danny 340
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
1/15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.Cr. No. 07-189-01/03-GZS
DANIEL RILEY,JASON GERHARD andCIRINO GONZALEZ
GOVERNMENTS TRIAL BRIEF REGARDINGE-MAILS AND COCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS
I. Factual Background
In January 2007, a jury returned verdicts finding Edward Brown
(Edward) and his wife, Elaine Brown (Elaine), guilty of a
number of tax evasion related offenses. The Browns defended
themselves during the trial by asserting that there is no law that
required them to pay personal income taxes to the federal
government.
While the trial was in progress, Edward did not return to
court and secluded himself in the home he and Elaine owned in
Plainfield, New Hampshire, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Elaine attended each day of the trial. After the jury
returned its verdicts, a warrant was issued for Elaines arrest
because she violated conditions of her bail by returning to her
home in Plainfield. In April 2007, both Edward and Elaine were
sentenced, in absentia, to 63 months in prison.
The Browns were arrested in October 2007. While they were
fugitives, they remained within the boundaries of the property on
which their home is located. They also made a number of public
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
2/15
Riley and Gerhard are also charged with carrying, using and1
possessing firearms and destructive devices in connection withcrimes of violence. Gonzalez is also charged with carrying,
Page 2 of 15
statements regarding their intention to forcibly resist any effort
to arrest them. And they allowed a number of people who believe
that the payment of personal income taxes is voluntary - including,
Daniel Riley, Jason Gerhard and Cirino Gonzalez - to enter and
remain in their home for varying periods of time.
From approximately January 2007 to September 2007, the
defendants performed a number of acts to prevent the Browns from
being arrested. Most significantly, they delivered a number of
firearms to the Browns. The defendants also publicly stated their
intention to use force to protect the Browns, and asked other
people to do the same. The government also submits that Gerhard
and Riley helped to assemble explosives, spring guns and pipe bombs
on the Browns property.
While performing those activities the defendants communicated
by e-mail, published audio and video blogs on the internet, gave
radio interviews and directly threatened Deputy United States
Marshals (DUSMs).
As a result, the defendants are now charged with conspiracy to
prevent the USMS from discharging their official duties; a separate
conspiracy to forcibly, assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate
and interfere with the USMS, and to be accessories after the fact;
and other criminal offenses.1
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
3/15
using and possessing firearms in connection with a crime of
violence.
In the e-mails he wrote, Gonzalez used his nickname,2
Reno, to identify himself. In the e-mails he wrote, Riley usedthe initial of first name or the initials of his first and middlename, DJ, to identified himself. Riley also addressed Gonzalezas Reno.
Page 3 of 15
II.Admissibility of E-Mails
During the trial of this case, the government will seek to
introduce a number of e-mails that were sent from and received at
e-mail addresses that were utilized by the defendants during the
time period of the conspiracies. The e-mails contain the
defendants personal e-mail addresses, in many cases their first
names or nicknames and other authenticating information.2
The e-mails are also relevant to prove how the conspiracies
were operated. For example, Governments Trial Exhibits (Govt.
Tr. Ex.) Nos. 2 - 2c, contains a series of e-mails that Riley
exchanged with Gonzalez and Richard Tatem, who is the owner of a
firearms dealership, Stoneagle.
In other e-mails, Riley told Gonzalez that he (Riley) was
about to purchase a binary explosive compound, Tannerite. Govt.
Ex. Nos. 2d and 2e. In another e-mail, Riley asked Gonzalez
whether he (Riley) should purchase ammunition for Ed. Govt. Tr.
Ex. 2f. In another set of e-mails, Riley tried to persuade
Gonzalez to return to the Browns residence, and asked him to
update a web site that belonged to the Browns. Govt. Tr. Ex. No.
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
4/15
No effort was made to arrest the Browns at that time.3
E-mails that were written by people other than defendants4
that are embedded in the e-mails exchanges are being offered bythe government to provide context to the defendants statements,not for the truth of the matters asserted in them.
Page 4 of 15
2g. In another e-mail, Govt. Tr. Ex. No. 2h, Riley urgently
wrote, 30 to 40 rounds fired behind the house [noise] heard in the
woods every one is at battle stations this is not a drill [I]
repeat this is not a drill, during an alleged effort by law
enforcement to take the Browns into custody. Govt. Tr. Ex. No.
2g. In another other e-mail, Riley identified supplies that were3
needed at the Browns residence. Govt. Tr. Ex. 2i.
