UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE DISRTICT OF COLUMBIA
versus CRIMINAL NO.87-64
RESPONSE OF DEFENDENT WILLIAM THOMAS
TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES
TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR TRIAL
On March 3, 1987, the United States, by and through Linda
S. Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District
of Columbia, filed a Motion 1/ requesting that the Information
filed (February 18, 1987, U.S. Mag. No. 87-0114M-01) in this case
be consolidated for trial with Informations, separtely foled,
in the cases of USA v. Scott M. Galendez (Cr. No. 87-0123M),
USA v. Stephen Semple (Cr. No. 87-0117), USA v. Philip
Joseph (Cr. No. 87-0119), USA v. Ellen Thomas (Cr.
No. 87-0116M), and USA v. Andrew Hammerman (Cr. No. 87-0118M)
On or about February 18, 1987 an arraignment was held in
this matter before U.S. Magistrate Jean Dwyer. At that time defendent
(Thomas) made an oral Motion for Consolation of this case with
another matter, USA v. Robert Dorrough, D.C. Cr. No. 86-371
3/, presently pending before Judge William B. Bryant. Magistrate
Dwyer noted Thomas' Motion.
1/ The United States claims it is moving pursuant to
Fed. R. Cr. 2. 13 and Local Rules 405 and 406
2/ Tnomas makes no admissions, and reserves all defenses.
3/ The Information in Dorrough charges; that the defendant
was camping in Lafayette Park during November, 1986.
At this point in his defense Thomas expects to rely heavily,
albeit not exclusively, on an arguement of selective enforcement.
Thomas is presently litigating a civil action, , USDC CA 84-3552
(hereinafter: the Complaint ), before Judge Louis Oberdorfer.
In that case, filed November 24, 1984, Thomas alleges an on-going
conspiracy to deprive him, and those thought by the United States
to be hs associates, of Constitutionally protected rights under
color of regulation in violation of 42 USC, Sections 1983, 1985(3),
AUSA Chapman cites valid and compelling judical interests
whicn would be furthered by proper consolidation: "(joinder)
reflects the strong federal policy favoring joinder because (joinder)
expedites the administration of justce, reduces the congestion
of the trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens the burden
upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve
upon juries, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who
would otherwise be called upon to testify only once." United
States v. Leonard, 494 F. 2d 955, 965 (D. C. 1974) .
A. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AS WELL AS JUDICIAL EXPEDIENCY
AND ECONOMY WOULD BE BEST SERVED IF THIS MATTER WERE CONSOLIDATED
WITH USA V. DORROUGH
While judicial economy is an important considerat ion for
any reasonable jurist to ponder with care, even more compelling
to justice than money, defendent submits are tne societial interests
of discerning the truth via a careful and exhaustive examination
of the relevent evidence. The defense of selective enforcement
would require a showing
that the defendent was charged as the result of irnproper motives,
considerations, or was otherwise arbitrary. In light of the facts
that the Complaint claims the alleged conspiracy spans well over
five years, and the Record in, that case contains thousands of
pages of evidence, Thomas believes it is not unreasonable to think
that preparation for the hearing of Motions on selective enforcement
will be quite extensive, and, perhaps, somewhat timeconsuming.
FIRST: it is this defendent's understanding that the proceedings
in Dorrough have been suspended by Judge Bryant pending
the resolution of Thomas v. USA, USDC CA 84-3552.
SECOND: Upon, reconsideration of the sentence which he
imposed on Thomas in the matter of USA v. Thomas, USDC
CR. 84 186, in an Order filed April 4, 1986 (Attachment 1, hereto),
Judge Oberdorfer reserved judgment on a Writ of Corum Nobis, predicated,
by Thomas, on the theory that much of the material presented in
Thomas v. USA constituted "new evidence."
THIRD: The Compaint has survived two Motions to Dismiss,
and a hearing for Summary Judgement. On January 13, 1987, U. S.
Magistrate Arthur Burnett filed a Recommendation which held that
the Government' s Motion for Summary Judgment "must be denied."
A Status Hearing is presently scheduled for April 2, 1987, and
Thomas v. USA is likely to proceed to a final resolution
in the near future. The Honorable Judge Bryant is in a unique
position to facilitate judicial expediency and economy, as well
as to litate judicial expediency and economy, as well as to administer
equal protection of the law to all parties. In fact, administer
equal protection of the law to all parties. In fact, Thomas submits,
the interests of all parties will best
served were this suit to be decided by any judge who was not
as fully familiar wlth the facts; and issues of the long-term
picture involved in this matter as are J. Bryant,or J. Oberdorfer.
The logic underpinning the foregoing premise is simple. Between
them these two judges have been personally involved with almost
all of the landmark cases addressing the legaI issues and the
factual matters which would be relevant to Motions for selective
enforcement. Therefore either of those two jurists are in a position
of personal experience which would enable them to short-cut much
unnecessary explanation. Judge Bryant was handling a related criminal
case to which Thomas (before Magistrate Dwyer), made an unopposed
Motion for Consolidation prior to the Motion for Consolidation
submitted by the United States).
B. THOMAS MIGHT BE UNFAIRLY PREJUDICED BY JOINDER
WITH CERTAIN PROPOSED DEFENDANTS
To the degree that other erroneously proposed co-defendants
might or might not have engaged in other activities which may
or may not be linked to "sleeping, " and, thereby may,
or may not draw closer to approximating t he activity of "using
an area for living accommodation purposes" as Thomas will
contend that "the offense" has been def ined (SEE 36
CFR Sect ion 7.96 (i)), this defendant may prejudice, or be prejudiced
by actions committed by a second defendant, and unrelated to the
actions of the first defendant .
Thomas will concede that he rnay, at least from time to
time, have "participated in the same act or transactions"
....e.g. " communicating" .... with certain other individuals,
named or not
named, in related or unrelateded, matters heard or pending
in this Distrlct. However Thomas staunchly denies having jointly
"participated" in "the offense" "sleeping."
WHEREFORE defendent Thomas respectfully requests that this
case proceed to - Consolidation for Trlal before JUDGE BRYANT,
as originally moved by Thomas' oral Motion at the arraignment
before Magistrate Dwyer on February 18. 1987.
Respectfully submitted, this 13th day March of 1987,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William Thomas' certify that a copy of the foregoing
RESPONSE OF DEFENDENT WILLIAM THOMAS TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED
STATES TO CONSOLIDATE CSSES FOR TRIAL, was served by U. S. Mail,
first class,postage pre-paid upon Linda S. Chapman, Assistant
United States Attorney 555 sth Street' N. W. Room 5915 Washington,
D.C. 20001, (202) 2729078 or, this 13th day of March, 1987.
1440 N Street N.W. #410
Washington, D. C. 20005