Court Record Regarding Lawrence Myers

Jump to:

1. Lawrence Myers provided information in other FBI cases

2. Lawrence Myers' military records indicate "ongoing psychiatric problem"

3. Military documents show "mixed personality disorder" and recommendation for discharge

4. Lawrence Myers spent time in an Oakland psychiatric hospital.

5. Lawrence Myers' books on bomb-making.

Other Records:
California Police Records on Lawrence Myers

Lawrence Myers Pleads Guilty to Grand Theft

                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
2                              LONDON


                                     CRIMINAL #96-00060
5               PLAINTIFF,

6     VERSUS                        LONDON, KENTUCKY
                                     APRIL 10, 1997
7                                   10:03 A.M.


9               DEFENDANT.


              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a jury

16                                   MR. MARTIN HATFIELD
                                     ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS
17                                   110 WEST VINE ST.
                                     LEXINGTON, KY  40507
19                                   ATTORNEY AT LAW
20                                   [

       P.O. BOX 5161
23     LONDON, KY  40745
       (606) 878-8450

                                                    Page 1


2 APRIL 10, 1997

3 10:03 A.M.

4 THE CLERK: London Criminal Number 96-60, United

5 States of America versus Chalmer C. Hayes.

6 THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect

7 that the defendant is present. His attorney is Mike Dean,

8 and his additional attorney - would you stand and introduce

9 yourself?

10 MR. MILLER: Yes, Your Honor, I'm Marvin Miller,

11 I'm from Alexandria, Virginia. I understand you have

12 allowed me to appear pro hoc vice, and appreciate that very

13 much.

14 THE COURT: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Miller,

15 and welcome.

16 And the United States is represented by Martin Hatfield

17 and Pat Molloy, Assistant United States Attorneys.

18 Mr. Miller and Mr. Dean, you have filed some motions and

19 you have asked for a hearing. And I granted your request

20 for a hearing. And I will let you argue your motions.

21 MR. MILLER: All right. Your Honor, as I

22 understand it, if I might, the issues today are the

23 discovery matter and the matters related to that, and then

24 we were to schedule a remaining hearing after the conclusion

25 of today's proceedings. Am I correct?


Page 2

1 THE COURT: No, this is a hearing - you asked for

2 a motion - asked for a hearing on --

3 MR. MILLER: Discovery.

4 THE COURT: On discovery and that's what this

5 hearing is about.

6 MR. MILLER: All right. Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: As far as I know, you haven't asked

8 for a hearing on any other motions and I haven't seen

9 reference to having a hearing on them.

10 MR. MILLER: All right. If I might do a

11 housekeeping matter before we get to the discovery issue.

12 We had filed a request for return of various property

13 that was taken at the time of his arrest. It's not evidence

14 in the case. I understand it's not being used for anything

15 else. I sent a draft order to the U.S. Attorney's office

16 listing specifically the items at issue. My understanding

17 is they have no problem with that. If I'm wrong, I'm sure

18 they will correct me right now. If I'm not wrong, may I

19 tender that to the Court so that that that may be done as a

20 housekeeping matter, Your Honor?

21 THE COURT: All right.

22 MR. MILLER: Thank you.

23 THE COURT: Give it to the marshal and he can give

24 it to me and I can let Mr. Hatfield or Mr. Molloy address

25 that when they have time to respond.


Page 3

1 (A document was shown to the Court)

2 MR. MILLER: All right. Your Honor, I would like

3 to call Agent Brannan, if I might, in support of the

4 discovery motion for the defense.

5 THE COURT: All right. Agent Brannan, if you will

6 take the stand, please.




10 THE COURT: Agent Brannan, please use that

11 microphone so that everyone can hear you. And go ahead and

12 state your name and spell your last name for the record.

13 THE WITNESS: Stephen Brannan, S-T-E-P-H-E-N,

14 B-R-A-N-N-A-N.

15 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

16 Mr. Miller, if you would, use the microhone as well so

17 that you can be heard.

18 MR. MILLER: Yes, I will, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: All right.

20 MR. MILLER: Thank you.



23 Q. All right. Agent Brannan, now, where is your office?

24 A. Birmingham, Alabama.

25 Q. All right. How long have you been in the Birmingham


Page 4

1 office?

2 A. Since January 1984.

3 Q. All right. And have you been stationed elsewhere prior

4 to that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. How long have you been with the FBI?

7 A. Next month is my 25th anniversary.

8 Q. All right. And would you please for the record indicate

9 whether or not you hold any particular title or position

10 within the office, within the bureau's bureaucracy?

11 A. I'm a Special Agent and I am coordinator for crisis

12 negotiations. I'm a police instructor.

13 Q. All right. Now, during the years you have been with

14 the - with that agency, there have come occasions, I take

15 it, where you may yourself have had the to engage in

16 undercover operations as an undercover person yourself?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And that spanned various times and various types of

19 cases during your 25 years of experience; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. Now, during the time that you have been in

22 that situation, you have also had situations, I take it,

23 where you have taken an individual who was a subject of that

24 investigative activity and turned them to work with the

25 federal government as a cooperating person; isn't that


Page 5

1 correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And in doing that, you have also had an occasion to have

4 them continue without revealing that they are cooperating,

5 so they are, in a sense, if I might use the term, acting

6 undercover for the agency in an investigation.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, have you ever had had an occasion as well, sir, to

9 be involved in circumstances where an individual who was a

10 charged defendant, and maybe it wasn't so well known that

11 they had been arrested and charged, turned out to be a

12 cooperating individual and was - and worked with other

13 people that were targets of the investigation?

14 A. Possibly. I don't recall any such instance off the top

15 of my head, but I think that's - it's possible that that

16 might have happened a few times in my 25 years.

17 Q. All right. Now, when people act as informants, whether

18 they are charged or uncharged, but are working in some sort

19 of undercover capacity as opposed to someone who just

20 provides information, they generally have what's called a

21 control agent, don't they?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I might not be using exactly the precise term, but

24 something to that effect, who is sort of in charge of that

25 individual to see that they get directions to what they are


Page 6

1 supposed to do, investigate information and so on; is that

2 right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right. Now, you are an instructor, so I'm sure that

5 you are aware there has been a fair amount of study into how

6 you proceed to handle people in that circumstance and how

7 you develop them and get them to work for the agency and

8 help advance investigations; isn't that fair to say?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. All right. And you not only teach, but before you were

11 teaching, when you went to the FBI academy and refresher

12 courses and so on, it's something that agents are taught how

13 to do on a regular basis so that they are updated on more

14 up-to-date tactics and techniques and also on bureau policy.

15 Isn't that fair to say?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, when dealing with an individual in that capacity,

18 that is as an undercover operative, informant or whatever,

19 depending on the give case - everything I'm sure is

20 different, there is no ironclad way it - it has to be

21 flexible, but there are general rules and policies, aren't

22 there?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, an individual in that capacity is generally given a

25 sort of a written document where they have to agree that


Page 7

1 they are not going to commit crimes, they are going to keep

2 their control person informed of what they are doing, they

3 are going to cooperate and agree to take direction from

4 their control and so on, and they are not going to reveal

5 their status to the outside world so that the investigation

6 is compromised, et cetera; isn't that right?

7 A. There is no document that they are shown or asked to

8 sign to that effect, but they are advised orally by the

9 agent of those type - of that type information.

10 Q. All right. Now, when an individual is reporting to an

11 agent and they are having a meeting and say, okay, what did

12 you learn last weekend when you were out with these folks,

13 the agent generally prepares what's called an FBI - in the

14 FBI a 302 report, so that if there is a trial two or three

15 years down the road, six or eight months down the road, that

16 contacts with the witness, you will have a record of it for

17 use by the prosecutors, other agents and the like; isn't

18 that true?

