. Bunker that day?

A. Yes, he interviewed my husband and he interviewed me, yes, and he interviewed us together.

Q. And did you have a microphone or wireless mike placed upon you for that purpose?

A. At my house at the interview.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how long did that interview last?

A. I don't remember exactly because it could have been a long time, like an hour, half-hour to an hour because I started telling my whole tale and I got talking and I don't remember exactly.


17
-----------------------------------------------

Q. Okay.

A. But it was long.

Q. So he documented your -- what was bringing up to the time that you were going to go to the Church to discuss the matter?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me when -- well, strike that. Was there a particular time that you had
agreed to go to the Church of Scientology on the 25th of January?

A. I think 7:30.

Q. In the evening?

A. Yes.

Q. Go ahead and tell us, when you arrived, tell us what you did and how you arrived at the
Church door?

A. We parked on the street parallel to the Catholic church there. I don't know the name of the
street. And then there is a little diner called S and W on the corner. So first we drove by and
there were people standing all over the street on both sides. The street itself that the Church of


18
-----------------------------------------------
Scientology is on comes to a diagonal and there is a restaurant here and then the Church is inner from that from that first restaurant. So we parked. We drove by first and everyone was outside.

MS. KING: Objection to the narrative at this time.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. What do you mean everybody was outside?

A. Well, Church members that I recognized were posted outside every maybe six feet.

MS. KING: Objection to the term posted.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Did you recognize these individuals as being members of the Church of Scientology?

A. Some of them, yes.

Q. Now at some point in time you got out of your vehicle. Was it you, your husband and Mr.
Bunker?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Did you walk towards the Church of Scientology in the street or sidewalk or what?


19
-----------------------------------------------

MS. KING: Object.

THE WITNESS: We walked on sidewalk and then we had to cross the street and then we were
walking up the sidewalk.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Who, if you could tell us, as you walked up the sidewalk, who was first? How did you do
that? In what order were you?

A. Bill is in front of me. I was behind Bill. Mark was behind me. I think it was filming
us. I don't remember exactly, but I think he was filming us while we were walking up.

Q. Okay. Did Bill get to the front door?

A. Well, he was filming us when we were at the front door. Bill put his hand on the door. I
was behind Bill. Mark was behind me and he said, before you go in, I want to talk to you --

MS. KING: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Okay. When your husband got to the front door, did Mr. Bunker get your attention by saying anything to you?

A. Yes.


20
-----------------------------------------------

Q. And did you then turn around?

A. Yes, I turned around.

Q. Based upon his voice?

A. Yes.

Q. How was he holding the camera at that point?

A. He was filming me so he was holding it up.

Q. Did you see anything on the camera that lead you to believe that he was filming?

A. It's got -- it's got a red light. I don't know where, but it had a red light on. So
then you know the camera is on.

Q. Okay. When he said something to you and you turned around, what did you see next?

A. I saw two men rush from an acute angle. Like if I am standing here and Mark is here,
they came from an acute angle and just ran and just jumped him like that. They just ran and
jumped him.

Q. When you say jumped him, describe that. What do you mean by that?

A. They ran and grabbed him.

Q. Okay. They didn't take him to the ground?

A. No, no. He was standing with the camera trying to hold on to it.


21
-----------------------------------------------

Q. Okay. And let me show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit No. 7.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recognize this photograph?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What does it show?

A. It shows the north door. There is two entrances. It shows the north entry way to the
Church of Scientology on Lincoln.

Q. Could you use this photograph and showing to the jury where your husband was, where you were and where Mr. Bunker was at the time that those two men came up to him?

A. I could, but, you know, I need -- if could if I had to, yeah.

Q. Well, let me ask you this. Let's do this. Showing you what's been marked Defendant's Exhibit 5
for identification. Would that help even more?

A. Yeah.

MR. de VLAMING: Judge, may the witness step down?

THE COURT: Sure. You may step down.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. All right, if you could, the lower of the


22
-----------------------------------------------

two which is Defendant's Exhibit 7 shows the actual entry way. This shows the sidewalk on No. 6.
Is that correct?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. I want you to stand so that you are not blocking the view here. Could you show us where
your husband was, where you were and where Mr. Bunker was at the time the two men came out and from what area you saw the men come to?

A. I just want to make sure, this is the north door. This is the south door. My husband had
his hand on the door. I am behind my husband about here in the vestibule because he is going to open the door.
I am here, kind of like right here and then Mark is right here, back here, filming. And I
turned around. The two men ran. It seemed like somewhere in here. They ran out and they had black jackets.

Q. They had black jackets on. Is this the area where they originally met Mr. Bunker?

A. Oh, yeah, uh-huh.

Q. Okay, you can have a seat. Did either of the two men identify themselves?


23
-----------------------------------------------

A. No.

Q. What did you do when you saw Mr. Bunker with the camera on his shoulder being approached by those two men very quickly?

A. I was upset. I was frightened. I didn't know who they were and he came to document this
meeting and I was afraid. I mean, I was shocked. They just --

Q. What did --

A. I yelled. I said, who are you? What are you doing here? Who are you? Why are you doing this?
What's the matter?

Q. Did you know who they were or what they were at that point in time?

A. No. They just came black clothes, jumped him. I didn't know. So you can imagine, you know,
how frightened you get. You don't know who that is, who they are.

Q. Did either one of the men say anything to you when you said who are you?

A. Well, I asked for identification. I said, who are you? Who are you? They said, we are
police. I said, well, I need to see identification. You know, because I am used to the uniforms. We had


24
-----------------------------------------------

asked the other police to meet them there, the ones with the squad cars and the uniforms and these didn't have. They said they were police. I said I need to see a badge. So one showed me a badge, but the face was scraped off.

Q. Scraped off the badge or the identification?

A. By badge, I mean the picture badge, the picture of him, his identification. So I said, no,
I don't believe that you are a real police. And so the other -- do you want me to say?

Q. Go ahead.

A. I asked the other one, what's your name? And he told me, Joe Blow.

Q. Let me stop you here. Can you identify them by name or by one being larger or smaller?

A. The tall policeman had the badge on his hip and he showed it to me and that's the one that
had the face scratched off.
So I said to the other one, I want to see a badge. He wasn't showing me a badge or an ID.
I wanted to see his ID, you know, to see if he had a picture.