Government Trial Exhibit Nos. 3, 3a and 3b include e-mails
that were sent from Gerhards personal e-mail address. In them,
Gerhard explained his reasons for supporting the Browns, predicted
that law enforcement agents would be hurt if they tried to enter
the Browns home, and stated his preferred plan to defend the
Browns was to lie in wait and then come with [a] surprise at the
right time.4
Counsel for the government and the defendants agree: (a) that
copies of the e-mails were produced by the e-mail service
providers, Yahoo.com and Hotmail.com, that managed personal e-mail
accounts for the defendants; (b) the contents of the e-mails have
not been altered; and (c) the e-mails were sent from and received
at personal e-mail addresses that were used by the defendants, as
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
5/15
Page 5 of 15
indicated in the headers to the e-mails.
In the governments view, the stipulations are all that is
needed to satisfy the authenticity requirements of Fed. R. Evid.
901 (requiring documents to be authentic). As the court is aware,
the standard for authenticity is slight. United States v.
Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154, 158 (1 Cir. 1994). Put another way, thest
stipulations create a reasonable likelihood, id., that the
defendant who is identified as the sender of an e-mail made the
statements that are contained in it. Of course, once an e-mail is
admitted into evidence, all defendants are free to argue that it is
not a statement of the defendant who is identified as the sender,
which is an argument that addresses the weight of the evidence not
its admissibility. United States v. Perez-Gonzalez, 445 F.3d 39,
(1 Cir. 2006 (if the district court is satisfied that thest
evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable person to believe the
evidence is what it purports to be, Rule 901(a) is satisfied and
the jury may decide the weight of the evidence.)(quoting United
States v. Alicea-Cardoza, 132 F.3d 1, 4 (1 Cir. 1997).st
If the court determines that the e-mails are not sufficiently
authenticated by the stipulations, the e-mails may still be
authenticated pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4), which provides
that a document may be authenticated by [a]ppearance, contents,
substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics,
taken in conjunction with circumstances.
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
6/15
Page 6 of 15
In United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 1998),
the defendant was found guilty of receiving child pornography.
During the trial, the government introduced into evidence a print-
out of an internet chat between a person using the nickname
Stavron and an undercover law enforcement agent. On appeal, the
defendant, William Simpson, argued that the print-out should have
been excluded because there was insufficient evidence to prove that
it contained admissions by him. Relying on Fed. R. Evid.
901(b)(4), the appellate court disagreed. Explaining its decision,
the court noted that Stavron identified himself during the chat
using the name B. Simpson, as well as the defendants true street
address and e-mail address. 152 F.3d at 1250. The court also
noted that a written document which contained information that was
given to Stravron by the undercover agent during the chat was
recovered during a search of the defendants residence. Id.
Similarly, in United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (8th
Cir. 2000), the defendant signed the name of his personal friend,
Dr. Hamuri Yamada, to a form that nominated the defendant for a
$500,000 research grant. The defendant also signed the name of
another friend, Dr. von Gunten, to a form that provided a reference
for the defendant.
While being interviewed by investigators who suspected the
forgeries, the defendant falsely claimed that Yamada and von Gunten
had given him permission to sign their names to the forms. After
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
7/15
Page 7 of 15
the interview, the defendant sent separate e-mails to Yamada and
von Gunten, requesting them to lie to the investigator. The e-
mails were introduced during the defendants criminal trial and
used to convict him.
On appeal, the defendant claimed the e-mails should have been
excluded because they did not meet the authenticity requirements of
Fed. R. Evid. 901. The court disagreed, and identified several
facts from which a jury could conclude that the e-mails were
written by the defendant, including the fact that the e-mails
contained the defendants correct e-mail address, and that the
content of the e-mails demonstrated that the author had detailed
knowledge of the defendants conduct and the investigation of it.
235 F.3d at 1322. In addition, the author of the e-mails
identified himself using the defendants a nickname, Mo, and the
defendant made separate telephone calls to Yamada and von Gunten,
asking them to lie to the investigator. 235 F.3d at 1323.
In assessing whether the e-mails the government will seek to
introduce contain statements of the defendants, it is important to
keep in mind that the evidence that identifies each defendant as a
member of the conspiracies that are charged in this case is
overwhelming.
With that thought in mind, Rileys and Gonzalez authorship of
the e-mails which relate to their purchase of .50 caliber weapons
from Stoneagle is corroborated by the fact that Riley and Gonzalez
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
8/15
Page 8 of 15
purchased .50 caliber weapons from Stoneagle shortly after the e-
mails were exchanged. In addition, the .50 caliber weapon that
Riley purchased was recovered from the Browns residence in
October, and the .50 caliber weapon that Gonzalez purchased was
recovered from his residence when he was arrested in September
2007.
Similarly, Rileys authorship of e-mails that relate to his
purchase of Tannerite, is corroborated by the fact that large
quantities of Tannerite were shipped to Rileys home in New York
and recovered from the Browns residence after the e-mails were
written, as were boxes in which Tannerite was shipped to Riley.