19 A. If the agent feels that what is being reported might be

20 testimony in court, a 302 is done.

21 THE COURT: Mr. Miller, excuse me. Had we not

22 already had a trial in this case, I might permit a more

23 broad ranging hearing such as the one apparently which you

24 are developing. You have a motion for additional discovery

25 at the trial, which is a highly unusual motion. Get to the


Page 8

1 point, please.

2 MR. MILLER: I am, Your Honor. Thank you.


4 Q. Now, you indicated in your testimony at the trial,

5 though I couldn't find a specific request for it made at

6 trial, that you had had prior contact with Mr. Myers in

7 three or four other cases where he had provided information;

8 do you recall that testimony?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And that was correct, wasn't it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, in some of those other cases where he provided

13 information to you, were 302's generated?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did he ever actually turn out to be a witness in any of

16 those three or four other cases?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Were cases generated as a result of those three or four

19 other cases, other instances?

20 A. He was reporting on information - information on cases

21 that were already opened except for, I believe, one other

22 case where a case was opened based on what he had furnished.

23 Q. Now, so the record is clear, that's separate and apart

24 from this case?

25 A. Yes.


Page 9

1 Q. So - so there was one that was opened as a consequence

2 and there were maybe three others where there was

3 information about ongoing existing investigations?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And 302's were generated there?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. Have those cases reached a point where the

8 decision has been made as to whether he would or would not

9 be a witness? Maybe there had been a trial and the trial is

10 over and he wasn't used, for example.

11 A. Some of each, you know.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. Some of them have --

14 THE COURT: Mr. Miller, again, this is not the

15 discovery which you seek.

16 MR. MILLER: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: No, this is not. This is not your

18 opportunity for discovery. You have a motion here for

19 additional discovery.

20 MR. MILLER: Yes, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: This is not your opportunity for

22 discovery. We're not here for a discovery deposition.

23 Now, apparently you have some points to make through

24 testimony that additional evidence exists, not - not that

25 you are here asking whether it exists. You have some points


Page 10

1 to make that additional evidence exists that you wish to

2 persuade the Court to give to you. So let's ask a few

3 leading questions. You establish the existence of that

4 additional evidence, and then we'll go forward from there.

5 But I'm not going to permit you to take a discovery

6 deposition of Agent Brannan right now.

7 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, if I might, I know the

8 answers to every question I have asked but I need to put the

9 answers in the record, and I need to do it through a witness

10 rather than through my testimony.

11 THE COURT: All right. Let's pause here just a

12 moment then and you make an offer of proof right now as to

13 what it is you are trying to establish.

14 MR. MILLER: Well, I just established, I hope,

15 that there are 302's about other cases that exist relative

16 to Mr. Myers where he gave statements about other

17 individuals. And when we get to my argument, I'm going to

18 be arguing --

19 THE COURT: Well, you are giving me your argument

20 right now. That's not what I am asking for. I want to know

21 what other evidence exists that you think you should be able

22 do discovery. Now you say there are 302's in other cases in

23 which Mr. Myers was used. What other evidence is there?

24 MR. MILLER: He'll testify that there was an

25 effort to do an initial inquiry or suitability inquiry into


Page 11

1 Myers as a potential, regular, on-line informant. He'll

2 explain what that is.

3 THE COURT: We've already had that testimony and I

4 already know what it is because I have seen the documents.

5 MR. MILLER: All right. I have not --

6 THE COURT: New evidence is what I am interested

7 in

8 MR. MILLER: I have not seen the documents of that

9 suitability inquiry. I think he will testify that Mr. Myers

10 was not accepted as a suitable --

11 THE COURT: He's already testified to at the

12 trial.

13 MR. MILLER: I did not see that testimony in the

14 record, Your Honor. I saw --

15 THE COURT: Am I mistaken?

16 MR. MILLER: I read the transcript and all I saw

17 was questions about this was gun begun and the subject was

18 dropped and was not followed up. Why I wanted him here

19 today, because it needed to be followed up to build a

20 factual predicate for my request. If it's in the record, I

21 did not see it. I apologize.

22 THE COURT: Let me set the stage for you just a

23 bit. It's my recollection, and maybe I'm wrong, that we had

24 a newspaper reporter, I believe, from Morristown, Tennessee,

25 who even handedly sent the prosecution and defense a large


Page 12

1 packet of information. The day on which that was received,

2 I think the parties reviewed it and the next morning

3 promptly advised me that it had been received. It was on

4 that day that I granted a continuance of some eight to 10

5 days to review that material and for the defense to conduct

6 any necessary information that might stem from having

7 reviewed that material.

8 Toward the end of that continuance period, I think it

9 was on a Friday, maybe a Thursday, the government filed an

10 ex parte motion asking me to look at certain documents and

11 decide whether they had to turn those documents over. The

12 next day, on Friday, I believe, all afternoon I had

13 Mr. Molloy and Mr. Hatfield in chambers going through those

14 documents, and I ruled that those documents needed to be

15 given to the defense attorney either that evening or the

16 next morning. I got the defense attorney into the hearing

17 by phone. I advised the defense attorney that I had gone

18 over certain documents and that they were being given to him

19 and he chose to get them the next morning rather than that

20 evening. Part of those documents involved this suitability

21 inquiry. And it is my recollection that one of the things

22 which are I told the government that - that the defendant

23 had to be advised was that the United States - the FBI had

24 looked at Mr. Myers in the suitability inquiry and had

25 rejected him because they couldn't control him. And I seem


Page 13

1 to be to recall that that was testimony at trial.

2 Maybe I'm wrong. But so far, I - I do hear that there

3 are 302's in other cases in which Mr. Myers was used, but I

4 don't hear anything new in your suitability inquiry.

5 Now, let me ask Mr. Molloy, is my memory correct on, on

6 both the continuance and when we had the hearing and the

7 nature of the testimony that came out later?

8 MR. MOLLOY: I believe so, yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Okay.

10 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I have looked at the

11 record, and that he was rejected was not in there that I

12 saw. And in what I received from former defense counsel, I

13 saw nothing --

14 THE COURT: It was in there. It was in there.

15 That's - he's already testified to this at trial.

16 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I have seen no records or

17 documents that --

18 THE COURT: You will just have to look at the

19 record again, Mr. Miller.

20 Now, tell me what else that you believe is new evidence

21 that you think you can adduce from Agent Brannan.

22 MR. MILLER: Well, Your Honor, just on this issue,

23 Your Honor, on page 173, when Mr. Hatfield made --

24 THE COURT: Mr. Miller, I'm sorry, but I am not

25 going to go through the transcript with you. I will tell


Page 14

1 you there were certain reasons I believed those documents

2 should come in, and one of the reasons was that I thought

3 this jury that heard this trial was entitled to know that

4 the FBI had considered making Mr. Myers a confidential

5 informant and had done a suitability inquiry and had

6 rejected him. And so that testimony, I thought I

7 remembered, was - was adduced at trial. And Mr. Molloy says

8 I'm correct in that. So you will just have to look at the

9 transcript again. I'm not going to go through it page by

10 page with you now.

11 Now, tell me what other evidence that is new that this

12 jury did not hear is out there that you think you should

13 discover.

14 MR. MILLER: I do not know that the defense,

15 however, received those records. I - I don't know - see the

16 testimony in the record. It may be. I read it and didn't

17 find it. And I have never seen the records. So I think the

18 records are producible. I know that part --

19 THE COURT: We have been through the records. You

20 should be given - you should have been given a set of

21 documents which had been redacted to eliminate reference to

22 other cases, and if you haven't, that's a transition problem

23 on the defense team.