25
-----------------------------------------------

He said, no. And I said, what's your name? And he said, Joe Blow. So I was very
frightened because what kind of a name is Joe Blow? That's not a real name.

Q. What was happening then when you were talking to the two of them?

A. They were holding Mark trying to get his camera and holding him and telling him to turn it
off. You know, you're going to be arrested. Turn it off. We are police.

Q. What happened next? What did Mark do?

A. Mark set the camera down because one pried his thumb back. So he set it down.

Q. Do you know what happened to the camera after that?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. I know it's -- I know that one of the two policemen had it.

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor. She already said she didn't know what happened to the camera.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. After you saw it on the ground, that was


26
-----------------------------------------------

in the course of events when you saw it?

A. Yes.

Q. Who had it next time you saw it?

A. The next time I saw it, it was -- I am not going to say the name he told me, but it was the
short policeman that had it. That's what I remember.

Q. Okay. When you arrived on the sidewalk area, did anyone from the Church of Scientology, in
your presence, tell Mark Bunker that he had to leave the premises?

A. No.

Q. Was there anything posted on the outside of the building that told -- instructed Mark Bunker
that he was not welcome there?

A. Nothing. Can I say something?

THE COURT: Ma'am, wait for your lawyer to ask a question.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Did you see Mr. Bunker being handcuffed?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Tell us what happened in that regard.

A. Well, the policeman took out his handcuffs and Mark put out his hands and he handcuffed him.


27
-----------------------------------------------

Q. And did you hear Mr. Bunker say anything in relation to his camera?

A. By then the other squad car came up and I was telling those policemen my story. So I don't
remember.

Q. Up until the time that Mr. Bunker was handcuffed, did you know those two men to be law
enforcement officers?

A. No.

MR. de VLAMING: One moment, Judge.

Q. Dr. Zizic, when your husband was at the front door opening it or attempting to open it, were
you behind him and you said Mr. Bunker was behind you?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Bunker get to the area of the vestibule and step on even the tiling?

A. No. I was on it.

Q. Did he ever enter Church property inside the building?

A. No.

MR. de VLAMING: That's all.


28
-----------------------------------------------
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. KING

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Zizic. You testified you were formerly a member of the Church of
Scientology?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. Both you and your husband didn't want to be members of the Church any more?

A. Right.

Q. And you had given them some money and wanted a refund?

A. Right.

Q. You were having some problems receiving that refund?

A. Yes.

Q. And it took you a while to get the refund?

A. Yes.

Q. It's fair to say you weren't happy with the Church at that time?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And you had been there previously about a week before. Correct?

A. Hm-hmm.
Q. And you were told you had to make an


29
-----------------------------------------------

appointment?

A. I had an appointment for that evening.

Q. You were told you had to make another appointment and you made an appointment for
January 25?

A. The police made the appointment. I didn't.

Q. The officer you talked about that night was Officer Cuddy, correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And that officer, it's your testimony an officer there made an appointment for you?

A. Yes.

Q. So you knew that you needed an appointment to go to the Church, right, you and your
husband for the next week? You were aware of that?

A. I was aware that I had an appointment.

Q. Okay. And you were aware that the appointment was for you and Dr. Zizic, correct, Dr.
William Zizic your husband, correct? For the two of you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that it was not for Mark Bunker, correct?


30
-----------------------------------------------

A. No.

Q. In fact, you also called the police before you came that day, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. So you were expecting some trouble?

A. No.

Q. Even though you had an appointment?

A. I wanted witnesses that we were there.

Q. So you called the police ten minutes before just to have witnesses that you were there?

A. The police that we talked to the week before?

Q. Uh-huh.

A. They said they would come again.

Q. Those police officers said they would come again?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they tell you to call them before coming?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't remember their names of who they were?

A. I think -- I don't. I might have it written down at home.


31
-----------------------------------------------

Q. You said that you wanted this whole event documented on what was happening, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And so you called Mr. Bunker as a videographer. Correct?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. He is not a member of the press to your knowledge, right?

A. Right.

Q. And you didn't call an attorney to come with you, right? Just Mr. Bunker?

A. I spoke to attorneys, but I didn't have them come with me.

Q. Your testimony was that you were walking northbound, right, on Lincoln Avenue towards
the Church?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. The order went your husband, yourself and Mark Bunker. Correct?

A. My husband, me, Mark, yes.

Q. Okay. You all arrived and parked the car together. Right?

A. Hm-hmm.

THE COURT: Ma'am, you have to answer yes or


32
-----------------------------------------------

no.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yes.

BY MS. KING:

Q. But you walked up Lincoln Avenue in a single file line?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And how wide is the sidewalk at about that area?

A. I don't know.

Q. Could it be approximately 12 feet wide?

A. I don't know.

Q. As you were walking, you parked on -- did you park on Wellington? Do you recall that
street?

A. It's the street that's parallel to the Catholic church.

Q. Okay.

A. If that's Wellington, I don't know.

Q. That's where you parked is that street so the three of you had to walk up to the Church.
Were you talking as you walked up to the Church?

A. We were looking around.

Q. Okay. You were looking around, but you weren't talking to each other?

A. We might have been.


33
-----------------------------------------------

Q. You might have been. You weren't talking about why Mr. Bunker was going to be taping that night?

A. I don't remember.

Q. So as you are walking up and might have been talking, you are still walking in a single file
line?

A. I think so.

Q. Okay. And when you got to the front of the building, you stated your husband was all the
way at the door, right?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. And you were just inside the little vestibule and Mark Bunker was behind you?

A. Hm-hmm.

THE COURT: You have to answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.

BY MS. KING:

Q. You do have to say yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. When you were walking in a single file line, you guys are about four feet from each other
as well. Your husband is at the door. You are at the entrance and Mr. Bunker is back on the sidewalk?


34
-----------------------------------------------

A. I don't know the exact measurements.

Q. But there was a distance between you as you were walking single file to the Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Suddenly -- you also testified you saw members of the Church standing around, right?

