Feds Fight Back (April 17, 2002)

Dennis Cunningham, lead attorney in Darryl Cherney and Judi Bari’s suit against six FBI agents and three Oakland Police officers, delivered his opening statement in the case last Tuesday, just before the AVA went to press. He called the arrest of the two activists following the explosion of a bomb in Bari’s car “a frame up aimed at neutralizing them politically.” 

On Wednesday, it was the defense’s turn. R. Joseph Sher and Maria Bee, counsel for the defendants struck back at Cunningham, attempting to make the case that their clients’ actions were just and proper, and that they followed standard police procedure throughout their investigation. After they were through, the plaintiffs began calling witnesses.

Bari and Cherney supporters continued to pack Judge Claudia Wilken’s tiny courtroom in the Oakland Federal District Court during the week. Attendance hovered at around 40, most of them Bay Area residents. A few Mendolanders appear to be staying for the duration of the case.

As of press time Monday evening, the plaintiffs had called ten witnesses. Four of these were friends and associates of the plaintiffs at the time of the bombing: Shannon Marr, a Seeds of Peace activist who was driving ahead of Bari and Cherney when the bomb exploded; Karen Pickett, an Earth First activist from the Bay Area who had assisted in the organizing of Redwood Summer; and Betty and Gary Ball (formerly) of the Mendocino Environmental Center.

Another five were law enforcement or rescue workers who became involved with the bombing or its investigation on the day of the explosion: Tom Veirs, an Oakland fireman who cared for Bari while she was trapped in her Subaru; T.J. Roumph, a member of Alameda County’s Bomb Squad, who observed the crime scene but did not participate in the investigation; Michele Gribi, an OPD evidence technician; and Officers Paul Slivinsky and Walter Ludwig of the Oakland Police Department, who were assigned to guard Cherney and Bari, respectively, on the day of the bombing (Ludwig, who has since passed away, participated by having his deposition read).

Finally, the plaintiffs called Sgt. Michael Sitterud, the homicide detective who headed the investigation for the Oakland Police Department. Sitterud, who has since retired from the force, is one of the three Oakland Police officers named as defendants in the case, along with his then-partner, Sgt. Robert Chenault, and his then-superior, Lt. Mike Sims. 

But before witness examination began, the lead attorneys for the defense presented their opening statements. Sher, who previously represented the government in lawsuits arising from the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents, spoke for the six accused FBI agents. Bee, Oakland assistant city attorney, spoke for the three OPD officers.

The Defense’s Opening Statements

Sher began his opening statement first thing Wednesday morning, after Wilken reminded the jury that no weight should be given to the fact that the defense’s opening statements came a day after the plaintiffs’. On Tuesday, Sher had protested the fact that the two sides would present their case on different days, claiming that it was unfair to his clients.

Sher said that he wanted to begin by introducing his clients, the six current and former FBI agents that sat behind him. The jurors were already familiar with the basics of the case, thanks to Cunningham’s opening statement and a summary of the facts Judge Wilken read to them immediately after they were empaneled.

He began with Special Agent John Reikes, head of the FBI San Francisco bureau’s “Squad 13,” the counterterrorism unit. “At the time, [Reikes] was a husband and a father,” Sher said. “Today he’s a grandfather. Among his concerns at the time of the bombing were ecosystems and endangered species,” Sher said, adding that Reikes, though green as spring grass, may have disagreed with some of the methods employed by the plaintiffs.

SA Frank Doyle, a bomb expert and one of the plaintiffs’ principal bogeymen (Lt. Sims being the other), “just came back from Uzbekistan, where he was assisting the US State Department in counterterrorism efforts in the former USSR,” said Sher. SA Stockton Buck supervised the collection of evidence in the case, cataloguing it so that a “chain of custody,” which would ensure its status as proof in a court of law, could be established.

SA Phil Sena, who supervised at least some intelligence-gathering efforts on Earth First prior to the bombing: “At the time, Phil’s principal focus was right-wing terrorism — not left-wing terrorism.” SA Phil Conway, of the FBI’s Santa Rosa field office: “In May of 1990, he was just completing an undercover operation in the Provisional Irish Republican Army.” Special Agent Walt Hemje, who eventually became the FBI’s case agent in the bombing, wasn’t even in San Francisco at the time. He was in Quantico, Virginia, at FBI HQ. He was assigned to the case after he returned to San Francisco that weekend. 

