Kohring Trial - Prosecution's Response

Yesterday I posted the Defense's Statements of Fact in their "Motion To Suppress Statements Allegedly Made in Violation of Mirand and the Fifth Amendment."
Below is the Prosecutor's version of those same "facts." While these are court documents, they are pretty interesting to read. They talk about how the FBI contacted Kohring and then how they treated him when they met him at his office which they searched while they interrogated him. As you'll see when you read this, the refute what the Defense said about his not being allowed to go to the bathroom or call his attorney. I apologize for the difficult reading. I recommend that you click on the pictures to enlarge them. They're still less than idea, but readable. These are photos of the documents on the Clerk's Office public computer.

Note: They say they "sought to obtain Kohring's voluntary consent to perform the search as a professional courtesy to Kohring given his status as an elected official." What does that mean? That rather than breaking down the door (which they probably wouldn't reimburse him for) they ask him for his keys? A professional courtesy? You mean elected officials get a special deal that mere mortals don't get? Or was that just BS to make Kohring think he was getting special treatment?











"Agent Vanderploeg recalls showing Kohring a copy of the search warrant and the items to be seized list... The FBI did not demand or force Kohring to sign the consent form"

Here's what Kohring's attorney wrote (see previous post) “The agents told Mr. Kohring they possessed a warrant to search his offices but never produced or even displayed such warrant. Then, still without producing the warrant, they threatened Mr. Kohring with disclosure to the press of any refusal to cooperate with the government, thereby forcing Kohring, a highly visible, elected public official with no prior involvement with law enforcement or criminal justice procedures to acquiesce to the search and sign a consent waiver rather than force execution of the warrant.”







"During the interview, Kohring indicated he understood that he was not under arrest, was free to leave, and was not required to answer the agents questions."

The Defense wrote, “The agents made clear that due to the serious nature of the meeting and the fact that Kohring was indeed a suspect, he would not be free to leave. “

If I recall correctly in the Kott trial, under questioning, one of the FBI agents said it was FBI policy NOT to tape the interrogations. It seems to me that this whole motion would never have happened if they did tape them. But given a presumption that the FBI are more likely to tell the truth, and since given that they can corroborate each other's version of what happened, it certainly gives the FBI a lot of leeway. Maybe if some judges began to say that "without a tape it is not possible to determine where the truth lies, so I accept the defendant's motion" that the FBI would reconsider their policy. It isn't like they don't have a lot of taping equipment available, given how much time they spent tapping phones and taping other conversations.