Results of Bob & Ed's trial....long March 09, 2004 at 07:03:09

RESULTS of U.S. Government vs. Edward Brown and Bobby Sullivan By: Keith Wills 3/4/04 Trial Date: 3/1/04 & 3/2/04 Location: Western District of Texas Magistrate Court Presiding: Honorable U.S. Magistrate Jeffrey C. Manske U.S. Magistrate Judge 800 Franklin Ave. Waco, Texas 76701 (254) 750-1545 Let me start by saying I spent most of the hearing outside the courtroom on a bench due that I was to be a witness in behalf of Bobby and Ed and because of my long history with the Corps of Engineers. Thus most of my facts here come from those that were in the courtroom during the complete hearing and as they had relayed the information to me, so shall I do so here to you. I was permitted back in the courtroom the second day after the defense attorneys decided not to use any of my testimony in behalf of the defendants at all. After I was sworn in as a witness, I had to leave the courtroom and the proceedings started after my departure. The jury was picked which consisted of 80% women at an average age I would say of 60 years and I’m sure most had never heard of ARPA (Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979). The first called witness for prosecution was the Corps archeologist of that region. After he presented a large map to the jury and some sticky notes place where he felt that Fort Graham site existed and where the two defendants were caught metal detecting the shoreline, this is what served as his evidence. However, I was glad to learn that the defending attorneys had the archeologist stammering when they ask him how he knew Fort Graham was in that area of Lake Whitney since it is known to be located underwater. My understanding of the answer by the archeologist was: “ I don’t know for sure, but I just know it is!” Thus the prosecution had not yet proven the location of the archeological site. The prosecution then called as their second witness, the Corps Ranger Brady Dempsey (badge number 1777) the ranger who caught Bobby and Ed at the site wrote them a citation and threaten them with worse if they didn’t like the charges he put on their citations. Ranger Dempsey’s testified as to observing the defendants across on the other side of the lakeshore. Then he testified as to his conversation with defendants when they came back across to see what he was doing around where their truck was parked. The defense attorneys ask him if he knew where the Fort Graham site is. Ranger Dempsey said he was not sure but he knows it is somewhere close to where he caught Bobby and Ed. Again, no positive evidence of where Fort Graham is located under Lake Whitney. When defense attorneys ask Range Dempsey if in fact the stone wall showing out of the lake near the shoreline where the defendants were observed, could in fact be a retaining wall built many years ago so to reduce the extensive erosion of that shoreline; Ranger Dempsey said he didn’t know, it is possible. Third and final witness called by the prosecution was the Parks and Wildlife Ranger that controlled the confiscation of the metal detectors, hooka, boat, pick-up truck and misc. from both the defendants homes. He testified as to how nice both defendants were in the process and how honest Bobby was in pointing out of the many metal detectors in his business that were the actual detectors at the scene. He stated it would have been very easy for Mr. Sullivan to give me the cheaper units, for we had no knowledge as to which models were with them at the site. At this point it was turned over to the defending attorneys to call their witnesses. They announced to the court that they had no witnesses for the defense. This pretty much blew the spectators away when they announce that. This is when I was called back in to the courtroom to hear the rest of the trial after two days setting on the bench outside. I was told since the prosecution believes that both defendants are members of the East Texas Treasure Hunter Association club in Longview, that my testimony would be thrown out since I was VP of the state organization: Texas Council of Treasure Clubs, Inc. Neither of the defendants are members of the East Texas club, but they are members of the Smith County Club in Tyler. The assumption of the prosecution comes from the Ranger that could not see the true color of Ed’s tee shirt or was able to read the writing in English on the back of the tee shirt, thus they were not willing to admit to the rangers mistake. Closing arguments was very interesting. The prosecutor stated it was not necessary to prove these defendants were on a archeological site, for they were on Public Lands just being on the shoreline of the lake and they were hunting with metal detectors which proved they had “Intent Of” digging and stealing artifacts. The lady prosecutor made the analogy to the jury as to how they might like it if these defendants climb over your back yard fence and started digging holes so to steal what was in the ground in your back yard. She pointed out that the “public lands” these defendants were on is everyone’s backyard and these defendants were stealing from that back yard. Also she stated that both have already been to this site numerous times and had found buckles and buttons of historic nature because they had private collections that proved they had been digging these items for years, yet no evidence of these items coming from this location was given. She stated the jury has to bring back a verdict of guilty on the defendants. The prosecutor reserved the last ten minutes of her time for later in her closing arguments. The defense attorneys closing arguments was that it had never been proven where the actual Fort Graham was or is located, thus the defendants are innocent. That technology is to the point they can locate a single spot on the moon, but the prosecution can not prove the location of a historical fort site? The prosecutor then addresses the jury for her last ten minutes she reserved of closing argument. The prosecutor stated that we have heard from three expert witnesses that