From: [s--k] at [i-link.net] (Sam A. Kersh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.fbi,alt.politics.org.atf,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Horiuchi's Drawing the Key to the Truth of Ruby Ridge
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 22:38:16 GMT

[j--r--n] at [galstar.com] (Jerry Morgan) wrote:

>On day #1 of the Ruby Ridge hearings, during Randy Weaver's testimony,
>his attorney Gerry Spence showed the subcommitte a drawing that he
>stated was made by FBI Agent Horiuchi.

>This drawing was supposedly made by Horiuchi after the killing of
>Vickie Weaver and depicted the door of the Weaver cabin, with the
>outline of two human heads visible, through the window.

>This drawing may well be the key to the truth of Ruby Ridge.

>Does anyone have a cite that this drawing was:

>	1. Introducted as evidence at the Weaver/Harris trial.

...............from DoJ report............................

Two weeks later, on June 4, the package arrived at the USAO.
Roberta Cruser, the docket technician for the USAO, opened the
package, dated stamped the Callihan cover letter and routed the
materials at about 10:00 a.m. that morning to Howen. [FNB1346] At
the luncheon recess Howen returned to his office. The court had
just excused HRT member Lon Horiuchi after defense questioning hag
been completed. When Howen arrived in his office he discovered the
package on his desk with the May 21 cover letter from Callihan
which indicated that Callihan was enclosing two copies of documents
responsive to the defense subpoena seeking "any and all records
used by the Shooting Incident Review Team." In addition, the letter
stated:

These documents consist of the original statements, and the FBI
Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines provisions noted
in the report as being read by all members of the Shooting Incident
Review Unit and we believe that they are ready for release to the
defendants' attorneys. [FN1347]

Howen recognized that many of the documents in the package had been
provided previously to them and to the defense in discovery.
However, other documents in the package had never been produced.
These never produced documents were: the agents' interview notes
from the "1-A" files of all FBI personnel interviewed in the
investigation except for Eugene Glen; and two drawings by HRT
sniper Horiuchi including a shooting diagram of the second shot
taken through the Weaver front door on August 22, 1992. When Howen
examined the materials in the package and saw the Horiuchi diagram
he knew that the late production of these materials would be
difficult for the prosecution to explain and would result in
significant criticism by the media. The impact was even greater
because it followed closely behind several other damaging and
embarrassing disclosures made during the trial. [FN1348] Howen
stated that he does not think that he  had ever "been as low
professionally." [FN1349]

Thereafter, Howen returned to the courtroom and informed the
parties of the package that he had just received. Defense counsel
referred to it as the latest in a series of incidents that had
prejudiced the rights of the defendant and moved for the case to be
dismissed because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct and for
sanctions to be imposed on the government. Howen, after noting that
many of the materials in the package had been previously produced,
[FN1350] informed the court that  his office was in the process of
trying to determine the reasons for the late production of these
materials. Howen stressed that  his office produced the materials
as soon as they were received  and suggested that the
responsibility for the late production of these materials rested
elsewhere. The court deferred a definitive ruling until after the
weekend and then stated,

[T]he Court is very upset about these things happening. It does
appear that it is somewhat of a pattern on the part of people,
agencies outside of the District of Idaho. The Court does not agree
that there is any evidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office at least
locally, is doing anything to hinder the prosecution of this case
or prejudice the defense. The comments of Mr. Howen just now
indicate his veracity and his sincerity in trying to comply with
the rules . . . . It seems to be totally inexcusable and extremely
poor judgment on the part of whoever is involved to send something
like this fourth class mail when a trial of this nature is going
to, the cost of time and human tragedy that is involved. [FN1351]

Following the court session, the USAO and others sought an
explanation for the late arrival of the package of materials sent
by Callihan. Callihan recalls that on June 4, a woman from the USAO
called and asked in a "rude and obnoxious" manner why the documents
had been sent by fourth class mail and why it had taken so long to
send them. Callihan stated that he inquired why there was such a
concern to which the woman said that Howen was upset about the
delay. Callihan then told her that the request had been handled
like similar requests and that Howen could call him to discuss the
matter if he wanted. [FN1352]

Sometime between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. on June 4, Dillon telephoned
Joseph R. Davis, Assistant Director of the Legal Counsel Division
and informed him that the FBI headquarters was responsible for the
late production of the documents in the Weaver case and that the
judge in the case was very upset. [FN1353] Dillon also mentioned
that he had received an earlier discovery request for these
documents but had not received the documents until that day. He
told Davis that the U.S. Attorney had requested the FBI to provide
an explanation for the delay to give to the judge. Davis left
messages on the answering machines of Brian Callihan and Thomas
Clawson to call him. [FN1354]

