SACRAMENTO -- The main event at today's hearing for Unabomber defendant Theodore Kaczynski is a motion to throw out much of the evidence the government has amassed, including writings defense attorneys claim were illegally seized at Kaczynski's Montana cabin.

But the defense and prosecution teams also will be sparring over a related issue that could determine whether the trial stays in Sacramento: Can the prosecution publicly unveil a motion containing evidence linking Kaczynski to crimes he has not been charged with committing?

Kaczynski's alleged crimes have been widely disseminated in the press. But his lead defense attorney, Sacramento Federal Public Defender Quin Denvir, argues in court papers that releasing what he calls a "needlessly inflammatory" motion detailing the uncharged crimes is likely to cause "irreparable damage to Mr. Kaczynski's fair trial rights."

A federal trial in the case is scheduled their client's for November.

Defense papers hint at what the judge, the prosecution and other attorneys have assumed: If the document is released, it would strengthen any change-of-venue motion the defense team might file by tainting the pool of potential jurors in California's Eastern District.

Defense attorneys have not yet decided whether to seek a new venue, but several attorneys following the case -- and the judge presiding over it -- believe such a motion is likely.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Kaczynski, who was arrested April 3, 1996. They have charged him with murdering two people and injuring two others in four separate bombing incidents over a 10-year period in Sacramento. Federal agents believe the reclusive former mathematics professor is also responsible for setting off 12 other bombs as part of an anti-technology crusade.

The government has a lot at stake in keeping the case in Sacramento. They chose the Eastern District over other locations where Kaczynski could have been tried, including New Jersey, where a second indictment is pending.

Justice Department attorneys want to introduce evidence at trial tying Kaczynski to other crimes. His writings, they allege, include admissions that he built the 12 other mail bombs.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of uncharged crimes may be introduced as long as a judge decides that the prosecution has established their relevance to the charged crime.

Prosecutors now argue that U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell Jr. should allow them to file the document publicly, because any adverse publicity will dissipate by the time the trial begins.

FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS
While the government is now downplaying the possible prejudice the document could cause, lead prosecutor Robert Cleary took the unusual step earlier this year of filing the motion privately -- in defiance of Burrell's order to file it publicly.

Cleary, at an April 24 hearing, said he wanted to make sure the defense had a chance to object to a public filing of the document.

"I was not trying to mess up anything," Cleary said. "I was, in fact, trying to be careful and conscientious in not prejudicing the defendant's right to a fair trial."

The move caused considerable confusion in the courtroom, prompted intervention by an attorney for media groups, and caused Burrell to reverse his own order that the motion be filed publicly.

Charity Kenyon, a partner at Sacramento's Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, filed a brief on behalf of the state's major newspapers objecting to what she called a "secret filing system."

Burrell, stung by the criticism, said he had ordered the public filing of the document because he assumed the defense would want to see it before deciding whether to seek a change of venue.

Once defense attorneys saw the document in private, they objected strenuously to its release. As a result, Burrell gave the document back to the prosecution and told the parties to submit arguments about whether the document should be sealed.

In an order, Burrell called the motion "improvidently submitted."

But Sacramento's Donald Heller, a criminal defense attorney not involved in the case and a former federal prosecutor, said it was a wise move because it prevented the government from inadvertently helping to move the trial out of Sacramento.

"If it had been filed publicly," Heller said, "it would have been the basis for a change-of-venue motion."

The Recorder is an affiliate of Court TV.
Copyright © 1997 Courtroom Television.