24 However, I will tell Mr. Hatfield that I would like for

25 him to look and see if he can make another copy of that


Page 15

1 packet of information and give it to you so as to - so as to

2 bring you up to speed. But I will tell you that the defense

3 was advised that he had been considered and was rejected,

4 and defense was not entitled, in my estimation, to

5 references about other cases. And if you disagree, you will

6 just have to ask the Court of Appeals to look at that.

7 MR. MILLER: I understand.

8 THE COURT: Let's move on to the next issue --

9 MR. MILLER: Your Honor --

10 THE COURT: The next issue is what other documents

11 are out there or what other information is out there that is

12 new that you think you are entitled to discover.

13 MR. MILLER: There is an indication in Myers'

14 military record, a portion of it which was provided, that

15 there - that in his 201 file - and the agent would testify

16 that a 201 file is a military personnel record file that

17 contains the whole military life of anybody who serves in

18 the armed services.

19 He would further testify that such 201 files as to Myers

20 are sometimes available to the FBI when they are doing

21 investigations, such as if Myers was a suspect in a bombing

22 case or other sort of criminal activity; and that they have

23 not looked at his 201 file; and that in the initial

24 information they did receive, there was an indicia that he

25 had had psychiatric evaluations in the military that


Page 16

1 established a permanent, current, ongoing psychiatric

2 problem and that there was a consideration of - and I do not

3 know because do not have the records - of an administrative

4 discharge from the military.

5 That is inconsistent with Myers' testimony and I

6 believe, from my exploration with psychiatrists, might lead

7 to the use of expert testimony to impeach Myers'

8 credibility. And for other reasons. I'll get to the legal

9 argument why. But those records exist. They have not been

10 explored.

11 THE COURT: All right. Let me - let me just stop

12 there for a minute. With regard to Mr. Myers' military

13 records, I will admit my memory is not as specific and I'm

14 going to ask either Mr. Hatfield or Mr. Molloy, remind me

15 what documents you did give to defense counsel and what

16 testimony came in about that.

17 MR. HATFIELD: All right, Your Honor. We turned

18 over a letter dated February 14th, 1980, that had comments

19 on it concerning Mr. Myers about what his diagnosis was, I

20 suppose, would be the simplest way to put it. And we filed

21 all of this in the record, as the Court will recall. There

22 should be a sealed file that was a - a copy of all of this

23 prior to being redacted. And then there also should be

24 redacted copies.

25 THE COURT: All right. In the redacted copy, what


Page 17

1 references were - just generally, what references were --

2 MR. HATFIELD: I don't think we redacted documents

3 1 and 2, as I've got them marked, and they should be marked

4 the same way in the record.

5 THE COURT: You don't think that those were

6 redacted?

7 MR. HATFIELD: I don't think that those were

8 redacted.

9 THE COURT: The military documents were given over

10 in full, in other words?

11 MR. HATFIELD: I think so, Your Honor, is to the

12 best of my --

13 THE COURT: All right, sir.

14 MR. HATFIELD: And I've got them right here. One

15 is this letter from a William F. Shivers, S-H-I-V-E-R-S.

16 And then there was another document attached to - two more

17 pages attached to that. And that was pretty much it on the

18 military history.

19 THE COURT: All right.

20 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, he --

21 THE COURT: Just a minute, let me ask a question.

22 MR. MILLER: Sorry.

23 THE COURT: Didn't one of those documents

24 indicate -- Well, I have them right here in front of me.

25 MR. HATFIELD: Mixed personality disorder.


Page 18

1 Strongly recommended that this individual be considered for

2 administrative separation. Said generally these disorders

3 are lifelong and deeply ingrained maladaptive patterns of

4 behavior.

5 THE COURT: And that document was turned over to

6 the defense?


8 THE COURT: All right.

9 MR. HATFIELD: It's all laid out here exactly

10 what, in my opinion, what a summary would be of any records

11 that the army may have on him and his mental condition.

12 THE COURT: All right.

13 MR. HATFIELD: My recollection of trial is that

14 the defense was not able to delve into this because the

15 Court ruled - and I gave the Court a case, I think, out of

16 New York, whatever circuit that is.

17 THE COURT: Second Circuit.

18 MR. HATFIELD: Second Circuit, and it set out some

19 guidance that - like three factors that the Court should use

20 in making a determination about issues like this. And I

21 think the Court found this being back in 1980 and not - and

22 finding also that since there was no evidence that this

23 still existed at the time of the instant case some 16 years

24 later, that the defense could not get into this issue.

25 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.


Page 19

1 MR. MILLER: Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MR. MILLER: The witness would testify that what

4 you do have is not the complete record, it's only a partial,

5 it's the tip of the iceberg. And the witness would further

6 testify that there are a lot more records that are involved.

7 And if you recall the Ake case, Ake versus Oklahoma

8 case, where they recognized that the conclusion to which

9 they make reference here is certainly subjective, says the

10 Supreme Court, and that in those circumstances defense

11 attorneys are always entitled in that case, in an indigent

12 case, to the appointment of an expert so that they can see

13 whether or not the subjective view on which a prosecutor

14 might rely would have a countervailing view from a

15 psychiatrist of equal skill. And the Ake came before the

16 court in the context of whether or not you could get an

17 expert of that type. And they said, of course, you can,

18 because of the nature of psychiatric medicine and its

19 prevalence in criminal law. And that's been the law since I

20 think 1986, if I'm not mistaken on the date of that case.

21 The other issue is that this witness would testify that

22 you do not have and he does not have and the government

23 attorneys in this case do not have the entire record. They

24 do not have and have never gotten the 201 file, which would

25 be more complete and wouldn't be the conclusion but would be


Page 20

1 the factors and dates that led to the conclusion, so that I

2 could have my man look at it and determine whether or not

3 that conclusion is correct or it might be more severe.

4 And the conclusion was that there was no proof - I don't

5 recall the argument because, you will have to forgive,

6 because I didn't try the case. But if there had been an

7 argument that the condition didn't exist at the time of

8 trial, that's belied by the statement that says it's a

9 lifelong, incurable situation. So their own records show

10 that's not true.

11 And we're not in a position to tell the trier of fact

12 and you are not in a position to decide whether or not it

13 existed unless we get the records and someone looks at it

14 and says, okay, yes, it's no longer there, and I can't say

15 it, drop the issue. If it's there forever and it affects

16 the credibility of the witness? Then you have to look at it

17 and decide what that means in the context of case. And the

18 witness's testimony would bolster that.

19 THE COURT: Okay. So if I understand you

20 correctly, you are saying then that you want the full 201

21 file.

22 MR. MILLER: Yes, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: And want me to reconsider on the - on

24 the psychiatric information, and now for the first time

25 after trial you are asking for the appointment of an expert


Page 21

1 to examine these documents.

2 MR. MILLER: No, I'm not. I am saying that if we

3 get this information, then I will - I am not asking for

4 appointment, I'm saying the law would authorize it if he

5 were an indigent. We're not in that circumstance.

6 THE COURT: Right.

7 MR. MILLER: We would retain one to review it and

8 then tell us what it, if anything comes of it. I can't sit

9 here and presage it, as you well know, and don't deign to do

10 that before this Court.

11 THE COURT: And you would concede that no such

12 request was made at trial.

13 MR. MILLER: I see - I see none made at trial. I

14 recall reading in the transcript that, at the adjournment

15 that occurred during the midst of trial, one of the issues

16 raised was an evaluation of Myers' suitability as a witness.

