IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS (Aranyos, McKeirnan) (Supposedly Brown's chance to recant) | ||
| Vol XIII (#24) pp. 656 - 667 | Friday, May 31, 1991 | Charles Rapp |
| Previous | INDEX | Next |
|
w24_hic.html
This is the In Camera examination of Michael's "attorneys", John Aranyos and Ross McKeirnan by Barry Smith on Friday, May 31. Although he was subpoenaed, Thomas Bonavita, Michael's actual "attorney" at this particular period, chose not to attend this hearing. He is examined concerning these matters (along with District Attorney Massa) the following Monday. To fully understand just how incredible of a farce this particular hearing is, you should read what "attorney" Elliot Segel had to say during Michael's sentencing (for perjury) on October 9, 1998. For another (very) relevant aspect of these matters see The Tapes. (These are the tapes of which Mr. Brown's attorneys are denying knowledge herein). This hearing is in fact an absolute scam. In the first place, it is apparent that Barry Smith had already scheduled this hearing, as a result of his suspicions concerning the withholding or destruction of evidence of an exculpatory nature in this case. Suspicions no doubt aroused by his receipt of the anonymous letter on May 20, 1991 (half-way through Buckley's trial), advising him of the existence of the Holiday Inn meeting. Obviously, if the authorities were going to hide the fact of Michael's recanting at the Holiday in, they also had to hide the fact of his "recanting" of his recantations. This "hearing" is simply one more example of the hindering and suppression of Michael's efforts to tell the truths. It is especially significant however, as it demonstrates the complicity of Mr. Brown's own attorneys in such efforts. If you think about it, you will see what a desperate move this really was - and understand just how desperate they really were at this point. It is important to recognize the significance of these particular matters, not only as they relate to the stifling and/or manipulation of Michael Brown with respect to his efforts to tell the truth - and to stop this farce. Their testimony is in fact perjury concerning exculpatory evidence relevant to the case of a man on trial for his life, Jay Buckley, as well as the case (charges) against their own client, Michael Brown.
Of course it is particularly egregious (and disgusting - AND telling) that this farce is occuring, as it is - in the context of Barry Smith's inquiry of these attorneys concerning their knowledge of the withholding of additional exculpatory evidence, and most specifically in reference to to Mr. Brown's recanting (and re-recanting) - at the precise time when while Michael is sitting there - having himself requested this hearing -
for the purpose of recanting
!
AND, that they are attempting to invoke "attorney-client privilege" in their effort to deny (or avoid disclosure of) their knowledge of these matters. Not so incidentally, the testimony here by these "attorneys" would appear to be perjuries - simply by the mere fact of the existence (and nature) of
these tapes - subsequently shown to exist. Which of course is another utterly bizarre matter unto itself.
It is also clear that this hearing was passed off on Michael Brown, and his mother, as being a hearing resulting from (and concerning) the letter by Michael Brown
referred to by attorney Segel at Michael's sentencing, concerning Michael's desire (and efforts) to tell the truth of these matters.
You may note that Michael was only permitted into this hearing halfway through the hearing - after the stage had been set - and was never given an opportunity to speak. His mother was never even permitted into the hearing.
In reality of course, this hearing was anything but what Michael and his mother thought it was supposed to be. We have some more work to do in this area, but you should get the picture. And it should turn your stomach.
|
(In Chambers that same afternoon.)
JOHN A. ARANYOS, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follows:
BY MR. SMITH:
Q Would you state your name and address for the record"
A John A. Aranyos, 310 East Fifth Avenue, Warren, Pennsylvania.
Q What is your occupation?
A Attorney at law.
Q In the course of your occupation did you have an opportunity to represent one Michael Brown?
A Yes, I did as Public Defender of Warren County.
Q During what time period did you represent Mr. Brown approximately?
A Approximately mid-October of 1989 through January 31, 1991.
Q Are you aware of various statements during the course of your representation that Mr. Brown made to either law enforcement agencies and/or the District Attorney's Office or staff?
A Yes, I am.
Q During the course of those statements has Mr. Brown ever recanted his testimony or recanted what he claimed at
trial in this trial?
A Sorry, I honestly don't understand the question because it's too general in nature.
Q Are you aware of Mr. Brown giving any recantation to the law enforcement personnel or to the District Attorney's Office?
A Again, I was not personally present. I have no specific knowledge at any time that I was with Mr. Brown that he recanted in my presence.
Q Did you have any knowledge of any recantations by Mr. Brown at times when you were not present?
A Again, I ask you to be more specific. Are you asking me to breach attorney-client confidentiality?
