VIII. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS. McVEIGH PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

[Back]

[Index]

[Next]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT,
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
MARCH 25, 1997

VIII. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS.

A. Introduction.

Defendant McVeigh has compiled an indelible paper trail in attempting to
obtain information in the possession of the federal government, particularly
the intelligence agencies, which is relevant and material to his defense.
Counsel for Defendant McVeigh does not lightly come before this Court
seeking intervention in these matters; but there can be only so many
requests, so many demands, and so many pleadings filed requesting this
information before it becomes apparent to counsel that there is no effective
way, absent court intervention, to obtain the necessary materials to
construct a defense in this capital case.

So that the record is complete, and that the Court has confidence that the
present Motion is filed out of legitimate exasperation as the result of
being stonewalled for over a year since the return of the indictment,
counsel for Defendant McVeigh invites the Court to review the following
chart and accompanying materials, most of which may be found and perused in
the separately bound appendices at D.E. 1921, 1922 and 1923. Defense efforts
to obtain this material includes the following:

NO.
DATE
DESCRIPTION
3.
August 10, 1995
Defendants Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were
indicted on one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of
mass destruction, one count of use of a weapon of mass
destruction, one count of destruction by explosives, and
eight counts of first degree murder.

4.
August, 1995
Counsel for Defendant McVeigh engages in discovery
conversations and negotiations with counsel for the
government concerning the production of exculpatory
information. However, nothing is reduced to writing.
These negotiations occurred within a few weeks after the
return of the Indictment.
5.
August 21, 1995
In a lengthy letter addressed to Joseph Hartzler, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, from defense counsel
for Mr. McVeigh, the defense pleaded the case with the
government for a change of venue and for "full, complete
discovery furnished to the defendant of all grand jury
transcripts, 302's, witness statements, plea agreements
and immunity deals, tangible evidence, tangible
documents, scientific reports to the defendant as quickly
as possible[.]" See D.E. 1921 (Vol. I Exhibit "D" at
11-12).
6.
November 2, 1995
Letter to Joseph H. Hartzler, Patrick Ryan and Larry
Mackey, addressing defense concerns over the
production of forensic evidence, documentary evidence
and witness statements. This letter pointed out that there
had been "zero production of exculpatory evidence" and
requested specifically exculpatory evidence and Rule 16
material. See D.E. 1921 (Vol. I Exhibit "E").

7.
November 6, 1995
Defendant McVeigh's first written request for specific
Brady information in a letter addressed to Joseph Hartzler.
This request consisted of 60 paragraphs of specific
requests for categories of exculpatory information over 10
pages in a letter directed to the lead counsel for the
government prosecution team. The letter noted that the
request was made because the government had failed to
produce any exculpatory evidence to the defendant, even
though Mr. McVeigh was arrested more than 6 months
prior to the date of the letter, and indicted almost three
months prior to the date of the letter. The defense team
was finding out the possible existence of exculpatory
information from the media rather from the government. In
paragraph 3 on page 3. Defendant McVeigh requested
specifically any statements. Reports or memoranda tending
to indicate that the Murrah Building was a target of
terrorists which were generated prior to or
contemporaneous with the bombing on April 19. 1995.
Paragraph 18 on page 4 specifically requested material and
reports of investigations regarding the bombing of the
Murrah Building compiled by agencies other than the FBI
including the BATF, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Army C.I.D., the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Department of Defense, etc. In
paragraph 47 on page 8. defense counsel for Mr. McVeigh
requested specifically any and all intelligence reports in the
possession of or generated by, any foreign government
which were material to the identity of the perpetrators of
the Murrah Building bombing. See D.E. 1921 (Vol. I
Exhibit "F').
8.
November 8, 1995
Letter from defense counsel to Joseph H. Hartzler setting
out specifically the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16(a)(1)(C) which provides that, upon request
of the Defendant, the government shall permit the
Defendant to inspect tangible objects which are material to
the preparation of the defense. Defense counsel requested
specifically "all remaining photographs, books, papers,
documents, tangible objects not previously furnished to us".
See D.E. 1921 (Vol. I Exhibit "G").