caught these defendants on Public Lands, using metal detectors to steal artifacts, why else would you have a metal detector? Again the government does not have to prove these defendants were on the archeological site, only that they were on public lands where an archeological site is located. You have to protect our natural resources; you must come back with a guilty verdict. Also in the process of the trial, the prosecution stated that my site (Mr. Keith Wills internet site www.brokendetector.com) states: “if confronted by a Army Corps of Engineers ranger, run and you will get away with the crime”. This is not nor has it ever been what my Internet site states. It states: “ If confronted by a Corps ranger, do not argue with the ranger for there will be no winner in that argument. Simply go to the nearest Corps Project Office and see the district manager and show him your copy of the national policy we have with the Army Corps of Engineers since 1989. Ask him to please explain it to their ranger. This statement made by the prosecutor was a fabricated lie and she offered no evidence to prove her statement, a simple copy off my site would have proved it or not. At least the judge threw out this statement by the prosecutor and also with no proof, he threw out the statement made by the prosecutor about the defendants selling the artifacts to Harry Ridgeway of Relicman Civil War site on the Internet. However, even thought the judge instructed the jury to disregard these statements, the damage was already done. Absolutely nothing was said in behalf of Ed and Bob, no witnesses in their behalf, nothing mention about them helping the archeologist at Camp Ford site in Tyler at the archeological dig, nothing about teaching children in schools about metal detecting, or working with the boy scouts, nothing said about Bobby works in banks repairing their equipment, nothing. The defendants were just sitting on the bench behind their attorneys as Bob and Ed, that is all the jury knew of them. By now you know the jury came back with a guilty verdict for the defendants and that the judge rule the probation officer look into both their past so to decide the punishment for the defendants at Ft. Hood on April 21st this year. So now you know the story and you must see that with this decision it will set a new precedent across the nation that every detectorist will feel sooner or later. Now it will be illegal and you can be charged with violation of ARPA (federal charges—felony) for metal detecting on “Public Lands”, not just archeological sites. The very first paragraph of ARPA states it only applies to archeological or historical sites. It does not apply to Public Lands whether it contains an archeological or historical site or not. Since a 12 man and woman jury have now decided it does apply, it has become law! At no time was ARPA every explained to the jury that it does not apply but on archeological or historical sites. The judge only confused the jury when he explain ARPA to them, even I couldn’t understand him, I’m positive the elderly ladies in the jury could not understand it either. The defense at no time made notice to this fact to the jury either, thus the jury have made a decision of guilt to both Bob and Ed for stealing artifacts, when no artifacts were found in their possession at the site. Our guys were charged with: [ ARPA 16 U.S.C. @470 ee (a) ---Unauthorized Archeological Excavation; and 36 C.F.R. @ 327.14 (a) ---Destruction, Defacement or Alteration of Public Property] It would have certainly helped if some detectorist had showed up for these guys trial. Only about 12 showed up including myself and about 12 of Bob’s family were there including his preacher and wife. I’m very disappointed in this, way too many in this hobby are retired and could have been there if they wanted to be, I know it would of impressed the jury. We have way too many deadbeats in our hobby today. They set back and tell us they have no problems in their areas they hunt in, but with this decision from this trial it could very well change. Even our local city parks are considered “Public Lands” so the detecting community has much to loose in this verdict. If Bobby and Ed can be convinced to appeal this decision, then all the monies needed for a good attorney instead of these two court appointed attorneys they had, would be easy to raise. If every metal detector user would just give $20.00 each for their love of this hobby, then any fee the lawyer comes up with would easily be covered, but it would take everyone working together on this. If Bobby and Ed do not appeal this decision it will surely take away 50 % of lands allowed now to be metal detected in the next few years. Also, if Bobby and Ed decide not to appeal it will be because they know that many in this hobby will not stand up for them and support them. The time for relying on someone else to defend your rights to metal detect are over. No one man or organization can be everywhere at once defending you and making it legal for you to enjoy this hobby across this country. WAKE UP! Many of us have worked very hard for you for years; don’t you think it is about time you helped yourself by helping others? Let’s put an end to these false charges, constant pursuit by our government towards our hobby. If we can win this case it will set a new precedent in the nation in our favor, that rangers and law enforcement can not and will not treat our folks in this hobby with threats and false reports and charges. All I can say is just wait, if you decide you don’t need or don’t want to support these two in our hobby; then someday you maybe before the same type of court. You maybe facing the same charges of a felony conviction for hunting in a place you have hunted for years with no problem. For now the government has and will continue to move boundaries of archeological and historical sites until they meet their purpose in the many courtrooms in this land. Just wait and see if I’m not right on this. OR Give up a few dollars and some support for these guys. It’s your call! KeithWills