Q I am not asking you anything Mr. Brown told you, I am asking if you have any specific knowledge either through personal knowledge or through third parties where by Mr. Brown has recanted the testimony he gave at trial in this trial to either any law enforcement personnel, the District Attorney's Office or the District Attorney's staff?
A To the best of my knowledge there may have been one occasion.
Q What occasion was that?
MR. McKEIRNAN: Mr. Brown is out here, I was under the understanding we were going to put on the record he is not
waiving his confidentiality.
THE COURT: Yes, that's understood through Mr. Aranyos that Mr. Brown is not waiving any confidential communications to Counsel. Is Mr. Brown out there?
MR. McKEIRNAN: Mr. Brown was told to be here by Mr. Bonavita.
MR. ARANYOS: I ask the Court to place it on the record because it is my understanding the client should avert that on the record although I have been advised by his current attorney, Mr. Bonavita, that he does not wish to waive that particular privilege. I think it would be important at this time - -
THE COURT: Now, let me ask you this, Mr. McKeirnan, as Public Defender and I know Mr. Brown isn't assigned to you, are you prepared to raise any issue of his confidentiality in this interrogation?
MR.McKEIRNAN: That's what I've been told.
THE COURT: All right. Bring him in. Let the record show Mr. Michael Brown is in Chambers and present is Mr. Ross McKeirnan, Public Defendant. (sic) Mr. Smith - - again, off the record.
(Whereupon there was a discussion off record.)
THE COURT: Do you want to place that on the record?
MR. McKEIRNAN: I place on the record that Mr. Michael Brown, the co-defendant in this matter, is present and we
advised him not to waive his right to confidential communications to his attorney.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Smith.
BY MR. SMITH:
Q Mr. Aranyos, again, the same question. Not talking about conversations from Brown to you or personnel at your office, during the course of time you represented him, but talking about statements that may have been made by Mr. Brown to law enforcement personnel of any statements or jurisdiction or the District Attorney's Office or their staff of any statements or jurisdiction. Are you aware of any recantations by your client?
A In light of the fact that Mr. Brown has advised the Public Defender's Office he does not waive the attorney-client privilege, any information I have regarding recantation was received strictly and only from Mr. Michael Brown with respect to the one episode that I indicated as a possibility.
Q What one episode did you indicate as a possibility.
A Again, due to the fact that the sole information I have surrounding one episode came directly from Mr. Brown at the time I was representing him, I will consider that attorney-client confidential communication. I received no information from any other sources with respect to the one,
again, episodic event where a recantation may have taken place.
Q Did the District Attorney of Warren County tell you that Michael Brown had recanted?
A I received information regarding, again, a possible recantation directly and only directly through my client in the initial instance. I then subsequently conducted my own inquiry on that basis, but again all information I believe was of a confidential attorney-client communication with respect to that one and only episode.
Q Are you aware of whether or not your client has made any video tapes (sic) statements to law enforcement personnel or the District Attorney?
A I am aware of the fact he made several video taped statements prior to any representation or appointment of Counsel through the Public Defenders's Office.
Q Are you aware of any video taped information made of your client after your representation?
A To the best of my knowledge there were no video taped statements made after representation.
Q Are you aware of the District Attorney of law enforcement personnel of any jurisdiction destroying evidence in the case of Commonwealth versus Buckley?
A To the best of my knowledge I am aware of no destruction of evidence by the Commonwealth at this point
in time, at least, through January 31, 1991 when my representation ceased.
Q Are you aware of any violation of ongoing discovery rules in the case of Commonwealth versus Buckley with regard to conduct of the District Attorney or any law enforcement personnel from any law enforcement agency?
A To the best of my knowledge with respect to my representation of Mr. Brown as part of any requested discovery, I, on behalf of Mr. Brown received all information. With respect to what have been dissemination of any information maybe withheld and not disclosed to other parties, I am not aware of that personally.
Q Did you ever had (sic) a conversation with me whereby you advised the District Attorney was withholding evidence from me?
A I recall at least on one occasions (sic) a conversation, possibly two, as to whether or not the reports that were provided contained the entire number of pages as part of the police report.
Q Do you have information that the police have removed pages from various reports?
A Any and all information that I may have received regarding missing pages was received from Attorney Barry Lee Smith, there may be missing pages, there may have been pages omitted, but again, I have no information other than
from Attorney Barry Lee Smith that that be the case.
Q The District Attorney or law enforcement personnel never told you that they were withholding evidence?