9.
November 13,1995
Letter from defense counsel to Joseph H. Hartzler and
Patrick Ryan outlining the practice of discovery in criminal
cases for the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (where this case was then being
heard) and followed by District Judges Russell, Leonard,
Thompson, Cauthron, and Miles LeGrange. The local
practice was to routinely grant permission to defendants
to inspect, copy or photograph evidence favorable to the
defendant within the meaning of Brady and Giglio and
their progeny. Exculpatory evidence is typically delivered
to the defense within 10 days after an entry of a not guilty
plea. Defense counsel set out in detail a portion of the
opinion by former Chief Judge Fred Daugherty as
reported in United States v. Penix, 516 F. Supp. 248,
255 (W.D. Okl. 1981) in which Judge Daugherty
outlined the local practice concerning discovery pursuant
to Rule 16 and Brady. Defense counsel requested
specifically copies of the notification the government
presumably had sent to law enforcement agencies with
respect to Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16, specifically the
Criminal Investigation Division of the Armed Forces, the
Criminal Investigation Division of the Department of
Defense, the Defense Investigative Agency, the Central
Intelligence Agency. and other foreign and domestic
agencies. Defense counsel further noted that although the
first specific written request for Brady occurred
November 6, 1995, the defense had nevertheless
consistently requested orally that the government produce
exculpatory evidence. Finally, counsel stated specifically
that the defense recognized the possible tendency in this
case, given sensitive national security issues and the
existence of other possible conspiracies to damage
federal property, to withhold information from the
defense, but that the defense would address those
concerns and protect appropriately the government's
intelligence gathering activities. See D.E. 1921 (Vol. I
Exhibit "H").

10.
November 20, 1995
Letter to Joseph H. Hartzler and Patrick Ryan consisting of
Defendant McVeigh's third written request for exculpatory
information on behalf of Defendant Timothy McVeigh. The
defense requested specifically "copies of reports, witness
statements, telex messages, cables, fax messages,
photographs, intelligence summaries which relate or contain
information which would indicate or suggest the possibility.
likelihood and/or possibility that individuals or organizations
or a single individual either in this country or abroad was
planning or did execute action against the United States, its
property or employees or American civilians in retaliation
for" and then a lengthy list of specific events. See D.E. 1921
(Vol. I Exhibit "I").
11.
November 21, 1995
Letter to Joseph Hartzler taking issue with Mr. Hartzler's
statement that the FBI 302's containing statements from
Eldon Elliott, Vicki Beemer, and the Fortiers did not contain
exculpatory information. Defense counsel addressed directly
concerns that the government's definition of "exculpatory
information" under Brady was unduly restrictive. See D.E.
1921 (Vol. I Exhibit "J").
12.
December 7, 1995
Defendant McVeigh's Report to the Court concerning the
government's failure to produce discoverable evidence in
accordance with the Court's Order of August 23, 1995,
Rule 16 and the Brady decision. Defense counsel set out
specifically concerns relating to the government's failure to
seek discovery material from law enforcement agencies
other than the FBI, specifically the intelligence agencies
including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Criminal
Investigation Divisions of the Armed Forces and the
Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the
Defense Intelligence Agency and other federal, state and
foreign investigative/intelligence agencies. See D.E. 1921
(Vol. I Exhibit "K" at 14-15). In this pleading, defense
counsel observed the absurdity of the prosecutors in this
case seeking a court order to obtain information from the
Bureau of Prisons--a component of the Department of
Justice.

13.
December 21, 1995
Defendant McVeigh's Motion to Require the
Government to Produce Exculpatory Evidence to Assist
the Defendant, Timothy James McVeigh, in Establishing
His Claim That He Is Not Guilty of the Offense Charged
Against Him in the Grand Jury Indictment. This document
set out in detail over 177 paragraphs encompassing 89
pages of specific and general requests for exculpatory
information. Included in these requests were information
of other suspects, see page 56, as well as information in
the possession of a multitude of intelligence and law
enforcement agencies. See D.E. 1922 (Vol. II Exhibit "L"
at p. 84).
14.
February 15, 1996
Letter to Beth A. Wilkinson regarding outstanding issues
relating to discovery. This letter underscored the
defense's frustration with the government's production of
discovery, particularly Brady and Giglio items and
requested yet again specific reports generated by the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Criminal Investigation
Divisions of the various components of the Department of
Defense, the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research of the State Department, the Office for
Combatting [sic] Terrorism of the United States
Department of State, the National Security Council, the
Department of Defense Special Operations Agency, and
other domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies.
See D.E. 1923 (Vol.III Exhibit "M").
15.
February 15,1996
Letter to Beth A. Wilkinson requesting additional Brady
material containing information concerning, among other
things, information about the German Andreas Strassmeir
and any connections with neo-Nazi or other white
supremacist organizations. See D.E. 1923 (Vol. III
Exhibit "N").

