Coronado trial Sept. 13 court report

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 chrged, 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,   infact,
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.