Sher thanked his clients and began his presentation. His great strength as an attorney, apart from his forensic skills, is his personal charm. He employed it throughout, never raising his voice for dramatic effect. “Your task is a bit like putting together a jigsaw puzzle,” he told the jurors. “But it’s a bit different. You don’t get a single picture to work from, you get several pictures. Let me burden you with our picture of what happened.”

The FBI, like any organization, has its own internal lingo, Sher said. The jury would come to learn some of it in the upcoming weeks. “Subs,” for instance, is short for “subjects” — which itself is another word for “suspects.” “Unsubs” means “unknown subjects.” Sher asked the jury to pay particular attention to those two terms. “You will see pieces of paper written [by these agents] during the first weeks of their investigation,” Sher said. “On every one of them, you will see ‘unsubs.’ You will see Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney listed as ‘victims’.”

“The FBI as an institution is not on trial,” Sher now reminded the jury. “Six people are in your hands. Six people whose job was to protect you from terrorism — both from abroad and homegrown.” Earth First — at least the national version of the movement — was known to the FBI, partly through a sting operation conducted on an Arizona EF! group that the agency had recently conducted.

“As you know,” Sher said, “and as the evidence will show, from the very beginning at the scene of the crime, Ms. Bari and Mr. Cherney made a point of their connection with Earth First, and that that connection had something to do with the bombing.” Still, though the OPD decided to arrest Bari and Cherney, the FBI agents never officially considered them “subjects,” and they continued to pursue other angles.

“In the following weeks, the investigation proceeded as best it could,” Sher continued. “The agents tried to reconstruct the movements of Bari and Cherney, trying to find out where the bomb was placed.” He said, though, that the investigation became difficult when Susan Jordan, a lawyer who was then representing Bari, advised her not to cooperate. Several of Bari’s friends also clammed up.

When the FBI got hold of the Lord’s Avenger letter — written by someone who had access to the bomb before it was placed in Bari’s car — SA Stockton Buck treated it as a major break in the case, personally carrying it back to the FBI crime laboratory in Washington that night. “The Lord’s Avenger letter — far from being ignored — was sent to the FBI’s Behavioral Sciences lab: the profilers,” Sher said. “They were giving the agents advice about who to look for.”

But the investigation stalled, Sher said, mostly because the leads dried up. The victims and their associates weren’t cooperating. Sher also implicated the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, whose reporter had received the Lord’s Avenger letter. Sher said that his clients had gone to the paper’s offices and asked to search its back file of letters to the editor, to see if they could find anything that resembled the Lord’s Avenger letter in substance or style. 

The tale, though it was offered partly to buttress the defense’s argument about why the investigation was dying, was also a dig at the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants had set out to violate their First Amendment rights. It was also aimed at the allegation that the defendants staged press events designed to further slander Bari and Cherney.

Did the PD help the FBI? “My clients, who allegedly controlled the press, were told to go pound sand,” he said. “Did they break down the Press Democrat’s door? No. They accepted the rights of the press to operate entirely independently, as they had a right to do.”

Later, according to Sher, other events conspired to prevent the investigation from proceeding. In the fall of 1990, the country went to war. “In the course of the Gulf Crisis, you will see that the counterterrorism unit had plenty of things to do, things that seemed of considerably greater importance,” Sher said.

After the war, several of the investigating agents were transferred to other bureaus. SA Conway went to work on the Unabomber case. “The investigation continued on a low level,” Sher said, “until it was ultimately determined that there was little left to do.”

But none of that meant that the accused agents had no desire to catch whoever was responsible for the bombing, nor that they were out to smear Bari and Cherney, Sher said: “What you won’t hear is any evidence that any of these six people had any hostility toward protection of the environment. What you won’t hear is any evidence that these six people oppressed anyone’s speech. What you will hear is that the plaintiffs were unwilling to come forward to assist the investigation.”

“We have had a long time in this courtroom to make sense of this case,” he concluded. “You will have a short time, and your task will be a difficult one. I am sure you will carry out that task with the same sense of honor and dedication that these six agents carried with them throughout this case.”

Sher ceded the floor to make way for his colleague, Oakland Assistant City Attorney Maria Bee. Bee, whose style is much more forceful and much less conversational than Sher’s, recounted the actions of the OPD defendants on the day of the bombing. She told it as a story, in the present tense. 