16.
March 8, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Motion for Disclosure of
Discoverable and Exculpatory Intelligence Collected by
the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security
Agency, the Departments of Justice and State, and Any
Other Intelligence Gathering Agencies, Rule 16
Material and Brief in Support. This pleading set forth
31 paragraphs of specific discovery requests from
specifically named intelligence agencies, and provided
the factual and legal basis for the request. See D.E.
1923 (Vol. III Exhibit "O").

17.
April 8, 1996
Specification of Materiality and Relevance ofNational
Security Information as it Relates to the Defense of
Timothy McVeigh (Ex Parte and Under Seal). This
document, which the Court has reviewed, exparte and
under seal, provided the factual basis, including the
defense hypothesis for the prior request for national
intelligence information filed March 8, 1996. See D.E.
1228.

16.
April 9, 1996
Supplemental Motion to Motion for Disclosure of
Discoverable and Exculpatory Intelligence Collected by
the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security
Agency, the Departments of Justice and State, and Any
Other Intelligence Gathering Agencies, Rule 16
Material and Brief in Support. See D.E. 1236.

17.
April 24, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Supplemental Specification of
Materiality of Requested Classified Information (Filed
Ex Parte Under Seal). See D.E. 1309.

18.
April 29, 1996
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motions for
Production of Classified Information by Chief Judge
Richard P. Matsch. See D.E. 1310.

19.
May 6, 1996
Letter to Joseph H. Hartzler concerning an article in
Strategic Investment magazine which referenced a
classified Pentagon study concerning the bombing of the
Murrah Building. This letter requested information
concerning this classified study. See D.E. 1923 (Vol. III
Exhibit "P").

20.
May 8, 1996
Letter to Joseph Hartzler in response to this Court's Order
of April 29, 1996, recommending that defensecounsel
submit a direct request to government counsel to search for
information which would most likely be classified and in the
possession of the National Intelligence Agencies. This letter
consists of 16 pages of single-spaced specific requests
encompassing 53 separate paragraphs. Specifically
mentioned is any and all "follow up" information generated by
the governmentt to verify or corroborate th information
provided by Vincent Cannistraro indicating that Iraq may
have sponsored the bombing of the Murrah Building which
was found by defense counsel buried in the mounds of
"non-pertinent" documents. See D.E.1923 (Vol. III Exhibit
"Q").
21.
May 23, 1996
Letter to Joseph Hartzler reiterating a multitude of specific
Brady requests, and requesting information possibly
provided by the governments of Israel and Kuwait
concerning possible terrorist acts against this country around
April 19, 1995, and Oklahoma City specifically as a
potential target. See D.E. 1923 (Vol.III Exhibit "R").
22.
June 14, 1996
Mailing en masse to 30 federal intelligence/law enforcement
agencies and a host of other various state investigative/law
enforcement agencies requesting material pursuant to Rule
16 and Brady and to which was attached a copy of this
Court's April 29, 1996 Memorandum Opinion and Order on
Motions for Production of Classified Information and the
May 8, 1996, letter to Joseph Hartzler enumerating 53
paragraphs of specific discovery requests. See D.E. 1923
(Vol. III Exhibit "S"). This mailing went out when, after 45
days, the government had produced to the defense nothing
had been received pursuant to the Court Order of April 29
as it related to the national intelligence data.
23.
July 3, 1996
Letter to Joseph H. Hartzler requesting information
concerning applications and orders filed in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court and material obtained
therefrom constituting Brady or Rule 16 material and as it
relates to the bombing of the Murrah Building. See D. E.
1923 (Vol. III Exhibit "T").

