Trial - Day 10, Closing Arguments

Trial - day 10 events:

The day picked up with cross examination of Reno by the prosecution. The prosecution asked if Reno was aware of the conviction for tax evasion and he said he was not aware that they were convicted but he explained that he was aware there was a legal situation with the Brown's. He explained how his main reason for going there was to prevent Ed and Elaine Brown from being killed by law enforcement. He indicated that he did bring 2 weapons with him to New Hampshire including a 22 caliber semi automatic pistol and a 9mm semi-automatic rifle. He explained that he took them with him for self defense. He was asked if he brought a 50 caliber weapon to the Brown's, he explained that he had purchased the 50cal and kept in in his car most of the time and he did bring it in the house and kept it near his sleeping quarters. He explained how after the falling out with Ed he took everything with him. He indicated that he carried a gun frequently while at the Brown's and that he couldn't tell from the helicopter footage on 6/7/2007 if he was carrying a rifle but that he was sure he did on that day. He talked about the photos that showed him carrying a rifle and he explained how he would shoulder a rifle to kept it safe so that it wasn't left laying around outside the house when there were a lot guest there. He was asked about the times he went to the commercial property to open it so Mr. MacDonald could look at the property. He explained how he wouldn't take any weapons into town because he felt that is "wasn't a good idea". He indicated that he never saw Danny with a 50 cal weapon and that he never told Jason that he needed to get firearms to protect himself. At one point he was asked if he ever contacted the Marshal's to try and negotiate a peaceful settlement. He indicate that he had not and that he didn't trust them. (On cross examination, Mr. Wiberg attempted to introduce into evidence the June 2007 Article 49 letter that Reno had signed along with Ed Brown and Randy Weaver to compel the Governor of New Hampshire to intervene to stop the standoff peacefully. The Judge excluded that from evidence after a sidebar discussion so the Jury will not see it.)

On cross examination by Danny's lawyer, Sven Wiberg, Reno was asked if he noticed any injuries on Danny when he came back to the house on 6/7/2007. He did and Mr. Wiberg was able to introduce 2 photos of Danny's injuries from that day. The jury saw a close up photo of the head contusions Danny suffered when the Marshal's bashed his head into the ground that day. They also saw a close up photo of the puncture wound caused by the taser prong on his upper left chest area. Mr. Wiberg attempted to introduce into evidence Danny's video blog on that day as well as the King Mob interview of Danny shortly following the incident. Again, after a sidebar discussion the Judge excluded that evidence and the Jury will not see it.

Closing Arguments

Mr. Kinsella got up to deliver the closing arguments for the prosecution. The prosecution explained points of law regarding conspiracy and how an implicit agreement between the conspirators was all that was required to establish that a conspiracy existed. The prosecution closing arguments focused on the ATF 4473 forms from the various weapons purchased by Reno, Danny and Jason and several emails between Danny and Reno and how that established beyond "any doubt" that a conspiracy existed. It was argued that Reno went up there to be part of all the attention and to prevent the Marshals from executing the arrest warrants for Ed an Elaine. The prosecution brought up the threats that Ed had made against law enforcement. The prosecution played a 1 minute clip from the Reno KingMob interview from the observation deck. Comments from the radio broadcast on the night shots were fired in the woods in which Danny said "this is the real deal, we have rounds in the chamber." Mr. Kinsella held up the 50 caliber weapons and emphasized how extremely powerful these weapons were and that they were intended to be used to kill US Marshals. The prosecution focused on the statements Jason had made at the Lebanon police station which he said that law enforcement was violating the Constitution and that was treason and the penalty for treason was death. He said Jason went up to the Brown's because he wanted a confrontation. The testimony of Mr. Tanner regarding how Tannerite could potentially "kill" someone or at least damage their hearing was emphasized. The prosecution wrapped up by saying the evidence in this case established beyond "any doubt" that the defendants were guilty.

Jason lawyer, then got up in front of the Jury and went into detail about the incident were Jason got into the car accident with Elaine's car. He described how all of the sudden Marshal's showed up at the scene and seized the car without any paperwork and prevented him from getting his belongings and stranded him and his 2 female companions there. How this was perceived, for all intents and purposes, as theft and that Jason went to the police station to file a stolen vehicle complaint which was the correct course of action, to file a "piece of paper" against the Marshal's. He explained how Jason was in the police station when again, all of the sudden, 4 Marshal's show up and questioned Jason for at least an hour and that, mysteriously, there was no video record of the encounter being that it was in a police station. He talked about how Jason wanted to report on the Brown situation and he held up the school newspapers in which Jason articles appeared. He emphasized how all the weapons purchased were legal. He finished by stating how all these facts established more than enough reasonable doubt and that the Jury must find Jason not guilty.

