There were frustrating moments for Gerald Eastman and his Attorney
during his first trial, which led up to a mistrial, discussed in
previous posts on this site.

Some of these frustrations were brought about by King County Deputy
Prosecutor Scott Peterson and Boeing, who refused to release
information needed by Eastman and his attorney to fully prepare for
his defense against Boeing’s attempts to prosecute him. Despite
repeated requests by Eastman’s attorney, apparently Boeing would not
release the information, much of it on Eastman’s computer, which
Boeing had confiscated during a Boeing initiated King County police
raid on Eastman’s home well over a year ago. This is the same
information Boeing in spite of having it available to Boeing all that
time for forensic analysis, now says it wants Eastman to show them
what is there for about for up to 16 hours (2 sessions -2 days).

It seems that withholding evidence needed by a defendant for trial is
not a new concept in these circles. If you will recall one of the
last things Boeing and King County Deputy Prosecutor, Scott Peterson
did was to threaten Mr. Eastman that if he did not accept one of the
offered “deals” or settlement for Boeing’s benefit, he would be
turned over to be tried in Federal Court by Federal Prosecutor, Carl Blackstone,

reputedly a close personal friend of Mark Boman of Perkins-Coie, a legal auditing

service.  It seems Blackstone has been found to conduct himself questionably in
the past as well, curiously accused of the very same tactics, not
allowing a defendant the information released needed to prepare a
defense. See archived article below:

By Steve Miletich P-I Reporter
Friday, November 12, 1993
Section: News, Page: D8


Two federal prosecutors in Seattle shouldn’t have been sanctioned by
a federal judge in a case involving a Kirkland attorney convicted of
tax and fraud charges, a federal appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
a decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly, who last year sharply
admonished federal prosecutors John Carver and Carl Blackstone after
ruling they had failed to provide in a timely fashion evidence
favorable to the defendant.

Zilly, in an action unprecedented in recent memory, ordered the
government to pay costs incurred by the defense to independently
locate the evidence.

The attorney, John M. Woodley, was convicted last year of defrauding
the Internal Revenue Service, Medicare and Medicaid of $560,000 in a
scheme that involved the $20 million fortune of a dead client.
Woodley was sentenced to 30 months in prison for tax and mail fraud,
and ordered to pay about $330,000 in fines, taxes and restitution.
The charges stemmed from Woodley’s role as a trustee of the estate
left by Elizabeth A. Lynn of Medina in 1984. He was convicted of
stealing stock from Lynn’s estate, donating it to her charitable
trust and taking an illegal $90,000 tax deduction.
He also was found guilty of illegally inflating rents at a Nevada
nursing home controlled by Lynn’s trust, costing the government

In addition to reversing the sanctions order, the appeals court
upheld Woodley’s conviction.  The court said there was no legal basis

for the monetary sanctions because federal prosecutors have immunity from

economic penalties.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the court noted that Zilly had found
no pervasive pattern by the prosecutors of withholding evidence. The
court also found that Woodley had not been prejudiced.
Zilly said their conduct fell “below the standards” expected of
prosecutors in his court.

Woodley’s attorney, Peter Byrnes, said the appeals court concluded
the prosecutors engaged in misconduct but that it was powerless to do
anything because of the immunity rule.  “The message by the 9th Circuit is that government lawyers can’t be sanctioned but that private attorneys can,” Byrnes said, calling it a
“double standard.”

He said no decision had been made on whether to ask the court to
reconsider the decisions on the sanctions and conviction.
Zilly’s sanction order prompted an unusually pointed reply from then-
U.S. Attorney Mike McKay. He said last year that the decision was
“erroneous and inappropriate” and that Zilly was wrong on the facts
and his understanding of criminal discovery in the federal system.

Link to original:


It only gets more and more curious, and troubling…. GFS