17 You raised that, sua sponte.

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 MR. MILLER: All of the -- the conclusion was

20 provided, I guess, on the Friday before the reconvening of

21 court or maybe the Saturday morning before the reconvening

22 of court, which is in the fifth paragraph of document number

23 2 of the military records just referenced by the

24 prosecution. But in the fifth numbered paragraph, the bases

25 for the conclusion is not provided. And in those records


Page 22

1 that that were provided, the bases is unavailable. And so

2 the defense was not able to have their own expert look at it

3 and say, not only is this true but there is more.

4 I don't want to promise you that it's there because that

5 wouldn't be fair to anybody.

6 THE COURT: I understand. My point is no such

7 request was made at trial.

8 MR. MILLER: There was a --

9 THE COURT: But I will, I will look at this. I

10 will look at your Ake case and I will look at that.

11 Now, let's move on to whatever other evidence you think

12 exists.

13 MR. MILLER: All right, Your Honor, if you will

14 look at the NCIC record that was provided, you will note

15 that there was - it was - and the witness would testify that

16 it's a multi-state record. He'll further testify that

17 multi-state records are not uncommon.

18 In addition, his testimony would reveal that when you

19 get multi-state records, you will have, as this record has

20 in the bottom, I believe, of the first or second page state

21 ID numbers. And you will recall from trial, that at the

22 trial the prosecution provided you with a North Carolina, I

23 believe it was, criminal record of a case involving

24 Mr. Myers. And they obtained that, he would testify, by

25 taking the North Carolina ID number on the NCIC report,


Page 23

1 tracking it into North Carolina, into their criminal justice

2 system and pulling out the information which was provided to

3 the prosecutors, provided to the Court, and used during

4 trial.

5 He would further testify that they did not take the

6 report, which on its face says its incomplete, is without a

7 complete state record check, and go into the California

8 record number that was provided. He would testify that

9 California is a system that's computerized. He'll testify

10 that they did not investigate that case. He would testify

11 that during the trial, and I believe after Myers had been

12 completed as a witness for both sides, that a reporter gave

13 them partial information regarding the California case and

14 that even as of today they have not pulled the full record

15 of the California case.

16 He would further testify that if Myers was, for example,

17 a suspect in a criminal case here or in Alabama where his

18 office is located, he would be able to apply to the local

19 law enforcement in California that were involved in that

20 case and that local law enforcement, though not always, of

21 course - people have their personality quirks in the law

22 enforcement like in any other endeavor in the world - but

23 generally they cooperate and try to help the FBI; and that

24 they would have made the entire investigative file

25 available; and that in that investigative file there is an


Page 24

1 indicia that Mr. Myers had been in the Highland Psychiatric

2 Hospital in Oakland, California; and that there may be in

3 that file, which they do not have and cannot tell you about

4 right now, and that is available to them and not available

5 to me, whether or not they got any reports from that

6 hospital, whether or not they made a recommendation either

7 sua sponte, ex parte, or otherwise, to the prosecutor or to

8 the Court based on the totality of the circumstances, which

9 I don't know and they can't tell you, that he be evaluated

10 for psychiatric purposes.

11 And what that psychiatric diagnosis was - I think they

12 may have access, and I can't swear to this, this is an area

13 where I would be making an inquiry, whether or not they

14 would have access to those psychiatric records. If it is an

15 institution where he was there under some sort of court

16 order in sort of a penal psychiatric facility - and I can't

17 address that, Your Honor - but were that the case then their

18 exploration into that record would give them access to those

19 records.

20 And you take those records and add them to the

21 psychiatric review and testing in the military and give them

22 to us, then we're in a position to give a very full picture

23 available to our expert that will assist in determination as

24 to whether or not it is a tool that could be useful for the

25 defense. Then we can have that information available and


Page 25

1 present that to you so that you can decide whether or not in

2 your view it would give us relief or not. But we're in a

3 blind corner and can't do that.

4 This witness would further testify that there is

5 availability to the FBI to information from individuals who

6 are and have cooperated with other federal law enforcement

7 agencies. The most common everybody knows about is the ATF

8 and DEA. They are more in the news now than any other. But

9 there are a series of agencies, and that there was no

10 exploration into other agencies to determine things about

11 Mr. Myers.

12 He would further testify to you that there is another

13 system called the NADIS system, and that a NADIS number is a

14 federal FBI type law enforcement number for internal federal

15 information. And I will, quite frankly, tell you that I

16 don't know whether they did a NADIS check on him or not.

17 Whether or not he even has an a NADIS number, I was going to

18 ask that question, because nobody seems to have made inquiry

19 about it before. And whatever he says would be his answer,

20 I can't tell you that. I know the system exists. I don't

21 see anything that shows me that there was an inquiry into

22 it.

23 THE COURT: All right. So your point there is

24 that your client - really, is that the FBI did not explore

25 information that might be possessed by other federal


Page 26

1 agencies and that you feel that other agencies would have

2 cooperated with the FBI.

3 MR. MILLER: Yes, I do. And - and that is a

4 factual predicate for a case law issue. In other words, I

5 want to make a legal argument, but I want to establish a

6 factual predicate prior to making the argument.

7 THE COURT: All right. What other evidence do you

8 believe is out there which should be discovered at this

9 point?

10 MR. MILLER: Excuse me just a minute, Your Honor.

11 (A pause was had in the proceedings)

12 MR. MILLER: Pretty much, that is the sum and

13 substance. But I can't give you chapter and verse on that

14 right now, because I will tell you I was really fishing on

15 that one, I didn't see it anywhere, and I shouldn't have

16 seen, but I thought he will say either I have one or I

17 didn't have one. Other than that, that's it.

18 THE COURT: Let me suppose for you that I accept

19 as true your factual predicate that the FBI did not get and

20 could have, as you say, sometimes gotten the full 201 file

21 from the Army; let me - let me accept your factual predicate

22 that they could have explored more fully the California

23 prosecution and the California hospitalization; and let me

24 accept for a moment your factual predicate most recently

25 made that the FBI did not explore into other agencies in


Page 27

1 order to get other additional information, and that those

2 agencies would have cooperated.

3 If I accept all of those factual predicates, do you need

4 any other testimony this morning?

5 MR. MILLER: I do not. There is one other area of

6 inquiry that I neglected on my list, Your Honor, very

7 briefly.

8 THE COURT: All right.

9 MR. MILLER: Mr. Myers is the author of a series

10 of publications on various subjects from Paladin Press. And

11 if I can, there are not that many titles, take a moment and

12 read them to you and then tell you the question I would ask

13 the witness as a result of that, and what I think his answer

14 would be, if that's all right with the Court.

15 All right. Four books, with is improvised Radio

16 Detonation Techniques - referencing the radio detonation of

17 explosives -

18 Improvised Radio Jamming Techniques: Electronic Gerilla

19 War.

20 One titled Smart bombs -- I will give you a copy.

21 THE COURT: Slow down a little bit and read those

22 into the record and then you may give him a copy if you

23 wish.

24 MR. MILLER: All right. Improvised Radio

25 Detonation Techniques.


Page 28

1 Improvised Radio Jamming Techniques: Electronic Gurilla

2 Warfare.

3 Smart booms: Improvised Sensory Detonation Techniques

4 and Advanced Weapons Systems.

5 SPYCOMM - which is all caps, S-P-Y-C-O-M-M, with no

6 space - Covert Communication Techniques of the Underground.

