Writ of Mandamus

Writ of Mandamus - Part 1

Click on these new links...

Weird Happenings at Denver International Airport

Communist Sculpture @ New IRS HeadQuarters

This just in: BRAND NEW:  COVER UP in OKLAHOMA CITY on VHS tape
 
        To obtain this 1 hour VHS Video with original media
        coverage showing multiple undetonated bombs being
        recovered INSIDE the building and detailed analysis
        of coverup send email to: okc@TeamInfinity.com

The following document is the verbatim transcript (minus the appendices, which contain copyrighted material) of the petition for the writ of mandamus made by the attorneys for Oklahoma City Bombing defendant Timothy McVeigh. They are being offered on-line as a public service by TeamInfinty.com

Begin Text of Document

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,

Petitioner-Defendant,

Case No. 96-_____

(Case No. 96-CR-68-M below)

HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT,

TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

MARCH 25, 1997

Stephen Jones, OBA #4805

Robert Nigh, Jr., OBA #011686

Richard Burr, FBA #407402

Jeralyn E. Merritt, Esquire

Cheryl A. Ramsey, OBA #7403

Christopher L. Tritico, TBA #20232050

Of Counsel

Robert L. Wyatt, IV, OBA #13154

Michael D. Roberts, OBA #13764

James L. Hankins, OBA #15506

Randall T. Coyne, OBA #549013

Amber McLaughlin, TBA #1374098

Robert J. Warren, OBA #16123

Mandy Welch, TBA #21125380

Holly Hillerman, OBA #017055

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	PAGE NO.
OVERVIEW	1
I. INTRODUCTION	4
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS	9
II. PHYSICAL AND POLITICAL MAGNITUDE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ALFRED P. MURRAH BUILDING	9
A. Immediate Effects of the Explosion	9
B. The Response of the Federal Government	13
1. The Government's Immediate Response to the Bombing	14
a. Mobilization	14
b. Evidence From Public Sources of government Use of Intelligence Networks With Foreign Nations in the Investigation of the Alfred P. Murrah Building Bombing	16
C. CIA and NSA Investigation Protocol	17
2. Evidence of the International Scope of the Investigation and the Involvement of Organs of State Intelligence in Several U.S. Domestic Bombing Cases Including the Alfred P. Murrah Building	21
3. The Investigative Focus Upon Foreign Terrorists	24
III. THE ARREST OF TIMOTHY McVEIGH	28
IV. THE GRAND JURY RETURNS THE INDICTMENT OF "OTHERS UNKNOWN"	29

V. THE "OTHERS UNKNOWN" TO THE GRAND JURY	32
A. Elliott's Body Shop	32
B. Oklahoma City Eyewitnesses	34
C. Jeff Davis	35
D. Frederick Schlender	37
E. Legal Significance of the Existence of "Others Unknown"	38
VI. PRIOR WARNING, ATF INFORMANTS, AND POSSIBLE "OTHERS UNKNOWN"	38
A. Elohim City	38
B. Dennis Mahon, Andreas Strassmeir and Carol Howe	44
1 . Dennis Mahon	44
2. Andreas Strassmeir	47
3. Carol Howe and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms	53
VII. BEYOND ELOHIM CITY	79
A. Suspect I, Posse Comitatus, and Iraq	79
1. Posse Comitatus	79
B. Saudi Report Concerning Iraq	81
C. FBI Special Agent Kevin Foust	82
2. State Sponsorship Precedent	85
D. Israelis Present at the Bomb Site	89
E. A Subject of the Investigation in the Philippines	91

VIII. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS	101
A. Introduction	10l
IX. GOVERNMENT EVASION OF ITS DISCOVERY RESPONSIBILITIES	111
A. The Government's Restrictive Definition of Brady	114
B. Counsel for the Government are Powerless to Effect Disclosure of Discoverable Information from National Intelligence Agencies	128
X. AUTHORITY	137
A. Judge Matsch's Denial of Mr. McVeigh's Discovery Motions is Reviewable Upon Petition for Writ of Mandamus	137
B. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 Entitles Mr. McVeigh to the Requested Discovery Material	138
C. The District Court Abused its Discretion by Denying Mr. McVeigh's Repeated Requests for Brady Material	142
D. Standard for Guidance in Search	144
E. Because the Material Sought by Mr. McVeigh is Material Both to Guilt and Punishment, the District Court's Abuse of Discretion Jeopardizes Both Stages of Mr. McVeigh's Capital Trial	146
X. SPECIFIC RELIEF REQUESTED	152
CERTIFICATE OF HAND DELIVERY	154

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

United States Supreme Court Cases	PAGE NO.
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S.51,58 (1988)	151
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. V. Holland, 346 U.S.379 (1953)	139
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963)	passim
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110-12(1982)	147
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150(1972)	passim
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.419, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 1565-68, 131 L Ed. 2d490 (1995).	115, 142, 143, 14S, 151
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S.21(1943)	137
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S.507, 512 (1980)	16
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S.97, 110(1976)	145
United State v. Bagley, 473 U.S.667, 675(1985)	151
United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, 418 U.S. 683(1974)	136
Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95(1967)	137

Other Federal Cases

Chaney v. Brown, 730 F.2d1334, 1345 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 1090(1984)	146, 147, 148
Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 781 F. Supp. 737 (D. Wyo. 1991)	150, 151, 152
In re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation, 22 F. 2d755(7th Cir. 1994)	137
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d347(10th Cir. 1995)	12
Smith v. Secretary of New Mexico Department of Corrections, 50 F.3d801, 824(10th Cir.1995)	144, 145, 146
Texaco, Inc. v. Chandler, 354 F. 2d655(10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 936(1966)	137
United States v. Clegg, 740 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir.1984)	139
United States ex rel Smith v. Fairman, 769 F.2d386, 391-93 (7th Cir. 1985)	145
United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 154 (4th Cir. 1990 )	138
United States v. George, 786 F. Sup. 11, 13(D.D.C> 1991)	140
United States v. LaRouche, 695 F. Supp. 1265, 1281 (D. Mass. 1988)	145
United States v. Mandel, 914 F. 2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 1990)	139
United States v. McAnderson, 914 F. 2d934(7th Cu. 1990)	85

United States v. McVeigh, 923 F.Supp.1310,1313(D.Colo.1996)	114,130
United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d967-978(3d Cir.1991)	144
United States v. Penix, 516 F.Supp.248, 255 (W.D. Okla. 1981)	30,104
United States v. Poindexter, 727 F.Supp.1470(D.D.C.1989), rev.d on other "rounds, 951 F.2d366(D.C. Cir. 1991)	141,142
United States v. Rahman, 870 F.Supp.47,51(S.D.N.Y.1994)	142,143,151
United States v. Rewald, 889 F.2d836 (9th Cir.1989)	15
United States v. Rezaq, 156 F.R.D.514,519(D.D.C.1994)	140
United States v. Ritter, 272 F.2d30,32(10th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S.950(1960)	137
United States v. Trevino, 556 F.2d1265, 1272 (5th Cir.1977)	144
United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d617,623(D.C.1989)	140
United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d1086,1095(D.C.Cir.1991)	140
United States v. Zuno-Arce, 44 F.3d 1420, 1427 (9th Cir.1995)	144

Other Authorities
28 U.S.C.'1651(a)	137
Fed.R.Crin.P.16(a)(1)(C)	129, 138,139

Back to