Later that same day, Callihan returned Davis' call. Davis informed
him that the U.S. Attorney and Dillon were upset about the lateness
of the transmittal and were unsure of what documents were in
controversy. Callihan explained how he processed the request and
repeated his understanding that there was no urgency to the request
since Miller had not been expected to testify for several months.
[FN1355]

Thereafter, Davis called Ellsworth to attempt to resolve the
conflict between the accounts given by Dillon and Callihan. During
a conference call in which Davis, Callihan, Ellsworth, Dillon and
perhaps others participated, Callihan repeated his version of
events. Howen remarked that these documents were responsive to a
number of discovery requests and should have been produced earlier.
Ellsworth agreed and, along with Howen, requested LCD and Dillon to
prepare sworn declarations to the court explaining the production
delay. These declarations were prepared and sent to the USAO.
[FN1356]

Sometime around June 5, the government received an affidavit
prepared by Brian Callihan in which he detailed how he learned of
the subpoena, the actions he took in responding to it and the
beliefs he had concerning the time requirements for production of
the materials. Callihan then stated, "[a]lthough I may have been
aware of a request from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Shooting
Incident Review Group Report, I was unaware that the U.S.
Attorney's Office had previously requested any or all other
records, documents, and notes in connection with this
investigation." [FN1357] Dillon also prepared a draft affidavit  in
which he accepted responsibility for not adequately relaying  the
USAO request to FBI headquarters. Howen decided not to file  any of
the affidavits filed by individuals involved in the  incident.

[FN1358]

On June 8, the parties made additional arguments to the court
concerning how they should proceed after the disclosure of the
subpoenaed materials. Of particular focus of the parties was the
Horiuchi drawing and its significance. The court reserved its
ruling until the next day but before doing so stated that:

The Court does not excuse the FBI Agency, The Court thinks there
has been a failure to comply with what was fully understand [sic]
to be required. They get involved in these technicalities as to who
was served, but it is obvious they had notice of it, they were
aware of what was required, and again, it is not anytime to be
playing games with the Court on technicalities. [FN1359]

 Judge Lodge issues his ruling on June 9 and ordered  Horiuchito
return for further examination in court due to the  failure of the
government to produce the materials in a timely  manner.In
addition, he assessed against the government the  costs and defense
attorney fees for the one-day delay. [FN1360] Almost five months
later, on October 26, Judge Lodge issues an  order imposing a
separate fine of $1920 against the FBI.This  fine represented the
fees paid to defense counsel on the day  that Horiuchi was brought
back to testify.In this order, which  is discussed more fully in
section IV(o), Judge Lodge was highly  critical of the actions of
the FBI which he believed hampered  the ability of the government
to comply with its obligations to  produce discoverable documents
including Jencks and Brady  materials.As a result of these actions,
Judge Lodge found that  the FBI had failed to comply with its
discovery obligations under  Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and held them to
be in contempt of court in  violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 401.
[FN1361]
......................end of DoJ extract...........................

>>>>>>>>>>> time line extract-Lexis>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
June 4, 1993

HRT sniper Lon Horiuchi completes his testimony. Documents
responsive to the April 13, 1993 defense subpoenas to the FBI and
that were mailed by the FBI on May 21, 1993, are received at the
U.S. Attorney's Office. Judge Lodge calls action "totally
inexcusable." 

June 9, 1993

Judge Lodge fines the government $3240 for failing to  comply with
the courts discovery order to produce materials  in a timely manner
and orders that Lon Horiuchi be returned  for further questioning. 

June 11, 1993

Judge Lodge dismisses two counts of the ten count  indictment
(Count Six charged violations of 18 U.S.C.  2  and 111, and
Count Eight charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.  922  (g) (2)) in
the indictment for lack of evidence.  

June 16, 1993

Jury deliberation begin on the 42nd day of the trial.  

July 8, 1993

The jury acquits Weaver and Harris for the murder of Deputy 
Marshal Degan. Harris is also acquitted of all other charges 
against him. Weaver is convicted on Count Three (Failure to Appear, 
18 U.S.C.  3146 (A) (1)) and Count Nine (Committing an Offense
While on Release. 18 U.S..C  3147 (1)) and found not guilty on
all other counts. Weaver is incarcerated pending sentencing. 
..................................................................


>	2. Horiuchi stated under oath that he in fact drew it.

My info does not state one way o the other.  Surely someone has full
text of the trial...

Sam