7 Now, and I will tender a copy so the court can give the

8 court reporter later on, Your Honor. That in the federal

9 law enforcement bureaucracy from time to time there are

10 developed intelligence files. Not to try and impinge upon

11 anybody's rights, but there are a host of criminal and

12 domestic and international areas, files, data on people that

13 write on subjects and speak on subjects so that at some time

14 in the future, if they are either needed to consult as an

15 expert or they are needed to be used for some other reason

16 or maybe even become the subject of some kind of

17 investigation, that they have these files.

18 And, for example, if in the case of States versus Moody,

19 I know that Mr. Myers was consulted by the defense, and I

20 know Mr. Brannan personally had knowledge of that and he

21 would testify that he did. There was a correspondence from

22 the defendant's lawyer to the AG's office in that particular

23 state case - it was a bombing case - whether whether or not

24 they should contact Myers. And Mr. Myers informed the

25 defense attorney of that, and he knew Mr. Myers then at the


Page 29

1 time of the Moody case.

2 Just to show a factual predicate. The agents mentioned

3 it in the defense lawyer's letters to the state prosecutor

4 that those kinds of intelligence files sometimes exist. And

5 whether or not he has access to them, they haven't really

6 explored whether or not they exist on Myers. And there may

7 be in them - and I know that it's come up in other cases I

8 have had, sometimes it's zero - but there may be in there

9 information that would be something the defense could use

10 for its purposes in this case. And there was no explanation

11 to see about them, so I'm pretty sure they do exist.

12 The other book, Your Honor, that I neglected to mention

13 is a book called counter bomb, Protecting Yourself and

14 Against Car, Mail and Area Emplacement bombs, also by

15 Mr. Myers, on Paladin Press.

16 That's the factual predicate, Your Honor. I apologize

17 that I didn't get it all in. I missed my list, but Mr. Dean

18 corrected me, and I appreciate it.

19 THE COURT: For the purpose of your motion to

20 allow additional discovery post-trial, I am going to accept

21 your factual predicates, that is accept that this

22 information may be out there, and I think you - I don't

23 think we need any further testimony on that based upon what

24 you have told me.

25 So, Agent Brannan, return to your seat. And if you have


Page 30

1 other argument to make with regard to this, you may go ahead

2 and do that, Mr. Miller.

3 MR. MILLER: All right. Now by that - I have no

4 further evidence and you are requesting legal argument at

5 this time?

6 THE COURT: Yes, that's right.

7 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Your Honor. There are

8 numerous cases which we cited in our memoranda and so on.

9 But the case that sort of pulls all of this together,

10 without backing from or not relying on any of the authority,

11 Kyles versus Whitley.

12 Now, Kyles is an interesting case. He was indicted for

13 the murder of a woman in a parking lot of a super market.

14 There were eyewitnesses. He went to trial. There was a

15 hung jury. There was a second trial. He was convicted. He

16 was given the death penalty.

17 There are people that said, I was in the parking lot, I

18 saw the murder, and that's the man. The murder weapon and a

19 homemade shoulder holster that fit it was located in his

20 apartment.

21 The state appellate courts on direct appeal said that

22 even though there had been withholding of certain

23 exculpatory evidence, that it didn't amount to enough to

24 overturn the conviction. The Supreme Court denied cert. He

25 went through state and federal habeas corpus and they said


Page 31

1 the withholding of exculpatory evidence did not warrant

2 relief.

3 The Court of Appeals, I believe it to have been the

4 Fifth Circuit in a two to one decision, ruled that the

5 withholding of the evidence did not warrant a new trial.

6 The Supreme Court, however, went through the record and said

7 that a new trial was warranted.

8 They went back, and recapturing the issue there, and in

9 focusing on the issue there to some of their earlier

10 decisions, said, saying that they had recognized that, for

11 example, in the original Brady decision and even after

12 Gigglio for a long period of time there was a belief,

13 mistaken on the part of many prosecutors and many judges on

14 the trial and on the appellate levels, that impeachment

15 evidence was not the same as a photograph of somebody else

16 committing the crime. And so they decided a case called

17 Bagley. And in Bagley they said just like the photograph

18 that a short, bald, fat man robbed the bank would exculpate

19 a tall, thin, long haired man from being accused of robbing

20 the bank, so too in Bagley would evidence that would make a

21 jury disbelieve a witness be on the same caliber, on the

22 same level, immediately produceable.

23 Now, there has been some confusion in the law, and there

24 had been under Jencks - that Jencks, which is a statute,

25 trumped the Constitution. But of course statutory law does


Page 32

1 not trump the United States'constitution, nor does it trump

2 the bill of rights which are part of the Constitution.

3 There had been some people that thought that a statement

4 such as a person's criminal record was Jencks material. Of

5 course, it's not, because Jencks material is witness's own

6 statements. Bagley clarified a lot of that.

7 Then they went on to say in Kyles, that the issues that

8 one explores are not only impeachment, but evidence that can

9 be used for the purposes of attacking the prosecutor's case.

10 They talk about how the defense in many cases were relying

11 on the lack of thoroughness in an investigation. It's a

12 standard defense tactic. It's used often in jury trials, or

13 there are more in state cases and homocides than in others,

14 but it's used in a variety of criminal times of prosecutions

15 by the defense. And they recognize that.

16 And they said in their decision that you don't look at

17 an item individually and say that this item doesn't warrant

18 anything and that item doesn't warrant anything, you look at

19 them collectively. And when you look at them, the standard

20 is not whether or not had the evidence been introduced it

21 would have been a different result. And by saying, well,

22 let's see now, there is certainly enough information for the

23 jury to have rendered the verdict that they did and convict

24 the defendant, because that's not the inquiry, whether or

25 not there is sufficient evidence which, standing alone, if


Page 33

1 the jury believed it, would have resulted in a conviction.

2 That's not the proper inquiry. The proper inquiry, they

3 wrote, is whether or not this evidence, taken as a whole,

4 raises a reasonable probability that there could have been a

5 different result. And so you don't see if there is

6 sufficient evidence to convict. And if you see that

7 threshold has been achieved, then the issue is not whether

8 or not it's harmless error, because if that threshold has

9 been achieved, it is error.

10 And they took a whole lot of disparate areas of the law

11 and sort of laid them to rest in the Kyles case. And in

12 doing that, they talk about not only considering

13 collectively rather than item by item, they talk about the -

14 the duty of prosecutors as well, and they talk about the

15 fact that the word reasonable as a modifying word

16 probability was in their minds significant. And so the idea

17 of a greater likelihood or more likely than not or the

18 harmless error didn't really apply.

19 And they talk in this case about that the evidence would

20 have laid the foundation for an argument that the police had

21 been guilty of negligence. They talked about the lawyer -

22 the trial tactic of defense lawyers to discredit the caliber

23 of the investigation. And they used the word caliber of the

24 investigation, which goes not only to whether or not they

25 may have been sloppy on this, that or the other, but the


Page 34

1 caliber of the investigation as a whole, and the possibility

2 of assessing a Brady violation has to look at that and the

3 lawyer's use of this material in that tactic.

4 They used the issue also that whether or not the police

5 could have been irresponsible in that case in relying on an

6 individual who had numerous aliases, and in the case is

7 referred to as Beanie, because that is his most common

8 nickname, I take it. And this Beanie character was a key

9 source of information that led to the information which led

10 to them finding the decedent's purse in a garbage can

11 outside the premises where the defendant lived, on the

12 suggestion of Beanie, and finding the, I believe it was a

13 .32 caliber revolver in Mr. Kyles' apartment, on the

14 suggestion of Beanie. And that perhaps Beanie's suggestion

15 of where they look to find things may have been stuffed that

16 he helped set up, and that they didn't really go into

17 Beanie's background, they didn't do a proper investigation

18 of Beanie, which not only discredited some of their trial

19 testimony but also could have discredited, as they talk here

20 about the caliber of the investigation, and it could have

21 discredited the testimony of the witnesses who did testify

22 that were law enforcement. And so if - if it could have

23 done that, then it should have been produced.