A. When we drove by before.

Q. But when you walked up?

A. No one was there.

Q. And as you were walking single file with space between you, suddenly two men came out and grabbed Mr. Bunker?

A. That's right.

Q. And you don't know which direction they were coming?

A. I know which direction.

Q. Which direction?

A. They ran out from the north at an acute angle.

Q. But you don't know what angle but they were running from the street?

A. They weren't running from the street.

Q. Down the sidewalk?

A. They ran across the sidewalk and just


35
-----------------------------------------------

jumped him.

Q. Okay. And did you hear these men say anything to him? Did they ever ask him, are you
Mark Bunker? They just grabbed him?

A. I don't remember them asking him that. Maybe they did. I don't remember that.

Q. Okay. But they didn't grab your husband, right?

A. He was up in the vestibule.

Q. They only grabbed Mark Bunker?

A. He was out on the sidewalk.

Q. And you wanted to see ID of these police officers, right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. In fact, you stated you were upset and you were scared. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. When you were asking for this identification, you were loud, correct?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Isn't it fair to say you were giving these police officers a hard time only because you
didn't know who they were?

A. I was giving the two men that rushed Mark


36
-----------------------------------------------

a hard time because I didn't know who they were.

Q. These two men were handcuffing Mark, right?

A. That was after.

Q. Okay.

A. That was quite a while after.

Q. While they were handcuffing him, you were still asking questions and wanting to know what's going on, right?

A. I wouldn't say that.

Q. What were you doing then?

A. Well, how long are you saying the handcuffing took place?

Q. I am asking you while they were handcuffing him, what were you doing?

A. Watching.

Q. Just watching him handcuff him. You weren't saying anything?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. They never asked you to leave the premises, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. They never said a word to you. They never arrested you, right?


37
-----------------------------------------------

A. Right.

Q. They never said a word to your husband either, right?

A. Well, they threatened to arrest me. Yes, they did.

Q. Oh, they threatened to arrest you?

A. Hm-hmm.

MS. AIMEN: Objection, Judge, to repeating narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. KING:

Q. Your testimony is also when these men came out of nowhere and jumped on Mark Bunker he just put his hands out and let them handcuff him. Is that your testimony?

A. No.

Q. Wasn't that your testimony on direct when asked that Mark just let him put his hands out
and let them handcuff?

A. You said more than that. It's the prior statement I said no to.

Q. My statement was it's your testimony that these men came out of nowhere. That's your
testimony, right?


38
-----------------------------------------------

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. And then they jumped him. You didn't know what was going on?

A. Right.

Q. And at one point Mark just put his hands out and let them arrest him?

A. After he saw the handcuffs.

Q. Okay. After he saw the handcuffs. At this time had you seen any ID?

A. No.

Q. So men that haven't shown him ID just took out handcuffs and Mark put his hands out and
let them arrest him?

A. He said they had handcuffs so they were police.

Q. So he knew they were police because they had handcuffs?

A. Hm-hmm.

THE COURT: Ma'am, you have to answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. KING:

Q. Okay. Okay. And you saw that Mr. Bunker had a video camera with him that night. Is that


39
-----------------------------------------------

right? That was the whole purpose of him coming there?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you see what happened to the video tape when they were placing these handcuffs on Mr. Bunker?

A. No.

Q. Okay. And you -- do you know -- you did testify that you saw the video tape in the shorter
officer's hands, right?

MR. de VLAMING: I am going to object.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

THE COURT: Sustained. Are you talking about video tape or video camera?

MS. KING: I apologize.

Q. You said you saw the video camera in the shorter officer's hands?

A. I don't remember which one. It was one of them, but I don't remember which one.

Q. Did you see it in a police officer's hands?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't know how that camera got in his hands?


40
-----------------------------------------------

A. No.

Q. Did you see your husband with the video camera?

A. Hm-hm. I was --

Q. When you saw the video camera in the police officer's hands, did you see the police
officer remove anything from that camera?

A. No.

MS. KING: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. de VLAMING: Couple questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. de VLAMING

Q. Prosecutor asked you or she said to you they never asked you to leave the premises.
Do you recall her question when she said they never asked you to leave the premises?

A. Right.

Q. After Mark was taken away, were you asked to come into the Church of Scientology then?

A. Yes, I was.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection.

BY MR. de VLAMING:
Q. Would you go?


41
-----------------------------------------------

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No. I wouldn't go because I was afraid. If I go down there, who is going to
know?

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. You also indicated on cross examination that the reason you called the police the week
before --

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. -- you said to the prosecutor, I wanted witnesses that you were there. What do you mean
witnesses that you were there?

A. I wanted -- I wanted to do things in a lawful way so I could have the police there to
witness whatever might go on. The fact if I decided to go down into the Church, I wanted a
witness that I went in and a witness that we came out. That's what I wanted.

Q. In point of time, when did the police, the squad car police, when did they get there? What
was going on when the squad car police, uniformed police, came up?

MS. KING: I am objecting to beyond the scope of cross at this time.

THE COURT: Sustained.


42
-----------------------------------------------

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Last question, Dr. Zizic. When you were watching the activity between the two men with Mr. Bunker, was Mr. Bunker ever given the opportunity to walk away?

A. No.

Q. Why?

A. They were holding him. They were holding

on to him.

Q. So if he even wanted to walk away, he couldn't?

A. No, he couldn't walk away.

MR. de VLAMING: Thank you. That's all.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MS. KING: I have nothing based on that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. Call a witness.

MR. de VLAMING: Your Honor, Mr. Bunker would like to take the stand in his own behalf.
(Witness sworn.)


43
-----------------------------------------------

MARK BUNKER
the Defendant herein, called as a witness in his own behalf, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. de VLAMING

Q. Please tell us your name.

A. Mark Bunker, B-u-n-k-e-r.

Q. Mr. Bunker, how old are you?

A. I am 44.

Q. And where do you live?

A. Clearwater, Florida.

Q. And what do you do for a living, sir?

A. I work for the Lisa McPherson Trust which is a watchdog group that helps people who have been --

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor.

THE WITNESS: -- abused or defrauded.

THE COURT: Sustained. Latter part will be stricken.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. What are your duties?

