[Ppnews] Rod Coronado trial Sept. 13 court report

[Political Prisoner News]

Sept 13 Court Update: Rod Coronado Trial

Kelly Stewart, Sheriff Dep’t. undercover cop 
still on stand. Prosecutor Parmley brings up that 
there is new evidence—this is the audio that the 
defense uncovered, of the *question* in question, 
and subsequent answer. (Background: it is an 
audio recording whose existence was apparently 
heretofore unknown. Likely a small recorder in someone’s pocket.)

Prosecution gets Stewart to establish that the 
government did (and she participated in) 
investigations and questioning of people, 
including Grand Juries and search warrants to 
locate additional recordings, but this recording 
had not come to light (or sound). It is poor 
quality, but comprehensible. The government made 
a transcript. Once established that the tape exists, it is played in court.

The words: “Can you really explain to us, how to, 
at some point, how to assemble an incendiary 
device?” And then Rod’s rather long answer 
discussing two kinds of such devices, and the 
demonstration using the apple juice 
jug.  (Partial: incendiary devices are devices 
that do not explode, but consist of a timer, 2 
wires....(much more) when 2 wires  connect, it 
completes electrical 
circuit...filament...windproof matches, can of 
fuel, etc.  He says “More popular today, 
however”, and then discusses jug method using the 
Martinelli’s half gallon jug from the potluck 
that evening and a cassette tape as props and 
discusses using lamp oil, sponge, stick incense.)

He says “It’s dangerous. A person could do 
serious prison time, citing Jeff Luers case, 
emphasizing that his sentence was more than a 
rapist would get. Rod says (on tape) “I began as 
a strict liberationist...but I saw that when we 
set the animals free, the labs just go to 
Marshals catalog and order 1200 more...that’s why we use other tactics...”

Tony Serra checks for accuracy of words in re 
cross examination. Stewart admits to 
participating in the investigations of the 
government, but not until two years after the speaking engagement.

GOVERNMENT RESTS

Defense launches. Re-calls undercover officer Joe Lehr

When Tony Serra asks Lehr is he has seen the 
transcript, Lehr replied that it was laying on 
the witness stand when he took his seat, to which 
Serra replies, “Don’t you mean LYING?!!”  Tony 
then proceeds to impeach Lehr through exposing 
his on-stand lie (made up quote from Rod, different from real quote.)

Tony quotes his previous testimony where Lehr 
said the woman asked, “Can you tell us how to make a bomb for an action?”

Tony asks Lehr if he has been exposed to the 
audio of the actual question. Lehr reads transcript.

T: Do you see lack of reference to bomb or action?

L reads.

T: Does that now refresh or shock your memory?

L: No, I do not recall that being asked.

T: Is that why it isn’t in your report?

(They are dancing around the fact that Lehr LIED 
and made up a question because the prosecution 
believed until today that no audio existed. So it 
would have been the cops’ word against the activists’ word.)

T: isn’t it a fact that you substituted *bomb* 
for incendiary device, and that you added “for an 
action” Doesn’t that change the entire meaning of the phrase?

Lehr admits to the substitution.

You misstated the truth in your report! (obj/sus)

On re cross, Skerlos asks Lehr whether he is 
familiar with the federal statute under which Rod 
is charged, Lehr says not very familiar.

Tony comes back to this and gets out “another mis 
spoke” before the objection arising from govt’s table is sustained.

First defense witness Cari Shaw. Questioned by Omar Figueroa

Cari is the person who asked THE QUESTION in 
question.  She testified that she did not really 
know Rod and when he came to their house prior to 
his speech, they didn’t discuss upcoming speech 
and certainly did not plan a question (absolutely 
not, she said.) They get to the question that she 
asked that night, and Omar asks whether she asked 
about a bomb for an action. She says no and that she would not have.

When Skerlos crosses her, he is aggressive, rude, 
and dives into grand jury matters, citing fact 
that her husband, David Agranoff was called 
before the Grand Jury. Cari says it was never 
clear to her what the purpose of the Grand Jury 
proceedings was. After Skerlos says “Let’s talk 
about the GJ,” the lawyers go up for a long side bar.

In continuing unfriendly questioning of this key 
witness, it is established her question was 
spontaneous, and than she does not, in fact, 
agree with many of Rod’s stated positions and politics.
Skerlos asked what sparked (haha) her interest to 
ask a question—was it something that was said 
that made her want to learn how to  make an incendiary device?

She said “I didn’t necessarily want to learn.” 
The way she recalled his answer she said was that 
it was more about what had been done than “how 
to”. She also said that she feels she bears 
responsibility for the situation whereby Rod 
ended up in court in San Diego. She is a calm and 
cool witness, though obviously inexperienced in 
this sort of thing. It makes her all the more credible.

Next witness is Michelle Luneau, questioned by Jerry Singleton.

She is a student at UCB and attended the speech, 
bringing her 13 year old brother. She was also 
called before the S.D. Grand Jury.  Jerry asked 
if anyone ran out saying “Let’s Burn It 
Down!”  No. She and the following witness 
established that it was a crowd of ordinary 
people who happen to care about the environment 
that attended Rod’s speech, and no one felt the 
crowd was incited to take immediate action based on suggestions by Rod.

The next and final defense witness was Colleen 
Deisel, again questioned by Jerry. She has a 
recycling business and runs the Green Store. She 
too was subpoenaed by the GJ.  Apparently she had 
told the GJ the two “most radical” speeches she 
had heard were Rod’s 2003 speech and one by Paul 
Watson.  But despite the fact that she maintains 
she considers herself radical and is passionately 
non-violent, on cross examination, Government 
prosecutor said “I am defining radical as being 
violent” so that it would follow that Rod’s 
speech was being characterized as one of the most 
violent. She did not say this, and somehow, 
Parmley gets to rewrite Miriam Webster undeterred 
by the judge. After she said, in response to her 
friend’s shock at Rod’s strong words, “He served 
his time; he has the right to talk about things 
he did. He was relating information about 
incendiary devices with a historical perspective, the defense case wraps up.

DEFENSE RESTS.
Closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday 
Sept. 17. Case is expected to go to the jury by mid-day Monday.

Notation:
In 9/11/07 tv coverage of the start of the trial, 
the teaser (played about 6x) and lead image to 
the story was the 3 am Aug. 1, 2003 fire claimed 
by ELF. Through this was 15 hours or so before 
Rod’s speech and ha nothing to do with his 
charges, the link continues to be made by that 
media who care little about accuracy, and 
government prosecutors who have never cared about 
accuracy. They played video footage of the fire for the jury.



Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20070914/442f0e4a/attachment.htm>