LETTER TO JEFFREY SMITH FROM STEPHEN JONES RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. TIMOTHY JAMES MCVEIGH AND TERRY NICHOLS (OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING CASE; DESTRUCTION OF ALFRED P. MURRAH BUILDING)

• Document Type: FOIA
• Keywords: BOMBING
• Keywords: BOMBING
• Keywords: MURRAH FEDERAL BUILDING
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0005350589
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: June 23, 2015
• Document Release Date: October 5, 2010
• Case Number: F-2007-00513
• Publication Date: June 14, 1996

(b) (3)
(b) (6)
(b) (7) (c)
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To:
Company: DOJ - Terrorism & Violent Crime
Phone:
Fax: [phone]
From:
Company: CIA
Phone:
Fax:
Date: 06/21/96
Pages including this
cover page: 4
Comments: We received this today - we do not plan on responding unless you tell us
otherwise.
APPROVED FOR
RELEASE^DATE:
30-May-2009
 r? f1 -JJ; RFC()
JONES, WYATT & ROBERTS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
STEPHEN JONES
ROBERT L. WYATT, IV
MICHAEL D. ROBERTS
Central Intelligence Agency
Jeffrey Smith, Esquire
Washington, D.C. 20505
114 EAST BROADWAY, SUITE 1100
POST OFFICE BOX 472
ENID, OKLAHOMA 73702-0472
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
June 14, 1996
CONFIDENT 1AL.
Re: United States of. America v. Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Nichols
(Oklahoma City bombing case; Destruction of Alfred P. Murrah Building, April
19, 1995) United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Cause No.
96-CR-68-M. IMPORTANT: THIS LETTER CONCERNS OBLIGATIONS
YOU MAY HAVE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENDANT
PURSUANT TO RULE 16 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, THE BRADY DECISION, AND AN ORDER OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT DATED APRIL 29, 1996. THIS LETTER
SHOULD BE READ EXTREMELY CAREFULLY.
JAMES L. HANKINS
JULIA A. SIMS
I am the principal defense attorney for Timothy James McVeigh. I was appointed by the
United States District Court for the Western Judicial District of Oklahoma on May 8, 1995. Mr.
McVeigh is one of two named defendants in an indictment returned by the United States Grand
Jury for the Western Judicial District of Oklahoma on August 10, 1995. The indictment alleges,
among other things, the use of a weapon of mass destruction, an explosive device, as well as
several acts of individual homicide. -
Following the return of the indictment, Mr. McVeigh was arraigned and entered a plea
of not guilty. On Defendant's motion, the case. was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. The trial judge is the Honorable Richard P. Matsch, Chief
Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
 June 14, 1996
Page 2
Because of complaints by the Defendant concerning.the government's obligation to
provide discovery material, Defendant has filed several motions including a Motion for the
Production of Exculpatory Evidence pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in
what is commonly known as the "Brady decision. "' The Defendant filed a second motion
pursuant to the Brady decision and its progeny as well as Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, for disclosure of certain national intelligence data in the possession of the
federal government and its agencies.
On April 29, 1996, United States District Judge Richard Matsch ruled on the Defendant's
motion by directing the prosecution to recall its .duty to provide Brady information, setting forth
certain guidelines, and other matters. A copy of Judge Matsch's Order is attached hereto.
Judge Matsch's Order requires the prosecuting attorneys to make certain responses to the
Defendant, certain inquiries of various agencies whose identity we have given them, and
emphasizes to them that in doubtful cases concerning exculpatory evidence, the decision whether
to disclose is to be resolved in favor of disclosure to the Defendant. Specifically, we have
advised the prosecution, in a. letter attached hereto, that the government cannot withhold
production of the evidence that we have specifically denominated as "exculpatory" or which is
"material to the preparation of the defense" simply because it disagrees with that
characterization. Rather, the prosecution must produce that evidence (or information) but may
seek a protective order.
Because of our ongoing discovery disputes with the government and frankly our
skepticism concerning whether it will discharge its duty under the law, and given the public
importance of this case, we are taking the liberty of sending to. you, and to all other affected
agencies, a copy of our request to the prosecution and a copy of Judge Matsch's Order. Since
this Order was entered more than six (6) weeks ago, nothing has been produced by the
government pursuant to it. Shortly, we will file a Motion to Compel.
Multiple state and federal criminal convictions have been overturned and/or death
sentences vacated because the government or the prosecution or, in some instances, the state,
refused, failed or. neglected to give exculpatory information though specifically requested to do
so by the Defendant. A multiplicity of excuses have been offered in the past as to why such
information was not furnished including (1) failure of the Defendant to make a specific request,
(2) failure of the agency to know what was requested, and (3) failure of the prosecutors to
request the information, or having requested it, failing to turn it over to the defense.
In order to avoid any such claims of lack of knowledge, we are sending to you, and to
the general counsel of your agency, a full copy of Judge Matsch's Order and our discovery
requests insofar as it relates to national intelligence data. You should be aware that we have
pending a separate motion for exculpatory evidence which includes items other than national
' Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
 June 14, 1996
Page 3
intelligence information, and it is entirely possibly that your agency may have some information
that falls under the other motion. In other words, what you are receiving today is not our
exclusive request for or list of exculpatory material.
If this letter is addressed to a state agency, or to a municipal agency, there is no
hesitancy or problem in having your attorney contact us. If, however, your agency is a federal
government agency, you may wish to speak with the prosecutors before speaking with us.
The only purpose of this letter is to ensure full compliance with fudge Matsch's Order
and the obligation of the prosecutors.
Very truly yours,
Stephen Jone
SJ:re
2\wp5I \mcvei.Wdiscover\produce.Itr
Enclosures: 1. Copy of Judge Matsch's Order dated April 29, 1996; and
2. Copy of letter to Joseph Hartzler dated May 8, 1996.