24.
August 22, 1996
Motion to Compel Production of Additional Intelligence
Information and Memorandum to the Court Concerning
Violation of the Government's Duty to the Defendant
Under Brady and This Court's Order of April 29, 1996,
Respecting National Intelligence Information. See D.E.
1898.
25.
August 27, 1996
McVeigh's Motion to Compel the Production ofMaterial
and Exculpatory Classified InformationPursuant to Rule
16 and Brady. See D.E. 1918; D.E. 1921 (Appendix
Vol. I); D.E. 1922 (Appendix Vol. II); and D.E. 1923
(Appendix Vol. III).
26.
August 27, 1996
McVeigh's Second Supplemental Specification of
Materiality of Requested Classified Information ExParte
and Under Seal. See D.E. 1929.
27.
August 29, 1996
Supplemental Memorandum to the Court Regarding
Motion to Compel Production of National Intelligence
Information. See D.E. 1936.
28.
September 3, 1996
Sealed Affidavit of Stephen Jones in Further Support of
Motion to Compel Release of National Intelligence Data,
Third Supplementation of Specification of Materiality and
Developments Filed Ex Parte and Under Seal. See D.E.
1969.
29.
September 30, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Supplemental Discovery Requests
for National Intelligence Information. See D.E. 2175.
30.
October 1, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Fourth Supplemental Specification
of Materiality of Requested Classified Information
(ExParte and Under Seal). See D.E. 2191.
31.
October 10, 1996
McVeigh's Amended Motion to Compel the Production
of Material and Exculpatory Classified Information
Pursuant to Rule 16 and Brady (Supplemental Requests).
See D.E. 2265.
32.
October 31, 1996
Defendant Tim McVeigh's Statement of Materiality and
Specificity With Respect to His Amended Motion to
Compel the Production of Material and Exculpatory
Classified Information Pursuant to Rule 16 and Brady
(Supplemental Requests). See D.E. 2403.

33.
October 31, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Fourth Supplement of Specification
of Materiality of Requested Classified Information (Vol.
II). See D.E. 2406.
34.
November 8, 1996
Fifth Supplemental Specification of Materiality of
Requested Classified Information. See D.E. 2482.
35.
November 12, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Supplemental Discovery Requests
for Classified Information. See D.E. 2490.
36.
November 21, 1996
Supplemental Discovery Requests for Classified
Information by Timothy James McVeigh. See D.E. 2533.
37.
December 11, 1996
Memorandum to the Court Concerning Discovery of
Classified Information as to Timothy James McVeigh. See
D.E. 2649.
38.
December 27, 1996
Defendant McVeigh's Supplemental Memorandum to the
Court Outlining the Relevance and Materiality of Newly
Discovered Information From the Philippines, Israel and
the Middle East and Its Relevance to the McVeigh
Defense (ExParte and Under Seal). See D.E. 2763.
39.
December 30, 1996
Supplemental Motion to Compel the Production of
Information in Possession of the Intelligence Agencies of
the United States and Enumerated Discovery Requests.
See D.E. 2768.
40.
January 17, 1997
Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Discovery
Material (Under Seal). See D.E. 2966.
41.
January 21, 1997
Motion for Production of Evidence of Prior Warning of
the Oklahoma City Bombing Possessed by the Office of
Executive Secretariat at the Department of Justice by
Timothy James McVeigh. See D.E. 2984.
42.
February 4, 1997
Motion to Compel Discovery Based Upon Newly
Discovered Information or in the Alternative Request for
Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum Pursuant to Rule
17(c). See D.E. 3123.
43.
February 26, 1997
Memorandum to the Court Regarding Motion to Compel
Disclosure of Certain Information and Reports as to
Timothy James McVeigh (Sealed). See D.E. 3313.

44.
March 7, 1997
Defendant Timothy James McVeigh's Reply to the March
6, 1997, Response of the United States to McVeigh's
Motion for Additional Discovery (Sealed). See D.E. 3372.

Thus, the defense has requested information acquired by, and in the
possession of, the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies both
orally and in writing, and informally in written letters and formally in
written motions filed with the Court, since mid-August of 1995.

[Back]

[Index]

[Next]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT,
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
MARCH 25, 1997