Rileys authorship of the e-mail that asks if Ed wants more
rounds, will be corroborated by other evidence that will prove
that Riley was an important source of weaponry to the Browns.
Similarly, Rileys authorship of the e-mail in which Gonzalez is
asked to return to the Browns residence and to perform work on the
Browns web site contains details that could only have been known
by and shared with trusted members of the conspiracies.
Rileys authorship of the e-mail that identifies supplies that
are needed by the Browns also contains details that could only have
been known by an active participant in the conspiracies. In
addition, Rileys authorship of the e-mail that urgently reports an
alleged law enforcement surge onto the Browns property, will be
corroborated by similar urgent statements Riley made about the
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
9/15
Page 9 of 15
alleged surge during a radio interview Riley gave at approximately
the same time the e-mail was sent.
Gerhards authorship of the e-mails in which he explained his
reasons for supporting the Browns, predicted that law enforcement
agents would be hurt and stated his preferred plan to defend the
Browns, is corroborated by Gerhards undeniable participation in
the conspiracy, the e-mails detailed references to events that
occurred on the Browns property, references to Gerhards
affiliation with a college newspaper, and direct threats that
Gerhard made to a DUSM one month after the e-mail was sent.
The stipulations and the overwhelming amount of evidence
related to the defendants identity proves, beyond any doubt, that
the defendants authored the e-mails for which each of them is
identified as the sender. Accordingly, the e-mails should not be
excluded for lack of authenticity.
III. Coconspirator Statements
Once the court determines that an e-mail is authentic, the
defendants who did not write it will probably seek to limit its
evidentiary value by requesting the court to instruct the jury that
the e-mail cannot be considered as evidence against them. Those
request must be denied because the e-mails are statements made
during the course of and in furtherance of the charged
conspiracies. Fed. R. Evid. 802(D)(2)(E).
The government will also seek introduce a video blog in which
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
10/15
While walking a dog on the Browns property earlier that3
day, Riley saw a DUSM who was hidden on the property. Riley wastaken into custody when the DUSM realized that Riley saw him.While temporarily detained, Riley was interviewed by Allandydy.
While speaking with Allandydy, Riley described Gonzalez as4
a gung ho type, who is trusted by the Browns, and that hebelieved Gonzalez would use violence to protect the Browns. Suchstatements do not create a Bruton problem because they areadmissible coconspirator statements. See United States v.Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76 (1 Cir. 2005)(We havest
answered this question, holding unequivocally thatthere is no
Bruton problem when a statement falls within the coconspiratorexception to the hearsay rule. (quoting United States v.Arruda, 715 F.2d 671, 685 n. 11 (1st Cir.1983))). However, toavoid any potential Bruton issue, the statement made by Rileythat Gonzalez was gung ho, and the statement made by Riley thathe believed Gonzalez would use force, will not be offered duringthe governments direct examination of Allandydy.
Page 10 of 15
Riley introduces himself and provides encouragement to the Browns,
Govt Tr. Ex. No. 1b; excerpts of a radio interview during which
Riley states that he is prepared to use lethal force to protect the
Browns, Govt. Tr. Ex. No. 1e; and a video blog and an audio
recording in which Gonzalez also threatens to use force to protect
the Browns, Govt. Tr. Ex. Nos. 1g and 1h.
In addition, on June 7, 2007, Riley was interviewed by DUSM
James Allandydy. During the interview, Riley stated that he is3
believes that there is no law that requires individuals to pay
income taxes. Riley also told Allandydy that he (Riley) and Edward
fired a .50 caliber firearm on the Browns property the previous
day which had been brought to the Browns by Gonzalez. Riley also4
said that a number of people were prepared to use force to prevent
the Browns from being arrested, and that grenades and numerous
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
11/15
Page 11 of 15
firearms and explosives had been placed at locations around the
Browns home. Riley also warned that if an effort was made to
arrest the Browns while he (Riley) was in the Browns home, he
would use force to defend himself; and if he was in New York when
an effort was made to arrest the Browns, he would return to the
Browns home and use force, but he would not challenge a road block
or otherwise initiate the use of force.
On July 19, 2007, Gerhard was involved in an automobile
accident in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The car Gerhard was driving
was confiscated by the USMS because it belonged to the Browns. The
next day, Gerhard went to the Lebanon Police Department to complain
about the seizure of the automobile. While at the police station,
Gerhard spoke with a number of DUSM, including Jamie Berry. During
that conversation, Gerhard identified himself as a reporter for a
college newspaper, who was committed to the Browns cause and
determined to reveal the truth. Gerhard also said that he would
use force to protect the Browns, and described the use of force in
that situation as self defense. When asked about the Browns
threats to kill law enforcement officers and their families,
Gerhard stated that the police were viewed as treasonous and the
penalty for treason is death.
