Henry v MOA - Witnesses Done, I Got Most Of The Day Off - Tomorrow Closing Arguments

I'm not really sure what today was for.  We saw parts of the video deposition of FBI agent Steve Payne, a few minutes of his boss at the FBI, Annie Kirklund.  Then Tony* Henry took the stand for less than five minutes.

*Throughout the trial, everyone called Anthony Henry "Tony."  I was caught in the official Anthony and just stayed there, but it seems wrong, since every one seems to know him as Tony.  So, now the the trial is pretty much done, I'm switching too.

Steve Payne

Payne was the FBI agent that Jack Carson contacted when Tony Henry told Carson and Seth McMillan to stop their questioning of Guard people over sex and drugs.  Payne got allegations both from Carson and from Kenneth Blaylock - he wasn't sure which came first.  Blaylock was a contact for Carson too.
He went over events and people that we've heard about repeatedly from different perspectives.

Going back over my notes, I think the critical part the defense wanted to get on the record was was about how telling Katkus about the Guard Drug investigation and that there was an informant, made it harder to investigate.    [Here's my usual warning:  these are my rough notes.  My fingers can't keep up with the words, so I try to get the sense of what was said.  It's not verbatim  If something looks really wrong, it probably is.  Words, sometimes sentences, are missing, but it gives you a sense of what was said.] [And let me remind you, this was video of depositions taken in 2016.]

Doug Parker:  Did you do an investigation?
Steve Payne:  We tried to, but at that point not much we could do, as it was relayed to me.  Conversations with Jack C an Seth M  advised chain of command, investigation had been conducted and had been involved in Sexual Assaults  and Drug Trafficking, and they indicated that source had been compromised.  All occurred in meetings before the matter referred to us.
DP:  General at National Guard?
SP:  Yes, really whole chain, but went all the way up to Gen. K.
DP:  All this indicates it’s going to be Federal Case, agree?
SP:  Depends on relations to other subjects, factors yes, but can’t tell with 2-3 criteria, can’t tell if Fed case
DP:  What did you do to look into recruiters?
SP:  By then dried up.  [that may have been part of the question, not sure]  One meeting APD and National Guard Chain of Command, advised them of the investigation.
DP:  Who?
SP:  Only by hearsay,
DP:  Go ahead.
SP:  Henry, Seth or Jack, not sure of those people.  Couldn’t tell names of command staff - Katkus ..don’t know others.
Complaint, checked data bases for criminal records, believe negative.  Possible informants, but not effective.
DP:  Who work with?
SP:  Jack Carson, Seth McMillan, maybe Eric, not sure.
SP:  Allegation entire unit involved, tacit understanding of Chain off Command, not assisting, but turned a blind eye.
DP:  Implicated as part of overall - Including Katkus?
SP:  Correct.
P:  Main complainant Jack Carson?
SP: Most contact with him, but Seth too.
DP:  Concern both drugs and sex assault?
DP  You went to your boss Annie, why not to Tony Henry?
SP: Annie was my supervisor,
DP:  Describing I think your belief that investigation thwarted before got to FBI?
SP:  I wouldn’t personally use the word thwarted.  Now more people aware of activity, not necessarily compicit.  Connected to investigation as subjects, now aware.  Makes it more difficult.
DP:  How?
SP:  My understanding entire chain of command aware, based on meeting we talked about.
DP:  You believe because of the meeting, that Chain able to cover it up?
SP:  Probably assisted them in that.  Included people like Katkus.

This is important because The Brown Report that was used to justify terminating Tony Henry said that his talking to Katkus about the informant ended any serious investigation.  The plaintiff attorneys have had witnesses say Katkus already knew and that the big drug bust - based on a Guard informant - went on successfully to nail large amounts of drugs and at least one member of a Mexican drug cartel.  One issue the jury is going to have to wrestle with is which of these two versions is true?  Henry's meeting Katkus effectively ended a serious investigation into the guard, or it didn't.  

The plaintiff's played another part of the deposition - actually a different day, still Steve Payne - where attorney Meg Simonian is getting Payne to acknowledge there was no investigation into Katkus, or even the National Guard at all.  And makes the point that there was no documentation.  

[These are really loose notes.  Simonian talks fast, and for much of it Payne just affirmed what Simonian said. I've highlighted the parts I think the plaintiffs wanted the jury to hear.]

Simonian:  Reporting to your supervisors, credible info Tony Henry and K were covering drugs and interfering with Law Enforcement.
Payne:  I wanted to believe, but couldn’t get corroboration.  
S:  Serious allegations.  Only investigation you assigned to do relating to NG.  Info is not documented in this report.
P:  Don’t know if documented elsewhere.
S:  I’ll let you know, not corroborated anywhere.  About Drug Trafficking or sexual assault. 
S:  Annie K - your not doubting her memory.  You wouldn’t have been doing an investigation into K in June without a complaint and without my supervisors knowledge.
P:  I can’t recall if Carson came to me before Blaylock or the other way.
S:  I understand, but it suggests that you were not involved until after June 24, 2010.  If you were doing an investigation into a 2 star general,
P: I wouldn’t do anything off the books.
S:  I asked if you documented what you did with Seth McMillan.  You never investigated K for interfering with a case?  So Carson didn’t assist you in such an investigation?  
S:  They said they had done an investigation.  Shocked that no documentation.  
P:  They’re good officers and can’t believe they didn’t document anything.  

They showed some very short clips of FBI special agent Annie Kirklund.  I wasn't sure what the point was.  It was maybe 10-14 seconds (less than some of defense attorney Halloran's pauses). First the played out with the jury out of the room so both parties could agree on what was allowable to be shown to the jury.
A jury on the end near me, shrugged her shoulders as if to say, "What?!!!"

Tony Henry was called to the witness stand once more by the defense.  This is the whole of his testimony:

Parker:  At sometime in 2016 you told police certificating agency you would not use your police certificate?
Henry:  Yes I did
Simonian:  Did you voluntarily relinquish it?
Henry:  No
Parker:  If you had ??? Something you would have had to ??? before.

I don't think it matters if the jury understood it.  I think they needed material from the clip and from Henry's testimony so they could mention it in their closing arguments.  

The jury was allowed to take the rest of the day off at 10:23.  There's a question about one juror who has plane tickets to somewhere for Tuesday.  The judge thinks it's better to dismiss her now, rather than leave her on the jury and make the rest of the jurors feel rushed to make a decision before her flight.  But they will only start deliberations tomorrow afternoon after the closing arguments, which start at 8:30.  

They seemed to be agreed upon the most of the jury instructions, except the part about compensation.  They were getting together to resolve that at 1pm.  I decided it wasn't critical to stay for that.  So I left and did a few of the errands and chores I've neglected for the past three weeks while covering the trial.  I've got to go now, so excuse the typos.  I'll proof this when I get back later.