A. I am a producer of video, documentaries.

Q. Do you have any background as a producer of documentaries?


44
-----------------------------------------------

A. Well, over the past 20 years I've written and produced shows for Wisconsin Public Radio,
for local radio stations. I spent three years as the morning anchor on Wisconsin commercial
radio station which was a CNN affiliate. I did newscasts and I also have narrated and hosted
a show for the Discovery Channel which airs every holiday season and have provided voices for animated cartoons and appeared in shows on CBS and PBS.

Q. So what you do for a living is you are in
the media business, so to speak?

A. Yes.

Q. And based upon your current occupation, you do documentaries for that particular
organization?

A. Yes.

Q. And in your capacity as a producer and videographer, did you receive a call to
come to Chicago to meet with a Dr. William Zizic and Dr. Barbara Zizic?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you know approximately when you received the call to come?

A. I believe this was the Thursday before the


45
-----------------------------------------------

actual trip was booked. We had a conference call with the Zizics and the chairman of the
board of the Lisa McPherson Trust, Bob Minton, where we discussed the fact that this is --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection, Judge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. You received a call and on the basis of that a decision was made that you would come up and render some aid or help?

A. Yes.

Q. When you got into town -- well, let me back up a bit. Were you chosen to come up to
document what you were asked to preserve?

A. Yes.

Q. So you were brought up here as a producer slash videographer?

A. Right.

Q. When you got here, did you meet with the
Zizics ?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember when you met with them?

A. I met with them the evening before we went to the Scientology building. We had dinner the


46
-----------------------------------------------

night before. We went over the Zizics' life story inside Scientology which was --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection.

MS. KING: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. So you discussed that with them?

A. Yes.

Q. The following -- you got background. Is that basically what you are telling us?

A. Yes.

Q. After you got that background information, did you do any actual video taping of an interview
with them on the 25th of January?

A. Yes. On the 25th, I actually went to the Zizics' office. Dr. Bill Zizic was in his office
and Dr. Barbara Zizic was at home because she had some surgery.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: At the Zizics' office, I interviewed Bill Zizic for maybe 20 minutes on tape.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Did you subsequently do any video taping


47
-----------------------------------------------

of Barbara Zizic?

A. After leaving the Zizics' office around 4:00 o'clock, we went over to the Zizics' home and I
sat down with both Bill and Barbara on their sofa in their living room. They were sitting on the
sofa and I was getting more of the background of their story in Scientology.

Q. Now the tape that was in the camera for video taping their story about being in the Church
of Scientology, was that the same cassette tape that was in it when you went to the Church of
Scientology?

A. Yes.

Q. So -- do you know how long those tapes are roughly?

A. Yes. It's 184-minute tape which means it's a three-hour tape.

Q. So you had ample tape left in order to do what you were going to do on the 25th?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. How was it decided that you would go to the Church at a particular time?

A. The Zizics had made arrangements to have a meeting at 7:30 that night and I went along with


48
-----------------------------------------------

them to interview them outside the building before and after their meeting and we were going to ask permission to see if I could come inside.

Q. And what if you were not given permission to go inside?

A. If I wasn't allowed inside, we were just going to do a short piece before going in where I
ask them what's happening here tonight? Then I would go across the street to assume there would
be some sort of restaurant and just wait until the meeting was over and then interview them after
the meeting as to how it went.

Q. Okay. It didn't go that way?

A. It did not.

Q. When you arrived there roughly at 7:30, why don't you tell me what you recall about when you parked the car and headed toward the Church of Scientology.

A. Well, we tried to find a parking spot. So we drove around the block that the Scientology
building is on and on every corner and half way down the block on each side --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection, Judge.

THE COURT: Overruled.


49
-----------------------------------------------

THE WITNESS: -- we saw what certainly appeared to be Scientology OSA members with walkie talkies watching for our arrival. (phonetic)

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Did you cross the street to go into the Church of Scientology?

A. We parked to the south of the building a block over. We crossed over to the side of the
street on which the Scientology building is located.
As we crossed the street on the corner, there was one Scientology agent with a walkie
talkie around the corner. I picked up my camera and started video taping him as he went behind the building. The Zizics continued up the block going north toward the Scientology building. I followed after a couple of seconds and tried to catch up with them.

Q. And did you?

A. Yes. I caught up to them as they got to the building.

Q. All right. Who was in the lead, so to speak? Who is first?

A. Bill was first. Barbara was behind him


50
-----------------------------------------------

and I was going at a fairly fast clip to try to catch up to them. I actually went past
the building initially because I didn't know they were stopping. I had no idea exactly
where the building was on the street. So I passed and went, oh, this is it, stopped,
put my camera on my shoulder and started to interview Barbara.

Q. Okay. When you put it on your shoulder, is that when you turned it on?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you -- where was Dr. Bill Zizic, where was he, when you got Barbara's attention?

A. Bill was actually at the door. He had his hand on the door handle, on the knob. Barbara was half-way between Bill and me. I was on the sidewalk and Barbara was in my frame. Bill was in the distance, much smaller figure.
I said to Barbara, so, Barbara, tell me what's happening here tonight and before she
could respond, these two figures came toward the camera as I was looking through the little black and white monitor. They came toward the camera.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection to the narrative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Ask some more


51
-----------------------------------------------

questions.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. You have the camera up on your shoulder and you are filming?

A. Yes.

Q. You make a comment to Barbara Zizic?

A. Yes.

Q. And before she can respond, tell me what you see through the viewfinder.

A. I see two other figures coming very rapidly toward my camera. There were two people.
There was the larger fellow and the smaller fellow. And the larger one came at the camera itself and was saying, turn off the camera. Turn off the camera.
I was pointed initially at Barbara; but as soon as he started saying that, I spun over to
him and followed his action as he was saying turn off the camera.

Q. Did you know at that point in time either by voice or by viewing him who he was or what he was or by what authority he was telling you this?

A. No.

Q. Did he have any indicia on his clothing of what he did, any hat that said Scientology or police


52
-----------------------------------------------

or security or anything?

A. No.

Q. All he said initially was turn off the camera. Turn off the camera?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you say to the larger of the two men?