Sven Wiberg, Danny's lawyer then got up to present his closing arguments to the Jury. He began by emphasizing how our founding fathers gave us the jury system so that a jury could stand as the "last line of defense" for the rights of the individual and how each juror was an "army of one" standing against tyranny. He then got into the details of the case and he focused on how the prosecution's "star witness", Bob Wolfe, had basically been a disaster for the prosecution. How the entire "house of cards" of their case came tumbling down on his testimony. He explained how the half truths he had been telling were eating away at him and that his "better angels" took over and he told the one full truth of his testimony that there was "no agreement," there was "no plan," implicit or otherwise, by these defendants and based on that there was no conspiracy. He explained the pressure Bob Wolfe was under and how the government had threatened his wife with indictment if he didn't cooperate. He then got into the testimony of the prison snitch planted by the Feds, Anthony Dorothy, he said Dorothy was a "liar" of the worst kind, a career criminal, a career witness for the government and a 3 time "child molester". He attacked the factual inconsistencies in his testimony including how he stated that Danny had brought a sawed off pump shotgun to the Brown's and that no sawed off shotgun, let alone a pump shotgun was ever found at the Brown's or at Danny's home. He explained how the Tannerite was used for long distance target shooting and how the Brown's had a shooting range on the property that was frequently used. He explained how active targets were needed because of the impracticality of walking hundreds of yards every time to see if the target was hit. Mr. Wiberg emphasized that the indictment clearly required that the defendants had to know that the Brown's had committed a crime and not merely been convicted of a crime. Danny believed in his heart that the Brown's were convicted on a non law and therefore they had committed no crime, the defendants repeated many time for the government to "Show them the law". Based on all of this doubt the entire house of cards that was the prosecution's case had to come tumbling down. He emphasized that we have all these weapons in evidence for the prosecution but what you didn't see was the huge arsenal of weapons that the government brought to bear that day in June 2007. He explained that their own video showed a massive arsenal of weaponry and that everything changed after that incident. He indicated that there was also a "big brother" aspect of this case with emails, videos, helicopter surveillance, phone taps etc. He noted that "physical evidence doesn't lie, people do" and that none of the pipe bombs, zip guns and Tannerite had any trace of DNA or fingerprints from the defendants. He noted that the government had no probable cause to detain Danny on June 7th, they had admitted in testimony that he did nothing wrong that day and they still shot at him, tackled him, bashed his head into the ground and tasered him. He explained the importance of the different standards of evidence and that the highest standard we have in our system is beyond reasonable doubt and that based on that and the evidence, the jury had to find Danny Riley not guilty.

David Bownes, Reno's lawyer, then got up and delivered and very elegant closing statement where he explained that Reno's testimony was 100% reliable, that he went up there to further his causes and that he was seeking to meet folks of like mind. He explained how the evidence showed that none of the destructive devices could be associated with Reno, and that Reno had no desire to come out of the Brown's house shooting at Marshals so he could go down in a "blaze of glory". He explained how the Marshal's where never visible and how nobody was ever prevented by the Marshal's from going up to the Brown's until September 15, 2007. Mr. Bownes then presented that the most likely scenario was that Ed Brown "went crazy" after the arrest of the four supporters on September 12, 2007 and that he was isolated and alone. Ed then began hanging Tannerite in the trees and assembling pipe bombs and zip guns so he could go down in a blaze of glory. He ended by saying that Reno was indeed a man of peace and that the Jury had to find Cirino Gonzalez not guilty.

The prosecution then got up to deliver a short rebuttal. The prosecution clarified a view points of law regarding conspiracy and denied that the Marshal's tried to kill Danny on 6/7/2007. What was stark about the prosecutions rebuttal was that it appeared to me that the wind had been taken out of Mr. Kinsella's sails, his delivery of the rebuttal was weak and lacked passion and energy. Which was understandable after the jury heard nearly 3 hours of defense closing arguments.

The Judge then dismissed the Jury for the weekend. On Monday the Jury will hear over 20 pages of jury instructions then begin deliberations.