VIPER MISTRIAL MOTIONS MISFIRE

by Jefferson Thomas

Chuck Knight, owner of Knight's Air Conditioning and the only member of the Viper Team to contest his accusers in court so far, was back in court on Monday, August 11, requesting that his trial be overturned.

The jury in the original trial had been split eight to four, but voted to convict Mr. Knight on conspiracy charges after being told by Judge Carroll that a hung jury was unacceptable.

Ivan Abrams, the defense attorney, told Judge Carroll that he believed a mistrial should be declared on the grounds that John Schulz, the Game & Fish officer/undercover informant around whom the government's case revolved, appears to have misrepresented himself, and that he was not actually a Game & Fish officer at the time of the operation.

Mr. Abrams came to this conclusion based upon examination of the loyalty oath that Schulz signed, ostensibly as an employee of Game & Fish, which contained numerous irregularities, e.g., no date of filing as equired by law, no name of who administered the oath, missing statutory portion, and improper notarization.

The Brady case requires the government to provide any possible exculpatory evidence to the defense; had Mr. Schulz not been constantly referred to as Officer Schulz, his credibility before the jury would have been significantly reduced. It does not seem to be stretching the point to conclude that this might have resulted in an entirely different outcome for Mr. Knight.

Mr. Abrams also requested that a mistrial be granted based on the adverse publicity generated by the McVeigh trial, which began the same week that Mr. Knight's did. Readers may recall President Bill Clinton's televised statement in the Rose Garden regarding the Vipers shortly after they were arrested: "We may have prevented another Oklahoma City."

Judge Carroll denied these motions, claiming rather disingenuously that "the majority of newspaper stories at the time were all Mr. Knight's doing...." Prosecutor Hannis stated that "If Timothy McVeigh could get a fair trial, then Mr. Knight can't argue that he can't."

Hannis did not say what he based this premise on. He also argued that under the definitions of the State of Colorado, Mr. Schulz was not really an officer, but an employee, and so there was nothing wrong with his oath. He did not say that Schulz was not impersonating an officer.

There is quite a bit of case law that refutes Judge Carroll's response. Based on the nature of Brady material, this is known as prosecutorial misconduct. U.S. vs Butler states that therefore a new trial should be granted, and that if it is not, the judge is guilty of judicial misconduct.

Mr. Abrams will ask Judge Carroll to reconsider the verdict, and has stated that this is all part of the record for the appeal. The appeal will go to a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit, and will arrive on the docket approximately nine months after sentencing. A decision is usually rendered three months later.

Sentencing for Chuck Knight is scheduled for Sept. 8, 1997, 3:00 P.M. in Judge Carroll's court at the Federal Courthouse, 1st Avenue & Van Buren.

Contributions to the Charles Knight Legal Defense Fund may be sent to Acct. #14928432, Bank One, 4922 E. Bell Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85251.

If you are finished, please use your browser's "back" function.

Or, to exit, please go to the Arizona Liberty Nexus page (if you haven't been there this visit), where your visit will be counted!