A. Well, at that point he was grabbing for the camera. So then I started to hold it closer to
me. The camera was on and I knew that even -- I had got a shot of his face so I would be able to identify him when I watched the tape later.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection, Judge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: But even if the camera wasn't pointed at him, I would still be recording the audio and I would have a record of what was happening.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Mr. Bunker, when these two men which we now know are officers you, grabbed you and said turn off
the camera, was the camera rolling?

A. Yes.

Q. Would the camera video tape have shown


53
-----------------------------------------------

where you were at that minute?

A. Yes.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection as to what the tape would show.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. All right. What did you do? You show that you took the camera down. What were you doing with it?

A. I was trying to protect the camera and find out what was going on because the larger fellow who was initially going for the camera then grabbed me by this arm with both hands. The smaller fellow grabbed me by this arm.
So now I am being held in and I have got the camera much like a football and I am asking
the smaller fellow, who are you? What's your name? He wouldn't tell me.
The larger person was still saying, turn off the camera. Turn it off. Then he also said,
they don't want you here. He didn't say who they were, but I assumed it was Scientology.

THE COURT: Do you have another question?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.


54
-----------------------------------------------

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. All right. Were you being held on to at that point in time?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you have walked away at that point in time?

A. No.

Q. What happened next after that comment was made?

A. This all happened in seconds. From the moment they came out and grabbed me, the whole thing was just seconds. I was asking the shorter fellow his name and he was refusing to tell me.
Barbara Zizic was over to my left at the side of the larger person and she was saying --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection to what she was saying.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: She was demanding some ID because the cop, the larger cop had said at that point,
I'm a cop. She was saying, show me a badge. I don't believe you. Show me a badge and he apparently
showed her something. As I was talking to the smaller person


55
-----------------------------------------------

demanding to know his name, she was saying, that's a phony ID. The face has been rubbed off. That's a phony ID and I am still concerned about what's happening.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Do you still have the camera at this point?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a point in time when the camera was taken away from you?

A. Yes.

Q. How? How was it taken from you?

A. Well, the smaller one, I had been trying to protect the camera and I had managed to move it behind me when they were grabbing for it and the smaller fellow let go of my arm to grab my thumb because I was holding the handle at the top of the camera and he pulled my thumb back and I was in great pain and I knew I would have to release the camera and I didn't want it to drop.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection to the narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let me finish up this sequence and please start asking him some
questions.

BY MR. de VLAMING:


56
-----------------------------------------------

Q. What did you do with the camera?

A. Well. I pulled -- he was pulling my thumb back. So as the pain was increasing. I bent down
and released the camera on the ground. (sic)

Q. Did you ever drop the camera?

A. No.

Q. And is this -- did you bring the camera with you --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to the court?

A. Hm-hmm.

Q. Is this the identical camera that you brought?

A. Yes.

Q. Has it in any way had its casing repaired

A. No.

Q. So it's in the identical condition or substantially the same condition as that day?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it an expensive piece of equipment?

A. Yes.

Q. And you say you put it down, not dropped it?


57
-----------------------------------------------

A. Right.

Q. Did you see what happened to the camera? First of all, when you put it down, was
it still rolling?

A. Yes.

Q. You are sure of that?

A. Yes, the red light on the front of the camera was still on.

Q. And did you see what happened to the video camera after you put it on the ground?

A. Yes, it was about half-way between myself and Bill Zizic at that time and by this time
the officers, there was a little more that happened in here; but the officers had pulled out
their handcuffs and cuffed me. While I was being cuffed --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection, Judge.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Okay. While you were being handcuffed, did you see what happened to the video camera?

A. Yes, Bill Zizic picked up the camera and was holding it at his side aiming toward us as I was being cuffed.
Q. You saw that?


58
-----------------------------------------------

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see if the red light was on or if it was off?

A. It was on.

Q. Did you ever see what happened to it after it left Dr. Zizic, Dr. Bill Zizic's person?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Who had it?

A. I saw the smaller officer take the camera back to the female uniformed sergeant who had
arrived on the scene by that time and I had been turned over to Officer Cuddy, another uniformed officer on the scene.
Officer Cuddy and her partner were putting me in their squad car as I watched the
larger officer --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Objection again, Judge.

THE COURT: Sustained. Try to ask him questions. Have him give you answers so we can move this all along and not have two-hour narrative on this.

MR. de VLAMING: Yes, sir.

Q. When you were getting into the cruiser, you saw the video camera?


59
-----------------------------------------------

A. I saw the larger officer, non-uniformed officer, looking at the camera, finally finding the
button to turn it off and then turning it over.

Q. Then the red light went out?

A. Right.

MR. de VLAMING: May I have permission of the Court to have the Defendant step down?

THE COURT: Sure.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. I am holding in my hand what appears to be a commercial video recorder. Would you tell the jury, does this have a model number or what is this?

A. Yes, this is a Sony DVR 200A. It's a digital video camera. The model number should be on
here. Yes, it's a 200A.

Q. Okay. When you say digital, can the tapes that operate on this be then placed over the
internet?

A. Well, any tape could be over the internet. This is another, better, clearer way to capture
video.

Q. Okay. Now is the lens cover on?

A. Yes.

Q. So if you turned it on, we are not going


60
-----------------------------------------------

to be video taping anything in this courtroom?

A. No.

Q. Did you bring with you a video cassette?

A. Yes.

Q. What I would like you to do now is to eject -- first of all, you flipped open a door. Is
this how you are putting in the tape?

A. This is how you open the top mechanism to load the tape.

Q. Go ahead and load it.

A. Then the tape goes in face out. You put it in part way and the mechanical gear picks it up
and winds the tape around the heads.

Q. Is it loaded now?

A. It is in the process of loading.

Q. All right.
A. Then you closed the top case.
Q. In the condition that it is now, I want you to turn and face the camera and show the jury
where the button is to turn this on and off.

A. Yes. There is actually two. There is one here by the thumb grip which is the normal button
you would use, the big red button. There is also a button in the front, this other alternate red
button


61
-----------------------------------------------
in case, as I often do, I am taping myself. I can be in front of the camera, push the button and do some narration.

Q. Tell you what. Spin it around. So the one button that's used most of the time is the one on the
pistol grip?

A. Right.

Q. And there is one in the front in case it faces you and you want to turn it on?

A. Right.

Q. I want you to go ahead and turn on this tape. If that's all right, your Honor.

THE COURT: Fine.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Turn on the tape and show the jury what someone would see if they are being video taped but leave the lens cover on.