24 In that particular case, there were inconsistencies by

25 Beanie, there were inconsistent statements by eyewitness -


Page 35

1 eyewitnesses, and there was other evidence from other

2 individuals that in combination they thought would have cast

3 doubt on, notwithstanding the eyewitness, I saw him do it,

4 and notwithstanding the pistol that was the murder weapon in

5 his apartment.

6 And the dissent in that case argued, well, you can't say

7 this and you can't say that. And the majority opinion was

8 saying, well, look, the issue is reasonable probability.

9 So what have we here? We have another case that I

10 would - and I don't know that we cited this, so I've made

11 copies and I would like to give one, if I might, to the U.S.

12 Attorney. And you can have it available for your

13 consideration later on, Your Honor. The title is Perdomo, a

14 Third Circuit case. It's 1991. It's 929 F.2d, 967. And

15 the case at page 970 talks about the availability of the

16 government to go into other types of agency files to get

17 information.

18 Excuse me just one minute, Your Honor. May I confer

19 with counsel?

20 (A pause was had in the proceedings)

21 MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Your Honor, I'm sorry.

22 Now, in that case they talked about the availability and

23 the need to go to other agencies, because the records in

24 that case were available through the Virgin Islands, the

25 federal protectorate, and they weren't readily available to


Page 36

1 the investigators.

2 Kyles is very, very significant because of an issue that

3 they take on here, which is brand new in the law and not

4 just recapping the old law and trying to clarify things.

5 They talk quite clearly that the duty is on the prosecution

6 to look for and that they have to look to police sources and

7 police involved in the investigation, and that it's not as

8 Louisiana argued in this case that, well, I didn't know,

9 said the prosecutor. I'm sure he didn't. The Supreme Court

10 was sure that the state's attorney, as represented by the

11 Attorney General for Louisiana, didn't know. But they - and

12 they are saying that the issue is not whether or not they

13 acted in good or bad faith. That has nothing to do with it.

14 The issue is, is it out there and do they have a duty to

15 look for it?

16 And so where are we today with you? We're saying to

17 you, we've uncovered by what little we did get the obvious

18 existence of more. And after consulting with a psychiatric

19 expert, I wanted to get the Highland records.

20 Now, if law enforcement has them, that's easy. If they

21 don't, then I would ask the Court to enter an order that the

22 Highland Psychiatric Hospital in Oakland produce them here.

23 In other prosecutions where I have been involved before

24 trial and have learned of psychiatric records, I have

25 subpoenaed them for trial. But that's in cases where


Page 37

1 everything is local.

2 There is a California case about which Mr. Myers did not

3 testify. I will take it that the agents and the prosecutor

4 did not have that information. They got what they got from

5 the news reporter after he had testified. So certainly

6 Mr. Galbraith who was representing Mr. Hayes couldn't have

7 had access to the California law enforcement records. And

8 buried in there is the reference to his hospitalization.

9 And so whether they acted in good or bad faith, we now need

10 to look at it. Because whether it was done intentionally or

11 unintentionally is not my quarrel. The quarrel is we now

12 know it's there, and if we're going to make a decision,

13 let's make an informed one.

14 The 201 file may have stuff that's totally unrelated to

15 a lot of things. Whether he was disciplined because he

16 didn't man his fire watch one night or he was late coming

17 back from leave and he got an article 15 - which is a

18 military informal disciplinary procedure for the Army - I'm

19 assuming he wasn't - he was in the army - that's not a

20 concern to me. But what's of concern to me is information

21 in there that would be useful combined with what we get from

22 California for a defense expert who is a professional - I

23 don't want to use somebody who is not really well qualified;

24 first of all, he wouldn't be of any good in a courtroom if

25 they are not - to look at and give us an assessment so that


Page 38

1 we can bring it to you and say, Your Honor, had we had this,

2 it would have been a different matter and you need look at

3 this when you are making your decision. And we - and we

4 would want an opportunity so that we can do that, so they

5 can get the information.

6 If they can't get the 201 file, then the court can order

7 its production to the court for those purposes, the same as

8 with the Highland Psychiatric Hospital in Oakland,

9 California.

10 I know that they have access to - and I do not, and

11 don't know whether what we got was all of it or not - the

12 criminal investigative file that's referenced in the NCIC

13 California number on the NCIC report. So as far as I

14 understand it, I don't know whether they have made a full

15 request for that or not.

16 I think they are obligated to this Court and to

17 Mr. Hayes to make a full request, and it could be, well,

18 this is it, you got the best, there is nothing else. But I

19 think they are obligated under Kyles and I think under

20 Perdomo to do a more detailed investigation and request.

21 And, Your Honor, there is also the situation where we

22 proffered - and the reason I asked the agent and would

23 proffer to the Court about the existence of intelligence

24 files based on those, is a retired FBI agent, when I asked,

25 I asked him so I wouldn't come up here and ask stupid


Page 39

1 questions, he said - he told me that those files, he didn't

2 say that it does or doesn't exist, he says that it generally

3 would exist. And that's why I'm saying that they generally

4 would. And they can take a look, and maybe they are there

5 and maybe they are not.

6 The reason I went into Perdomo is because it may not be

7 an FBI file, it could be an ATF file. And so Perdomo I'm

8 offering to you as a legal justification that under that

9 scenario that he make an inquiry. And maybe through that

10 inquiry they'll come up zero or maybe through that inquiry

11 they'll come up with something.

12 It could be that when they come up with things, there

13 might be ongoing investigations and in those ongoing

14 investigations they have a legitimate interest in not

15 compromising the investigation and may need to submit it to

16 you under the Holmes decisions, which is one of the ones we

17 cited in our papers we filed earlier, for you to decide what

18 goes and doesn't go to the defense or how to redact it. It

19 may be that there would be the use of a protective order,

20 which are used sometimes.

21 I have been involved in intelligence cases where the

22 information was produced under a very strict protective

23 order so that we could then get together in very closed

24 hearings with the Court and prosecutors and argue whether or

25 not it further comes out or doesn't come out. But the


Page 40

1 defense gets a chance to look at it. And in those cases I

2 don't even show it to my client. And the other lawyers that

3 looked at it, because it was - in that case it was national

4 security, it was foreign espionage and we had to be cleared

5 by the CIA to even see the stuff or else they we would have

6 to bring in a special lawyer for it.

7 This is not that kind of thing, this is criminal.

8 But there was a device where both sides were able to

9 appear before the Court and argue what it meant.

10 THE COURT: Well, I can decide on the device if I

11 do decide you are entitled to additional discovery. But I

12 would like to hear the government's argument. Do you have

13 any other substantive legal argument?

14 MR. MILLER: Yes, one other, Your Honor. And that

15 is sometimes in material that's produced, for example, often

16 prosecutors will say, well, you've got the guy's criminal

17 history, and that's all you need to impeach. Which isn't

18 true as a practical matter. And what I'm looking for in

19 these records is leads to witnesses. I have often had the

20 good fortune or dumb luck, whichever, to have gotten the

21 criminal record and gone back in the original criminal files

22 and found witnesses that were victimized by a prosecution

23 witness that I could bring to court and put on the witness

24 stand about the defendant's disposition, as a valid witness,

25 for a jury to see somebody live rather than a cold piece of


Page 41

1 paper. And what may be in the 302's in the other cases that

2 I was asking the agent whether or not they existed and so

3 on, may be leads to witnesses that could do that. And

4 that's - the - that's the last piece of a legal argument

5 that we're looking for, Your Honor. Thank you.