“When Sgt. Sitterud arrives on the scene, he is told by an FBI agent that the victims were members of a radical environmental organization called Earth First,” Bee said. “He and Sgt. Chenault learn about power lines that recently had been sabotaged in Santa Cruz and Arizona, and that the FBI has an informant who told them that two Earth First leaders were on their way to Santa Cruz. They quickly learn that Bari and Cherney were going to Santa Cruz. They realize: this is a major case.”

That evening, Bee said, there was a “briefing” between FBI agents and OPD personnel. The FBI gave the officers additional background on Earth First. The FBI told the officers that nails taped to the bomb matched those found in the back of Bari’s car. “Lt. Sims decides that he is going to arrest at this point,” she said. 

The Alameda County District Attorney never filed charges against Bari or Cherney, Bee said, but that does not mean the police were hasty: “You will hear from an assistant district attorney that the standards of proof are different for obtaining a search warrant or arrest warrant and charging,” she said. “You will see that at every stage, the decisions of the Oakland Police Department officers on this case were reasonable and proper, based on the information they had at the time.”

Earth First: Violent Or Nonviolent?

“One of the things Judi did was to say that monkeywrenching — the tree-spiking stuff — had to go,” Cunningham had said in his opening. “It didn’t matter what the founders of the movement thought. It hurt the workers, and it was counterproductive.”

When the trial entered its second phase — the questioning of witnesses — this became a major theme of discussion. The plaintiffs underscored at every conceivable moment that Bari and Cherney had publicly renounced tree-spiking and had pledged themselves, and their movement, to Gandhian non-violence. The defense sought to undermine this in three ways. First, they tried to establish that the defendants had no way of knowing about the renunciation — it had come only a few weeks earlier — and that the bulk of their information about Earth First came from other sources, such as the pro-monkeywrenching Earth First Journal and its investigation of other EF groups. Second, they briefly argued that since Bari and Cherney did not describe themselves as Earth First “leaders,” they were in no position to enforce a tree-spiking ban, even if they themselves believed that it was the right thing to do. Third, they suggested that the renunciation was less than sincere.

The question is key to both sides’ cases. If the plaintiffs’ legal team is able to establish that the defendants knew that Bari, Cherney, and Redwood Summer as a whole were pledged to nonviolence, it would rob them of much of their rationale for pursuing Bari and Cherney as suspects. If, on the other hand, the defense persuades the jury that it knew nothing of Bari and Cherney’s nonviolent pledge — only the violence against property that had been associated with Earth First throughout its history — or if it makes the jury doubt that their commitment to nonviolence was genuine, their reasons for the arrest become much more understandable.

The two sides first clashed swords over this issue during the testimony of Shannon Marr. On May 24, 1990, Marr, a young Seeds of Peace activist, was leading Bari and Cherney from the home of David Kemnitzer, where they had spent the night, to the Seeds of Peace house in Berkeley. From there, Bari and Cherney were going to begin the trip to Santa Cruz, where they were to lead a Redwood Summer rally.

Marr said that Seeds of Peace had approached Bari and Cherney and offered to provide logistical support — mostly food and sanitary facilities — during Redwood Summer. She testified that there had been some discussion within Seeds of Peace before this decision was made, because several Seeds of Peace people had heard about Earth First’s use of monkeywrenching as a tactic.

“We had heard that Earth First had been involved in property destruction,” she said. “It was sort of a general rumor. To Seeds of Peace, property destruction was violence and we didn’t want anything to do with it. We had bylaws that we would only work with nonviolent organizations. But Redwood Summer was nonviolent and Judi and Darryl were obviously nonviolent.”

When cross-examined by Maria Bee, however, Marr said that she had told Sgt. Sitterud and Sgt. Chenualt, on the day of the bombing, about the concerns that other members of her group had expressed when deliberating whether to get involved in Redwood Summer — meaning, of course, that that information was present in the minds of the Oakland Police Department when they made the decision to arrest Bari and Cherney.

Tony Serra’s examination of Karen Pickett focused mainly on the history of Earth First, since Pickett’s contact with the movement predated both Bari’s and Cherney’s. She had met Earth First co-founder Dave Foreman at Berkeley’s Ecology Center in 1983. She described Earth First’s decision-making procedure, which she said was based on consensus. She also drew something of a distinction between Earth First as a national movement and North Coast Earth First groups — both were engaged in civil disobedience with the aim of defending the environment, she said, but tactics differed from group to group.