A. First you have to turn on the power which is this button right here. Once the power is on,
you have this little light here that tells you it's operating. This is the basic position for holding
the camera on your shoulder.

Q. Is that the way it was when you were outside of the Church of Scientology?


62
-----------------------------------------------

A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead.

A. And looking through the viewfinder, you then use your thumb to start taping and the red
light here which is called a talent light comes on to let the talent know an image is being recorded.

Q. Just for the record, underneath the word Sony is a red light which appears to be half-inch in length?

A. Yes.

Q. That comes on?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that mean you are audio and video taping?

A. Yes.

Q. With the exception of the lens cover being on are we audio and video taping now?

A. Audio is being recorded.

Q. I take it screen is black because of the lens cover?

A. Right.

Q. I want you to turn it off. I want you to take the tape out.

A. Okay. To do that, you open the top case


63
-----------------------------------------------

once again and there is a little blue button that is the eject button. You push that.
It unwinds the tape and pops out.

Q. Hand me the cassette. Close that top cover. I want you to pt it back on your shoulder.
I want you to press the button. Can this camera come on without a cassette tape in it?

A. It cannot. I can also push the front button for you to show I am pushing the button. The
light does not come on.

Q. Okay. Mr. Bunker, just a couple more questions before you are cross examined.
When you got to the area of the Church of Scientology, if you were denied entry,
would you have gone inside?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever get on to the vestibule, that is the tile area, that preceded the door?

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever go inside the building?

A. No.

MR. de VLAMING: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Cross.


64
-----------------------------------------------

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Yes, Judge.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. WRONKIEWICZ

Q. Sir, it's your testimony that this is the video camera that you had with you on
January 25. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can I touch it?

MR. de VLAMING: Sure.

BY MS. WRONKIEWICZ:

Q. Okay. It's your testimony that the tape goes in this area right here. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. On the outside of this, there is no red button that says eject, correct?

A. No.

Q. So you actually have to open that to get to the button, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You said this is an expensive piece of camera, equipment, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't just buy that at Circuit City or store like that?


65
-----------------------------------------------

A. No.

Q. Sir, you came here from Florida in order to do this videography. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had arranged to have all these interviews with Barbara and William Zizic on
January 25. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And -- but you are not associated with like the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times in
Chicago, correct?

A. I am not, no.

Q. And you don't have an Illinois press pass, correct?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any Illinois journalism associations?

A. No.

Q. Now this interview that you were going to do with the Zizics, had you made arrangements
to put that on the Discovery Channel or anything?

A. No.

Q. Have you won any awards for your video documentaries?


66
-----------------------------------------------

A. No, not yet.

Q. Now you also said that you also have done some type of work where you speak for like Disney characters and stuff like that?

A. Well, no, not for Disney. I did an animated Bible series.

Q. Animated series?

A. Yes. And I was on screen shows and narrator for a show on the Disney channel.

Q. In addition to being videographer, you are also an actor?

A. I have been an actor, yes.

Q. Now your story is that you were here to help the Zizics by video taping this. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But you are not a lawyer. Correct?

A. No.

Q. And you don't have any type of certification --

MR. de VLAMING: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. WRONKIEWICZ:

Q. You don't have any type of certification in mediation or anything like that?


67
-----------------------------------------------

A. No, I wasn't mediating.

Q. Okay. Now you didn't actually call ahead to the Church of Scientology to arrange to interview the Zizics in front, correct?

A. To interview them in front of the building?

Q. That's correct. Did you call ahead to ask if you could do this interview in front of the
Church?

A. No.

Q. Now this interview that you were going to do, that was with -- that was going to take place
both before and after the meeting. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you didn't bring a tripod with you when you arrived, correct?

A. No, the camera rests on its own.

Q. And you didn't bring with you a hand-held microphone, correct?

A. No.

Q. You didn't bring with you any of the stand alone lights to light up the area, correct?

A. No.

Q. Now you, when you were going to do this


68
-----------------------------------------------

interview with Barbara, you actually were talking to her as you walked up to the front door.
Correct?

A. No. I never walked to the front door.

Q. Okay. Now you previously testified in this matter, correct? Pages 26 and 27. Correct?
You previously testified?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was on November 17, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That was in this courtroom before this Judge, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. There was a court reporter in court on that date taking down your testimony, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you asked a series of questions by myself as well as your attorney, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you responded to those questions you were asked, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, were you asked this question and did you give this answer?
MS. AIMEN: I am going to ask what line because


69
-----------------------------------------------

so far I don't see anything impeaching.

MR. de VLAMING: Page 26?

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Page 26 to 27. Judge, may I speak to counsel before I go on?

MS. AIMEN: I am going to object because that's not impeaching. We need to have a sidebar.

THE COURT: Okay.
(Whereupon the following proceedings were held out of the hearing of the jury.)

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Judge, I just want to argue after you overrule it, he said -- he just denied that he was at the front door and he testified once we arrived in front of the door.

MS. AIMEN: In front of and at the door are two different pronouns or prepositions.

THE COURT: You ask the question and you can cross him on it. That's the only one you are
asking?

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. AIMEN: Judge, I mean, this transcript is terrible and there are missed pronouns.

THE COURT: Well, I am just getting into this


70
-----------------------------------------------

one question.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court.)

BY MS. WRONKIEWICZ:

Q. Sir, you were asked a series of questions and you gave answers and one of those questionswas:

"Question: While you were standing there, did you have the camera on your
shoulder?

"Answer: Once we reached the building prior to that as we were walking down the
street."

There was an objection.

"Once we arrived right in front of the door, I picked up the camera. I put my hand
through the handle and brought it up to my face as I would when I am video taping and
started to roll the tape and interview Barbara Zizic. I asked her, so tell me what's happening heretonight? That was as far as we got into the interview."

You were asked that question and you gave that answer, correct?

A. Yes.


71
-----------------------------------------------

Q. Now, sir, after being confronted by the police, you had the camera down by your side.
Correct?

A. Uhm --

MS. AIMEN: Objection to foundation.