6 THE COURT: Thank you. All right. On behalf of

7 the government. And I don't mean to cut you short, but I

8 have set aside an hour for this hearing because that's all I

9 had.

10 MR. HATFIELD: I understand, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: And so let's get to the point.

12 MR. HATFIELD: Well, I don't really know where to

13 begin, judge, just to be quite honest.

14 THE COURT: Well, let's begin with this, this

15 agreed order, or this order. Mr. Miller says that you don't

16 really have any problem with returning all of this property.

17 Is that true?

18 MR. HATFIELD: If that is the same order that he -

19 proposed order that he gave me, it should be credit cards,

20 credit cards and --

21 THE COURT: Is it the same order, Mr. Miller, that

22 you gave?

23 MR. MILLER: It is, Your Honor. I just reprinted

24 it on red line. It lists the same numbers, credit cards

25 that were in the jail. There was an amount of cash. I


Page 42

1 can't remember the amount. If you look on the second page,

2 I believe toward the top, it will say whatever it was that

3 is in there. It is not any of the the evidence in this

4 case. It is not the large bills that were also retained,

5 and I think one of which was not put in evidence. This is a

6 separate - I will call it pocket money if I may, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: My only question was, is this the same

8 order?

9 MR. MILLER: Yes, it is.

10 THE COURT: All right. And so you agree to that?

11 MR. HATFIELD: No objection to that.

12 THE COURT: All right. I will sign this.

13 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: And enter this today, Mr. Hatfield.

15 All right. Now, the - as you heard me say, I'm not

16 going to allow this morning to be a discovery expedition.

17 MR. HATFIELD: Right.

18 THE COURT: I just want to know what evidence is

19 out there. And I will accept his factual predicate that -

20 and as I understand the factual predicate is there may be

21 more information out there; the FBI needed to do a more

22 detailed search with regard to Myers' 201 file, and

23 information other agencies may have, and its own files with

24 regard to exploring the expertise of Mr. Myers. And

25 Mr. Miller also wants to see the 302's in the other cases


Page 43

1 which Agent Brannan admits exist. And in addition to all -

2 and Mr. Miller also wants to see the report from the

3 hospital in California and a thorough report from

4 California. And in addition to all that, he wants me to

5 reconsider my ruling on Mr. Myers' psychiatric history.

6 I will accept his factual predicate that there may be

7 more information out there for the purpose of ruling on

8 this. And I think you need to approach it that way.

9 MR. HATFIELD: Okay. There may be more out there,

10 Your Honor. I think what Mr. Miller is asking for is to

11 allow him to have an open file discovery of everything that

12 the United States has in its possession, and then decide,

13 almost like in a civil case, where you can locate material,

14 you are entitled to discover materials and what might lead

15 to other discoverable materials. That's the argument that I

16 hear him making.

17 I have no qualms with him on his - the legal requirement

18 that is put upon the United States under the Bagley case and

19 the Kyles case. And I think he correctly set out the

20 standard - let's see - reasonable probability if favorable

21 evidence could reasonably be --

22 THE COURT: I know the standard. I am familiar

23 with Kyles.

24 MR. HATFIELD: Okay. I think the bottom line is,

25 it has to have undermined the confidence of the trial.


Page 44

1 Now, also these cases deal with the issue of

2 nondisclosure, where evidence was suppressed. We don't have

3 that here. There was no evidence, nothing was suppressed

4 from the defense in this particular case.

5 Now, that's not to say that there is not more out there.

6 But we turned over to the defense in time for their use to

7 effectively use to cross examine Mr. Myers, the statement

8 which Mr. Myers prepared, as well as the NCIC report. That

9 was turned over, as I recall, the day before Mr. Myers

10 testified.

11 Now, as we know looking back, there was - there was

12 more. And immediately upon us finding - regarding us the

13 NCIC report. Immediately upon us knowing that, and I think

14 this - the record is clear on this, we - the agents got on

15 the phones and started calling California and Tennessee and

16 other places. And as the Court will recall, what resulted

17 from that was a packet of materials. And they should be in

18 the record. And I think we even mark them as exhibits. But

19 there was a packet of materials that we received from

20 Tennessee that led us to California. We basically got the

21 same materials from California. The materials we got from

22 Tennessee were received from a reporter. Subsequently, we

23 got copies of the same materials, which were under seal in a

24 court proceeding down there.

25 So we went through law enforcement in Tennessee, we went


Page 45

1 through law enforcement in California, and we got everything

2 that was - that they would release. So we went above and

3 beyond the call of duty.

4 We didn't have any of this in our possession. And

5 Mr. Galbraith had these same materials. They were turned

6 over immediately when we got them, which was prior to the

7 recess. Any additional materials that we got during the

8 process were turned over to him as well, including all

9 information from California on this - from Myers' California

10 ties and the NCIC.

11 The army materials, I think - I think Mr. Miller is

12 admitting that those aren't documents that were in our

13 possession. I don't know what access anybody has to army

14 records. I know we turned over what - what we had in our

15 possession that would, in my and Mr. Molloy's opinion, that

16 would bear on Mr. Myers' credibility, bias, impeachment. It

17 could be used for impeachment. And I don't know anything

18 much stronger you could get than what we turned over, that

19 one letter making those statements about - about him. And

20 the court ruled that wasn't - that the defense couldn't

21 delve into that. And I think that was the proper ruling.

22 But be that as it may, we turned it over and they were

23 able to utilize it and had it in time to utilize it.

24 I don't know - don't know where else to go. I mean the

25 bottom line is this is a - these issues that arise under


Page 46

1 these cases are all issues, all the cases involved were

2 where evidence was in the possession of someone for the

3 government and it was not disclosed or it was suppressed.

4 That didn't happen here. The defense was able to, after

5 they received this information, they were able to to recall

6 both Lawrence Myers and Steve Brannan to the witness stand.

7 They were able to question both of them about Myers' prior

8 relationship with the FBI. They were able to question Myers

9 about certain of his conduct out in California, including a

10 prior conviction which he didn't disclose during his first

11 testimony. And I was looking back through the record very

12 hurriedly, and I know that at day five of the transcript,

13 that Mr. - that Agent Brannan at page 171 was actually asked

14 about if he was familiar with NADIS, and he explained what

15 that was. And as best I can tell from hurriedly reading it,

16 it just - that's about as far as it went on that particular

17 issue.

18 It was also brought up that Myers had furnished the FBI

19 information on prior occasions and about the suitability

20 inquiry. And the Court specifically brought Mr. Galbraith,

21 we went up to the bench and the Court asked Mr. Galbraith,

22 said, you have not inquired as to the reason for the

23 suitability inquiry in depth. Is that a deliberate strategy

24 or an oversight? He said it was an oversight. Came back

25 and he asked - that's at page 178 - he came back and he


Page 47

1 asked Agent Brannan some questions about the suitability

2 inquiry.

3 So the court's memory was correct regarding that. It

4 was brought out.

5 I think the bottom line in all of this is, just to try

6 to conclude here, nothing was suppressed, nothing was

7 hidden. The defense was given everything in a timely

8 manner, and as a result of the Court's continuance, if there

9 was some untimeliness on some disclosures as a result of the

10 Court's continuance of seven or eight days or nine days,

11 whatever that ended up being, the defense was able to have

12 that material and utilize it and recall the two witnesses,

13 Myers and Brannan, back to the witness stand.

14 If there has not been a suppression of evidence, then

15 this line of cases is inapplicable. And that's one of the

16 threshold requirements that the defense must show, is that

17 there has been a suppression of evidence.

