« Day 5: “Perfectly Legal†| Main | Day 6: An Ed Brown supporter who woke up to the real world »
Why combat engineer training?
By JJ MacNab | March 30, 2008
 Last Monday, I posted the following when describing Jason’s lawyer’s opening argument:
The second issue was Jason’s role at the Brown’s. According to the lawyer, he went there as a well-meaning college newspaper editor and then later became nothing but the Brown’s errand boy. He claimed that Jason left the house before scary Tannerite bombs and trip wires were installed in order to join the army. The lawyer never did explain why a guy who hates the government and detests the war so much would join the army.
Today, Jason’s defense lawyers made the following motion:
DEFENDANT JASON GERHARD’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE STATEMENTS
ATTRIBUTED TO HIM BY ROBERT WOLFEThe Defendant, JASON GERHARD, through his undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rules 401, 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules Of Evidence, to exclude statements attributed to him by Robert Wolfe to the effect that the defendant joined the army in order to learn more about explosives and/or weapons. In support of this motion, the defendant states that the admission of this evidence is irrelevant and invites prejudicial speculation from the jury about matters not before them.
No supporting memorandum accompanies this motion because the authorities are contained herein.
The U.S. Attorney objects to this request. The defendant is unaware of what position his co-defendants take on this Moiton. [sic]
Wherefore, the defendant requests that this Court issue an Order precluding the government from offering the evidence and statements discussed herein.
In September 2007, Jason Gerhard was arrested after being indicted in this case while he was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. Â
Topics: Jason Gerhard, Robert Wolffe | 5 Comments »
March 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Why would the army explosives training evidence be admissible if it has nothing to do with Ed Brown?
March 30th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Let’s put on our thinking caps shall we? If you are the prosecution, you would want to have that bit of information to prosecute Jason. Remember, this is not (directly) about Ed Brown, it is about Jason aiding and abetting convicted felons evade capture. If Jason bought explosives and delivered them to the fugitive’s place, when coupled with Bob Wolfe’s statement, which would probably go to his (Jason’s) state of mind and hence his motive(s) – which was to aid and abet convicted felons evade capture, and that his state of mind (as exemplified by the statement in question) coupled with his purchase (if he did so) of explosives and guns would indicate that he was a knowing part of the conspiracy to setup explosive traps to potentially hurt or kill law enforcement officers.
Darn shame really. Jason’s ability to follow orders/directions, procure goods and coordinate things could have easily made his M.O.S. Supply.
I am curious if Jason received a bonus for joining the Army. If so, at some point the Army will want it back.
Now, even if Mr. Wolfe’s statement is disallowed, it might be possible for the prosecution to still get the same information into the record. Since he was arrested while in basic, it seems logical for the prosecution to ask him what he was doing and learning at the time. They might then be able to ask what Military Occupational Specialty (M.O.S.) he wanted.
Please note, this is all supposition, an attorney will give a cleaner, more accurate summation and surmise.
Remember kids, in court it is like a chess game, each side is seeking an advantage over the other, however small that advantage may be. It’s not personal on either side, it is professional and all the pros (attorneys) sitting for both sides know the rules and how the game is played and both sides want to win.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:34 am
“Why would the army explosives training evidence be admissible if it has nothing to do with Ed Brown?”
We don’t know yet whether it has anything to do with Ed Brown. Prior to joining Brown, Jason was strongly opposed to the war, the President, and just about everyone he thinks was behind 911. Here’s Jason’s MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/wethepeoplecongress
March 31st, 2008 at 8:03 am
The nature of Gerhard’s opening – specifically, how his lawyer characterized his arrest during basic training – makes a difference as to relevance (and thus admissibility). If his lawyer characterized him as wanting nothing further to do with the Brown, family:felons, and as joining the Army out of partriotism, then a statement that he was joining the Army the better to blow things up becomes much more relevant (and, conversely, less prejudicial).
What was the opening like in that respect, Demo?
March 31st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I know Jason personally. From what he has said in the past, he was anti-war, government and the such. He has said this while he was interviewing the Brown’s for his articles. I wish I knew what his motivation was for joining the Army when he was not fond of the govt. He spoke highly of his bro, who is in the Army. Maybe he just wanted to follow in his brothers footsteps.