Serra mentioned tree-spiking. “Was there a renunciation of that tactic [on the North Coast]?” he asked. “Yes,” Pickett answered. “There was a public renunciation of the tactic at a press conference.” She said that press releases were mailed out, and that the group used a number of different means to let it be known that destruction of property would not be an acceptable Redwood Summer tactic.

Redwood Summer, she said, was “expressly nonviolent.” “Judi was kind of a broken record on the subject,” Pickett said. “She kept driving home her point — how we needed to get through to people what nonviolence was and why it was necessary.”

During the cross-examination, Dennis Barghaan asked Pickett whether she was familiar with the Earth First Journal, particularly a column called “Dear Ned Ludd.” Didn’t the column advocate property destruction as a form of activism? Pickett replied that it did not “advocate,” it merely contained news reports of monkeywrenching around the nation. 

Barghaan switched gears, noting that Pickett had testified that Earth First was not a membership organization, and that neither Bari or Cherney considered themselves “leaders.” How, then, could they enforce a “ban” on tree-spiking, no matter how strongly they felt about the practice themselves? Pickett accepted the argument, to some extent. “I don’t know that they could stop anyone from doing anything,” she said, except that nonviolence was continually stressed at all Redwood Summer organizing events.

The same debate played itself out during the questioning of Betty and Gary Ball. Betty Ball testified that “sabotaging and destruction was a part of many Earth First groups previously. We wanted to make sure that property damage would not be a part of Redwood Summer.” She said that the “Redwood Summer nonviolence code” was included in all the publicity material.

Sher, in his cross-examination, introduced a poster for “Earth Night 1990.” The poster, which was dated April, just a month before the bombing, shows a silhouette figure grasping a pipe wrench, a bulldozer in the distance. The poster’s caption read, “Go out and do something for the earth... at night.” Several names appeared at the bottom, among them Bari’s and Cherney’s. 

Sher asked Ball about the poster. “In Earth First, does ‘taking action at night’ have a particular meaning?” he asked. “I’ve never heard of it,” Ball said. “Is it not a code for monkeywrenching?” Sher continued. “I’ve never heard it used that way,” Ball said. Ball may have denied the obvious inferences, but it is hard to imagine that the jury didn’t get the point.

Cunningham asked Gary Ball to talk about the relationship between Redwood Summer organizers and the philosophy expressed in the Earth First Journal. “I personally took a disliking to the Earth First Journal very early on,” he said. “I can’t see any special relationship between our group and the Journal.”

On cross, Barghaan took the opportunity to continue where his examination of Pickett had left off. “Were you aware that up until May of 1990, Ms. Bari and Mr. Cherney contributed to the Earth First Journal?” he asked. “Yes, they did,” Ball responded. “And moreover, Mr. Cherney’s music was advertised in the Journal, is that correct?” “Correct.”

Was Earth First’s Freedom Of Speech Hindered?

One of the plaintiffs’ main charges — the one, presumably, that would garner the biggest monetary award if the defendants are found liable — is that the Bari and Cherney’s arrest was a conscious slander that had, as its aim, the disrupting of Redwood Summer. If such were found to be true, it would be a fairly classic First Amendment violation: the limitation, by an agency of the government, of a person’s speech.

Sher and Bee are, for the most part, defending their clients by asserting that no such conscious effort existed. The arrest of Bari and Cherney was at worst, they say, an honest mistake. However, at times the two attorneys have hinted at another possible defense, one which may come closer to the fore when the defense begins calling its own witnesses. Namely, that the arrest actually aided the Redwood Summer recruitment effort, thus amplifying the plaintiffs’ voices.

It started out slowly, during Sher’s cross-examination of Betty Ball. “Is it a fact,” he asked, “that you’ve tried to keep this case in the public eye, and that effort continues to this day?” Ball said that it was the case. Later, when Maria Bee stepped up, she asked Ball to recall an interview she gave to filmmaker Steve Talbot after the bombing. “Do you remember telling him that you got a great deal of support for Redwood Summer because of the bombing?” she asked. “Yes,” Ball answered. “That you received emotional and financial support for Redwood Summer after the bombing?” Bee continued. “Yes,” Ball repeated.