THE COURT: After he was arrested by the police and --

MS. AIMEN: She said confronted by the police.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: I will clarify.

Q. Sir, at some point you were confronted by two individuals. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. A tall one and a short one?

A. Yes.

Q. They were the officers who you saw testify here today. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the short -- there is two officers came up to you and they told you you have to
leave. Correct?

A. The initial requests were turn off the camera and after that, they don't want you here.
Leave.


72
-----------------------------------------------

Q. Okay. After these two individuals told you you had to leave, you didn't leave. Correct?

A. They were holding on to me on either arm.

Q. Is that yes or no, sir?

A. No.

Q. Now at this time you didn't have the camera up on your shoulder any more. Correct?

A. It would have been down closer to my body being protected.

Q. And you had admit that you were holding this camera like a football. Correct?

A. Yes, for part of the time, yes.

Q. And as the officer came towards you, you were turning your -- it's your testimony that you were turning trying to hide this video camera?

A. No, the officers were already on top of me.

Q. Now you wanted to see some identification from these police officers. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked both the tall one and the short one to see some type of identification.
Correct?

A. Barbara asked the tall man. I asked the


73
-----------------------------------------------

small one to tell me his name. What's your name? What's your name? He told Barbara Joe Blow.

Q. So that wasn't what he said to you?

A. He said it doesn't matter.

Q. Okay. Now Barbara was showed some type of identification though, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And she didn't believe that that was a valid identification. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, you also had with you a cell phone on that day. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that cell phone was in your pocket. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And at some point you took that cell phone out of your pocket. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told the officers that you were going to call the precinct and see who
they were, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the phone number for the precinct?


74
-----------------------------------------------

A. I was calling information to get that.

Q. So it's your testimony you are confronted by these two individuals you don't know who
they are but you are going to call information so you can call a police department. Correct?

A. That was my intent, yes.

Q. Now at some point you admit that your camera is on the ground. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At that point you gestured to your friend, Bill Zizic, with your eyes to pick up the camera.
Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you did see Mr. Zizic go and pick up that camera. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't use words to tell him to pick up the camera, correct?

A. No.

Q. And you knew that the police weren't paying attention because they were focusing on you, correct?

A. The smaller one was cuffing me at that moment.


75
-----------------------------------------------

Q. So at that time you took that opportunity to get your signal to Mr. Zizic. Correct?

A. I saw the camera rolling and yes.

Q. Now when Bill Zizic had your video camera in his hands, he was actually standing in
the second doorway for the Church of Scientology. Correct?

A. No.

Q. There are two entrances to the Church of Scientology, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you were placed under arrest, there was a large crowd on the scene, correct?

A. I didn't see a large crowd.

Q. Sir, the day after you were arrested, you went back to the police district, January 26,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you went there to pick up your video camera, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me back you up again here. On January 25 you were placed under arrest, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were placed in a squad car with a


76
-----------------------------------------------

short, female officer named Officer Cuddy. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the next day when you went to pick up your camera, you once again saw Officer Cuddy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked her where your video camera was, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked her to go get your video camera out from where it's kept, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. She did go to some evidence room and come back with your video camera, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When she brought you out your video camera, it was in plastic wrap, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said to these officers, I want you to watch as I open my video camera, correct?

A. I said that to Officer Cuddy in particular. I had her come and watch as I opened
it, yes.

Q. Okay. And your video camera, you had to


77
-----------------------------------------------

take it out of plastic, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you opened your video camera, it's your testimony that there was no tape in
there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that video camera has been in your custody since that date, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now after you couldn't find this tape, Officer Cuddy asked you if you wanted to make a lost and found report, correct?

MS. AIMEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't believe it was a lost and found request, no.

BY MS. WRONKIEWICZ:

Q. She asked you if you wanted to file some kind of report that this tape was missing, correct?

A. I asked her to find the shift commander. She couldn't and then we did talk about filling out
some sort of form.

Q. Okay. Did you fill out a form with her?

A. I told Officer Cuddy that I trusted her.


78
-----------------------------------------------

That she witnessed that there was no tape in the camera.

Q. So you did not fill out a form showing that your property you claimed was missing?

A. No.

Q. And you give her your business card. Is that correct?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Now when she brought the tape out -- let me strike that, Judge.

Now it's your testimony that when you arrived on the scene you drove around
the block looking for parking, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you were never a member of the Church of Scientology, correct?

A. No.

Q. So it's your testimony that you saw people standing on corners with like ear pieces
in their ear?

A. Walkie talkies.

Q. Walkie talkies. And you don't know that these individuals are members of the Church
of Scientology, correct?


79
-----------------------------------------------

A. We see security people outside the Church properties all the time.

Q. Is that yes or no, sir?

A. I had a pretty good hunch they were.

Q. So the answer would be no, you didn't know whether they were from the
Church, correct?

A. 100 percent?, no.

Q. Sir, you don't know if the president or vice president was in town that
day and these were police officers on duty, correct?

A. That would have been in the news.

Q. So the answer is no?

A. No, the president and vice president weren't in town.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Judge, may I have a moment, please? I have nothing else.

THE COURT: Any other questions?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. de VLAMING

Q. Mr. Bunker, upon what did you base the opinion these people with walkie talkies
looking like security people were members of the Church?

A. From my experience in dealing with the Church of Scientology.


80
-----------------------------------------------

Q. By the way, this camera, does it have any cracks, gouges or outer evidence that
it was dropped?

A. No.

Q. The cell phone, when you took it out to make the call, could you dial -- did you dial
any numbers?

A. My hands were shaking a little because I was very nervous about the whole situation so I was trying to dial 911 or 411. I couldn't decide what number I should call. I didn't have a chance to push send before the smaller officer knocked it from my hand.

Q. How did he appear to you when you said you were calling the precinct?

MS. KING: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let him finish the question.

BY MR. de VLAMING:

Q. Did he say or do anything when you said you were going to call the police?

A. He said, that's it. You are under arrest and knocked the phone from my hand.

Q. Prosecutor brought up that you signaled Dr. Zizic to pick up the camera.


81
-----------------------------------------------

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you want him to pick up the camera?

A. Because I felt that this arrest should be documented. The camera was still rolling.
I was being put in handcuffs. I would like to have video of it.

