« Brown Trial: July 8, 2009: From Make the Stand to Take the Stand | Main | Brown Trial July 9, 2009: The Verdict »
Brown Trial: July 8, 2009 Closing Arguments
By JJ MacNab | July 9, 2009
I am not a patient person, I tend to say whatever I want, and I’m just not that good at following rules.
I would suck as a federal prosecutor.
Contrary to Ed’s belief that government lawyers get to say anything they want all the time, and get all their motions and objections passed with a big, rubber stamp (in ALL CAPS with red ink, no less,) the truth is that the judge only appears to give them what they want because they tend to know the court rules and usually stick to them.
Please note: I use safe, comfy hedge words like “usually” and “tend” because there will always be evil prosecutors out there just like some cops are crooked and some priests are pervs. The evil prosecutors, however, were not assigned to the Brown trial. Maybe they were all on vacation or hanging out in their Illuminati clubhouse. Either way, they weren’t flaunting their evilness in Concord, NH this week.
Because of zillions of pesky court rules, watching a federal trial is a bit like watching a movie on a high def tv that’s covered with a really thick layer of dust. You know the high def picture is underneath there somewhere, and you just want to wipe away the dust to better enjoy your movie.
Witnesses can only talk about what they personally know, and physical evidence can’t speak to motive. Bombs and IEDs don’t have lips, after all. Juries see a lot of dots on a page, but lack guidance in how to connect those dots into a cohesive picture.
Until closing arguments, that is.
Federal Prosecutor Terry Ollila
Ms. Ollila picked up a cloth and polished the jurors’ tv screen to a nice, glossy shine.
She told the story of the Brown’s initial arrest, tax trial, standoff, and capture with a steady stream of pictures of the relevant evidence playing on the courtroom screens for the jurors to watch. She reminded jurors about the guns, the bombs, the booby traps, the threats, the 60,000+ rounds of ammunition, the cash, the Tannerite baggies in the trees, the supporters, the how-to books, and much much more.
She painted Ed as the guy who built the bombs, and Elaine as the woman who earned the money to finance the operation. When push came to shove, it was Elaine’s goal to stand by Ed, gun in hand, and kill anyone who tried to arrest them.
Prosecutor: The battle never happened because the Marshals had Ed and Elaine’s number. They acted with patience and deliberation. They knew the fringe players would gradually fade away to find another cause or simply disappear into the wind. At the end of the day, the Browns’ plans fell flat because they were up against true professionals.
The closing argument ended with a brief excerpt of Ed, standing in handcuffs, with a Marshal wiping his face with a tissue.
Dang.
Elaine’s Defense Counsel
Mr. Lang’s closing statement was brief. He asked the jury to use common sense, and tried to separate Elaine from all of the bombs and rifles sitting in a pile on the evidence tables.
Lang: Yes, she knew about the [bombs and explosive devices] but did not mean she had dominion or control over those items.
He said Elaine returned home to Ed because “home is the place you go where they have to take you in.”
Lang: She did what she had to do as a loyal wife. It was not a conspiracy, and there was no evidence that she had anything to do with any destructive devices.
Ed’s Legal Counsel
I can’t imagine what it’s like trying to defend a client who keeps admitting his crimes under oath and acts like an immature ass throughout the trial.
Iocapino: No matter what you think of Ed’s beliefs or ideologies, he’s still a living, breathing human being.
Too bad Ed didn’t think of the Marshals and the people he threatened the same way.
The lawyer focused his presentation on the burden of proof and the notion of willfulness.
Iacopino: His intent was to live, not to commit a crime. You may not have liked Ed Brown. You may not have liked what he said on the witness stand. He told you things on the stand that really didn’t help his case too much. But what does that tell you? That he’s telling you the truth.
He accused the prosecutor of making a strawman argument in her closing statement. I swear on my favorite cat that Ed’s ears made a little “perk” sound at the word “strawman”.
In the end, the resounding theme of Ed’s defense was that he wanted to live.
Rebuttal by Arnold Huftalen
Prosecutor: Ed wanted to live, but he wanted to live his way, and if anyone got in his way, he’d kill them. Nothing I say now will change your mind about Ed so let me talk about Elaine Brown. A conspiracy is an agreement, spoken or unspoken. Your common sense and the evidence in this case will make it clear to you than she was a member of this conspiracy, she just was. There’s no evidence that she touched or built [bombs and explosive devices] but there’s a whole lot of evidence that she knew they were there.
Throughout the closing statements, Elaine sat still while Ed kept turning around and mouthing comments to the militia chic guy in the audience. He mock slit his own throat a couple of times, hamming it up for his tiny group of supporters.
Jury instructions were long and tedious, as usual, and you could all but see the jurors doing a mental checklist in their heads as the judge read each count into the record. Elaine followed along the pages with her attorney while Ed fidgeted.
Half-way through, militia chic guy started snoring loudly in the audience but the Marshals woke him up.
Realistically, the jury can’t come up with immediate decision since the verdict form reads like an algebra test: If 1 or 2 = guilt, then 3. If neither 1 nor 2 are guilty, then neither 3 nor 4. They look like a sharp bunch, though, and there could be a verdict within two or three hours.
The jurors got the case at 4:15 pm and were told by the judge to stick it out until 7:30 pm. Eleven hours is a long day for a juror.
Interesting bits:
Several books from Ed’s library were introduced into evidence. I looked but didn’t see any Oprah labels:
- “Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Manual”
- “Unconventional Warfare Devices and Techniques”
- “Unconventional Warfare Devices and Techniques - Incendiaries”
- “Booby Traps”
- “The Anarchist Handbook”
Topics: Ed Brown, Elaine Brown, Tax Deniers | 2 Comments »
July 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Jury instructions:
Are the actual ones available?
Were model or specific instructions offered by either of E&E or by the prosecution which were accepted or rejected?
July 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Ed didn’t have a copy of “The Anarchist Cookbook” or “The Turner Diaries”?