Bee went on to other matters, but Cunningham saw the implications right away. He got to it almost immediately when he got up to question Ball on redirect. “You’re not trying to mean that it made it a good thing, that the bombing happened?” he asked. Ball said that she wasn’t. “Redwood Summer would have been a much greater success if we hadn’t had that horrible thing happen,” she said. 

The strategy, if the defense decides to pursue it, may have its greatest impact when the jury sits down and tries to set a dollar figure on the abridgment of Bari and Cherney’s First Amendment rights. If it comes to that. Maybe, you could say, they have already been at least partially compensated — may continue to be compensated up to this day, in fact, by the publicity they continue to receive because of the arrest. A somewhat insidious argument, no doubt, but hard to ignore.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have perhaps expanded their First Amendment claim beyond the seemly by charging that another effect of the defendants’ slander campaign was the failure of Proposition 130, the Forests Forever initiative, which was on the ballot that year. Cunningham had Gary Ball talk about his perceptions of how the bombing case affected the Prop. 130 vote. “It gave the timber industry a chance to say that Prop. 130 was tied to people who use bombs,” Ball said. “It gave them a chance to denounce Prop. 130 and Earth First at the same time.” Cunningham entered into evidence an industry handbill that did just that.

The plaintiffs expect to call Cecilia Lanman — an activist associated with the Forests Forever campaign sometime in the upcoming weeks. “She will testify about the effect of the bombing charges on the campaign,” according to one of the plaintiffs’ press releases.

North Coast Activists’ (Non)Cooperation With The Investigation

Sher promised, in his opening statement, to show that the investigation slowed down because sources close to Bari and Cherney refused to cooperate. The defense team expanded on this through their cross-examination of witnesses during the first week of the trial, but the plaintiffs also tried to rebut the idea.

Cunningham asked Shannon Marr to recount her experiences talking to OPD officers on the day of the bombing. After she was found and identified at the scene, she was taken to the OPD’s Homicide Division, where she would later be questioned by Sgts. Sitterud and Chenault. When the two detectives arrived at the station, she said, “I started to talk to them incessantly. I told them about the death threats that Judi had been getting. I’d seen photographs of her with crosshairs over them. I’d heard about her being run off the road. I told them everything I could possibly think of.”

After a while, Marr said, one of the officers told her that “they would prefer to have you as a witness than a suspect.” The statement threw her, she said. Then, she testified, Sitterud said “We know you planted the bomb, so you might as well tell us how you did it.” 

“I crossed my arms,” Marr said, “and I said, ‘That’s it. I’m not talking to you without a lawyer.” Such was the pattern, Cunningham was later to say to Sitterud during his testimony. Everyone would cooperate with the police until they were accused of being involved in the crime. (Sitterud denied it.)

The defense asked Betty Ball why she did not cooperate with SA Buck, who had asked her for an interview. Ball said that Susan Jordan had advised her not to speak with them without a lawyer present. Buck agreed and various dates were proposed, but none were found on which both the attorney and the agent were free.

“Did you make any attempt to write down any information to present to the FBI?” Sher asked Ball. She said that she had given some material to Susan Jordan, but that she did not know what Jordan did with it. “Did you make any effort to make that material directly available to the FBI or the Oakland Police Department?” Sher asked. “No, I didn’t,” Ball said. 

Then, on Monday, Sher asked Sitterud about a conversation with Mike Sweeney. “Do you recall speaking with him?” Sher asked. “Yes,” Sitterud answered. “Tell the ladies and gentlemen what he said,” Sher continued, a bit of an edge creeping into his voice. “He said he had no intention to talk to me,” Sitterud said, “and he said that he had advised everyone in the movement not to cooperate.”

Sgt. Sitterud and the OPD’s Rationale

Sgt. Sitterud — the lead homicide investigator on the case — took the stand Thursday afternoon, at the end of the trial’s first week, and he was kept there all Monday and part of Tuesday. The detective, who retired from the force seven years ago, was not the most satisfying of witnesses. He often hedged his answers, saying that the bombing happened so long ago that it was difficult for him to recall events concerning it with any specificity. He frequently changed his mind after being shown original documents that were presented as evidence during the case.