A statement of coconspirator may be admitted if: (1) there is
independent evidence establishing the existence of the conspiracy
and connecting the declarant and the defendant to it; (2) the
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
12/15
Page 12 of 15
statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) the
statement was made during the course of the conspiracy. United
States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 74 (1 Cir. 2005); Unitedst
States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 637 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
449 U.S. 956 (1980); United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 23
(1st Cir. 1977).
The court is permitted to conditionally admit a contested
statement pursuant to Rule 802(d)(2)(E), subject to the
governments production of evidence to prove that it was more
likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members
of a conspiracy and that the statement was made in furtherance of
that conspiracy. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175
(1987) (To admit coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E),
"[t]here must be evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the
declarant and the non-offering party"); United States v. Cresta,
825 F.2d 538, 551 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Ciampaglia, 628
F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 (1980); United
States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1977) ("if it is
more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were
members of a conspiracy when the hearsay statement was made, and
that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy, the
hearsay is admissible"). In Ciampaglia, the First Circuit
indicated that the trial court should make an express Petrozziello
determination after all of the evidence has been presented.
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
13/15
Page 13 of 15
Ciampaglia 628 F.2d at 638. And the courts decision to admit a
coconspirator statement will only be reversed if it is clearly
erroneous. United States v. Thompson, 449 F.3d 267, 273 (1 Cir.st
2006); United States v. Castellini, 392 F.3d 35, 50 (1st Cir.
2004).
In making this determination, the court may consider the
statements themselves as well as other evidence. Bourjaily v.
United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987); United States v. Gomez-
Pabon, 911 F.2d 847, 856 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1990). However, a co-
conspirator's statement alone is not sufficient to meet that
standard. United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1181 (1 Cir.st
1993).
There is no requirement that the person to whom the statement
is made is a member of the conspiracy. United States v. Meggers,
912 F.2d 246 (8th Cir. 1990); and United States v. Lieberman, 637
F.2d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 1980). In addition, statements that explain
events of importance to the conspiracy in order to facilitate its
operation are also admissible. See, e.g., United States v. Fields,
871 F.2d 188, 194 (1st Cir. 1989).
The principal question in determining whether a statement was
made in furtherance of a conspiracy is whether the statement
promoted, or was intended to promote, the goals of the conspiracy.
See, e.g., United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188, 194 (1st Cir.
1989) ("[t]he declarations must have advanced the objectives of the
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
14/15
Page 14 of 15
scheme, but there is "no talismanic formula for ascertaining when
a statements is in furtherance of the conspiracy") (quoting
United States v. Reyes, 798 F.2d 380, 384 (10th Cir. 1986)).
Statements that provide assurance, serve to maintain trust and
cohesiveness and/or inform conspirators about matters related to
the conspiracy promote the objectives of the conspiracy. United
States v. Gomez, 810 F.2d 947, 953 (10th Cir. 1987).
A statement does not have to actually further a conspiracy in
order to satisfy the "in furtherance" requirement. See, e.g.,
United States v. Crocker, 788 F.2d 802, 805 (1st Cir. 1986)
(approving the admission of statements that revealed an intention
to promote the objectives of a conspiracy). In fact, to be
admissible under this rule, a statement "need not be necessary or
even important to the conspiracy, or even be made to a
co-conspirator, see United States v. Martinez-Medina, 279 F.3d
105, 117 (1st Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 932 (2002), as
long as it advances the goals of the conspiracy in some way. Id.
A statement that identifies a conspirator may also be in
furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. LiCausi, 167 F.3d
36, 49 (1 Cir. 1999); United States v. Munson, 819 F.2d 337, 341st
(1st Cir. 1987).
For all of those reasons, (a) Rileys e-mails, his video blog,
the statements he made during the radio interview and to DUSM
Allandydy; (b) Gonzalezs e-mails, his video blog and the
-
8/14/2019 Danny 340
15/15
Page 15 of 15
statements he made in the audio statement that was posted to the
internet; and (c) Gerhards e-mails and Gerhards statements to
DUSM Nunes are all admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(E).
Dated: March 23, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas ColantuonoUnited States Attorney
By: /s/ Arnold H. HuftalenAssistant United States AttorneyNH Bar No. 121553 Pleasant St., 4 Floorth
Concord, New Hampshire(603) 225-1552
By: /s/ Robert M. KinsellaRobert M. KinsellaAssistant United States AttorneyMA Bar No.27331553 Pleasant St., 4 Floorth
Concord, New Hampshire(603) 225-1552
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that, on March 23, 2008, this pleading isbeing filed electronically and thereby served upon all counsel ofrecord and is also being served via e-mail attachment.
/s/ Arnold H. HuftalenArnold H. Huftalen, AUSA