Time: Mon Oct 28 15:52:36 1996 To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com> (by way of Bill Utterback <butterb@connecti.com>) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: piml] Second Week Cc: Bcc: ack At 03:00 PM 10/28/96 -0600, you wrote: >TO: MACON COURT LIST > >DATE: October 27, 1996 > >SUBJECT: Second Week > >-------------------------------------------------- > >The trial has now been going on for two weeks, and >so far the evidence is exactly what we already knew. >There have been no surprises, other than the utter >clarity of the baseless nature of the charges. >Both Ms. Buafo and I thought that they would >at least present testimony, even if it was not >believable, that the accuseds had contemplated even >a little of what was charged. Quite the contrary, >the materials that Ms. Buafo received at the >beginning of the trial only helped the defense. > >For instance, Danny and Kevin Barker earned $50,000 >of tax dollars for their "work" in this case. That >is just for them, and does not count all of the >money spent on out-of-town Marshalls staying at a >luxury hotel, "evidence" like ANFO, that nobody is >even alleged to have had, countless interviews by >a dozen or so BATF agents, and the salaries of >Sharon Ratley and Sam Wilson for a case that has >taken most of their time for the past six months. > >A congressional oversight hearing appears to be in >order. > >Ms. Buafo's cross-examination of Danny Barker was >spectacular, and should be used to teach law >students in the future. She has done an heroic job >of thoroughly learning a serious, complicated case >in less than a month. > >Ms. Buafo began by going over Barker's BATF contract >point by point. He was not to engage in or promote >illegal activity, and this would include carrying >a firearm by a convicted felon. Though apparently >well-trained on direct and speaking to the jury, on >cross examination he often stared befuddled at his >questioner as he tried to get his story straight. > >Barker mixed up meeting dates and did not know who >was at which. He could not corroborate Mr. >Faglier's testimony about a January meeting because >he did not remember meeting Mr. Faglier. Then he >made the absurd statement that if "he was there and >I was there I remember him." Jurors' eyes started >roll. Barker had no explanation for why some >meetings were taped and others were not. Government >attorneys heads went into their hands as they >watched their case crumble like the house of cards >that it always was. Jurors looked bored, and were >probably left wondering why they are being >sequestered over this. > >Mr. Barker denied having any idea that Robert Starr >was investigating him, and was surprised when asked >if he knew that he could be charged for his own >activities on this case. > >The Judge is considering a dismissal of the charge >under the assault weapons ban. It involves a >"conspicuous" pistol grip that protrudes less than >it did at purchase, and a "flash suppressor" that >is really only a recoil compensator, fully legal and >available for purchase today. > >But the high point of the day was Ms. Buafo's >closing line of questions of Danny Barker. She went >through each count of the indictment, and asked him >directly if Robert Starr had ever done or planned >the act. In each count, he admitted, "No, Ma'am," >until he got to the possession of explosives, Count >IV. Barker then stated, "only what was on his >property." > >Ms. Buafo then asked "You mean the ones you planted >there?" > >Barker responded, "Yes Ma'am." > >On Saturday, there were a series of technical >experts on such crucial matters as Mr. Starr's >handwriting, and fingerprints of "explosives" that >did not contain any of Mr. Starr. Few questions >were asked on cross. > >The government will probably wrap things up by mid- >week next. Witnesses may include Kevin Barker, a >wild-eyed nut case. Then the defense will be >presented for counts that survive an motion for >judgment of acquittal. > >Our only disappointment has been the low turnout of >supporters. Of course, few people can be away from >their jobs and families for a month. But now that >it's almost over, please come and support those on >trial. Their bravery in fighting this out will protect the >1st and 2nd Amendment rights of us all. Appropriate >dress, preferably suits and dresses, is requested. > >-------------------------------------------------- >This posting is written by Liberty Defense League >in an effort to continue bringing news of the case >to those who are interested. We do not speak on >behalf of either Mr. Starr or Ms. Buafo. >-------------------------------------------------- > >In Liberty >Nancy Lord >Attorney at Law >P.O. Box 7223 >Macon, Ga 31209-7223 >(912) 788-6272 >(912) 785-1809 Fax >defense@mindspring.com > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail