4/9/18 Case Updates
1. At page 34 of the case materials (page 1 of Kendall’s declaration), the following language found at lines 21-23 will be deleted:
[That said, I have always operated within the law in the assertion of my Constitutional rights. Though I have been detained by police a couple of times, I have never been formally charged or convicted of any crime.]The foregoing language will be replaced by the following language:
“That said, I have always operated within the limits of my Constitutional rights. I have been briefly detained by police a couple of times, without being formally charged. I was once charged with a crime in 2011 on what I considered a trumped-up charge. I pled to a misdemeanor and was released a few days later.”
2. At page 48, line 108 of the case materials (page 4 of Abraxas’s declaration), after the sentence ending in “compound found at the scene,” the following language will be added:
“Constantine was unclear about where PETN was found at the scene or in what amounts. Nor did Constantine explore or consider whether PETN was used in demolitions conducted in the vicinity of the Virginia Street Bridge. Constantine’s report borders on speculation.”
3. At page 43, line 90 of the case materials (page 4 of Turner’s declaration), “Jordan” will be replaced with “Garcia.”
4. In the “Sent” line of the email from Riley Hall to Taylor Garcia at the bottom of page 59 of the case materials, the date of “July 25” will be changed to “August 1”.
April 13, 2018 Case Updates
1. All exhibits will be pre-numbered when the revised final version is posted. Please note the following changes that will be made:
– The Abstract of Judgement found at page 66, will be the only document in Exhibit 11.
– The Plea in Superior Court found at pages 67-68 will become Exhibit 12.
– The Clothing, Personal Property and Cash Record found at page 69 will become Exhibit 13.
2. An incorrect prior version of Exhibit 6 was provided in the case materials. The version of Exhibit 6 posted here is the correct version.
3. At page 23 of the case materials (page 6 of O’Neill’s declaration), the following language found at line 152 will be deleted:
[s/he couldn’t bring himself to shed any tears for the guy.]
The foregoing language will be replaced by the following language:
“s/he didn’t shed any tears for the guy.”
4. Exhibit 10, the Autopsy Report, will be amended to add a date of September 1, 2016.
5. Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 will be amended to indicate which direction is north, south, east and west.
6. At page 27 of the case materials (page 4 of Constantine’s declaration), the following language found at line 102 will be deleted:
[, Mr. Abraxas,]
April 23 Case Updates
1. At page 20 of the case materials (page 3 of O’Neill’s declaration) the language at line 75-77 states: “I had a security camera set up in the lot, but when I tried to review it after the explosion, I discovered it had been destroyed by somebody the night before and didn’t have any footage after 1:00 a.m. ”
That language has been changed to state as follows: “I had a security camera set up in the lot, but when I tried to review it after the explosion, I discovered it had been destroyed by somebody that night and we didn’t have any video footage after 1:00 A.M.”
2. Stipulation 7 has been changed to state as follows: The defendant and Riley Hall have waived the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
3. Exhibits 8 & 9 have been modified to provide a revised legend for locations and to indicate compass directions.
4. Exhibit 10 has been modified to add a signature and date.
5. The following changes at the locations indicated in the case materials were made to eliminate the use of the pronoun “he” and “his”:
Page 45, line 26: “he was arrested”
Page 45, line 27: “his presence”
Page 30, line 178: “trunk of his vehicle”
Page 30, line 191: “during his arrest”
Page 49, line 132: “sustained by his mother
4/9/18 Questions and Answers
The following questions asked and the answers provided are as follows:
Question 1: Which version of Kendall’s arrest provided in the case is accurate?
Answer: The case materials provide all of the information available to answer this question.
Question 2: Should the email in Exhibit 6 at the bottom of page 60 of the case materials from Taylor to Riley have been the reverse, i.e. should it have been Riley asking Taylor if he was able to join Riley in Reno?
Answer: The email stands as published.
4/16/18 Questions and Answers
The following questions were asked and are answered as follows:
Question 1: Will information be added to each declaration which identifies which exhibits and other declarations each witness is familiar with and/or relied on?
Answer: No. The case materials provide all the information requested in view of the provisions of Competition Rule 2.2.
Question 2: Will any case law or other statement of relevant legal authorities be added to the case materials?
Answer: No. The case materials provide all the information required.
Question 3: What date did each of the witnesses sign their declarations?
Answer: The case materials provide all the information required. See Stipulation 2.
Question 4: At page 47 of the case materials (page 3 of Abraxas declaration), lines 59-60 state:
“This design would have worked fine with propane, but not for this new fuel, because the reservoir created an ignition chamber where pressure could build up.”
Should “reservoir” and “ignition chamber” be reversed in this sentence?
Answer: The sentence stands as published.
Question 5: Will more forensic (CSI) exhibits and/or a diagram of the crime scene be added?
Question 6: Are the dates on the emails in Exhibit 6 wrong?
Answer: See Change #4 in the clarification posted on April 9.
Question 7: Will there be enlargements of exhibits available for teams to use?
Answer: No. See Rule 4.11.
Question 8: Does Stipulation 11 allow a witness to testify about an item, scene, view or geography depicted in Exhibits 7, 8, or 9 if the witness’s declaration provides a basis for doing so even if the declaration does not provide a basis for doing so as to every item, scene, view or geography depicted therein?
Answer: See Rule 2.2. Stipulation 11 is not intended to overrule the restrictions on a witness’s testimony set forth in Rule 2.2. For example, a witness would ordinarily be able to testify about a fact set forth in an exhibit that has been admitted into evidence, when the fact is referred to in the witness’s declaration or for which there is any basis for making a reasonable extrapolation regarding knowledge of the fact. On the other hand, a witness would ordinarily not be able to testify about a fact set forth in such an exhibit when that fact is neither referred to in the witness’s declaration nor when there is no basis for making a reasonable extrapolation regarding knowledge of the fact.
Question 9: Is it understood that the potential expert witnesses have read each other’s declaration?
Answer: The case materials provide all the information required.