A I have requested and I have received the reports or I believe all of the information that you have received as Counsel for Jay William Buckley. To the best of my knowledge I don't have any information other than what you have or have received from the Commonwealth, in fact, you may actually have more than I had as of my representation of January 31, 1991.
Q Are you aware of any perjuries committed by Michael Brown at the current trial?
A I don't quite understand the nature of the question. You're asking me if he committed a crime, perjury, as opposed to making statements under oath that may potentially be lies?
Q Are you aware of any lies and/or perjuries that Michael Brown told at the current trial?
A I can honestly say I did not sit through any of what he actually testified to. Again, my representation with Mr. Brown ended on January 31, 1991.
Q Well, I am just asking are you aware, I did not ask you if you sat through the trial. I said are you aware of any perjuries that Michael Brown told at the current trial?
A On the basis of the information that I have read in the paper, I cannot draw a conclusion without having heard the actual testimony as to what was said.
MR. SMITH: Nothing further. Do you want to cross, Mr. Massa?
MR. MASSA: I have no questions.
THE COURT: May Mr. Aranyos be excused?
MR. SMITH: Sure.
ROSS McKEIRNAN, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follows:
BY MR. SMITH:
Q State your name and address for the record?
A Ross McKeirnan, 410-411 Marine Bank Building, Warren.
Q Your occupation?
A I am an attorney.
Q Are you currently representing Mr. Michael Brown?
A I am an assistant Public Defender. Presently Mr. Brown has been represented by Mr. Thomas Bonavita who is the Public Defender.
Q During the course of your office's representation of Mr. Brown, are you aware of a recanting provided by Mr. Brown provided to law enforcement personnel or District Attorney in any jurisdiction?
A Mr. Brown has invoked the attorney-client privilege and any statement that I may have heard I am not going to answer.
Q I am not asking about the statements Mr. Brown made to you, I am asking if Mr. Brown made, to law enforcement personnel, District Attorney, or their staff, are you aware of a recantation that Mr. Brown has given to those individuals?
A No, I'm not. First of all, I think it should be clear on the record that I had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Brown's representation until approximately the end of January and I've only met with Mr. Brown on, I believe, it's three occasions. I don't have the specific dates and I have never even really thoroughly reviewed the police reports, so I really don't have the information that Mr. Bonavita might have, for example.
Q Well, is the answer to that question yes or no, are you aware of any recantations, again, by your client to law enforcement personnel and/or their staff, the District Attorney or their staff?
A No, not personally.
Q Have you heard of any such recantation through third parties?
A I only understand that he recanted his testimony to Trooper Miles of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Q Other than Trooper Miles, are you aware of any other recantation to the State Police or the District (sic) and/or their staff?
A No.
Q Are you aware of any evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, in the District Attorney's possession or in the law enforcement personnel's possession which has not been turned over to the Defense?
A No. Again, I think it's important to note that I don't really know the complete record in the case. I have never really reviewed the police reports that are very extensive, I am not aware of any such evidence that the District Attorney has not revealed.
MR. SMITH: I have no further questions.
MR. MASSA: No questions.
MR. SMITH: I would like to note for the record that I have subpoenaed Mr. Bonavita. Mr. Bonavita decided not to be here. I would like a chance or an opportunity to interview Mr. Bonavita on the record.
THE COURT: That's granted. In that respect, Mrs. Brown is out in the anteroom.
MR. McKEIRNAN: I am aware of that.
THE COURT: Do you want to talk to her?
MR. McKEIRNAN: She's requested to be here and in the company of her son and Mr. Bonavita in turn requested that Mr. Brown be present here today for the purpose of invoking his privilege.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I just wanted to extend that to you as a matter of courtesy. Is there something she wants to put on the record or through you as Counsel since Mr. Bonavita isn't here?
MR. McKEIRNAN: I don't feel that I am competent to respond to that.
THE COURT: All right. Fine. Okay. That's it.
MR. MASSA: I would move at this time that the subpoena of Counsel be quashed and they not be required to testify at trial.
MR. SMITH: I am not going to call Mr. Aranyos or Mr. McKeirnan at trial, but I have an outstanding subpoena for Mr. Bonavita.
THE COURT: Well, obviously Mr. Aranyos and Mr. McKeirnan have honored the subpeona, Mr. Bonavita hasn't, and so it's quarter of four and the Court makes an outcry for Thomas Bonavita and let the record show there is no response. So the Court will just have to handle that next week some time. All right. Gentlemen, anything else?
MR. SMITH: No.
(Whereupon, Court recessed at 3:45 p.m.)
| Previous | INDEX | Next |