18 And here there hasn't been.

19 If I could confer with Mr. Molloy just a moment?

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 MR. HATFIELD: I'll try to sit down.

22 (A pause was had in the proceedings)

23 MR. HATFIELD: I think in all, unless the Court

24 has questions.

25 THE COURT: Okay. No, I don't really have any


Page 48

1 questions.

2 Let me ask you both this, however. Do you have - do you

3 wish to submit anything further in writing in the nature of,

4 Mr. Miller, a reply? I don't think you filed a reply brief,

5 did you?

6 MR. MILLER: I - in our request for hearing, we

7 addressed that. We may have. I would like to so I can give

8 you the Ake cite, because I just did an amicus brief on a

9 related case in the Supreme Court and can't remember the

10 cite off the top of my head. I'm very sorry Judge.

11 THE COURT: You gave me the Ake cite, didn't?

12 MR. MILLER: No, I gave you Perdomo out the Third

13 Circuit.

14 THE COURT: Perdomo I understood was out of the

15 Second Circuit.

16 MR. MILLER: Third.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. MILLER: 1991. Your Honor, I would like to do

19 a response on that. And I would like as the moving party, I

20 guess it's - they get to go to the jury first and last, and

21 it's my motion, I get to go first and last. Very briefly,

22 just a couple things.

23 THE COURT: We're not to going to hear any more

24 argument this morning. I just said if you wish to argue it,

25 argue it any further, I will see a reply brief if you want


Page 49

1 to. Do you wish additional time to file a reply brief?

2 MR. MILLER: Yes, based on the concessions they

3 made today, I would, Your Honor. I'm wondering if the -

4 today is the 10th.

5 MR. HATFIELD: What concessons?

6 THE COURT: Wait just a minute.

7 MR. MILLER: I am sorry, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: We're not going to get in any more

9 argument this morning. I understand what you are doing,

10 Mr. Miller. Basically you are trying to entice me to left

11 you argue it further. It won't work.

12 MR. MILLER: Fair enough.

13 THE COURT: If you want to argue anything else --

14 MR. MILLER: Yes.

15 THE COURT: -- you tell me when you could get a

16 brief done. Can you get a brief in by May the 1st?

17 MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.

18 THE COURT: Fine. All right. If you have any

19 reply brief that you wish to file you may do so by May 1st.

20 If the government wishes to submit anything additional, you

21 may also do so by May 1st. There will be no further

22 briefing on this issue.

23 I can't give you a ruling today because I want your

24 briefs and because I want a chance to read the Perdomo - you

25 can spell - well, you gave me the cite. I am sorry, the


Page 50

1 Perdomo case.

2 MR. MILLER: I will spell it for you.

3 THE COURT: That's okay. And the Kyles case,

4 which I have not read, and I want to look at this. And you

5 will have a decision as promptly as I can pull it together.

6 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, one other issue, if I

7 might.

8 THE COURT: All right.

9 MR. MILLER: All right. We have pending a motion

10 for new trial, et cetera, which is an omnibus motion

11 covering a whole lot of ground. As you may recall from what

12 we had filed, we had wanted certain issues resolved here

13 because, depending on their resolution, depended on how we

14 would further approach that.

15 And what I am wondering is, and I appreciate very much

16 your giving us today's hearing, and I thank you for letting

17 us address this further and for your consideration in it.

18 And it's a housekeeping matter, and I apologize for my

19 ignorance in not knowing whether this is appropriate. I

20 don't mean to step in the wrong direction. But depending on

21 your decision, would we then have an opportunity, because at

22 that hearing now over the last couple weeks we've developed

23 some evidence that doesn't relate to this hearing, it

24 relates to that motion that we would want to present. We're -

25 hopefully we'll develop more testimony; if we get a


Page 51

1 favorable ruling here, either all or in part, we'll have yet

2 more facts. And part of that decision is a factual matter.

3 And my question to you is, what would you prefer us to do in

4 order to request that hearing more formally? We would ask

5 for it in the pleading papers themselves. In this instance

6 we filed a separate specific pleading addressing just that.

7 Is that what you would prefer? Whatever you want --

8 THE COURT: You may file a motion for a hearing on

9 those other motions if you wish.

10 MR. MILLER: Thank you.

11 THE COURT: What I will do is I will tell you now,

12 I probably won't grant it unless I grant this pending

13 motion, this discovery motion. If I rule in your favor on

14 the discovery motion, I will give you time to update your

15 other briefs on the other motions.

16 Now, if you wish, then you may update those anyway.

17 MR. MILLER: All right. On some --

18 THE COURT: Even if I rule against you on this?

19 Is that what you want?

20 MR. MILLER: Yes, because some of the facts that

21 have come in are factual things that during our

22 investigation we've uncovered that pertain to it, but we

23 didn't want to do it in a piecemeal, little dribbly drab,

24 little dribbly drab, we wanted to do it all at once.

25 THE COURT: Let's wait and see the outcome of this


Page 52

1 discovery motion.

2 MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.

3 THE COURT: I think that makes more sense. And

4 let me just say then that - I am making notes to myself

5 now - that regardless of the discovery ruling, that is the

6 ruling on the discovery motion, I will give you some

7 additional time to file any supplemental brief which you

8 wish to file on your other post-trial motions. If you want

9 a hearing on any or all of those post-trial motions, you

10 should make that motion. Normally, I sent - when I have

11 already tried a case, normally I rule on those only from the

12 pleadings. If you can give me some reason that I should

13 depart from that practice, I will be happy to do that. But

14 you should know it's my normal practice just to look at the

15 pleadings and make the rulings.

16 MR. MILLER: Thank you very much for your

17 courtesy, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: All right. Anything else from the

19 government? I should say that if I give him time to update

20 his brief, I will give you time to respond accordingly, time

21 to reply.

22 MR. HATFIELD: The only thing -- to update his

23 brief? You mean the one that he's going to file by May 1st?


25 MR. HATFIELD: Okay.


Page 53

1 THE COURT: No, his brief on May 1st is relative

2 to this discovery motion.

3 MR. HATFIELD: Right.

4 THE COURT: After my ruling on the discovery

5 motion, I am going to give him additional time to supplement

6 his other briefs.

7 MR. HATFIELD: Okay. I'm sorry.

8 THE COURT: If he wishes to do so. But if he

9 supplements, you also get a chance supplement your response.

10 And I will give him a chance to supplement his reply.

11 MR. HATFIELD: Okay.

12 THE COURT: That's what I mean.

13 MR. HATFIELD: Okay. I -- I was just concerned

14 about us not being able to respond to anything he's going to

15 file by May 1st. We're having to file them simultaneously,

16 I suppose.

17 THE COURT: Well, it's a reply brief and normally

18 you wouldn't get a chance to respond anyway. So you may

19 file it simultaneously. His would be in the nature of a

20 reply, yours would be in the nature a supplemental summons,

21 if you have anything you want to say.

22 MR. HATFIELD: Thank you, Your Honor.

23 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Marshal, if you would

25 announce a recess of court until court in course.


Page 54

1 (A recess was had at 11:18 p.m.)


3 I, Nathan F. Perkins, official court reporter for the

United States District Court, do hereby certify that the

4 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings

had in the above-described action.


6 _____________________________________

Nathan F. Perkins Date





Page 55

Posted April 12, 1999