Still, the lawyers for both sides were able to hammer out of him the clearest chronology to date of the events of May 24, 1990, from law enforcement’s point of view, and the plainest statement of the OPD’s rationale for pursuing Bari and Cherney as suspects for almost a month and a half.

From beginning to end, according to Sitterud’s testimony, he relied almost completely on the FBI for guidance in the investigation. The FBI agents who arrived at the scene shortly after the bomb went off let him know where they thought the bomb was located in the car. He took them at their word, even though he had been trained as a bomb investigator himself. He got almost all his information about Earth First’s reputation for property destruction from them. 

Lt. Sims, head of the homicide division, assigned the case to Sitterud and Chenault, his partner, shortly after the call came in. Several OPD beat officers had already responded, and FBI agents were on the scene when he arrived. Sitterud testified that on the way to the scene he kept an open mind about whether the victims may have been responsible, as was his custom. 

Once there, however, and after talking to the FBI agents at the site, he began to form a hypothesis. “By the time you had taken in the information given to you at the crime scene,” Cunningham asked him, “you began to tilt toward [Bari and Cherney] as perpetrators, not victims, is that right?” “I would say that I started to tilt,” Sitterud replied, “but I would also say that I tried to keep an open mind.”

Sitterud later testified that he could not remember whether he was told that the bomb had been placed behind the driver’s seat at the scene of the crime or later, at a meeting between FBI agents and OPD detectives held at OPD headquarters. What he did know is that he deferred to SA Frank Doyle, whom he was told was an FBI bomb expert and a bomb school instructor. Sitterud, learning that Doyle was on the scene, did not attempt to conduct his own investigation. At some point, Doyle said that the bomb must have been located behind the driver’s seat, where it would have been visible to those in the car.

Bee had him give the rationale for Sitterud’s decision not to conduct his own inspection of the car on her cross-examination. “Had you ever worked a bombing crime scene before?” she asked. “Not one of this magnitude, no,” Sitterud replied.

He testified that he tilted even further toward suspecting Bari and Cherney when his partner Sgt. Chenault arrived at the scene. Cunningham asked him what information Chenault had given him. “That Darryl Cherney made an exclamation to one of the ambulance drivers that ‘they threw a bomb at us’,” Sitterud said. “What was the significance of that statement?” Cunningham asked. “That was an illogical explanation,” Sitterud said, adding that it was known that the bomb exploded inside the car. “It made me think that maybe they had been carrying the bomb and were now trying to find another way to explain it.”

Later, at the meeting between the FBI agents and OPD officers on the case, the FBI told the OPD that it would be their case, but that the FBI would offer help and guidance. The FBI agents began by sharing what they knew of Earth First. They said, according to Sitterud, that Earth First was being investigated in Arizona for downing some electrical lines that ran from a nuclear power plant. They said that they were being looked at as suspects in the recent power-line attack in Santa Cruz. They had details about the bomb found a few weeks earlier at a lumber mill in Cloverdale, and they said it resembled the bomb that exploded in Bari’s car. They said that they had an Earth First informant who had told them that “some heavy hitters” were going to be heading to Santa Cruz for an “action.”

“It looked so logical and so well put together,” Sitterud testified. “It looked like an ongoing criminal operation gathered under the name Earth First.” He decided to officially place Bari and Cherney under arrest at 3 a.m. the next morning, after a judge reviewed his request for a search warrant on their homes in Mendocino and Humboldt counties. (Though it appears, as Bee mentioned in her opening statement, that Sims may have ordered the arrest earlier in the day.)

Sitterud’s testimony echoed Maria Bee’s opening statements. It’s difficult to know what to make of the Oakland defendants’ foisting of blame onto the FBI. Is there a split in the defense? Was this all worked out beforehand — that Oakland would point the finger at the feds, and they would claim that their background information on Earth First gave them reason to suspect Bari and Cherney? If so, is that their honest interpretation of what happened, or is it a ploy — the OPD made the arrest (apparently against the FBI’s advice), but the FBI gave them all their information, so no one is to blame.

Time, one hopes, will reveal all this and more. The trial is expected to continue for five more weeks. The plaintiffs have around two weeks to call the remainder of their witnesses. Among those expected to be called are Cherney, the remaining defendants, and SA David Williams, an FBI forensic specialist who made key decisions about the placement of the bomb and the matching of the bomb’s nails to ones found in Bari’s car and at her home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.