4/22 Bari v FBI trial

Most remarkable event of the day: Over the repeated objections of the FBI's defense attorney, Joseph Sherr, plaintiffs' attorney Bob Bloom was able to get the fact that the FBI actually does investigate organizations into the trial. When Sherr said it was "irrelevant", Bloom stated emphatically that "It has everything to do with the case." In fact, when Judge Claudia Wilken said that she "had not seen enough" to authenticate the document Bloom was referring to which states that the FBI investigates organizations (part of a set of early deposition papers) Sherr was obliged to say "Oh, there's no doubt that it's authentic", and so it was finally admitted as evidence.

Dr. Peter Slabaugh, Judi's attending physician, was first on the stand today. Attorneys for the FBI attempted to make it look as if Dr. Slabaugh's testimony and the X-ray exhibits that went with it indicated that the location of the bomb actually was not beneath the driver's seat, but they were not successful.

Testimony of lead defendant Frank Doyle, formerly a 'Special Agent' with the FBI, continued today. Doyle was obstructionist in his testimony to the point that his unrelenting "I don't recall" statements and his denials of others' testimony about things he had said -- and even of statements he had made himself in depositions -- created an effect that was almost comical. When he could not get past a statement of his which he wished to deny by answering the question "Isn't this what you said?" with "Well, that is what is typed there", he resorted to "IF that is what I said, I was mistaken".

He seemed to be weaseling out of the statement attributed to him at the time of the bombing, that the bomb had been in plain view on the floor behind the driver's seat and so Darryl Cherney and Judi Bari had to have known it was there when they got in the car. He did not mention that "in plain view" today and in fact seemed to be trying to move the location as close to the driver's seat as possible without being technically "beneath" it. At one point he agreed that it might have been as far away from the rear seat as 18 inches.

During the closing segment of the day, defense attorney Sherr was working hard to build up Doyle's image as a heroic defender of public safety and a protector against terrorism. He attempted to earn the affections of the jury for Doyle by saying Doyle worked on "specifically Middle Eastern terrorism", in addition to the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. (It was notable that the judge did not object to this extended, extraneous material. One observer, after the trial, wondered whether the judge would allow such a long 'character building session' when Darryl Cherney takes the stand.)

This expanding litany of Doyle's experiences made an interesting contrast to Doyle's testimony earlier in the day when Bloom was questioning him as to his expertise at the time of the bombing, trying to get him to admit to his previous experience with "hundreds of crime scenes" (in order to show that he had authority and was respected for it by the Oakland Police). Doyle steadfastly denied having experience, and stated that he got his present job (in forensic crime scene training for the US Department of State in the "State Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program") based not on any expertise that he had when he applied but just "on my previous employment". At this point, Bloom got a laugh from the audience and jury when he responded by asking Doyle "Do you think I should apply for the job?"

Still in question, and discussed while the jury was on break, is what will be done regarding the issue of the plastic pipe the police found in Darryl Cherney's van after the bombing, a subject that the Oakland Police introduced improperly (violating an exclusionary ruling Judge Wilken had made before the trial). Bloom wanted Judge Wilken to make a statement negating the testimony about the pipe. But what the judge wanted at this point was to have the pipe that had been dredged up by the defense -- purporting to be the item in question -- passed around the jury. To Bloom's obvious agitation at this idea, she suggested that "Then you could say, 'This doesn't match, this cannot be the right thing'". It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

See http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/04/123751.php for background material on Frank Doyle.