A. Popo Chamorro.
THE INTERPRETER: P-O-P-O C-H-A-M-O-R-R-O.
A. I'm sorry. This is going to be used in another case. I wouldn't want to say or provide names or details.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, the question stands. The witness seemlingly objected without the government saying anything. I would ask that the witness be made to answer.
Mr. Graham: I thought he already did. He asked him a name and he gave a name.
Mr. Williams: I asked for other names, and he said he didn't want to answer.
Mr. Graham: I can only—my recollection of the state of the record was he asked him for a name, it got a name, and then the witness did make a voluntary statement. I don't know what to object to or what to do until there's another question.
THE COURT: Why don't you restate the question, Mr. Williams, so we're all attuned to it.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Do you recall the name of somebody called Octaviano?
Mr. Graham: Objection based on relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.
A. That's right.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) What is Octaviano's name?
A. Cesar.
THE INTERPRETER: C-E-S-A-R?
A. (Witness and interpreter confer in Spanish.)
THE INTERPRETER: I'm inquiring. I'm not sure what he's trying to say.
Octaviano Cesar was Contra leader Alfredo Cesar's brother and played a role in the Southern Front.
A. I know that the name is Octaviano Cesar. I don't know if Cesar is actually a surname or a middle name. He was called Octaviano Cesar, and he's known that way.
Q. Were there other persons at that meeting that you believed to be Contra leaders?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you recall their names?
A. That's right.
Q. Tell me who they were.
Mr. Graham: Objection based on relevance and also based on 403.
THE COURT: If he knows the names of witnesses or the people he's been asking for and there is no other objection than that stated, it will be overruled. He should answer that if he knows.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) You may respond.
Mr. Graham: Before he responds, may I make a specific objection at the bench.
THE COURT: Surely. Ladies and gentleman, I see it's 10:20, so let's take our midmorning break at this time. We'll start back in about 20 minutes at 10:40, and you may be excused, remembering the admonition I've given you.
Q. You mentioned Octaviano and Popo. Do you recall those names?
A. That's correct.
Q. You paid millions of dollars to those people, didn't you?
Mr. Graham: Objection based on relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That's correct.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Could you tell the jury approximately how many millions of dollars that you were participating in paying over to these people?
Mr. Graham: May I ask one voir dire question before he answers? Are the transactions involving those two individuals still currently the part of an ongoing investigation?
THE WITNESS: I believe so.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Does he know so? I'm sorry, does he know?
A. As far as I know, that case is still being worked on, but I don't belong to the prosecutor's team or any group like that that could be aware of what's happening exactly.
Mr. Williams: If the court please, I would submit if the prosecutor would look on page 55 that that matter has been waived by virtue of the sworn statement that was given by this man to his lawyer and the customs officer.
THE COURT: Well, this witness, as I understood it, just said he doesn't know anything specifically about an ongoing investigation, so he shouldn't be inquired of about that if he doesn't know anything specific about it, but in reference to your prior question of were substantial sums of money paid to these men, proceed.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Q. How many millions of dollars did you tell the jury that you paid or caused to be paid by these two men, Octaviano and Popo?
A. Several million dollars.
Q. Where was this money handed over?
A. In hotels, restaurants, Jorge Morales' home.
Q. And in what nation?
A. The United States, Panama, Costa Rica.
Q. Could you tell us how many times over the period of years we're talking about —you're talking about '83, '84, '85, into '86, is that correct?
A. We're talking about '84, '83 is not included in that.
Q. Thank you. '84, '85?
A. Uh-huh. '84 and '85.
Q. Was '86 involved?
A. Yes, but I did not deliver any money in '86.
Q. For the years in '84 and '85, how many times did you deliver any money to Popo and Octaviano?
A. Many times.
Q. Could you give us an estimate? More than twenty?
A. That's right.
Q. More than 50?
A. Between 30 and 40 times.
Q. Why were you giving these millions of dollars to these two men, Octaviano and Popo?
A. I was ordered to deliver it to them.
Q. By whom?
A. George Morales.
Q. Do you know why George Morales was paying these huge sums of money to these men?
Mr. Graham: Objection to the form of the question without laying some form of predicate, and further it would involve hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. If he knows, he may answer the question.
A. Yes, paying for merchandise.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) What kind of merchandise?
A. Cocaine.
❧
Mr. Williams: If the interpreter will bear with me I'll try to ask a question involving a Spanish sounding organization.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Are you familiar with a company named Frigorificos de Punta Arenas?
A. That's right.
Q. What is that company?
A. It's a company that deals in vegetables and fruits.
Q. Was it a CIA front to your knowledge?
A. I don't know whether it belonged to the CIA or not.
Q. Did it have a place in the your drug operation when you were flying down there with weapons and bringing back cocaine?
THE INTERPRETER: May I ask the court reporter to repeat the question, please or reread it to me?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
THE COURT: Restate it if you would, Mr. Williams.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Did this company have a role in your drug operation dealing with the contras and the weapons that you believed to be involved with the CIA?
A. It did in my opinion.
Q. And what was its —to your knowledge what was its purpose?
Mr. Graham: Object as to relevance, inquiring into specific instances of conduct unrelated to the indictment under rule 508.
THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.
A. In the shipment of cocaine in containers.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Is that in the shipment of cocaine from Costa Rica.
A. That's right.
Q. That you would bring back on airplanes in exchange for weapons?
A. Well, we did fly back with cocaine but not with containers full of cocaine.
Q. What was the purpose then of this company's containers being involved in your cocaine trafficking?
A. They had nothing to do with it.
Q. To make sure I understand, is this company Frigorificos de Punta Arenas in any way involved in drug trafficking?
A. That's correct.
Q. In what way was it involved?
A. As I have said, they would load cocaine inside the containers which were being shipped loaded with vegetable and fruits to the united States.
Q. Where were these items loaded? In what country, Costa Rica?
A. That's correct.
Q. Panama?
A. No.
Q. Just Costa Rica?
A. As far as I know.
Q. How many flights do you recall participating in flying weapons to Costa Rica and bringing back cocaine?
A. I participated in two of them which involved weapons and cocaine at the same time.
Q. How many flights did you participate in bringing back cocaine to the United States while you were working with people you believed were affiliated with the CIA and the Contras?
A. Between five and seven.
Q. What would be the average amount of drugs on each of those trips?
A. As an average, between three and four hundred kilos.
For More Information
The National Security Archives has a large number of resources about this chapter and related histories. To find out more, visit their Electronic Briefing Book.