In my article that I wrote yesterday evening, I said that the judge was
reasonable. He did not live up to that billing today.
Judge Tanner simply said no, and didn't give much reasoning. He thought
these were old accusations and had little relevance to the current trial.
Bell's attorney said he was not required to show relevance before having
subponeas served, but Tanner didn't seem to care.
At this point, Bell may not have *any* defense witnesses. The government
has put on about a dozen so far, rapid-fire.
Also the judge sealed the *entire court file* including publicly-available
motions, just because someone (ahem) was posting some of the documents on
the Net. DOJ's London started complaining at the end of the trial today,
and then got even more than he asked for.
Citing that ruling, Tanner's clerk refused to give me a copy of the
government's 3/30 pre-trial brief. (I can't get it through the court
clerk's office since Tanner has the file.)
-Declan
At 08:15 PM 4/4/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>At 10:56 PM 4/4/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>Jim Bell wanted to call Ryan Lund, but the judge said no and denied
>>the subpoena. Bell accuses Lund of being (as a fellow prisoner)
>>a government informant and long-arm.
>>
>>-Declan
>
>Did the judge give any reason for the denial?
>
>steve
>