PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

MR. ROM: All right. Thank you that's all I have.
MR. OSTERMAN: A – a – I wanted to also add initially I had some concerns that I shared with
– with -um- –uh- Mr. Haeg and we began pouring through the file –uh- those concerns became
relieved.
MR. ROM: Except when you say concerns – concerns a – about the actions his previous – or
his prior lawyers had taken
MR. OSTERMAN: Yes.
MR. ROM: And as you went through...
MR. OSTERMAN: Except one of the things that happened in this case is we began talking – if
the things that he told me were true then I would be greatly concerned
and express those concerns to him. But as we began going through the record it
became clear to me that there was another course being taken.
MR. ROM: And what do you mean by that
MR. OSTERMAN: Yeah I began...–Uh- I'm sorry.
MR. ROM: What do you mean by another course was being taken
MR. OSTERMAN: Well you know what – what could have appeared to have been –uhmalicious
act by one attorney –uh- could be explained by the inaction of the client.
MR. ROM: All right. In the end –uh- in the final assessment did you determine that his
lawyers –uh- had acted in his interest and at his direction
MR. OSTERMAN: Not necessarily I felt strongly that there was an
ineffective assistance claim –uh- in – with at least regard one attorney
and in fact I felt that it was a necessary issue to raise –uh- in the
appellate level and that was a part of the discussion that I had with Mr.
Haeg is to how to present that particular issue.
MR. ROM: And did you explain to him that he could not bring –uh- ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in a – on a direct appeal
237