Time: Fri Nov 08 12:40:31 1996 To: Tom Clark <clarktj@valley-internet.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY Cc: Bcc: Tom, Got this. Thanks. I am inundated with inbound email; had 15MB waiting for me when I returned from Billings, so I probably missed this the first time. Thanks for re-sending. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:13 AM 11/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, > >Ok, I'll dig it up. I already sent it to you once though. Look at it from >a procedural standpoint. > >~Tom Clark > > >Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:03:41 -0400 >From: HPBIII@aol.com >To: Eplurib@first.megalinx.net, Ohmegaman@aol.com >Subject: Fwd: Macon, GA: Important Motion Filed > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: league@macon.mindspring.com (Citizens' Defense) >To: butterb@connecti.com (Bill Utterback) >Date: 96-08-12 18:17:05 EDT > >The folling motion requesting evidence from the U.S. Government, necessary >for the legal defense >of Robert Starr III, concerning information related to the Centennial Park >bombing in Atlanta on >July 27, 1996 was filed at the Federal Court Building (Clerk of Court's >office) in Macon, Georgia at >3:06 p.m. EST on Aug 12th 1996. > >As a matter of public record, this information is now made available for >public review.... > >IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT >FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA >MACON DIVISION > > >UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) > ) > Plaintiff ) > ) > vs. ) CASE NO. 5:96-CR-21-DF > ) > Robert Starr, III ) > ) > Defendant ) >________________________ ) > > MOTION FOR INFORMATION NEEDED > FOR DEFENSE > > COMES NOW, the accused, Robert Starr, III, and respectfully requests >that the Court order >that the accused be provided a copy of materials concerning the >investigation of the July 27, 1996 >bombing of Olympic Centennial Park, and for reasons the accused shows the >Court the following: > 10. > On July 27, 1996, at approximately 1:40 a.m., a bomb exploded at >Olympic Centennial Park. >Later that morning, it was confirmed that it was a pipe bomb made of a >galvanized steel pipe. > 11. > The accused and his co-accused were all incarcerated at the time. > 12. > The accused is aware of two individuals in the Georgia area who are >known to enjoy talking >about bombs (especially pipe bombs), making bombs, encouraging others to >make bombs and >plant bomb-making components onto other people's property. These >individuals (Possible >Suspects PS #62 and PS #63), unlike the accused and his co-accuseds who are >incarcerated, >were at large on July 27, 1996, and remain so today. > 13. > The affinity for bombs of one of the suspects is documented by >government's exhibits recently >provided to the accused, specifically Tape #7. > 14. > The suspects, PS #62 and PS #63 are not trained, badge wearing agents, >but are free-lancers >involved in a BATF "dirty tricks" campaign. They have yet to be named by >the government as >witnesses, and the government has refused to disclose their names. The >defense is only aware of >aliases used by these individuals in this investigation. > 15. > At the bond hearing of April 29, 1996, Special Agent Stephen Gillis >testified that there was no >connection between this case any "plot" associated with the Olympics. > 16. > The Affidavit for the telephone tap on Paul Sullivan, submitted under >seal contains an alleged >statement by PS # 62 and PS #63 (a/k/a CI-1 and CI-2) concerning a January >6, 1996 meeting >of the Georgia militia that attempts to associate them with such a "plot." >(Affid. Walker, at 5) > 17. > The Affidavit for the telephone tap on Paul Sullivan, submitted under >seal, contains numerous >false statements by a jail house informant "CI-4". The accused never made >these statements, >and they could only have been elicited at the suggestions of the >interviewer. (Affid. Walker, at 13) > 18. > Alleged statements by an individual named as "CI-5" further attempt to >tie the accused to plans >to be carried out at the time of the Olympics. (Affid. Walker, at 15) > 19. > These statements were made by these informants prior to June 12, 1996, >which was clearly >prior to July 27, 1996. In light of the totality of circumstances >surrounding this case, this suggests >the frightening possibility that a plan by PS #62 and PS #63 to link the >accused to a terrorist act at >the Olympics, which they themselves would perpetrate. > 20. > The accused has offered publicly to assist the F.B.I. in its >investigation, along with members of >his defense team, and these offers have not been accepted. > 21. > To date, no arrest has been made in the Olympic Park bombing in spite >of the numerous >cameras in the vicinity of the bomb. > 22. > To date, there has been no denial by the F.B.I. or any other government >official, that PS #62 >and PS #63 were involved in the bombing. > 23. > Death threats have been recieved, through F.B.I. officials, by both the >accused, just before his >arrest, and J.J. Johnson, the later during the time Mr. Johnson was >attempting to have PS #62 and >PS #63 brought in for questioning. In light of the totality of the >circumstances of this case, it >appears that these individuals arrange, through their law enforcement >contacts, to frighten those >who might expose their illegal activities. > 24. > To defend himself against allegations that the accused was associated >with the Olympic Park >bombing, the accused must explore the possiblity that the bombing was >perpetrated or connected >by his accusers, Danny and Kevin Barker. To do so, he will require copies of >the following: > 1) The 911 tapes of the calls placed to the Atlanta police department >at approximately 1:00 a.m. >on July 27, 1996, which warned of a bomb to explode at Centennial Park; > > 2) All surveillance photos and videotape of individuals seen in that >area; > > 3) All photos and videotapes submitted by tourists to assist in the >investigation; > > 4) All composite sketches prepared in the course of the investigation. > > WHEREFORE, the accused, Robert Starr, III, respectfully requests that >the materials listed >herein be provided forthwith. > > MEMORANDUM OF LAW > Beyond a reasonable doubt has been the standard for criminal trials >since In re Winship, 397 >U.S. 358, 364 (1970): > > "Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the >reasonable-doubt standard, >we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against >conviction > except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to >constitute the crime >with which he is charged." > > The fundamental principle of fairness in a criminal trial is that the >Defendant can be found guilty >only upon evidence that leads the jury to find him guilty beyond a >reasonable doubt. > "[T]he reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the >respect and confidence of >the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the >moral force of the criminal >law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt >whether innocent men are >being condemned." > >Because this is a federal standard, no state can drop below. No state can >institute a standard of >51% certainty, a scintilla of evidence, or clear and convincing evidence. A >constitutionally >deficient reasonable doubt instruction is reversible error because there is >no jury verdict within the >meaning of the Sixth Amendment without a proper reasonable doubt >instruction. Sullivan v. >Louisiana 113 S.Ct. 2078, 61 U.S.L.W. 4518, 4519. > > Reasonable doubt is determined by the evidence. It is not a vague or >capricious notion, but a >doubt based upon reason. It is a doubt that would cause you to hesitate in >the most important >affairs. Holland v. United States 348 U.S. 121, 126 (1954). If one is not >morally certain and >convinced of guilt of the accused, that person has a doubt based on reason. >Such a doubt arises >from the lack of evidence, unsatisfactory evidence, a conflict in the >evidence, or a want of evidence. > The Defense must be able to review the breath of the government >investigation and all the >information generated during its course. The possible suspects, PS #62 and >PS #63, are the >accused's primary accusers, and he has the right to their compulsory process >under the Sixth >Amendment. U.S.C.A. VI. The possibility that they were planning a much more >serious "sting" and >attempted on their own to carry that out in spite of the incarceration of >their victims, goes to the >heart of their credibility. This is the reason the full extent of any deals >between an informant and >the goverment must be produced under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 >(1972). Brady v. >Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) requires that exculpatory material be provided, >and information that >could link these accusers with a serious explosive incident is plainly >exculpatory. > >Part of the theory of the defense of this accused will be that the >informants were the true >perpetrators of any unlawful acts. This would provide an alternative >explanation for facts that might >otherwise incriminate the accused. The possiblity of their involvement in >the Centennial Park >bombing would demonstrate a motive for such conduct which will be essential >to his defense. It >appears that the government has failed to explore that very real >possiblity. > >The Defense has a right to know, and the government has an obligation to >provide, what the >government did not do or failed to do; what they did and obtained results >that were inconclusive or >indicated that the person was not culpable. On the totality of the evidence >in the government's >possession, that evidence which gives an inference of guilt must be compared >to the evidence that >they tried to obtain in the same area. The later infers innocence and >must be revealed in discovery. > > Respectfully submitted, > > > _________________________ > NANCY LORD > Attorney for Defendant > >P.O.B. 7223 >Macon, Georgia 31209-7223 >912-788-6272 > > > CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ommited for pubilc distribution) > > > > > >At 03:02 PM 11/7/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >>>Greg, et al., >>> >>>You wrote: >>> >>>>I don't know how many were following this trial. And I wonder who managed to >>>>buy the jury. >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>I wonder how much the jury got to hear? At any rate, I saw one piece of >>>court paperwork (transcribed for the Internet) alleged to have been filed in >>>behalf of the defendants. I must say I was less than pleased with what I saw. >>> >>>The document in particular sought court ordered discovery outside the >>>possession of the plaintiff and outside the scope of the complaint (in my >>>opinion, at least). To most folks I imagine that it seemed like a big >>>cover-up, but to me I wondered what in the heck the defense was doing. The >>>defense should've known -- despite the "feelings" amongst the militia -- THE >>>RULES AND PROPER BOUNDS REGARDING DISCOVERY. >>> >>>Was it counsel's tactic to write up paperwork knowing it would get denied >>>with the intent of getting the militia riled over a percieved injustice? I >>>can't say, but whatever the reason, I knew that the Georgia Bombers were in >>>trouble. >>> >>>I am not saying that Starr and company were shafted by their defense team, >>>nor I am saying the defense team was incompetent. I am saying that I -- as >>>someone who dearly wanted to see Starr and company acquitted -- observed >>>paperwork that allegedly came from the defense team that I considered to be >>>"frivolous". >> >>Tom, >> >>Would you be so kind as to >>forward me this frivolous >>paperwork? I may be getting >>involved in this case, and I >>want an outside opinion first. >> >>Many thanks. >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >>> >>>I guess my point of bringing this up is that "patriots" (accused or not) >>>really need to be careful of the possibility of being manipulated by >>>"patriot attorneys". In particular to this case, I will go so far as to say >>>that I don't think the jury had to be bought off. >> >>Not if the government admitted, >>on the witness stand, that the >>evidence was planted on the >>defendant's private property! >> >>I mean, REALLY!! >> >> >>> >>> >>>~Tom Clark >> >>=========================================================== >>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>=========================================================== >> >> > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail