U.S. government attorneys
selectively recounted facts in their summation to the
jury as they argued that garden center owner Jerry Keenan
should be convicted of perjury.
And
why should he be so convicted? Because, they said, he'd
demonstrated "a selective memory" when talking
to federal investigators.
"The
defendant doesn't have the luxury of coming before you
and minimizing things," Asst. U.S. Attorney Thomas
O'Connell told jurors.
O'Connell
then proceeded to minimize the help that Keenan had
offered FBI and ATF agents in their investigation of the
December 1995 bombing attempt at Reno's Internal Revenue
Service offices.
"Dell
Bidart gave the key information on the coffee klatch, so
Keenan doesn't get any of the credit," said
O'Connell.
But
Keenan defense attorney Robert Ben Walker had already
pointed out that when Keenan told FBI Special Agent
William Jonkey and federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
agent Jim Doreen how to find "Crazy Joe"
Bailie, the chief suspect now indicted, Keenan didn't
know what other witnesses had, just hours before, told
the agents. It was clear, said Walker, that Keenan was
truly trying to help.
Then
there was prosecution witness Ricky "Sarge"
Hallert, former son-in-law and former employee of Keenan.
As
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron Rachow in his summation
volunteered the next day, "Ricky Hallert is not the
brightest guy in the world."
In
fact, by the time Hallert got off the stand, it was clear
that even Hallert didn't know what Hallert thought; he
could be turned around in his testimony by almost anybody
at anytime.
Almost
his first words on the stand, elicited by federal
prosecutors, were that he previously had lied to both the
investigating agents and the federal grand jury.
Asked
to explain why, he said that when called to the Keenan
house to talk to the agents, he had felt intimidated by
being in Keenan's home and hearing him tell the agents he
"didn't know" something.
"I
didn't want to call him a liar in his own house,"
said Hallert.
Similarly,
he said, he lied to the grand jury a week later because
when driving in to Reno that morning with Keenan, and
Brian Crockett, both Keenan and Brian Crockett kept
saying "I don't know nothing. I don't know
nothing," and that had made him feel intimidated
again.
But
when he decided to change his story, said Hallert, he
lied again -- this time about why he had lied before.
That was acknowledged under defense cross-examination.
A
statement by Hallert, hand-written the evening of his
grand jury testimony, said the reason for his false
witness was that he had been
Top of page

|

afraid of "Joe Bailie and his
militia." The paper had mentioned nothing about
defendant Keenan.
What
made him decide to tell the government that he had lied
at all? It seems to have been the influence of Dell
Bidart, another member of the Gardnerville contingent who
had testified to the grand jury. Hallert had ridden back
home from Reno with his friend Bidart, who had come in
another car.
Bidart,
who would eventually be the government's strongest
witness, is a tall, good-looking, intelligent and
clear-minded ex-Marine. He had been distrustful of Joe
Bailie from the first time he met him, testimony showed,
and had been, apparently, the only one of the garden
center coffee-drinkers to ever recognize the possibility
that Bailie might do more than talk a lot and distribute
political tracts. He later testified that when he met the
others after the grand jury testimony, he had been
"spooked" to hear they had testified they
hadn't known "anything."
So
it was after riding back to Gardnerville with Bidart,
talking with him, and "having morality
feelings" that, said Hallert, he called ATF agent
Jim Doreen and told him he had lied.
But
when he was questioned by defense counsel, it became
apparent that Hallert has virtually no independent
recollection of anything that happened. While he often
said, during examination, that he is "awfully bad on
dates," he usually also couldn't recall who had
talked to whom, or what was said, in most of the key
incidents upon which the government's case was based.
Asked
a question by Walker, Hallert would page and page through
the transcripts of his second period of testimony before
the grand jury, and then would answer. Asked if he got
the answer from the transcript, he would say 'yes.' Asked
if he remembered the answer without looking at the
transcript, he would say 'no.'
At
other times, his answer to a question would begin, as he
pointed to a line in the printed transcript, "it
says here..."
And
he acknowleged that he had studied the transcript the
night before and then again that morning.
"Coming
down here, I went over it," he said.
Asked
at one point "when was the next time you saw Joe
Bailie at the garden center," he gives one answer.
But reminded of another time he had seen Bailie there, he
says that was the next time. Then, asked
which it was, he is at a loss. He complains to defense
counsel he doesn't "understand where you are
going."
The
implication seemed clear -- that if he did understand
what defense counsel wanted him to say, Rickie Hallert, a
young man very anxious to obey, would earnestly try to
say it.
-- Steve Miller
|