[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