Q. Why did you ask Officer Cuddy when you got your property back, when you were allowed to get your video camera back, why did you ask her to watch you hit the eject button or
see if there was a tape in there?

A. I was concerned that the tape would disappear after having a conversation with an
attorney.

Q. And did Officer Cuddy stand there when you opened up that lever?

A. Yes.

Q. And she confirmed, in fact, it wasn't there? Did she acknowledge there was no tape
in there?

A. Yes.

Q. Lastly, the prosecutor read something to you from a transcript about where you were
when


82
-----------------------------------------------

these two men came up to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall just before what she read these questions being asked to you by the
prosecutor? This is page 26, top of the page, line 2. Question by the second assistant
state's attorney to my left.

"When you got to the Church, who made it to the front door first?"

Your answer, "Bill Zizic."

"Who was behind Bill," she asked.

You answered, "Barbara was next in line several feet away from the door and from Bill
Zizic and then I was behind her with my camera several feet behind her.

"Question: Were you in the vestibule of the Church of Scientology or on the public
sidewalk?

Your answer under oath at that time was, "I was on the public sidewalk."

Is your testimony the same then as it is today?

A. Yes.

MR. de VLAMING: Nothing further.


83
-----------------------------------------------

THE COURT: Anything further?

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: No, Judge.


THE COURT: Okay, thank you. You can step down. Why don't we take a quick five-minute
break here and be back and finish up hopefully.
(Recess taken.)

(Whereupon the following proceedings were held out of the presence of the jury.)


THE COURT:Anything else?

MS. AIMEN: At this time defense would rest.

Prior to resting, we would like to ask to strike the identification marks on Defendant's Exhibits
No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and admit it into evidence.

Defendant's 1 was the complaint filed in this matter initially. Defendant's 2 is the letter
that was acknowledged by Dr. Barbara Zizic. No. 4 were copies of the paychecks paid to Officer Bonafazzi and Floria. 5 was the small photograph and 6 was the larger photograph.

THE COURT: Okay I State.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Judge, we are going to object to Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 which is the complaint which is not evidence in this case and is not even


84
-----------------------------------------------

the amended complaint. It's some copy that they have.

MS. AIMEN: Well, Judge --

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: So we will object to that.

MS. AIMEN: Judge, it is a court document. Whether they choose to amend it, she still signed it and it is still a court document and it is certainly admissible.

MR. de VLAMING: Plus they cross examined and had her confirm that the written in portions in her testimony.

THE COURT: Complaint is not going back to the
jury.

MS. AIMEN: I understand it's not going back to the jury, but it's still admissible even if it
doesn't go back to the jury.

THE COURT: It will be admitted. You can argue it, but it's not going back to the jury.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Defendant's Exhibit --

THE COURT: What about the letter?

MS. AIMEN: Judge, we will not be tendering the letter to the jury. We only wanted it admitted into evidence.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: How is that letter even
85

-----------------------------------------------

admissible into evidence?

THE COURT: Yeah, that's not admissible.

MR. de VLAMING: Judge, for the record, it confirms the reason why they were there, the fact
that they were there for a legitimate purpose which was to obtain back money and not for the purpose of harassing the Church or for the purpose of trespass.

THE COURT: All right. You want the checks admissible but not to go back to the jury?

MS. AIMEN: Judge, I think the checks can certainly go back to the jury.

THE COURT: No, they are not going back to the jury. What photos do you want to go to the jury?

MS. AIMEN: There were two photographs that were used in the courtroom. There is Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 which is the smaller one and 5 which is the bigger one. I have consistently confused those.

THE COURT: Okay, those can be admitted and go to the jury.

MR. de VLAMING: Your Honor, we would also ask that 7 go back. That's the one that Dr. Barbara Zizic testified to when I was examining her.

THE COURT: I don't have any problem with that.


86
-----------------------------------------------

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: State has no objection to the pictures going back.

MS. KING: I didn't hear your ruling on the letter.

THE COURT: Letter is not going back. Complaint is not going back. The checks aren't
going back. Photos 5, 6 and 7 are going back.

MS. AIMEN: But the others are admitted into evidence just not going back to the jury?

THE COURT: Right.

MS. KING: We still ask the letter not be admitted into evidence. There was testimony why
they got there and letter should not be admissible. It wouldn't be admissible in a bench trial or
admissible in any other circumstance.

THE COURT: I will admit it. Do you rest on that?

MR. de VLAMING: We rest.

THE COURT: State.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: We are going to have rebuttal. We have them here. They are down the
hall.

THE COURT: When we finish rebuttal, unless you have surrebuttal -- why don't you lawyers
listen up


87
-----------------------------------------------
to me? We are going right into closing arguments. You get 12 minutes each.

We are back on trial. What's the problem?

MS. AIMEN: Given your ruling whether the complaints could go back to the jury or not, we have
blown up the complaint and we intend to use it as demonstrative evidence during our closing argument.
Before we brought the jury out --

THE COURT: No. State, you want to get up here?

MS. AIMEN: Judge, it's a court document. It was used to bring this man into court.

THE COURT: Right.

MS. AIMEN: And for months --

THE COURT: And you can argue.

MS. AIMEN: -- he stood trial on that complaint.

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: There is a jury instruction that says the complaint is not evidence. It's
merely a charging instrument.

MS. AIMEN: I understand that.

THE COURT: You are not going to use the complaint in arguing. You are not going to use the


88
-----------------------------------------------
letter. If you think you are showing the letter to the jury in any fashion, you are not. It's as
simple as that. The only thing going back to the jury are the photos.

MS. AIMEN: I wasn't asking it be sent back to the jury.

THE COURT: I know. You want to put it up there.

MS. AIMEN: I just want to use it as demonstrative evidence in the close.

THE COURT: Well you're not.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court.)

THE COURT: Any other witnesses?

MS. WRONKIEWICZ: Yes, Judge. State has rebuttal witnesses.

THE COURT: Defense rests?

MR. de VLAMING: Yes, your Honor, defense rests.

MS. KING: State calls Sergeant Schloss.
(Witness sworn.)


89
-----------------------------------------------

ALLISON SCHLOSS
called as a witness herein, was examin